Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

RAW vs JPEG

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 5:57:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I was working with RAW images for the first time tonight and I notice quite
a big difference in the sharpness of the RAW image over the JPEG created by
my Canon 300D. I understand that there is some loss when converting to
JPEG but I'm surprised to see just how much. The loss I'm seeing is the
difference between a nice sharp image and a blurry one.

Is there something I can do to better capture the clarity of the RAW image?

BTW: I'm using the Canon provided processing software.

--

Rob

More about : raw jpeg

Anonymous
December 21, 2004 5:57:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:
> I was working with RAW images for the first time tonight and I notice
quite
> a big difference in the sharpness of the RAW image over the JPEG
created by
> my Canon 300D. I understand that there is some loss when converting
to
> JPEG but I'm surprised to see just how much. The loss I'm seeing is
the
> difference between a nice sharp image and a blurry one.
>
> Is there something I can do to better capture the clarity of the RAW
image?

I read a bit about JPEG vs RAW. While there are advantages pointed in
favour of RAW, sharpness or huge differences in sharpness isn't one of
them.

If you do see a HUGE difference in sharpness then I'd suspect that you
were using AF which probably screwed things a bit between two
successive images.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 1:45:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> writes:

> I was working with RAW images for the first time tonight and I notice quite
> a big difference in the sharpness of the RAW image over the JPEG created by
> my Canon 300D. I understand that there is some loss when converting to
> JPEG but I'm surprised to see just how much. The loss I'm seeing is the
> difference between a nice sharp image and a blurry one.
>
> Is there something I can do to better capture the clarity of the RAW
> image?

I'm not sure if you're saying that the JPEG's seem less sharp than the
RAW, or more sharp. Luckily there is a fix for either.

If the JPEG looks sharper, then on-camera sharpening is the reason.
Fix: simply apply sharpening to the RAW image in your external editing
program. The RAW image won't include the on-camera shaprening because
it is, well, raw.

If the JPEG looks less sharp, then the fact that JPEG is a lossy
compression algorithm is to blame. Fix: Shoot in RAW, apply
processing in an external program, save to a non-lossy format as
desired.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 3:23:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Todd H." <t@toddh.net> wrote in message news:m0llbr1tx5.fsf@ripco.com...
> "Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> I was working with RAW images for the first time tonight and I notice
>> quite
>> a big difference in the sharpness of the RAW image over the JPEG created
>> by
>> my Canon 300D. I understand that there is some loss when converting to
>> JPEG but I'm surprised to see just how much. The loss I'm seeing is the
>> difference between a nice sharp image and a blurry one.
>>
>> Is there something I can do to better capture the clarity of the RAW
>> image?
>
> I'm not sure if you're saying that the JPEG's seem less sharp than the
> RAW, or more sharp. Luckily there is a fix for either.
>
> If the JPEG looks sharper, then on-camera sharpening is the reason.
> Fix: simply apply sharpening to the RAW image in your external editing
> program. The RAW image won't include the on-camera shaprening because
> it is, well, raw.
>
> If the JPEG looks less sharp, then the fact that JPEG is a lossy
> compression algorithm is to blame. Fix: Shoot in RAW, apply
> processing in an external program, save to a non-lossy format as
> desired.


Does Adobe have a RAW plug-in for Photoshop 7 or Elements 2?

--

Rob
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 3:51:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 02:57:04 -0500, "Robert R Kircher, Jr."
<rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I was working with RAW images for the first time tonight and I notice quite
>a big difference in the sharpness of the RAW image over the JPEG created by
>my Canon 300D. I understand that there is some loss when converting to
>JPEG but I'm surprised to see just how much. The loss I'm seeing is the
>difference between a nice sharp image and a blurry one.

You post is a tad confusing. Above you are claiming that the IN-CAMERA
(Canon 300D) JPEG is not as sharp as the RAW right? This is to be
expected. Depending on quality setting, JPEG is a lossy compression
and introduces artifacts. It's done by the camera with limited time
and processing ability.

>Is there something I can do to better capture the clarity of the RAW image?
Shoot RAW? - See, here you don't make any sense because the answer is
blindingly obvious.

>BTW: I'm using the Canon provided processing software.
Now you hint that the problem isn't with the in-camera JPEG, it's the
conversion of a RAW to JPEG by the canon processing software that is
giving you a problem.

Please clarify before someone can help you more.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 7:07:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:78Cdnd6VO4zNSlrcRVn-uQ@giganews.com:

> Is there something I can do to better capture the clarity of the RAW
> image?

Shoot in RAW.

Really.

There is a reason so many people take the extra time and effort.
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 8:44:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:51:19 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 02:57:04 -0500, "Robert R Kircher, Jr."
><rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I was working with RAW images for the first time tonight and I notice quite
>>a big difference in the sharpness of the RAW image over the JPEG created by
>>my Canon 300D. I understand that there is some loss when converting to
>>JPEG but I'm surprised to see just how much. The loss I'm seeing is the
>>difference between a nice sharp image and a blurry one.
>
>You post is a tad confusing. Above you are claiming that the IN-CAMERA
>(Canon 300D) JPEG is not as sharp as the RAW right? This is to be
>expected.

No it is not. I am not aware of any camera which takes both raw and
jpg where the jpg is not only not sharpened (and possibly blurred?)
but such an extreme compression that the jpg image does not appear
sharper than the raw one.


>Depending on quality setting, JPEG is a lossy compression
>and introduces artifacts.

Agreed and I avoid jpg in almost all cases (besides posting or
Emailing proofs or such). However the loss is usually not so much in a
camera that also shoots raw (this is not a point and shoot cell phone)
to see easily.

>It's done by the camera with limited time
>and processing ability.
>
>>Is there something I can do to better capture the clarity of the RAW image?
>Shoot RAW? - See, here you don't make any sense because the answer is
>blindingly obvious.
>
>>BTW: I'm using the Canon provided processing software.
>Now you hint that the problem isn't with the in-camera JPEG, it's the
>conversion of a RAW to JPEG by the canon processing software that is
>giving you a problem.
>
>Please clarify before someone can help you more.
>
>--
>Owamanga!
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 9:15:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>From: "Robert R Kircher, Jr." rrkircher@hotmail.com

>Does Adobe have a RAW plug-in for Photoshop 7 or Elements 2?

Adobe had a $99 plug-in RAW converter for Photoshop 7.01 but it wasn't
supported past the Canon D60 era, if memory serves and it's no longer available
from their web site.

The CS upgrade isn't too much more than this if you want to upgrade, or you can
buy the Phase One Capture One LE program for $99, it actually does a slightly
better job of converting RAW than Photoshop CS, I feel.
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 10:35:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:44:22 GMT, no_email@please_post.net (ZONED!)
wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:51:19 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 02:57:04 -0500, "Robert R Kircher, Jr."
>><rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I was working with RAW images for the first time tonight and I notice quite
>>>a big difference in the sharpness of the RAW image over the JPEG created by
>>>my Canon 300D. I understand that there is some loss when converting to
>>>JPEG but I'm surprised to see just how much. The loss I'm seeing is the
>>>difference between a nice sharp image and a blurry one.
>>
>>You post is a tad confusing. Above you are claiming that the IN-CAMERA
>>(Canon 300D) JPEG is not as sharp as the RAW right? This is to be
>>expected.
>
>No it is not. I am not aware of any camera which takes both raw and
>jpg where the jpg is not only not sharpened (and possibly blurred?)
>but such an extreme compression that the jpg image does not appear
>sharper than the raw one.

Nikon D70 for one. JPEG sharpening is under the control of the user
and can be switched off completely. The NEF RAW will look better than
every single mode of JPEG you want to try, the difference getting
bigger as you switch down to the lower rez highly compressed JPEG
options.

But we don't know (and I'm still asking the OP to clarify his question
because it is unclear) if the OP is comparing a 50Kb JPEG with a 5Mb
RAW?

>>Depending on quality setting, JPEG is a lossy compression
>>and introduces artifacts.
>
>Agreed and I avoid jpg in almost all cases (besides posting or
>Emailing proofs or such). However the loss is usually not so much in a
>camera that also shoots raw (this is not a point and shoot cell phone)
>to see easily.

This depends *entirely* on the resolution, quality & sharpening
settings for the JPEG in question, details that OP fails to mention.

>>
>>Please clarify before someone can help you more.
>>

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 10:35:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:viugs0pl69stuf0esh1kku0s6c3ao3mrja@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:44:22 GMT, no_email@please_post.net (ZONED!)
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:51:19 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 02:57:04 -0500, "Robert R Kircher, Jr."
>>><rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I was working with RAW images for the first time tonight and I notice
>>>>quite
>>>>a big difference in the sharpness of the RAW image over the JPEG created
>>>>by
>>>>my Canon 300D. I understand that there is some loss when converting to
>>>>JPEG but I'm surprised to see just how much. The loss I'm seeing is the
>>>>difference between a nice sharp image and a blurry one.
>>>
>>>You post is a tad confusing. Above you are claiming that the IN-CAMERA
>>>(Canon 300D) JPEG is not as sharp as the RAW right? This is to be
>>>expected.
>>
>>No it is not. I am not aware of any camera which takes both raw and
>>jpg where the jpg is not only not sharpened (and possibly blurred?)
>>but such an extreme compression that the jpg image does not appear
>>sharper than the raw one.
>
> Nikon D70 for one. JPEG sharpening is under the control of the user
> and can be switched off completely. The NEF RAW will look better than
> every single mode of JPEG you want to try, the difference getting
> bigger as you switch down to the lower rez highly compressed JPEG
> options.
>
> But we don't know (and I'm still asking the OP to clarify his question
> because it is unclear) if the OP is comparing a 50Kb JPEG with a 5Mb
> RAW?
>


No, what I'm saying, at least from my first test and I want to test more, is
that a Large/Fine JPG coming out of the camera is blurry compared to the RAW
image. Now I expect some of that due to JPEG compression but the difference
if such that it makes a rather good sharp picture soft and fuzzy.

Second, I'm saying that using the Canon software to translate the RAW image
to JPEG produced the same exact results.

Again, I expect some loss in the JPEG but I'm surprised at the amount that
I'm seeing. I've see a lot of others photos from the 300D and they just
aren't as fuzzy or soft as what I've been able to produce so far. Mind you
I'm a newbie at digital photography and I've only had the camera for a
couple of weeks, so basically I'm trying to figure out what's going on; is
it me, is it the camera, the lighting, is it post processing? BTW: I find
that even shots taken using a tripod are what I'd consider fuzzy.

Anyway, I know there's a whole slue of things that could produce the results
I'm seeing but I was working with the RAW images last night and I noticed
what I'd consider a big difference in the image quality. The RAW images
were much closer to what I've seen from others.

--

Rob
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 11:41:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:59:37 -0500, "Robert R Kircher, Jr."
<rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:viugs0pl69stuf0esh1kku0s6c3ao3mrja@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:44:22 GMT, no_email@please_post.net (ZONED!)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:51:19 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 02:57:04 -0500, "Robert R Kircher, Jr."
>>>><rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I was working with RAW images for the first time tonight and I notice
>>>>>quite
>>>>>a big difference in the sharpness of the RAW image over the JPEG created
>>>>>by
>>>>>my Canon 300D. I understand that there is some loss when converting to
>>>>>JPEG but I'm surprised to see just how much. The loss I'm seeing is the
>>>>>difference between a nice sharp image and a blurry one.
>>>>
>>>>You post is a tad confusing. Above you are claiming that the IN-CAMERA
>>>>(Canon 300D) JPEG is not as sharp as the RAW right? This is to be
>>>>expected.
>>>
>>>No it is not. I am not aware of any camera which takes both raw and
>>>jpg where the jpg is not only not sharpened (and possibly blurred?)
>>>but such an extreme compression that the jpg image does not appear
>>>sharper than the raw one.
>>
>> Nikon D70 for one. JPEG sharpening is under the control of the user
>> and can be switched off completely. The NEF RAW will look better than
>> every single mode of JPEG you want to try, the difference getting
>> bigger as you switch down to the lower rez highly compressed JPEG
>> options.
>>
>> But we don't know (and I'm still asking the OP to clarify his question
>> because it is unclear) if the OP is comparing a 50Kb JPEG with a 5Mb
>> RAW?
>>
>
>
>No, what I'm saying, at least from my first test and I want to test more, is
>that a Large/Fine JPG coming out of the camera is blurry compared to the RAW
>image. Now I expect some of that due to JPEG compression but the difference
>if such that it makes a rather good sharp picture soft and fuzzy.
>
>Second, I'm saying that using the Canon software to translate the RAW image
>to JPEG produced the same exact results.
>
>Again, I expect some loss in the JPEG but I'm surprised at the amount that
>I'm seeing. I've see a lot of others photos from the 300D and they just
>aren't as fuzzy or soft as what I've been able to produce so far. Mind you
>I'm a newbie at digital photography and I've only had the camera for a
>couple of weeks, so basically I'm trying to figure out what's going on; is
>it me, is it the camera, the lighting, is it post processing? BTW: I find
>that even shots taken using a tripod are what I'd consider fuzzy.
>
>Anyway, I know there's a whole slue of things that could produce the results
>I'm seeing but I was working with the RAW images last night and I noticed
>what I'd consider a big difference in the image quality. The RAW images
>were much closer to what I've seen from others.

Okay, now that's cleared up, all I can say is... well, that's damn
weird.

I am not familiar with the Canon software, but concentrating on that
first (because it's faster to try things at that stage) are there any
parameters that you have control of when doing the RAW -> JPEG
conversion that might be smoothing the image at all (De-noise for
example). Complete guess though, I really don't know why you would see
a noticeable difference.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 11:41:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:um2hs0p4cpjh8ntj3ipdooc4plcmb25i9a@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:59:37 -0500, "Robert R Kircher, Jr."
> <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:viugs0pl69stuf0esh1kku0s6c3ao3mrja@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:44:22 GMT, no_email@please_post.net (ZONED!)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:51:19 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 02:57:04 -0500, "Robert R Kircher, Jr."
>>>>><rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I was working with RAW images for the first time tonight and I notice
>>>>>>quite
>>>>>>a big difference in the sharpness of the RAW image over the JPEG
>>>>>>created
>>>>>>by
>>>>>>my Canon 300D. I understand that there is some loss when converting
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>JPEG but I'm surprised to see just how much. The loss I'm seeing is
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>difference between a nice sharp image and a blurry one.
>>>>>
>>>>>You post is a tad confusing. Above you are claiming that the IN-CAMERA
>>>>>(Canon 300D) JPEG is not as sharp as the RAW right? This is to be
>>>>>expected.
>>>>
>>>>No it is not. I am not aware of any camera which takes both raw and
>>>>jpg where the jpg is not only not sharpened (and possibly blurred?)
>>>>but such an extreme compression that the jpg image does not appear
>>>>sharper than the raw one.
>>>
>>> Nikon D70 for one. JPEG sharpening is under the control of the user
>>> and can be switched off completely. The NEF RAW will look better than
>>> every single mode of JPEG you want to try, the difference getting
>>> bigger as you switch down to the lower rez highly compressed JPEG
>>> options.
>>>
>>> But we don't know (and I'm still asking the OP to clarify his question
>>> because it is unclear) if the OP is comparing a 50Kb JPEG with a 5Mb
>>> RAW?
>>>
>>
>>
>>No, what I'm saying, at least from my first test and I want to test more,
>>is
>>that a Large/Fine JPG coming out of the camera is blurry compared to the
>>RAW
>>image. Now I expect some of that due to JPEG compression but the
>>difference
>>if such that it makes a rather good sharp picture soft and fuzzy.
>>
>>Second, I'm saying that using the Canon software to translate the RAW
>>image
>>to JPEG produced the same exact results.
>>
>>Again, I expect some loss in the JPEG but I'm surprised at the amount that
>>I'm seeing. I've see a lot of others photos from the 300D and they just
>>aren't as fuzzy or soft as what I've been able to produce so far. Mind
>>you
>>I'm a newbie at digital photography and I've only had the camera for a
>>couple of weeks, so basically I'm trying to figure out what's going on; is
>>it me, is it the camera, the lighting, is it post processing? BTW: I find
>>that even shots taken using a tripod are what I'd consider fuzzy.
>>
>>Anyway, I know there's a whole slue of things that could produce the
>>results
>>I'm seeing but I was working with the RAW images last night and I noticed
>>what I'd consider a big difference in the image quality. The RAW images
>>were much closer to what I've seen from others.
>
> Okay, now that's cleared up, all I can say is... well, that's damn
> weird.
>
> I am not familiar with the Canon software, but concentrating on that
> first (because it's faster to try things at that stage) are there any
> parameters that you have control of when doing the RAW -> JPEG
> conversion that might be smoothing the image at all (De-noise for
> example). Complete guess though, I really don't know why you would see
> a noticeable difference.
>


Neither do I at this point so I'm going to do some more testing (maybe
tonight) and I'll post back what I find.

Do you have any suggestions on what I can use as a test subject? I was
planning on setting up a few objects on a table, setting the camera up the
tripod and shooting away using the 18-55 kit lens and my 550EX flash.

Any thoughts?

--

Rob
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 11:41:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert,

Something is wrong here. JPEG images taken in Canon's
large fine mode should be sharp. They also have a "superfine"
mode that you can and should try but, even the fine mode
should look sharp. If you search the photo websites for images
made on cameras like yours, you'll find plenty of very sharp
JPEGs.

On my Canon S30, I saw no difference in sharpness between
RAW, Superfine JPEG, and Fine JPEG. The "Normal" JPEG
introduced more artifacts, and I decided not to use it, but they
were usually hard to see.

However there is a difference between a compression artifact and blur.
If you take any photo program that can save JPEGs, e.g., Irfanview,
and save some overly compressed images, you'll see what
compression artifacts look like. They look bad, but they don't
look like blur.

There is a difference in color depth between RAW and JPEG,
but color depth is also not the same as blur.

I'm having trouble understanding how what you see can be
happening. The lens hasn't changed. The CCD sensor hasn't
changed. The focus hasn't changed (I presume), or maybe it
did?. Maybe you need to repeat your tests.

Maybe you've put the camera into some exotic mode -
changing the default sharpness, white balance, ISO setting,
or some other parameters that are degrading image quality
without your being aware that the camera is in that mode.
Go through all the menus and be sure that all of the image
parameters are set to default, automatic values.

If your tests are consistent and your camera really is set
to all the default settings, then maybe your camera is defective.
Maybe the in-camera post-processing done on the JPEG images
is causing problems - though it's probably not caused by the JPEG
compression itself - which shouldn't damage sharpness.

That's my 2 cents anyway.

Alan
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 12:10:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ce3yd.2281$Ny6.3585@mencken.net.nih.gov...
> Robert,
>
> Something is wrong here. JPEG images taken in Canon's
> large fine mode should be sharp. They also have a "superfine"
> mode that you can and should try but, even the fine mode
> should look sharp. If you search the photo websites for images
> made on cameras like yours, you'll find plenty of very sharp
> JPEGs.
>
> On my Canon S30, I saw no difference in sharpness between
> RAW, Superfine JPEG, and Fine JPEG. The "Normal" JPEG
> introduced more artifacts, and I decided not to use it, but they
> were usually hard to see.
>
> However there is a difference between a compression artifact and blur.
> If you take any photo program that can save JPEGs, e.g., Irfanview,
> and save some overly compressed images, you'll see what
> compression artifacts look like. They look bad, but they don't
> look like blur.
>
> There is a difference in color depth between RAW and JPEG,
> but color depth is also not the same as blur.
>
> I'm having trouble understanding how what you see can be
> happening. The lens hasn't changed. The CCD sensor hasn't
> changed. The focus hasn't changed (I presume), or maybe it
> did?. Maybe you need to repeat your tests.
>
> Maybe you've put the camera into some exotic mode -
> changing the default sharpness, white balance, ISO setting,
> or some other parameters that are degrading image quality
> without your being aware that the camera is in that mode.
> Go through all the menus and be sure that all of the image
> parameters are set to default, automatic values.
>
> If your tests are consistent and your camera really is set
> to all the default settings, then maybe your camera is defective.
> Maybe the in-camera post-processing done on the JPEG images
> is causing problems - though it's probably not caused by the JPEG
> compression itself - which shouldn't damage sharpness.
>
> That's my 2 cents anyway.
>


Thanks Alan. Working on my new Epson 2200 right now. Trying to get it to
function properly over the network. I hope to get back to the image test
later tonight. If I do I'll post results.

--

Rob
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 12:10:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:

> "Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Ce3yd.2281$Ny6.3585@mencken.net.nih.gov...
>
>>Robert,
>>
>>Something is wrong here. JPEG images taken in Canon's
>>large fine mode should be sharp. They also have a "superfine"
>>mode that you can and should try but, even the fine mode
>>should look sharp. If you search the photo websites for images
>>made on cameras like yours, you'll find plenty of very sharp
>>JPEGs.
>>
>>On my Canon S30, I saw no difference in sharpness between
>>RAW, Superfine JPEG, and Fine JPEG. The "Normal" JPEG
>>introduced more artifacts, and I decided not to use it, but they
>>were usually hard to see.
>>
>>However there is a difference between a compression artifact and blur.
>>If you take any photo program that can save JPEGs, e.g., Irfanview,
>>and save some overly compressed images, you'll see what
>>compression artifacts look like. They look bad, but they don't
>>look like blur.
>>
>>There is a difference in color depth between RAW and JPEG,
>>but color depth is also not the same as blur.
>>
>>I'm having trouble understanding how what you see can be
>>happening. The lens hasn't changed. The CCD sensor hasn't
>>changed. The focus hasn't changed (I presume), or maybe it
>>did?. Maybe you need to repeat your tests.
>>
>>Maybe you've put the camera into some exotic mode -
>>changing the default sharpness, white balance, ISO setting,
>>or some other parameters that are degrading image quality
>>without your being aware that the camera is in that mode.
>>Go through all the menus and be sure that all of the image
>>parameters are set to default, automatic values.
>>
>>If your tests are consistent and your camera really is set
>>to all the default settings, then maybe your camera is defective.
>>Maybe the in-camera post-processing done on the JPEG images
>>is causing problems - though it's probably not caused by the JPEG
>>compression itself - which shouldn't damage sharpness.
>>
>>That's my 2 cents anyway.
>>
>
>
>
> Thanks Alan. Working on my new Epson 2200 right now. Trying to get it to
> function properly over the network. I hope to get back to the image test
> later tonight. If I do I'll post results.
>
Robert,
Here is a page on lens testing and a test chart you can download and
print and include with other objects:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/relative-lens-sharpn...

Do include other objects in your field, and make them all
flat and in the same plane so there are no focus issues.
Multiple objects in the field can help the camera focus properly.
My test chart, if printed at the specified size is quite
small.

Roger
December 22, 2004 12:23:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:KeOdnVU5F_A4DlXcRVn-ow@giganews.com:

> Do you have any suggestions on what I can use as a test subject? I
> was planning on setting up a few objects on a table, setting the
> camera up the tripod and shooting away using the 18-55 kit lens and my
> 550EX flash.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>

For judging sharpness, the tripod sounds good. With and without flash.
Newsprint makes a good test subject.

After your tests, you might want to pick some photos that illustrate the
point well, and crop a similar section out of both of them.

Bob
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 12:34:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:20:36 -0500, "Robert R Kircher, Jr."
<rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:um2hs0p4cpjh8ntj3ipdooc4plcmb25i9a@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:59:37 -0500, "Robert R Kircher, Jr."
>> <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:viugs0pl69stuf0esh1kku0s6c3ao3mrja@4ax.com...
>> I really don't know why you would see
>> a noticeable difference.
>
>Neither do I at this point so I'm going to do some more testing (maybe
>tonight) and I'll post back what I find.
>
>Do you have any suggestions on what I can use as a test subject? I was
>planning on setting up a few objects on a table, setting the camera up the
>tripod and shooting away using the 18-55 kit lens and my 550EX flash.

You'll want a mixture of natural and artificial things. An apple or
orange that has good skin texture & flowers for color maybe. Then some
artificial things with fine text (a $20 bill is common).

On your printer, maybe even produce some high-contrast thin B/W lines
in several different sizes in high-quality onto photo paper to include
in the scene (focus on that point of the scene).

Once shot, at full-scale, crop any bits where you think there are
problems (squares of about 400x400 pixels) without scaling the image
and post them somewhere on the net for us to discuss. Keep these all
as TIFF or BMP files, because subsequent JPEG encoding for web
publishing is going to muddy everything.

--
Owamanga!
December 22, 2004 12:35:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 02:57:04 -0500, "Robert R Kircher, Jr."
<rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I was working with RAW images for the first time tonight and I notice quite
>a big difference in the sharpness of the RAW image over the JPEG created by
>my Canon 300D. I understand that there is some loss when converting to
>JPEG but I'm surprised to see just how much. The loss I'm seeing is the
>difference between a nice sharp image and a blurry one.
>
>Is there something I can do to better capture the clarity of the RAW image?
>
>BTW: I'm using the Canon provided processing software.

If anything the jpg's should appear sharper, unless your RAW processing software
is set to do sharpening in the computer by default.

RAW means just that - nothing added and nothing taken away.

What's not added is

- In camera sharpening

- In camera colour balancing

- In camera contrast adjustment

What's not taken away is up to 4 stops of added dynamic range. RAW has 12-bit
(4096 gradations) colour depth per colour, jpg has this reduced to 8 bits (256
gradations) albeit with a non-linear transfer function (gamma).

BTW Canon's RAW software is poop. If you decide you want to seriously use RAW
you need to buy a 3rd party RAW processing program.

dj
December 22, 2004 12:35:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:35:17 +1100, DJ <dontemail@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:


>What's not taken away is up to 4 stops of added dynamic range. RAW has 12-bit
>(4096 gradations) colour depth per colour, jpg has this reduced to 8 bits (256
>gradations) albeit with a non-linear transfer function (gamma).
>
>BTW Canon's RAW software is poop. If you decide you want to seriously use RAW
>you need to buy a 3rd party RAW processing program.

There are several good RAW converters. I've been extremely pleased
with Bibble ( www.bibblelabs.com ). The original poster might want to
d\l Bibble and try the fully functional program for the 14 day trial.
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 1:47:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
[]
> Here is a page on lens testing and a test chart you can download and
> print and include with other objects:
> http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/relative-lens-sharpn...
>
> Do include other objects in your field, and make them all
> flat and in the same plane so there are no focus issues.
> Multiple objects in the field can help the camera focus properly.
> My test chart, if printed at the specified size is quite
> small.
>
> Roger

Roger, I don't think you say on the page, but is your test target located
at the centre or the corner of the image? The 28 - 135 at 28 f/3.5 looks
appalling!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 1:47:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:

> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> []
>
>>Here is a page on lens testing and a test chart you can download and
>>print and include with other objects:
>>http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/relative-lens-sharpn...
>>
>>Do include other objects in your field, and make them all
>>flat and in the same plane so there are no focus issues.
>>Multiple objects in the field can help the camera focus properly.
>>My test chart, if printed at the specified size is quite
>>small.
>>
>>Roger
>
>
> Roger, I don't think you say on the page, but is your test target located
> at the centre or the corner of the image? The 28 - 135 at 28 f/3.5 looks
> appalling!
>

For my tests I use many test targets taped onto a board that
fills the field of view. The targets I show on the page were
slightly off center, about 1/3 of the way from center to edge.
I note on the 28-135 at 28mm that the softness is probably due
to a focus issue. I use this lens a lot, but rarely wide open,
and have never had issues with it. It is my favorite
overall lens. The focus issue would be an autofocus error.
I've confirmed that my 100-400 also has an autofocus error
at 400mm, so it is a lens, not a camera problem in that case.
Canon has stated that autofocus errors can happen on a lens.
I do intend to ship my 100-400 back sometime soon to be
recalibrated.

Roger Clark
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 4:49:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
[]
> For my tests I use many test targets taped onto a board that
> fills the field of view. The targets I show on the page were
> slightly off center, about 1/3 of the way from center to edge.

Thanks for the clarification, Roger.

> I note on the 28-135 at 28mm that the softness is probably due
> to a focus issue. I use this lens a lot, but rarely wide open,
> and have never had issues with it. It is my favorite
> overall lens. The focus issue would be an autofocus error.
> I've confirmed that my 100-400 also has an autofocus error
> at 400mm, so it is a lens, not a camera problem in that case.
> Canon has stated that autofocus errors can happen on a lens.
> I do intend to ship my 100-400 back sometime soon to be
> recalibrated.
>
> Roger Clark

Interesting you should use auto-focus. I had the impression (from reading
other threads) that real men only used manual focus, and that auto focus
was for wimps! <G>

David
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 4:49:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:

> Interesting you should use auto-focus. I had the impression (from reading
> other threads) that real men only used manual focus, and that auto focus
> was for wimps! <G>

Well, when it comes to focusing, definitely put me
in the wimp category. Actually, the whole vision thing
too. At 51, my eyesight is not what it used to be.
I can't manual focus well at all on these modern SLR
cameras, but then they don't have the nice microprism
viewfinders either. But if you are doing action
wildlife photography I doubt anyone can focus manually
very accurately, so autofocus is an absolute must.
With 4x5 I do focus manually, spending many
minutes to do it, using 3-diopter reading glasses,
then an 8x loupe. My lens test pages I designed
for how I work in the field, and they are full system
tests, including the camera autofocus. While lens
sharpness dominates, other system weaknesses will
show too, like the autofocus error on the 100-400.

Roger
http://clarkvision.com
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 5:30:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 22 Dec 2004 in rec.photo.digital, David J Taylor wrote:

> Interesting you should use auto-focus. I had the impression (from
> reading other threads) that real men only used manual focus, and
> that auto focus was for wimps!

I recall, back about 1976, clutching my beloved, lamented Canon FTb and
talking with a guy who had a brand-spanking-new Canon EF[1]. I asked
about the (then-new) auto exposure. The EF owner observed:

You know, I was going to stick with manual exposure. But I tried a
roll on auto, and the pictures came out just fine.

So I suspect that there's no going back.

[1] The camera, not the lenses.
--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 7:01:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:49:11 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

>Interesting you should use auto-focus. I had the impression (from reading
>other threads) that real men only used manual focus, and that auto focus
>was for wimps! <G>

Yep, just like cooking meat before eating it is for wimps.

...and all you girlies that sleep on nice comfortable mattresses
instead of the hard tile floor are no better.

<G>

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 9:10:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Interesting you should use auto-focus. I had the impression (from
>> reading other threads) that real men only used manual focus, and
>> that auto focus was for wimps! <G>
>
> Well, when it comes to focusing, definitely put me
> in the wimp category. Actually, the whole vision thing
> too. At 51, my eyesight is not what it used to be.
> I can't manual focus well at all on these modern SLR
> cameras, but then they don't have the nice microprism
> viewfinders either.

I wonder how many people suffer from weakening vision (if I may put it
that way)? I was recently forced to use a Kodak bottom-of-the-range
digital camera and found the lack of any diopter adjustment a huge
drawback (OK, so I could put my reading glasses on...). Perhaps people
don't realise they may now need the diopter adjustment? And why was the
Kodak viewfinder set to focus inches in from of the face?

Cheers,
David
December 23, 2004 3:11:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 18:10:35 -0000
In message <32trksF3p6074U1@individual.net>
"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:

> I wonder how many people suffer from weakening vision

[raises hand]

> (if I may put it that way)?

Why not just ask:

How many photographers suffer from failing eyesight?

(The answer is probably 90% with 5% okay and 5% in denial;-)

Jeff
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 3:11:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Confused wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 18:10:35 -0000
> In message <32trksF3p6074U1@individual.net>
> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> I wonder how many people suffer from weakening vision
>
> [raises hand]

[also raises hand, smashing it on the shelf I didn't see...]

>> (if I may put it that way)?

I prefer "optically challenged as a bat" ;^)

> Why not just ask:
>
> How many photographers suffer from failing eyesight?
>
> (The answer is probably 90% with 5% okay and 5% in denial;-)

Congenital cataracts, detached retinas and Glaucoma by the time I was
15 - thanks to one of the world's best Glaucoma specialist here in
Seattle, I've been able to keep what vision I have left since - the
"used-to-be the good one" left eye went all but blind back in the mid
'80s forcing me to change the camera over to the right eye; I don't
think I've taken a level photo since...

I can do 20/150 on a good day, and gratefully thank the Japanese
technology gods that Minolta released the autofocus Maxxum 7000 back in
1986 ~right~ when I needed it most. I now tend to shoot more landscapes
and other slow moving subjects than I used to, and only half joke when I
tell folks I take all these pictures so I can go home and actually see
what I was looking at - but I won't give up photography until they can
hide my cameras in plain sight!

Bob ^,,^
http://bobqat.com
!