raw files vs. high pixel count jpg images

B
Posted By
Barry
Apr 7, 2011
Views
3055
Replies
41
Status
Closed
Hello All:

I assumed raw image files would render a better image – but – actually they do require adjusting to even just look as good as a regular jpg. image. – And you need a special
RAW image editor – which in my experience has to be compatible with your RAW files – to avoid producing blurry appearing shots.

Thoughts on RAW vs. Jpg.

thanks,
Barry

— —

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

K
Kele
Apr 8, 2011
A RAW image is what was seen by your camera’s sensor with nothing further done to the image. A jpeg is a raw image compressed; this is one explanation: http://www.prepressure.com/library/compression_algorithms/jp eg

Assuming the RAW and jpeg are the same size, a jpeg will not look better than RAW unless the camera performs "corrections" to the jpeg (as they often do), ie: white balance, sharpening, etc. Compared to what’s built into a camera, more powerful off-camera tools for photo correction exist.

Additionally, every copy/save of a jpeg to a jpeg further compresses the image. If you import a jpeg from the camera to a software photo editor and save changes, you then have a second generation jpeg. It’s possible to get a smoother end result when working on a non-compressed image. If you zoom/crop into a photo, you will see the jpeg become blocky before the converted RAW image. UFO Hunters hate jpegs. If you select on camera the superfine (least compression applied) jpeg setting and use your camera’s max resolution, you are achieving the most pixel information in the jpeg format. When reduced in size, and not extremely cropped, jpegs are good enough for video display. If you are printing for a sizable image, or significantly cropping, RAW will make for smoother gradients and show more subtleties.

I’m guessing

———–
"Barry" wrote:

Hello All:

I assumed raw image files would render a better image – but – actually they do require adjusting to even just look as good as a regular jpg. image. – And you need a special
RAW image editor – which in my experience has to be compatible with your RAW files – to avoid producing blurry appearing shots.

Thoughts on RAW vs. Jpg.

thanks,
Barry
JJ
John J Stafford
Apr 8, 2011
In article <4d9e5e17$0$1071$>,
"Kele" wrote:

A RAW image is what was seen by your camera’s sensor with nothing further done to the image.

Not necessarily. The dirty secret is that each manufacturer does some in-camera processing before it writes the RAW data.

A jpeg is a raw image compressed; this is one
explanation: http://www.prepressure.com/library/compression_algorithms/jp eg

Nope. Each manufacturer twiddles the image before writing the JPEG.

Assuming the RAW and jpeg are the same size, a jpeg will not look better than RAW unless the camera performs "corrections" to the jpeg (as they often do), ie: white balance, sharpening, etc. Compared to what’s built into a camera, more powerful off-camera tools for photo correction exist.

It’s damned near impossible for a RAW image to be the same size as a JPEG. RAW is much larger because it is DATA and not pixels.

Additionally, every copy/save of a jpeg to a jpeg further compresses the image. If you import a jpeg from the camera to a software photo editor and save changes, you then have a second generation jpeg.

Generally, that is true but not always. If you like we can drag out the serious research and outcomes of your assertion.
K
Kele
Apr 8, 2011
Or you can address Barry’s original post

——————
"John J Stafford" wrote:

Not necessarily. The dirty secret is that each manufacturer does some in-camera processing before it writes the RAW data.

Nope. Each manufacturer twiddles the image before writing the JPEG.

It’s damned near impossible for a RAW image to be the same size as a JPEG. RAW is much larger because it is DATA and not pixels.

Generally, that is true but not always. If you like we can drag out the serious research and outcomes of your assertion.
H
Helmut
Apr 9, 2011
On 8/04/2011 3:28 AM, Barry wrote:
Hello All:

I assumed raw image files would render a better image – but – actually they do require adjusting to even just look as good as a regular jpg. image. – And you need a special
RAW image editor – which in my experience has to be compatible with your RAW files – to avoid producing blurry appearing shots.

Thoughts on RAW vs. Jpg.

thanks,
Barry

— —

It very much depends on how much compression is applied to the JPG file as to Wether or not it is as editable as a RAW file. Certainly P&S and entry level DSLRs are unlikely to capture JPG files without compression.

Olympus DSLR’s apply very little compression to their highest quality JPGs and as such, make it highly practical to shoot in JPG mode. I don’t know of too many other brands you can do this with. I’ve shot E300 beside Canon 5D and can confirm the Olympus JPG is far superior to the Canon JPG in saving editable data.

My own Nikon cameras can use a function called "dynamic lighting" when shooting in JPG capture mode. I’ve shot several weddings using RAW +JPG and can confirm that a D90, D700 or D7000 set up specifically to save highlights, can very successfully shoot JPG mode and produce files every bit as editable as RAW files.

I have never been able to achieve this with the Canon cameras I owned before changing to Nikon. If you want to find out for yourself, just shoot RAW +JPG and check the difference. Memory is pretty cheap so the extra card space you’ll use is no big deal breaker, I’d imagine.

HH
J
Joel
Apr 9, 2011
"Barry" wrote:

Hello All:

I assumed raw image files would render a better image – but – actually they do require adjusting to even just look as good as a regular jpg. image. – And you need a special
RAW image editor – which in my experience has to be compatible with your RAW files – to avoid producing blurry appearing shots.

Thoughts on RAW vs. Jpg.

You need not to assume anything. RAW is/are just another graphic format(s) like most other graphics formats each has some good point.

Same like RAW Converters, there are many different RAW formats as well as many different RAW Converters some may work little/lot differently than other. So you may need to spend time to study which one works best for what you need then go for it.

Then depending on what you need, if you just need few basic color/brightness etc. adjusting then one of the RAW Converters is about all you need. If you need to do more than what RAW Converter can offer then spend more time to learn graphic retouching program (like Photoshop for example) which requires lot more practicing than most if not all RAW Converter. When you are good with graphic retouching program then you may not need RAW Converter.
B
Barry
Apr 9, 2011
Thnks to all for your replies.

Glad to see this group is alive and well.

Using a newly purchased Sony DSC-R1 – first camera I have used with the RAW capability. Have been shooting RAW at finest quality which results in a 20/25 MB file containing RAW and JPG files. Guess trial and error will guide which raw converter offers most capability. Perhaps too much reliance on 1 click correction – leaves one ill prepared or
reluctant to engage in such comprehensive adjustments (to bring all aspects of the raw file to appear as pleasing as the JPG – corrected in camera file) on each shot.

Anyway, thanks again.
Barry

"Joel" wrote in message
"Barry" wrote:

Hello All:

I assumed raw image files would render a better image – but – actually they
do require adjusting to even just look as good as a regular jpg. image. – And you need a special
RAW image editor – which in my experience has to be compatible with your RAW
files – to avoid producing blurry appearing shots.

Thoughts on RAW vs. Jpg.

You need not to assume anything. RAW is/are just another graphic format(s) like most other graphics formats each has some good point.

Same like RAW Converters, there are many different RAW formats as well as many different RAW Converters some may work little/lot differently than other. So you may need to spend time to study which one works best for what you need then go for it.

Then depending on what you need, if you just need few basic color/brightness etc. adjusting then one of the RAW Converters is about all you need. If you need to do more than what RAW Converter can offer then spend more time to learn graphic retouching program (like Photoshop for example) which requires lot more practicing than most if not all RAW Converter. When you are good with graphic retouching program then you may not need RAW Converter.

— —
JJ
John J Stafford
Apr 11, 2011
In article ,
Joel wrote:

When you are good with graphic retouching program then you may not need RAW Converter.

Nonsense. Even Photoshop uses a RAW (DNG) converter before it passes the image to Photoshop.
J
Joel
Apr 11, 2011
John J Stafford wrote:

In article ,
Joel wrote:

When you are good with graphic retouching program then you may not need RAW Converter.

Nonsense. Even Photoshop uses a RAW (DNG) converter before it passes the image to Photoshop.

Rubbish! Most Photoshop users know Photoshop doesn’t need to start with any RAW format.

Even you try to BS but you are too stupid for me to have any conversation with you.
JJ
John J Stafford
Apr 12, 2011
In article ,
Joel wrote:

John J Stafford wrote:

In article ,
Joel wrote:

When you are good with graphic retouching program then you may not need RAW Converter.

Nonsense. Even Photoshop uses a RAW (DNG) converter before it passes the image to Photoshop.

Rubbish! Most Photoshop users know Photoshop doesn’t need to start with any RAW format.

Even you try to BS but you are too stupid for me to have any conversation with you.

With respect, Joel, if you have Photoshop (and I must presume you do), then when you open a DMG file the first frame is the DNG handler, then you can can opt to open the image in Photoshop – or not.

Two separate programs that talk to each other.

Got it?
N
nomail
Apr 12, 2011
"Barry" wrote:
Then depending on what you need, if you just need few basic color/brightness etc. adjusting then one of the RAW Converters is about all you need. If you need to do more than what RAW Converter can offer then spend more time to learn graphic retouching program (like Photoshop for example) which requires lot more practicing than most if not all RAW Converter. When you are good with graphic retouching program then you may not need RAW Converter.

To open a RAW file, you *always* need a RAW converter. Many graphic retoucing programs contain a RAW converter, though, so what you probably mean is that you do not need a *separate* RAW converter.


Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com
J
Joel
Apr 12, 2011
John J Stafford wrote:

In article ,
Joel wrote:

John J Stafford wrote:

In article ,
Joel wrote:

When you are good with graphic retouching program then you may not need RAW Converter.

Nonsense. Even Photoshop uses a RAW (DNG) converter before it passes the image to Photoshop.

Rubbish! Most Photoshop users know Photoshop doesn’t need to start with any RAW format.

Even you try to BS but you are too stupid for me to have any conversation with you.

With respect, Joel, if you have Photoshop (and I must presume you do), then when you open a DMG file the first frame is the DNG handler, then you can can opt to open the image in Photoshop – or not.
Two separate programs that talk to each other.

Got it?

As I said you don’t have my respect for me to enjoy the conversation. Why don’t you just GO BACK to my original reponse to the OP without your dirty quote see if you GOT IT.
J
Joel
Apr 12, 2011
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

"Barry" wrote:
Then depending on what you need, if you just need few basic color/brightness etc. adjusting then one of the RAW Converters is about all you need. If you need to do more than what RAW Converter can offer then spend more time to learn graphic retouching program (like Photoshop for example) which requires lot more practicing than most if not all RAW Converter. When you are good with graphic retouching program then you may not need RAW Converter.

To open a RAW file, you *always* need a RAW converter. Many graphic retoucing programs contain a RAW converter, though, so what you probably mean is that you do not need a *separate* RAW converter.

You too! read what you quote and what you response.
H
Helmut
Apr 13, 2011
On 12/04/2011 12:28 PM, John J Stafford wrote:
In article,
Joel wrote:

John J Stafford wrote:

In article,
Joel wrote:

When you are good with graphic retouching program then you may not need RAW Converter.

Nonsense. Even Photoshop uses a RAW (DNG) converter before it passes the image to Photoshop.

Rubbish! Most Photoshop users know Photoshop doesn’t need to start with any RAW format.

Even you try to BS but you are too stupid for me to have any conversation with you.

With respect, Joel, if you have Photoshop (and I must presume you do), then when you open a DMG file the first frame is the DNG handler, then you can can opt to open the image in Photoshop – or not.
Two separate programs that talk to each other.

Got it?

The issue of RAW or not is one of highly personal choice rather than a technical requirement for good photography. As a Working professional photographer for 30 years, I’ve seen a lot of arguments for a lot of practices.

The current argument regarding RAW files is simply described:

If you understand the dynamic range of your camera and can predict if the scene is within the range of the camera to capture detail in both shadow and highlight… Using RAW capture and the intermediate steps of development to produce a picture for printing is a waste of time.

If however, you intend to manipulate the dynamic range or feel more secure in having a stop or two "up your sleeve" so to speak, then by all means use RAW capture.

There are a few highly successful RAW developers on the market that can make some adjustments during opening of the file that make some users think their images are better than they actually are. Other RAW developers that also have some automatic ability, allow you to switch it off and see how bad your images really are.

Any argument about RAW V JPG is subjective, often one sided and almost never informative enough for anyone to make a decision from. When a contributor resorts to bad language and personal insults the whole point of "why Bother" has those of us who once enjoyed the banter of news groups asking ourselves why we, from time to time come back to see if anything has changed.

It hasn’t… All that has changed is the names of those claiming knowledge or intimidating others to get accepted as having knowledge. To suggest someone who came here either hoping to find knowledge or give some of theirs in conversation is "Stupid" says a lot about the person doing the intimidation.

HH
N
nomail
Apr 13, 2011
Joel wrote:
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

"Barry" wrote:
Then depending on what you need, if you just need few basic color/brightness etc. adjusting then one of the RAW Converters is about all you need. If you need to do more than what RAW Converter can offer then spend more time to learn graphic retouching program (like Photoshop for example) which requires lot more practicing than most if not all RAW Converter. When you are good with graphic retouching program then you may not need RAW Converter.

To open a RAW file, you *always* need a RAW converter. Many graphic retoucing programs contain a RAW converter, though, so what you probably mean is that you do not need a *separate* RAW converter.

You too! read what you quote and what you response.

Hey, you! Perhaps you should take a bit of your own medicine? The part I quoted clearly sates ‘you may not need (a) RAW Converter’. The truth is that *IF* you shoot in RAW (of course you don’t HAVE TO shoot in RAW, but that is not mentioned) you *have to* use a RAW converter. It’s impossible to open a RAW file in a graphic retouching application without converting it to RGB! Photoshop, the application mentioned in the quote, includes such a RAW converter. It’s the plugin called ‘CameraRAW’ and it opens automatically as soon as you try to open a RAW file in Photoshop. In other words: even if ‘you are good with (a) graphic retouching program’, you still will use a RAW converter to convert the RAW files to RGB files before you can work on them in that graphic retouching program of yours.


Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com
J
Joel
Apr 13, 2011
Helmut wrote:

On 12/04/2011 12:28 PM, John J Stafford wrote:
In article,
Joel wrote:

John J Stafford wrote:

In article,
Joel wrote:

When you are good with graphic retouching program then you may not need RAW Converter.

Nonsense. Even Photoshop uses a RAW (DNG) converter before it passes the image to Photoshop.

Rubbish! Most Photoshop users know Photoshop doesn’t need to start with any RAW format.

Even you try to BS but you are too stupid for me to have any conversation with you.

With respect, Joel, if you have Photoshop (and I must presume you do), then when you open a DMG file the first frame is the DNG handler, then you can can opt to open the image in Photoshop – or not.
Two separate programs that talk to each other.

Got it?

The issue of RAW or not is one of highly personal choice rather than a technical requirement for good photography. As a Working professional photographer for 30 years, I’ve seen a lot of arguments for a lot of practices.

The current argument regarding RAW files is simply described:
If you understand the dynamic range of your camera and can predict if the scene is within the range of the camera to capture detail in both shadow and highlight… Using RAW capture and the intermediate steps of development to produce a picture for printing is a waste of time.
If however, you intend to manipulate the dynamic range or feel more secure in having a stop or two "up your sleeve" so to speak, then by all means use RAW capture.

There are a few highly successful RAW developers on the market that can make some adjustments during opening of the file that make some users think their images are better than they actually are. Other RAW developers that also have some automatic ability, allow you to switch it off and see how bad your images really are.

Any argument about RAW V JPG is subjective, often one sided and almost never informative enough for anyone to make a decision from. When a contributor resorts to bad language and personal insults the whole point of "why Bother" has those of us who once enjoyed the banter of news groups asking ourselves why we, from time to time come back to see if anything has changed.

It hasn’t… All that has changed is the names of those claiming knowledge or intimidating others to get accepted as having knowledge. To suggest someone who came here either hoping to find knowledge or give some of theirs in conversation is "Stupid" says a lot about the person doing the intimidation.

HH

You get the point and I agree with you. But the STUPID I already stick on the forheads of the stupids so it will stay there.

Unless you didn’t read the whole message (before they quoted) you may see why I call them STUPID.

P.S. I often don’t quote the whole message, but yours is fair so I break the rule.
J
Joel
Apr 13, 2011
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Joel wrote:
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

"Barry" wrote:
Then depending on what you need, if you just need few basic color/brightness etc. adjusting then one of the RAW Converters is about all you need. If you need to do more than what RAW Converter can offer then spend more time to learn graphic retouching program (like Photoshop for example) which requires lot more practicing than most if not all RAW Converter. When you are good with graphic retouching program then you may not need RAW Converter.

To open a RAW file, you *always* need a RAW converter. Many graphic retoucing programs contain a RAW converter, though, so what you probably mean is that you do not need a *separate* RAW converter.

You too! read what you quote and what you response.

Hey, you! Perhaps you should take a bit of your own medicine? The part I quoted clearly sates ‘you may not need (a) RAW Converter’. The truth is that *IF* you shoot in RAW (of course you don’t HAVE TO shoot in RAW, but that is not mentioned) you *have to* use a RAW converter. It’s impossible to open a RAW file in a graphic retouching application without converting it to RGB! Photoshop, the application mentioned in the quote, includes such a RAW converter. It’s the plugin called ‘CameraRAW’ and it opens automatically as soon as you try to open a RAW file in Photoshop. In other words: even if ‘you are good with (a) graphic retouching program’, you still will use a RAW converter to convert the RAW files to RGB files before you can work on them in that graphic retouching program of yours.

Hey STUPID! you are still too stupid for normal conversation. And that is why I give you some of my medicine.

It’s just STUPID!
N
nomail
Apr 13, 2011
Joel wrote:

Hey STUPID! you are still too stupid for normal conversation. And that is why I give you some of my medicine.

It’s just STUPID!

H’m, I’m sure your psychiatrist can explain your aggressive posture and tell us it’s just an innocent compensation for your small dick, but I’m going to ignore you nevertheless.
K
Kele
Apr 13, 2011
There’s some new info here… Increased dynamic range (luminance between the lightest and darkest areas of an image) is what really makes RAW a useful shooting option. RAW over jpeg is not so much about the finer resolution – if I understand you correctly, Helmut.

I’m addicted to "popping" photos with HDR tools so the info about RAW having inherently higher dynamic range compared to jpeg interests me. Does shooting RAW also maximize the gamut range captured? I presume that if my camera has no choice, the jpeg gamut is sRGB and I can’t increase the color range after the image is recorded.

———–
"Helmut" wrote:
The issue of RAW or not is one of highly personal choice rather than a technical requirement for good photography. As a Working professional photographer for 30 years, I’ve seen a lot of arguments for a lot of practices.

The current argument regarding RAW files is simply described:

If you understand the dynamic range of your camera and can predict if the scene is within the range of the camera to capture detail in both shadow and highlight… Using RAW capture and the intermediate steps of development to produce a picture for printing is a waste of time.

If however, you intend to manipulate the dynamic range or feel more secure in having a stop or two "up your sleeve" so to speak, then by all means use RAW capture.

There are a few highly successful RAW developers on the market that can make some adjustments during opening of the file that make some users think their images are better than they actually are. Other RAW developers that also have some automatic ability, allow you to switch it off and see how bad your images really are.

Any argument about RAW V JPG is subjective, often one sided and almost never informative enough for anyone to make a decision from. When a contributor resorts to bad language and personal insults the whole point of "why Bother" has those of us who once enjoyed the banter of news groups asking ourselves why we, from time to time come back to see if anything has changed.

It hasn’t… All that has changed is the names of those claiming knowledge or intimidating others to get accepted as having knowledge. To suggest someone who came here either hoping to find knowledge or give some of theirs in conversation is "Stupid" says a lot about the person doing the intimidation.

HH
H
Helmut
Apr 14, 2011
On 14/04/2011 6:53 AM, Kele wrote:
There’s some new info here… Increased dynamic range (luminance between the lightest and darkest areas of an image) is what really makes RAW a useful shooting option. RAW over jpeg is not so much about the finer resolution – if I understand you correctly, Helmut.

I’m addicted to "popping" photos with HDR tools so the info about RAW having inherently higher dynamic range compared to jpeg interests me. Does shooting RAW also maximize the gamut range captured? I presume that if my camera has no choice, the jpeg gamut is sRGB and I can’t increase the color range after the image is recorded.

———–
"Helmut" wrote:
The issue of RAW or not is one of highly personal choice rather than a technical requirement for good photography. As a Working professional photographer for 30 years, I’ve seen a lot of arguments for a lot of practices.

The current argument regarding RAW files is simply described:
If you understand the dynamic range of your camera and can predict if the scene is within the range of the camera to capture detail in both shadow and highlight… Using RAW capture and the intermediate steps of development to produce a picture for printing is a waste of time.
If however, you intend to manipulate the dynamic range or feel more secure in having a stop or two "up your sleeve" so to speak, then by all means use RAW capture.

There are a few highly successful RAW developers on the market that can make some adjustments during opening of the file that make some users think their images are better than they actually are. Other RAW developers that also have some automatic ability, allow you to switch it off and see how bad your images really are.

Any argument about RAW V JPG is subjective, often one sided and almost never informative enough for anyone to make a decision from. When a contributor resorts to bad language and personal insults the whole point of "why Bother" has those of us who once enjoyed the banter of news groups asking ourselves why we, from time to time come back to see if anything has changed.

It hasn’t… All that has changed is the names of those claiming knowledge or intimidating others to get accepted as having knowledge. To suggest someone who came here either hoping to find knowledge or give some of theirs in conversation is "Stupid" says a lot about the person doing the intimidation.

HH

I’d like to clear up the notion that RAW files are sensor data. They are not any more than they are image files. They contain image information derived from the calculation on-board computers make. This is based on what some development engineer considers the parameters of a "good" image need to be.

I once thought I saw green differently than the rest of us because I liked the green foliage as portrayed by Agfa film whilst the rest of us seemed to adore the over saturated, yellow intense greens from Fuji film. In truth what I saw was over use of yellow in the green channel to overcome the effect of transmitting black information in the green channel (TV here).

The only reason a RAW image is thought by many to be superior to a JPG image for the purpose of editing more detail is because of 2 variables.

One is compression. The further you compress an image file, the more data is lost from it. The second variable is the point of clipping. All digital images have to clip the white point and black point. Look at this as being at some point the ability to produce usable imagery has to stop.

Film or analogue data just disappears to nothing or total black but digital has to at one fixed point, switch off or stop… Clip.

OK so look at the structure of a JPG file. They firstly obtain a smaller file size by discarding unwanted or "unseeable" information from the image. This is roughly 5% of the file size.

You might notice if you open a RAW file without any adjustments and immediately save it as a JPG at 100%, the file can be edited to almost recover the same amount of detail in shadows and highlights as are in the RAW file.

Cameras compress JPG files. Most compress RAW files too. Some will even allow you to select the amount of compression in a RAW file just like they offer the same choice with JPG files. Except none of them will allow you to save a JPG file at 100%.

HDR as opposed to tone mapping is one area I think RAW files are a perfect choice to start with. Faced with not having taken a bracket of shots… Developing a number of JPG files from a single RAW file, using the extremes of each end of the tone scale can provide a base series of images that will yield exceptional results.

I frequently use this technique when trying to make a wedding dress shot in bright sun, display all it’s detail. There is a good reason for shooting in both RAW and JPG mode. Being able to use the JPG files virtually straight from the camera is a big plus. Having RAW files to work with in creating exceptional portraits is too.

Those who believe shooting only in RAW mode because that’s what makes them a "Pro" probably need to recognise that photographers in the 50’s and 60’s often used home made cameras and other improvisation to produce the amazing pictures users of Photoshop strive so hard today to imitate.

Mid range DSLRs have dual cards. How much trouble is it then, to shoot RAW + HQ JPG and get the best of both file types?

HH.
K
Kele
Apr 14, 2011
Your web site?
H
Helmut
Apr 14, 2011
On 14/04/2011 1:35 PM, Kele wrote:
Your web site?
Yes thank you, I have one.

HH
N
nomail
Apr 14, 2011
Helmut wrote:
You might notice if you open a RAW file without any adjustments and immediately save it as a JPG at 100%, the file can be edited to almost recover the same amount of detail in shadows and highlights as are in the RAW file.

Almost, but not quite. If you recover shadows in an 8 bit JPEG file, you will end up with noise in those shadows. You can filter noise using special filters like NoiseNinja, but that is always at the expense of some detail. Clearing up shadows in a 14 bits RAW file gives less noise and offers easier noise control.

If you have slightly blown out highlights, you can usually recover these perfectly in a RAW converter. However, if you first convert the RAW file to JPEG, the blown out highlights are beyond recovery.


Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com
S
Savageduck
Apr 14, 2011
On 2011-04-14 03:17:51 -0700, Johan W. Elzenga said:

Helmut wrote:
You might notice if you open a RAW file without any adjustments and immediately save it as a JPG at 100%, the file can be edited to almost recover the same amount of detail in shadows and highlights as are in the RAW file.

Almost, but not quite. If you recover shadows in an 8 bit JPEG file, you will end up with noise in those shadows. You can filter noise using special filters like NoiseNinja, but that is always at the expense of some detail. Clearing up shadows in a 14 bits RAW file gives less noise and offers easier noise control.

If you have slightly blown out highlights, you can usually recover these perfectly in a RAW converter. However, if you first convert the RAW file to JPEG, the blown out highlights are beyond recovery.

Hence the purpose of the "recovery" slider in ACR.

Effective RAW Noise correction in the current edition of ACR is also a vast improvement over that found in legacy editions of CS.

Also, with your ACR RAW open conversion there is the option of wider gamut selection than sRGB, as well as opening as a "Smart Object". All of which give you greater flexibility over working directly with JPEG files.

Having said all that there are those who are going to be perfectly satisfied with the instant gratification of image as produced by the camera, and see RAW as an unnecessary time waster. I for one prefer to immerse myself in producing my final images from RAW.


Regards,

Savageduck
J
Joel
Apr 15, 2011
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Joel wrote:

Hey STUPID! you are still too stupid for normal conversation. And that is why I give you some of my medicine.

It’s just STUPID!

H’m, I’m sure your psychiatrist can explain your aggressive posture and tell us it’s just an innocent compensation for your small dick, but I’m going to ignore you nevertheless.

Hey STUPID! if my dick is small then you can swallow it whole or just suck it.

You are just too stupid for my to enjoy.
JJ
John J Stafford
Apr 15, 2011
In article
,
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

[…] It’s impossible
to open a RAW file in a graphic retouching application without converting it to RGB! Photoshop, the application mentioned in the quote, includes such a RAW converter. It’s the plugin called ‘CameraRAW’ and it opens automatically as soon as you try to open a RAW file in Photoshop. […]

You are perfectly correct, of course. I’ve found that some of the automation tools in CS4 open DNG without an adjustment dialog. I was happily surprised that the default conversion was reasonable. I just wanted a quick way to convert a huge number of files to JPG with what was at-hand.
JJ
John J Stafford
Apr 15, 2011
In article
,
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Helmut wrote:
You might notice if you open a RAW file without any adjustments and immediately save it as a JPG at 100%, the file can be edited to almost recover the same amount of detail in shadows and highlights as are in the RAW file.

Almost, but not quite. If you recover shadows in an 8 bit JPEG file, you will end up with noise in those shadows. You can filter noise using special filters like NoiseNinja, but that is always at the expense of some detail. Clearing up shadows in a 14 bits RAW file gives less noise and offers easier noise control.

If you have slightly blown out highlights, you can usually recover these perfectly in a RAW converter. However, if you first convert the RAW file to JPEG, the blown out highlights are beyond recovery.

BTW, CS 5.5 will have a new noise adjustment control for the DNG step. It is good to see that they are exploiting the max-bit depth (14, correct?) at that step.
JJ
John J Stafford
Apr 15, 2011
In article ,
Joel wrote:

John J Stafford wrote:

In article ,
Joel wrote:

John J Stafford wrote:

In article ,
Joel wrote:

When you are good with graphic retouching program then you may not need RAW Converter.

Nonsense. Even Photoshop uses a RAW (DNG) converter before it passes the
image to Photoshop.

Rubbish! Most Photoshop users know Photoshop doesn’t need to start with any RAW format.

Even you try to BS but you are too stupid for me to have any conversation
with you.

With respect, Joel, if you have Photoshop (and I must presume you do), then when you open a DMG file the first frame is the DNG handler, then you can can opt to open the image in Photoshop – or not.
Two separate programs that talk to each other.

Got it?

As I said you don’t have my respect for me to enjoy the conversation. Why don’t you just GO BACK to my original reponse to the OP without your dirty quote see if you GOT IT.

Joel, you wrote, "When you are good with graphic retouching program then you may not need RAW Converter." I can only guess that you mean that one need not shoot in RAW, to which I simply disagree, but it’s my personal preference to shoot RAW/ DNG version.)
H
Helmut
Apr 15, 2011
On 15/04/2011 11:03 PM, John J Stafford wrote:
In article
,
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Helmut wrote:
You might notice if you open a RAW file without any adjustments and immediately save it as a JPG at 100%, the file can be edited to almost recover the same amount of detail in shadows and highlights as are in the RAW file.

Almost, but not quite. If you recover shadows in an 8 bit JPEG file, you will end up with noise in those shadows. You can filter noise using special filters like NoiseNinja, but that is always at the expense of some detail. Clearing up shadows in a 14 bits RAW file gives less noise and offers easier noise control.

If you have slightly blown out highlights, you can usually recover these perfectly in a RAW converter. However, if you first convert the RAW file to JPEG, the blown out highlights are beyond recovery.

BTW, CS 5.5 will have a new noise adjustment control for the DNG step. It is good to see that they are exploiting the max-bit depth (14, correct?) at that step.

——————–
There have been many alterations (not all of them improvements) to how we process digital images since Silicon Graphics perfected the use of digital technology to create a digital image file.

There seems to be a group of people now, who see noise as a detrimental thing. In their search for a noise free image, several issues outside the image parameters are known to effect "grain" or "digital noise" and "image noise" and are overlooked. I assume because the reason and technology behind some of it is buried deep in our past.

In the days when… Using textured paper to make prints with could often cancel out grain to the visual part of our brain. Talking about removing grain from deep shadows by adopting 14 bit RAW capture and software that basically smooths out digital or image noise seems to be a popular topic around here. Quite contradictory to the one that prevailed when Sigma produced their radical DSLR.

It is only when a printer seeking extreme attenuation in a photo resorts to using ultra high gloss paper to get it that grain, noise and colour noise are even noticeable to any great extent.

I recall much condemnation of Sigma DSLRs for what some claimed to be "Plastic looking" results. Removing noise from an image is creating just that, plastic looking results. Noise is texture. Canvas has a texture as does much of the photo paper used in the world today yet Johan (for one) is seeking to remove entirely any texture from an image, only to have it replaced by a different texture (that of paper) during print making.

Any notion you can create "life like" pictures with a camera is about as absurd as the idea you can produce "true to life" colours with an inkjet printer. It is simply impossible to produce a facsimile of a 3D object (real life) using 2D technology.

So why then, bother trying to copy the impossible? I long ago adopted photography as an art form. Capable of producing art that resembles life but certainly not copy it.

With photography being so far distant (more so than video) from "life like" I’d have thought it blindingly obvious to use the medium as an art form not a reproduction medium would exploit its full potential.

Noise in shadows? Why not, I say. If you don’t like seeing noise in a digital image, simply don’t print it on gloss paper. Use instead "Pearl", "silk" or "Lustre" which in the first place was designed to conceal the grain of black and white photography.

HH
N
nomail
Apr 16, 2011
Helmut wrote:
<snip>

Noise in shadows? Why not, I say. If you don’t like seeing noise in a digital image, simply don’t print it on gloss paper. Use instead "Pearl", "silk" or "Lustre" which in the first place was designed to conceal the grain of black and white photography.

Nobody says it’s forbidden to have noise in the shadows of your image. If you like noise because you feel that noise is the same as texture, be my guest. There is no noise police that will come to arrest you. But the reality is that most people don’t like to see noise in their images, and that is their prerogative. Who are you to say that these people cannot use gloss paper? Perhaps some of these people do prefer gloss paper…

If you use a 14 bits RAW file when opening up the shadows, you at least *can* (to a certain extend) avoid noise if you want to. You don’t *have to*, but you *can*. If you use an 8 bits JPEG image you cannot. That’s all. Besides that, the issue of blown highlight also still stands. You cannot recover blown highlights in an 8 bits JPEG file. What’s gone, is gone forever. If you start from a 14 bits RAW file on the other hand, you often *can* recover blown highlights.

The choice is yours. Nobody forces you to shoot in RAW, least of all me.


Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com
JJ
John J Stafford
Apr 16, 2011
In article ,
Helmut wrote:

[…]
Noise in shadows? Why not, I say. If you don’t like seeing noise in a digital image, simply don’t print it on gloss paper. Use instead "Pearl", "silk" or "Lustre" which in the first place was designed to conceal the grain of black and white photography.

I have to ask why you in particular would use digital media at all.
H
Helmut
Apr 17, 2011
On 17/04/2011 4:04 AM, John J Stafford wrote:
In article,
Helmut wrote:

[…]
Noise in shadows? Why not, I say. If you don’t like seeing noise in a digital image, simply don’t print it on gloss paper. Use instead "Pearl", "silk" or "Lustre" which in the first place was designed to conceal the grain of black and white photography.

I have to ask why you in particular would use digital media at all.

I have to ask why you use also use digital medial.

Your answer is probably the same as mine.

HH
J
Joel
Apr 17, 2011
John J Stafford wrote:

As I said you don’t have my respect for me to enjoy the conversation. Why don’t you just GO BACK to my original reponse to the OP without your dirty quote see if you GOT IT.

Joel, you wrote, "When you are good with graphic retouching program then you may not need RAW Converter." I can only guess that you mean that one need not shoot in RAW, to which I simply disagree, but it’s my personal preference to shoot RAW/ DNG version.)

As I said you are too stupid for me to waste my time.
MJ
Michael J Davis
Apr 18, 2011
Johan W. Elzenga was inspired to say

If you use a 14 bits RAW file when opening up the shadows, you at least *can* (to a certain extend) avoid noise if you want to. You don’t *have to*, but you *can*. If you use an 8 bits JPEG image you cannot. That’s all.

Can you explain why noise can be avoided in a 14-bit RAW file and not in an 8-bit JPEG?

I can see how processing is simplified, but not the full distinction. Maybe I’m just being a bit thick!

Ta.

Mike

Michael J Davis

http://www.fluidr.com/photos/watchman/

<><
"I never have taken a picture I’ve intended.
They’re always better or worse."
Diane Arbus
<><
N
nomail
Apr 18, 2011
Michael J Davis wrote:
Johan W. Elzenga was inspired to say

If you use a 14 bits RAW file when opening up the shadows, you at least *can* (to a certain extend) avoid noise if you want to. You don’t *have to*, but you *can*. If you use an 8 bits JPEG image you cannot. That’s all.

Can you explain why noise can be avoided in a 14-bit RAW file and not in an 8-bit JPEG?

I can see how processing is simplified, but not the full distinction. Maybe I’m just being a bit thick!

It’s not easy to explain in a few sentences. It’s due to the fact that a camera captures light in a linear way. That means that half the bits are used for the first stop of light, half of the remaining bits for the second stop, etcetera. In an 8 bits file, you no longer have any latitude in the lowest stops. In a 14 bits file you do have some ‘room to move’. Google on ‘exposure to the right’ to read more about linear capture and what it means for a gamma corrected image.


Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com
MJ
Michael J Davis
Apr 19, 2011
Johan W. Elzenga was inspired to say
Michael J Davis wrote:
Johan W. Elzenga was inspired to say

If you use a 14 bits RAW file when opening up the shadows, you at least *can* (to a certain extend) avoid noise if you want to. You don’t *have to*, but you *can*. If you use an 8 bits JPEG image you cannot. That’s all.

Can you explain why noise can be avoided in a 14-bit RAW file and not in an 8-bit JPEG?

I can see how processing is simplified, but not the full distinction. Maybe I’m just being a bit thick!

It’s not easy to explain in a few sentences. It’s due to the fact that a camera captures light in a linear way. That means that half the bits are used for the first stop of light, half of the remaining bits for the second stop, etcetera. In an 8 bits file, you no longer have any latitude in the lowest stops. In a 14 bits file you do have some ‘room to move’.

Yes, thanks, I *was* being a bit think – that puts it nicely!

Google on
‘exposure to the right’ to read more about linear capture and what it means for a gamma corrected image.

Ok, I’m familiar with that, but will double check.

Thanks

Mike
(…off to recheck his workflow…!)

Michael J Davis

http://www.fluidr.com/photos/watchman/

<><
All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth. – Richard Avedon – 1984
<><
H
Helmut
Apr 25, 2011
On 19/04/2011 8:18 PM, Michael J Davis wrote:
Johan W. Elzenga was inspired to say
Michael J Davis wrote:
Johan W. Elzenga was inspired to say

If you use a 14 bits RAW file when opening up the shadows, you at least *can* (to a certain extend) avoid noise if you want to. You don’t *have to*, but you *can*. If you use an 8 bits JPEG image you cannot. That’s all.

Can you explain why noise can be avoided in a 14-bit RAW file and not in an 8-bit JPEG?

I can see how processing is simplified, but not the full distinction. Maybe I’m just being a bit thick!

It’s not easy to explain in a few sentences. It’s due to the fact that a camera captures light in a linear way. That means that half the bits are used for the first stop of light, half of the remaining bits for the second stop, etcetera. In an 8 bits file, you no longer have any latitude in the lowest stops. In a 14 bits file you do have some ‘room to move’.

Yes, thanks, I *was* being a bit think – that puts it nicely!
Google on
‘exposure to the right’ to read more about linear capture and what it means for a gamma corrected image.

Ok, I’m familiar with that, but will double check.

Thanks

Mike
(…off to recheck his workflow…!)

The "room to move" can be greater in an 8 bit file using layers masks than any 14 bit file manipulated carried out any other way with Adobe software. For all (any?) practical purpose, it is software that either removes or conceals noise in shadows before printing.

Create a true unsharp mask (as opposed to what Photoshop calls its sharpening routine) and noise can be concealed, even eliminated in some cases by using several layers as true unsharp masks without loss of detail.

Before ever digital images were even thought of for photography, I used to specialise in making real unsharp masks. These were mostly used to sharpen slightly out of focus ‘Cibachrome" images and flatten the contrast to make them printable without blown highlights.

I used to use them (very successfully) to reduce noise and sharpen prints larger than was considered largest practical size. Maybe now I’m close to retirement, I might start a site explaining these techniques that are relatively easy to convert to digital routines.

If you intend to rely entirely on what can be achieved using functions programmed into Adobe software then yes, perhaps Johan is right. 14 bit images can marginally reduce noise without sacrificing detail but the effect would not be noticeable in small prints like a wedding photographer would sell. Textured (lustre, Pearl etc) surface paper would be just as effective in comparison to using high bit count RAW files.

It might be also timely to mention that which RAW developer you use can have a remarkable effect on noise. Take for example Nikon digital images. Programs like Bibble 5.2 and Capture NX 2.2 excel in maintaining shadow detail whilst specifically addressing the issue of noise in shadows.

Achieving the same noise reduction (Nikon files) using Adobe Camera Raw results in loss of detail that cannot be recovered without bringing back the noise. I’ve no idea how other camera makes behave.

Using Bibble for shadow noise control may require a licensed version of Noise Ninja although there is a very basic version as part of the software. Capture NX addresses noise in much the same way it works in importing the file for editing. Before any other manipulation is done. Pity it only works on Nikon files.

HH
N
nomail
Apr 25, 2011
Helmut wrote:
It might be also timely to mention that which RAW developer you use can have a remarkable effect on noise. Take for example Nikon digital images. Programs like Bibble 5.2 and Capture NX 2.2 excel in maintaining shadow detail whilst specifically addressing the issue of noise in shadows.
Achieving the same noise reduction (Nikon files) using Adobe Camera Raw results in loss of detail that cannot be recovered without bringing back the noise. I’ve no idea how other camera makes behave.

This used to be true for Canon images as well, but the latest version of Camera RAW (version 6 that comes with CS5) is improved dramatically in this respect. I’m sure it is also improved with Nikon images.

Using Bibble for shadow noise control may require a licensed version of Noise Ninja although there is a very basic version as part of the software. Capture NX addresses noise in much the same way it works in importing the file for editing. Before any other manipulation is done. Pity it only works on Nikon files.

You are absolutely right about RAW converters and that only confirms what I’m saying. It’s much better (not only from the point of noise in the shadows) to work from a 12 or 14 bits RAW file than from an 8 bits JPEG file.


Johan W. Elzenga, Editor/Photographer, www.johanfoto.com
JS
John Stafford
Apr 26, 2011
In article ,
Helmut wrote:

On 19/04/2011 8:18 PM, Michael J Davis wrote:

[…]
I used to use them (very successfully) to reduce noise and sharpen prints larger than was considered largest practical size. Maybe now I’m close to retirement, I might start a site explaining these techniques that are relatively easy to convert to digital routines.
[…]

That would be a book I’d buy. I use contrast masks for 8×10" negatives, but I am not as good at it as I wish to be. To have the two techniques explained (compared and contrasted) by an expert would be fantastic.

I’m retiring in a few weeks, too.
MJ
Michael J Davis
May 3, 2011
Sorry Helmut, I don’t seem to have thanked you for this. It is much appreciated. Thanks!

Mike

Helmut was inspired to say
The "room to move" can be greater in an 8 bit file using layers masks than any 14 bit file manipulated carried out any other way with Adobe software. For all (any?) practical purpose, it is software that either removes or conceals noise in shadows before printing.

Create a true unsharp mask (as opposed to what Photoshop calls its sharpening routine) and noise can be concealed, even eliminated in some cases by using several layers as true unsharp masks without loss of detail.

Before ever digital images were even thought of for photography, I used to specialise in making real unsharp masks. These were mostly used to sharpen slightly out of focus ‘Cibachrome" images and flatten the contrast to make them printable without blown highlights.
I used to use them (very successfully) to reduce noise and sharpen prints larger than was considered largest practical size. Maybe now I’m close to retirement, I might start a site explaining these techniques that are relatively easy to convert to digital routines.
If you intend to rely entirely on what can be achieved using functions programmed into Adobe software then yes, perhaps Johan is right. 14 bit images can marginally reduce noise without sacrificing detail but the effect would not be noticeable in small prints like a wedding photographer would sell. Textured (lustre, Pearl etc) surface paper would be just as effective in comparison to using high bit count RAW files.

It might be also timely to mention that which RAW developer you use can have a remarkable effect on noise. Take for example Nikon digital images. Programs like Bibble 5.2 and Capture NX 2.2 excel in maintaining shadow detail whilst specifically addressing the issue of noise in shadows.

Achieving the same noise reduction (Nikon files) using Adobe Camera Raw results in loss of detail that cannot be recovered without bringing back the noise. I’ve no idea how other camera makes behave.
Using Bibble for shadow noise control may require a licensed version of Noise Ninja although there is a very basic version as part of the software. Capture NX addresses noise in much the same way it works in importing the file for editing. Before any other manipulation is done. Pity it only works on Nikon files.

HH


Michael J Davis
P
PeteR
May 10, 2011
On 13/04/2011 11:09, Helmut wrote:
On 12/04/2011 12:28 PM, John J Stafford wrote:
In article,
Joel wrote:

John J Stafford wrote:

In article,
Joel wrote:

When you are good with graphic retouching program then you may not need RAW Converter.

Nonsense. Even Photoshop uses a RAW (DNG) converter before it passes the
image to Photoshop.

Rubbish! Most Photoshop users know Photoshop doesn’t need to start with
any RAW format.

Even you try to BS but you are too stupid for me to have any conversation
with you.

With respect, Joel, if you have Photoshop (and I must presume you do), then when you open a DMG file the first frame is the DNG handler, then you can can opt to open the image in Photoshop – or not.
Two separate programs that talk to each other.

Got it?

The issue of RAW or not is one of highly personal choice rather than a technical requirement for good photography. As a Working professional photographer for 30 years, I’ve seen a lot of arguments for a lot of practices.

The current argument regarding RAW files is simply described:
If you understand the dynamic range of your camera and can predict if the scene is within the range of the camera to capture detail in both shadow and highlight… Using RAW capture and the intermediate steps of development to produce a picture for printing is a waste of time.
If however, you intend to manipulate the dynamic range or feel more secure in having a stop or two "up your sleeve" so to speak, then by all means use RAW capture.

There are a few highly successful RAW developers on the market that can make some adjustments during opening of the file that make some users think their images are better than they actually are. Other RAW developers that also have some automatic ability, allow you to switch it off and see how bad your images really are.

Any argument about RAW V JPG is subjective, often one sided and almost never informative enough for anyone to make a decision from. When a contributor resorts to bad language and personal insults the whole point of "why Bother" has those of us who once enjoyed the banter of news groups asking ourselves why we, from time to time come back to see if anything has changed.

It hasn’t… All that has changed is the names of those claiming knowledge or intimidating others to get accepted as having knowledge. To suggest someone who came here either hoping to find knowledge or give some of theirs in conversation is "Stupid" says a lot about the person doing the intimidation.

HH
Well Said!
J
Joel
May 10, 2011
PeteR wrote:

It hasn’t… All that has changed is the names of those claiming knowledge or intimidating others to get accepted as having knowledge. To suggest someone who came here either hoping to find knowledge or give some of theirs in conversation is "Stupid" says a lot about the person doing the intimidation.

HH
Well Said!

I agree, we have too many STUPIDS here

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections