Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is RAW usage/support just overblown, elitist hype?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 4:20:03 AM

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

The reason I ask this is that someone on another
forum said that it's impossible to compare two
cameras to each other (even if they are radically
different cameras) by using only JPEG, that you have
to use RAW images. Is this the case? Because the differences
are clear in most cases from what I've seen comparing
cameras with JPEG output, and I've never
seen RAW images used in a test between two cameras.

I read a couple magazine pieces that seemed to suggest the
people who say only RAW is suitable for high quality output
(to print or a monitor) are basically crackpots, though
the mags didn't use that terminology, and that the format is
used by some to lord over the heads of the uninitiated and that
statements like "JPEG is only suitable for small vacation pictures"
(quoted) are nonsense.

The only thing I've heard said about RAW when dealing with the
specifics of images is that it can allow the recovery of shadow
or highlight information because the format better preserves dynamic
range of an image.

So, when people make the far-fetched claims that JPEG (no matter what
compression level) is no where near as good, on what do they base it?
Under what circumstances does RAW really come to the fore?
-Rich
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 10:47:32 AM

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

I guess if you were shooting your friend at a wedding (the photographer is
in the bathroom) and you got a killer shot of him and his bride, but somehow
the camera didnt seem to get the wb correct for the shot and its a little
underexposed, you may have wished you shot it in raw if your a good raw
editor. As there's more hope you can correct it and get it just perfect,
than if its shot in jpeg. I usually shoot jpeg (smaller files and quicker
workflow for me as I'm not an expert at batch processing etc.)
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 2:14:25 PM

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

In article <8lste11enn7tol6eosgp0tdb0dslig8brq@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>The reason I ask this is that someone on another
>forum said that it's impossible to compare two
>cameras to each other (even if they are radically
>different cameras) by using only JPEG, that you have
>to use RAW images. Is this the case? Because the differences
>are clear in most cases from what I've seen comparing
>cameras with JPEG output, and I've never
>seen RAW images used in a test between two cameras.

Well, the test is very simple: try to produce for each camera the best image
using RAW and using jpeg. If there is almost no difference, you can use
jpeg to demonstrate the capabilities of the camera. If the there is a
big difference, you have to use RAW.

In general, there is no way of knowing whether the in camera RAW conversion
uses the same algorithm as a stand-alone RAW converter.

>I read a couple magazine pieces that seemed to suggest the
>people who say only RAW is suitable for high quality output
>(to print or a monitor) are basically crackpots, though
>the mags didn't use that terminology, and that the format is
>used by some to lord over the heads of the uninitiated and that
>statements like "JPEG is only suitable for small vacation pictures"
>(quoted) are nonsense.

Only equipment freaks ask about the details of the process before they look
at the picture. If the pictures come out all right, the process is good enough.

>The only thing I've heard said about RAW when dealing with the
>specifics of images is that it can allow the recovery of shadow
>or highlight information because the format better preserves dynamic
>range of an image.

Jpeg compression loses all kinds of information. Many RAW formats are
independent of the white balance setting, so you correct for that later.
With jpeg, if you get the white balance wrong, you may not be able to correct
it.

>So, when people make the far-fetched claims that JPEG (no matter what
>compression level) is no where near as good, on what do they base it?

It depends on the amount of post processing you plan to do. Jpeg allows
for only small white balance and contrast corrections.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 3:44:12 PM

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

RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

> The reason I ask this is that someone on another forum said that it's
> impossible to compare two cameras to each other (even if they are
> radically different cameras) by using only JPEG, that you have to use RAW
> images. Is this the case? [..]

It depends on what you're trying to compare. You'd only get a useful
comparison of anything where the in-camera JPEG processing would ruin
the comparison.

So, say... If you can put the same lens on the two different cameras,
you could compare their sensors by shooting RAW, thus avoiding the JPEG
processing. Same for lenses... Put two different lenses on the same
camera, shoot RAW, compare the differences without worrying about the
camera's JPEG compression decisions.

If you're trying to compare two cameras, then you'd want to see their
JPEG output. If one JPEG is good while the other is trash, then you've
made a useful comparison. Whether that matters to you or not is another
story.

And this is the point at which I wish, out loud, yet again, that camera
makers would include PNG as a output choice. 16 bits per channel,
lossless compression, and no patent licensing fees.
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 5:35:34 PM

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

RichA <none@none.com> writes:
> The reason I ask this is that someone on another
> forum said that it's impossible to compare two
> cameras to each other (even if they are radically
> different cameras) by using only JPEG, that you have
> to use RAW images. Is this the case?

You can't compare RAW images (at least not by looking at them),
because RAW files as such cannot be rendered as visual images.
They must first be converted to a format suitable for
rendering, such as JPEG or TIFF.

However, if you capture in RAW, and convert to JPEG (or TIFF)
out-of-camera using the *same software* with the *same settings*
you have a starting point for making comparisons that is not
influenced by in-camera processing.

If you compare JPEG-images created by the camera, different settings
for USM and colour saturation can produce huge differences in
perceived quality that has nothing to do with inherent quality.

> Because the differences are clear in most cases from what I've seen
> comparing cameras with JPEG output, and I've never seen RAW images
> used in a test between two cameras.
>
> I read a couple magazine pieces that seemed to suggest the people
> who say only RAW is suitable for high quality output (to print or a
> monitor) are basically crackpots,

I would say they are crackpots too, because RAW isn't suitable for
output (of any quality). If, however, someone told me that RAW was a
better /starting point/ for high quality post-processing than JPEG, I
would nod in agreement.

> though the mags didn't use that terminology, and that the format is
> used by some to lord over the heads of the uninitiated and that
> statements like "JPEG is only suitable for small vacation pictures"
> (quoted) are nonsense.
>
> The only thing I've heard said about RAW when dealing with the
> specifics of images is that it can allow the recovery of shadow or
> highlight information because the format better preserves dynamic
> range of an image.

Yes, about 1.5-2 stops in my experience. It is also non-lossy. That
matters if you do a lot of post-processing. JPEG-artefacts is pretty
invisible if you shoot H-Q and keep your camera's output unchanged,
But they tend to become more noticable if you play around with curves
and the USM - even if you take care and never re-save in JPEG.

> So, when people make the far-fetched claims that JPEG (no matter
> what compression level) is no where near as good, on what do they
> base it?

If you don't post-process, H-Q JPEG is just as good as RAW,
and comes in a much smaller package.

If you post-process, RAW gives you better dynamic range, more
leaway with the W-B, and zero artefacts.

The bottom line for me, however, is that by shooting RAW I always
have the /option/ to post-process.

I have a workflow where I first batch convert all RAW into JPEG
using default camera settings (giving me the same JPEGs that the
camera would have produced if I had shot in JPEG in the first
place). This conversion runs in the backround, when I do other
things.

Then, if I spot images that I think would benefit from a more
manual touch - I grab the RAW and redo the conversion
"by hand".

> Under what circumstances does RAW really come to the fore?

If you ever want to post-process your images.

--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 5:35:35 PM

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

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:35:34 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr
<gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote:

snipped
>I would say they are crackpots too, because RAW isn't suitable for
>output (of any quality). If, however, someone told me that RAW was a
>better /starting point/ for high quality post-processing than JPEG, I
>would nod in agreement.

No, TIFF for high quality print and produce them from RAW and use PSD
for post processing so you can use layers.
*********************************************************

"It looked like the sort of book described in library
catalogues as "slightly foxed", although it would be
more honest to admit that it looked as though it had
been badgered, wolved and possibly beared as well."

_Light Fantastic_
Terry Pratchett
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 5:35:35 PM

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

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:35:34 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr
<gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote:

>RichA <none@none.com> writes:
>> The reason I ask this is that someone on another
>> forum said that it's impossible to compare two
>> cameras to each other (even if they are radically
>> different cameras) by using only JPEG, that you have
>> to use RAW images. Is this the case?
>
>You can't compare RAW images (at least not by looking at them),
>because RAW files as such cannot be rendered as visual images.
>They must first be converted to a format suitable for
>rendering, such as JPEG or TIFF.

So when I use a program like Olympus Studio or Silkypix that displays
the RAW file (I haven't save it to TIFF or JPEG) what is it I'm
seeing, what kind of file is it on the screen?
-Rich
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 5:35:36 PM

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

RichA wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:35:34 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr
> <gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>
>
>>RichA <none@none.com> writes:
>>
>>>The reason I ask this is that someone on another
>>>forum said that it's impossible to compare two
>>>cameras to each other (even if they are radically
>>>different cameras) by using only JPEG, that you have
>>>to use RAW images. Is this the case?
>>
>>You can't compare RAW images (at least not by looking at them),
>>because RAW files as such cannot be rendered as visual images.
>>They must first be converted to a format suitable for
>>rendering, such as JPEG or TIFF.
>
>
> So when I use a program like Olympus Studio or Silkypix that displays
> the RAW file (I haven't save it to TIFF or JPEG) what is it I'm
> seeing, what kind of file is it on the screen?


You are looking at a quick raw conversion with unknown default settings.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 6:53:03 PM

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

RichA wrote:
> The reason I ask this is that someone on another
> forum said that it's impossible to compare two
> cameras to each other (even if they are radically
> different cameras) by using only JPEG, that you have
> to use RAW images. Is this the case? Because the differences
> are clear in most cases from what I've seen comparing
> cameras with JPEG output, and I've never
> seen RAW images used in a test between two cameras.
>
> I read a couple magazine pieces that seemed to suggest the
> people who say only RAW is suitable for high quality output
> (to print or a monitor) are basically crackpots, though
> the mags didn't use that terminology, and that the format is
> used by some to lord over the heads of the uninitiated and that
> statements like "JPEG is only suitable for small vacation pictures"
> (quoted) are nonsense.
>
> The only thing I've heard said about RAW when dealing with the
> specifics of images is that it can allow the recovery of shadow
> or highlight information because the format better preserves dynamic
> range of an image.
>
> So, when people make the far-fetched claims that JPEG (no matter what
> compression level) is no where near as good, on what do they base it?
> Under what circumstances does RAW really come to the fore?
> -Rich

The above statement is quite wrong and comes from an uninformed person.
A RAW file is not an image file. You can't print a RAW file or 'see' it
on a monitor until the data is converted to an image. Once you have
converted it, it no longer is camera RAW data.

There is nothing incredibly wrong with JPEG format except that it uses a
throw away compression process and camera makers have decided to use it
to compress their images. Herein lies the pitfalls of JPEGs.

Those camera makers who choose to offer TIFF or JPEG files, recognize
that some people need to/ want to enlarge their pictures and the high
compression ratios used with JPEGs, do not provide very good
enlargements. Otherwise, the JPG format absolutely throws away highlight
and shadow data during compression in the presumption that all you
really "need" is the mid range data.

Camera RAW not only keeps vital, unprocessed information for later
retrieval but it does not "throw away" data. I believe it does get
compressed but not to the level of a JPG camera image.

I frequently save a RAW file after processing in Photoshop as an
*UNCOMPRESSED* JPG. These uncompressed files are as good as TIFF files
when enlarging or printing images. It is only when you compress a JPG it
starts to lose quality, get artifacts and other image flaws.

--
Douglas,
Saying of the day:
Never trust a skinny cook.
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 6:53:04 PM

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

> I frequently save a RAW file after processing in Photoshop as an
> *UNCOMPRESSED* JPG. These uncompressed files are as good as TIFF files
> when enlarging or printing images. It is only when you compress a JPG it
> starts to lose quality, get artifacts and other image flaws.

I am under the impression that if you save an image as a jpeg, make a
modification, then save a again as a jpeg, and on and on... That each time
you save as a jpeg the process of saving as a jpeg (algorithm) loses info
(it's not lossless) so the picture degrades some. This is why some use tiff
or psd for many edits and many saves. I have not heard of a truly lossless
jpeg.

BTW pse3 has jpeg2000 format (and you can select option of lossless jpeg200)
so you can get a lossless form of jpeg 2000 file. One advantage is that
it's (the jpeg200) a smaller file than a tiff file (but it wont preserve
layers).
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 6:53:05 PM

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

"larrylook" <noemail@email.com> wrote in message
news:-qOdncDpT4uy03LfRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
> > I frequently save a RAW file after processing in Photoshop as an
> > *UNCOMPRESSED* JPG. These uncompressed files are as good as TIFF files
> > when enlarging or printing images. It is only when you compress a JPG it
> > starts to lose quality, get artifacts and other image flaws.
>
> I am under the impression that if you save an image as a jpeg, make a
> modification, then save a again as a jpeg, and on and on... That each
time
> you save as a jpeg the process of saving as a jpeg (algorithm) loses info
> (it's not lossless) so the picture degrades some. This is why some use
tiff
> or psd for many edits and many saves. I have not heard of a truly
lossless
> jpeg.
>

Well, every time I "save as" an unedited jpg in Photoshop with the best
quality it gets bigger. Either way, it's not the same file as before.

Greg
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 7:41:54 PM

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

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:22:16 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:35:34 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr
><gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>
>>RichA <none@none.com> writes:
>>> The reason I ask this is that someone on another
>>> forum said that it's impossible to compare two
>>> cameras to each other (even if they are radically
>>> different cameras) by using only JPEG, that you have
>>> to use RAW images. Is this the case?
>>
>>You can't compare RAW images (at least not by looking at them),
>>because RAW files as such cannot be rendered as visual images.
>>They must first be converted to a format suitable for
>>rendering, such as JPEG or TIFF.
>
>So when I use a program like Olympus Studio or Silkypix that displays
>the RAW file (I haven't save it to TIFF or JPEG) what is it I'm
>seeing, what kind of file is it on the screen?

I can see his point, but I think he's being a bit anal. For all
intents and purposes, you are looking at the RAW file.

...but more accurately you are looking at just one of many different
possible interpretations of the RAW file. Each converter/importer will
show you something different.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 10:49:37 PM

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

RichA <none@none.com> writes:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:35:34 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
>>RichA <none@none.com> writes:

>>> The reason I ask this is that someone on another
>>> forum said that it's impossible to compare two
>>> cameras to each other (even if they are radically
>>> different cameras) by using only JPEG, that you have
>>> to use RAW images. Is this the case?

>> You can't compare RAW images (at least not by looking at them),
>> because RAW files as such cannot be rendered as visual images.
>> They must first be converted to a format suitable for
>> rendering, such as JPEG or TIFF.

> So when I use a program like Olympus Studio or Silkypix that
> displays the RAW file (I haven't save it to TIFF or JPEG) what is it
> I'm seeing, what kind of file is it on the screen?

If you're using Windows, most likely a BMP.

You might think that this is just about the equivalent to a RAW-file -
but it isn't. Unless you have a very primitive RAW converter (I'm not
familiar with Olympus Studio or Silkypix), you can change the settings
in he RAW converter (set a different W-B Kelvin, use a different
amount of USM, set different saturation, etc.) - and what you see on
the screen is changed as a result of changing these settings. The
RAW-file doesn't change just because you change the settings in your
RAW-conversion program, so obviously you what you see on the screen
isn't the RAW file - but just one (of the many, many possible
alternative) conversions of it.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 12:06:45 AM

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

RichA wrote:
>
> The reason I ask this is that someone on another
> forum said that it's impossible to compare two
> cameras to each other (even if they are radically
> different cameras) by using only JPEG, that you have
> to use RAW images. Is this the case? Because the differences
> are clear in most cases from what I've seen comparing
> cameras with JPEG output, and I've never
> seen RAW images used in a test between two cameras.
>
> I read a couple magazine pieces that seemed to suggest the
> people who say only RAW is suitable for high quality output
> (to print or a monitor) are basically crackpots, though
> the mags didn't use that terminology, and that the format is
> used by some to lord over the heads of the uninitiated and that
> statements like "JPEG is only suitable for small vacation pictures"
> (quoted) are nonsense.
>
> The only thing I've heard said about RAW when dealing with the
> specifics of images is that it can allow the recovery of shadow
> or highlight information because the format better preserves dynamic
> range of an image.
>
> So, when people make the far-fetched claims that JPEG (no matter what
> compression level) is no where near as good, on what do they base it?
> Under what circumstances does RAW really come to the fore?
> -Rich


With a jpg (and I believe, tif) image, the camera firmware does a lot of
image processing before saving the file to the flash card, like applying
any preset parameters such as contrast, saturation, sharpening, color
balance ( as the camera saw it, not necessarily correct), color space,
and jpg compression to the image. The image characteristics are then
permanently set, and only a relatively limited amount of manual
processing can be done.
Compression artifacts, blown whites, etc. can't be altered.

RAW files have none of the above processing done, leaving the various
parameters to be done in the RAW converter, and then in Photoshop or
equivalent.

For comparing images from two cameras, jpg's may well be treated
differently between different cameras, and so the resulting images
cannot be accurately compared. Of course, so may the RAW files, but
there's a better chance of equal treatment there.

Colin D.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 12:06:46 AM

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

Colin D wrote:
>
> For comparing images from two cameras, jpg's may well be treated
> differently between different cameras, and so the resulting images
> cannot be accurately compared. Of course, so may the RAW files, but
> there's a better chance of equal treatment there.


Agreed this is the reason to compare with raw. If everything is set up
properly though and contrast/saturation set to equal settings, there is
very little difference between jpeg & raw but cameras all have different
defaults and that's more or less hidden. P&S cameras usually use some
pretty strong saturation & contrast increase as well as sharpening etc.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 1:30:49 AM

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

In message <0q3ve19heep17bmnai5am0nhvas6641hrv@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>So when I use a program like Olympus Studio or Silkypix that displays
>the RAW file (I haven't save it to TIFF or JPEG) what is it I'm
>seeing, what kind of file is it on the screen?

It's a .NOT file.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
August 3, 2005 2:18:05 AM

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

RichA wrote:
>
> The only thing I've heard said about RAW when dealing with the
> specifics of images is that it can allow the recovery of shadow
> or highlight information because the format better preserves dynamic
> range of an image.
>
> So, when people make the far-fetched claims that JPEG (no matter what
> compression level) is no where near as good, on what do they base it?
> Under what circumstances does RAW really come to the fore?
> -Rich

With my D70, this is the difference I see:

http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/raw.jpg
I posted that once before, and got comments back that the images had
different contrast, one had been sharpened, or the colour difference
accounts for the apparent increase in acutance of the converted raw
images. It doesn't matter what I do, the result is always very similar
to those examples. I certainly did not try to distort those results.
Jpegs were all at Large, High Quality, Normal sharpness. Nikon Capture
produces almost exactly the same result as RSE. Shooting a B&W
resolution chart shows very little difference, as the test patterns just
create moire at the level where you would otherwise probably see the
difference.

Overblown elitist hype? I don't know. If you were shooting a lot of
images, then concerting RAW could use a serious amount of time. If you
tend to (as I do) shoot less images, then a minute or so to deal with
the raw file is no problem.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 2:18:06 AM

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

> With my D70, this is the difference I see:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/raw.jpg
> I posted that once before, and got comments back that the images had
> different contrast, one had been sharpened, or the colour difference
> accounts for the apparent increase in acutance of the converted raw
> images. It doesn't matter what I do, the result is always very
> similar to those examples. I certainly did not try to distort those
> results. Jpegs were all at Large, High Quality, Normal sharpness. Nikon Capture produces almost
> exactly the same result as RSE. Shooting a B&W resolution chart shows very little difference, as
> the
> test patterns just create moire at the level where you would
> otherwise probably see the difference.

How did you get a fine JPEG and a RAW of the same frame?
It seems to me that you are saying that the JPEG was created
in the camera.

-Mike
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 2:18:06 AM

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

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:18:05 +1200, frederick <nomail@nomail.com>
wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>>
>> The only thing I've heard said about RAW when dealing with the
>> specifics of images is that it can allow the recovery of shadow
>> or highlight information because the format better preserves dynamic
>> range of an image.
>>
>> So, when people make the far-fetched claims that JPEG (no matter what
>> compression level) is no where near as good, on what do they base it?
>> Under what circumstances does RAW really come to the fore?
>> -Rich
>
>With my D70, this is the difference I see:
>
>http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/raw.jpg
>I posted that once before, and got comments back that the images had
>different contrast, one had been sharpened, or the colour difference
>accounts for the apparent increase in acutance of the converted raw
>images. It doesn't matter what I do, the result is always very similar
>to those examples. I certainly did not try to distort those results.
>Jpegs were all at Large, High Quality, Normal sharpness. Nikon Capture
>produces almost exactly the same result as RSE. Shooting a B&W
>resolution chart shows very little difference, as the test patterns just
>create moire at the level where you would otherwise probably see the
>difference.
>
>Overblown elitist hype? I don't know. If you were shooting a lot of
>images, then concerting RAW could use a serious amount of time. If you
>tend to (as I do) shoot less images, then a minute or so to deal with
>the raw file is no problem.

One thing about the images you've shown puzzles me; I understood
RAW to be an image unprocessed yet they appear sharper than the JPEGS.
I thought the in-camera processing into a JPEG always resulted in some
kind of sharpening while RAW didn't.
-Rich
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 2:18:06 AM

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

> With my D70, this is the difference I see:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/raw.jpg
> I posted that once before, and got comments back that the images had
> different contrast, one had been sharpened, or the colour difference
> accounts for the apparent increase in acutance of the converted raw
> images. It doesn't matter what I do, the result is always very similar to
> those examples.

Looking for contrast, sharpness, and color differences betweeen a RAW and
JPEG isn't going to tell you about the merits of RAW vs. JPEG, it's just
going to show you the merits of the camera's conversion algorithm vs. your
conversion algorithm.

The fact that your RAW shots look sharper and with more contrast just
means that the 150+ MB Photoshop program, on your multi-gigahertz processer
with hundreds (or thousands) of megabytes of RAM is doing a better software
conversion (possibly with your input on what you want to see) than the
software in your camera, which is likely a few hundred kilobytes (or LESS)
in size, running on a CPU with a couple of hundred megahertz, with no input,
and having only a fraction of the RAM which you have just on your video
card. Not such a big surprise when you look at it like that, is it? : )

steve
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 2:18:07 AM

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

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 21:00:48 +1000, "Mike Warren"
<miwaNOSPAM@cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote:

>> With my D70, this is the difference I see:
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/raw.jpg
>> I posted that once before, and got comments back that the images had
>> different contrast, one had been sharpened, or the colour difference
>> accounts for the apparent increase in acutance of the converted raw
>> images. It doesn't matter what I do, the result is always very
>> similar to those examples. I certainly did not try to distort those
>> results. Jpegs were all at Large, High Quality, Normal sharpness. Nikon Capture produces almost
>> exactly the same result as RSE. Shooting a B&W resolution chart shows very little difference, as
>> the
>> test patterns just create moire at the level where you would
>> otherwise probably see the difference.
>
>How did you get a fine JPEG and a RAW of the same frame?
>It seems to me that you are saying that the JPEG was created
>in the camera.

The 20D will produce a RAW and a large JPEG from the same shot in the
camera.
*********************************************************

"It looked like the sort of book described in library
catalogues as "slightly foxed", although it would be
more honest to admit that it looked as though it had
been badgered, wolved and possibly beared as well."

_Light Fantastic_
Terry Pratchett
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 2:18:07 AM

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

RichA wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:18:05 +1200, frederick <nomail@nomail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>With my D70, this is the difference I see:
>>
>>http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/raw.jpg
>
> One thing about the images you've shown puzzles me; I understood
> RAW to be an image unprocessed yet they appear sharper than the JPEGS.
> I thought the in-camera processing into a JPEG always resulted in some
> kind of sharpening while RAW didn't.


He must have sharpened them in the raw conversion but you can get a
sharper image from raw. Here's some tests I did:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
August 3, 2005 2:18:08 AM

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

John A. Stovall wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 21:00:48 +1000, "Mike Warren"

>>How did you get a fine JPEG and a RAW of the same frame?
>>It seems to me that you are saying that the JPEG was created
>>in the camera.
>
>
> The 20D will produce a RAW and a large JPEG from the same shot in the
> camera.


The Maxxum 7D will also, albeit with the in-camera jpg processing rules.
Digital photography, and the 7D in particular, are new to me - so my
learning curve is ever-present. However, I have toyed around with this
dual-image capability, and have been pleasantly surprised at the choices
available.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 2:18:08 AM

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

In message <7koue1do7spmt589epk1jc8pon41k0j7af@4ax.com>,
John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>The 20D will produce a RAW and a large JPEG from the same shot in the
>camera.

Also, it *always* embeds a 3MP JPEG in the RAW file. This is what you
zoom into in the review, if you shoot RAW-only. I thought my 20D was
unsharp when I first used it, because of these 3MP reviews.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
August 3, 2005 3:37:57 AM

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

Mike Warren wrote:
>>With my D70, this is the difference I see:
>>
>>http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/raw.jpg
>>I posted that once before, and got comments back that the images had
>>different contrast, one had been sharpened, or the colour difference
>>accounts for the apparent increase in acutance of the converted raw
>>images. It doesn't matter what I do, the result is always very
>>similar to those examples. I certainly did not try to distort those
>>results. Jpegs were all at Large, High Quality, Normal sharpness. Nikon Capture produces almost
>>exactly the same result as RSE. Shooting a B&W resolution chart shows very little difference, as
>>the
>>test patterns just create moire at the level where you would
>>otherwise probably see the difference.
>
>
> How did you get a fine JPEG and a RAW of the same frame?
> It seems to me that you are saying that the JPEG was created
> in the camera.
>
No, they were consecutive shots, one raw, one high quality jpeg.
You can with a d70 get a raw plus a basic jpeg of the same frame, but
then there is an enormous difference - the basic jpg is compressed to
the extent that I don't think you'd even get a good 6x4 print from it.
I took all precautions to eliminate camera shake, all were shot at high
shutter speed using a tripod, and I have repeated this many times with
the same result.
The colour difference was an exercise for me in how difficult it is to
match colour balance in raw using a jpeg image for reference. I cannot
get it spot on.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 3:47:03 AM

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

frederick wrote:
> Mike Warren wrote:
>>> With my D70, this is the difference I see:
>>>
>>> http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/raw.jpg
>>> I posted that once before, and got comments back that the images had
>>> different contrast, one had been sharpened, or the colour difference
>>> accounts for the apparent increase in acutance of the converted raw
>>> images. It doesn't matter what I do, the result is always very
>>> similar to those examples. I certainly did not try to distort those
>>> results. Jpegs were all at Large, High Quality, Normal sharpness.
>>> Nikon Capture produces almost exactly the same result as RSE.
>>> Shooting a B&W resolution chart shows very little difference, as the
>>> test patterns just create moire at the level where you would
>>> otherwise probably see the difference.
>>
>>
>> How did you get a fine JPEG and a RAW of the same frame?
>> It seems to me that you are saying that the JPEG was created
>> in the camera.
>>
> No, they were consecutive shots, one raw, one high quality jpeg.
> You can with a d70 get a raw plus a basic jpeg of the same frame, but
> then there is an enormous difference - the basic jpg is compressed to
> the extent that I don't think you'd even get a good 6x4 print from it.
> I took all precautions to eliminate camera shake, all were shot at
> high shutter speed using a tripod, and I have repeated this many
> times with the same result.
> The colour difference was an exercise for me in how difficult it is to
> match colour balance in raw using a jpeg image for reference. I
> cannot get it spot on.

That's what confused me. The middle shot looks identical. The palm
fronds have not moved at all.

-Mike
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 3:47:04 AM

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

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 23:47:03 +1000, "Mike Warren"
<miwaNOSPAM@cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote:

>That's what confused me. The middle shot looks identical. The palm
>fronds have not moved at all.

Maybe nobody's at the bottom of the tree shaking it?

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 4:30:32 AM

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

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:41:54 GMT, Owamanga
<owamanga-not-this-bit@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:22:16 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:35:34 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr
>><gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>>
>>>RichA <none@none.com> writes:
>>>> The reason I ask this is that someone on another
>>>> forum said that it's impossible to compare two
>>>> cameras to each other (even if they are radically
>>>> different cameras) by using only JPEG, that you have
>>>> to use RAW images. Is this the case?
>>>
>>>You can't compare RAW images (at least not by looking at them),
>>>because RAW files as such cannot be rendered as visual images.
>>>They must first be converted to a format suitable for
>>>rendering, such as JPEG or TIFF.
>>
>>So when I use a program like Olympus Studio or Silkypix that displays
>>the RAW file (I haven't save it to TIFF or JPEG) what is it I'm
>>seeing, what kind of file is it on the screen?
>
>I can see his point, but I think he's being a bit anal. For all
>intents and purposes, you are looking at the RAW file.
>
>..but more accurately you are looking at just one of many different
>possible interpretations of the RAW file. Each converter/importer will
>show you something different.

Ah, even with digital there is no uniformity!
-Rich
August 3, 2005 4:35:25 AM

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

Steve Wolfe wrote:

>> With my D70, this is the difference I see:
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/raw.jpg
>> I posted that once before, and got comments back that the images had
>> different contrast, one had been sharpened, or the colour difference
>> accounts for the apparent increase in acutance of the converted raw
>> images. It doesn't matter what I do, the result is always very similar
>> to those examples.
>
> Looking for contrast, sharpness, and color differences betweeen a RAW
> and
> JPEG isn't going to tell you about the merits of RAW vs. JPEG, it's just
> going to show you the merits of the camera's conversion algorithm vs. your
> conversion algorithm.
>

And in the end, the difference is? If the computer can get a better end
result than the camera, use the computer to process the file.
--

Stacey
August 3, 2005 4:38:53 AM

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

John A. Stovall wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 21:00:48 +1000, "Mike Warren"
> <miwaNOSPAM@cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>>With my D70, this is the difference I see:
>>>
>>>http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/raw.jpg
>>>I posted that once before, and got comments back that the images had
>>>different contrast, one had been sharpened, or the colour difference
>>>accounts for the apparent increase in acutance of the converted raw
>>>images. It doesn't matter what I do, the result is always very
>>>similar to those examples. I certainly did not try to distort those
>>>results. Jpegs were all at Large, High Quality, Normal sharpness. Nikon Capture produces almost
>>>exactly the same result as RSE. Shooting a B&W resolution chart shows very little difference, as
>>>the
>>>test patterns just create moire at the level where you would
>>>otherwise probably see the difference.
>>
>>How did you get a fine JPEG and a RAW of the same frame?
>>It seems to me that you are saying that the JPEG was created
>>in the camera.
>
>
> The 20D will produce a RAW and a large JPEG from the same shot in the
> camera.
>
Yes. I guess if you were to shoot hundreds of shots a day, and had big
memory cards, then it could be useful to have RAW + high quality jpeg -
and only bother to use the RAW file to rescue shots with exposure or w/b
problems.
I expect - but I don't know - if the comparison between post-converted
Canon RAW and jpeg is less dramatic than for the D70. I suspect that
either Canon's in-camera processing is better, or the effect is less
evident because of the cameras having stronger AA filter, or a
combination of both.
August 3, 2005 4:40:03 AM

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

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

> RichA <none@none.com> writes:
>> The reason I ask this is that someone on another
>> forum said that it's impossible to compare two
>> cameras to each other (even if they are radically
>> different cameras) by using only JPEG, that you have
>> to use RAW images. Is this the case?
>
> You can't compare RAW images (at least not by looking at them),
> because RAW files as such cannot be rendered as visual images.
> They must first be converted to a format suitable for
> rendering, such as JPEG or TIFF.
>
> However, if you capture in RAW, and convert to JPEG (or TIFF)
> out-of-camera using the *same software* with the *same settings*
> you have a starting point for making comparisons that is not
> influenced by in-camera processing.


But then you are comparing how this specific software deals with a certain
cameras RAW files, not how well the camera works. To be fair IMHO you need
to use the RAW software that works the best for each camera, then compare
that.


> If you compare JPEG-images created by the camera, different settings
> for USM and colour saturation can produce huge differences in
> perceived quality that has nothing to do with inherent quality.

If you work both files to get the "best image quality" and compare that,
seems fair to me!



--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 5:09:46 AM

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

In message <8lste11enn7tol6eosgp0tdb0dslig8brq@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>The reason I ask this is that someone on another
>forum said that it's impossible to compare two
>cameras to each other (even if they are radically
>different cameras) by using only JPEG, that you have
>to use RAW images. Is this the case?

Well, to me it is logical that if a camera has both JPEG and RAW, that
anyone interested in maximum quality would shoot RAW, so RAW should be
compared when you're looking for the best the cameras can do. JPEGs
clip out-of-gamut colors, reduce mathematical precision in the midtones
and highlights, clip away highlights, flatten/darken shadows, and have
compression artifacts.

Sometimes the difference is not very visible, usually for tame colors in
moderate dynamic-range scenes, optimally exposed.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 5:26:46 AM

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

In message <42eefc47$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Pixby <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The above statement is quite wrong and comes from an uninformed person.
>A RAW file is not an image file. You can't print a RAW file or 'see' it
>on a monitor until the data is converted to an image.

Well, actually, you can. It is just not traditional to do so, nor is a
normal-looking image.

A Sigma RAW bitmap is already an RGB image, but has not had color
extrapolation calculations applied yet, so it is rather drab looking.

A straightforward RAW bitmap is greyscale, and has a checker-pattern due
to the fact that each pixel represents one of three primary colors in a
Bayer camera, and have different levels even in a solid-colored and
illuminated subject.

You can also colorize the RAW bitmap so that the blue pixels are zero in
the red and green channels, etc. The green is overwhelming, because
there are twice as many green pixels, in an RGB Bayer camera.

You can also interpolate each color channel to the full megapixel value
in a Bayer camera, independently, as in the middle sample here:

http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/47061260

Green may predominate here, but not because of the number of green
pixels, but because most Bayer DSLRs have green-filtered sensels that
are more sensitive than the other two colors.

All of these options are more RAW than any conversion with color and
tonal tranfer curves applied, and demosaicing.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 12:26:43 PM

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

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:24:45 +0000, JPS wrote:

> In message <7koue1do7spmt589epk1jc8pon41k0j7af@4ax.com>, John A. Stovall
> <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>The 20D will produce a RAW and a large JPEG from the same shot in the
>>camera.
>
> Also, it *always* embeds a 3MP JPEG in the RAW file. This is what you
> zoom into in the review, if you shoot RAW-only. I thought my 20D was
> unsharp when I first used it, because of these 3MP reviews.

No, it's unsharp because it's a Canon...

=8^)
August 3, 2005 1:58:49 PM

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

Paul Furman wrote:
> RichA wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:18:05 +1200, frederick <nomail@nomail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> With my D70, this is the difference I see:
>>>
>>> http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/raw.jpg
>>
>>
>> One thing about the images you've shown puzzles me; I understood
>> RAW to be an image unprocessed yet they appear sharper than the JPEGS.
>> I thought the in-camera processing into a JPEG always resulted in some
>> kind of sharpening while RAW didn't.
>
>
>
> He must have sharpened them in the raw conversion but you can get a
> sharper image from raw. Here's some tests I did:
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;
>

The top image (of the wine label) *may* have been sharpened during the
raw conversion, the checkbox in RSE to "apply sharpening" was checked,
but the sliders for sharpening and detail extraction were set at 0.
That should have applied no sharpening - but I don't guarantee it.
If my comparisons show more difference than yours, then I suspect that
part of that may be in that I used an extremely sharp 105mm macro lens
in all of the shots.

I was looking at your shots comparing noise and noise reduction, raw vs
jpg. I also see more noise on converted raw files than ex-camera jpegs,
unless I use noise reduction in RSE, in which case I'm pretty sure that
I can get much less noise but still better detail retention and acutance
than jpeg. Colour noise reduction isn't needed IMO. Most of the noise
on the D70 images seems to be luma noise, not chroma.

I print my own using an Epson R1800 printer. Trial and error is
required - the printer is unforgiving on mistakes. The printer
resolution in dpi is very high.
I can certainly see a difference between images shot jpg ex camera and
raw-post converted when printed at 10 x 7.
I never apply sharpening or detail extraction using RSE. With the D70,
for me this seems to result in significant aliasing and artifacts. But
I always apply some USM to the tiff before printing. In fact, my
impression is that what looks like slightly overdone USM on screen
removes the tendency of my prints at 10 x 7 inches to look "too good" -
a sort of unexpected smoothness and plastic appearance.
In this example of a print:
http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/print.jpg
some USM was applied to the tiff before printing. At 300dpi/300ppi,
aliasing seen in the crop is not visible in the print. If I could show
you the print at that size, compared with any output I have ever seen
from any wet-process print using any film or digital file, then you
would see why I am very happy with the D70 / R1800 combination. The
prints are stunning. I want a D2x - the possibility to produce prints at
15 x 10 at that quality is very appealing.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 9:20:31 PM

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

If you do not know why you should use raw you should not use raw.
If you understand why you would want to shoot in raw format you will never
want to capture images in any other format (unless your memory card is
running out of space!).
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 10:28:14 PM

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

RichA wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:41:54 GMT, Owamanga
> <owamanga-not-this-bit@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:22:16 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:35:34 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr
>>><gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>RichA <none@none.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>The reason I ask this is that someone on another
>>>>>forum said that it's impossible to compare two
>>>>>cameras to each other (even if they are radically
>>>>>different cameras) by using only JPEG, that you have
>>>>>to use RAW images. Is this the case?
>>>>
>>>>You can't compare RAW images (at least not by looking at them),
>>>>because RAW files as such cannot be rendered as visual images.
>>>>They must first be converted to a format suitable for
>>>>rendering, such as JPEG or TIFF.
>>>
>>>So when I use a program like Olympus Studio or Silkypix that displays
>>>the RAW file (I haven't save it to TIFF or JPEG) what is it I'm
>>>seeing, what kind of file is it on the screen?
>>
>>I can see his point, but I think he's being a bit anal. For all
>>intents and purposes, you are looking at the RAW file.
>>
>>..but more accurately you are looking at just one of many different
>>possible interpretations of the RAW file. Each converter/importer will
>>show you something different.
>
>
> Ah, even with digital there is no uniformity!
> -Rich


You are clueless. When compressing a 12-bit of information from the
sensor to 8-bit TIFF, you are bound to lose information. And you don't
linearly compress the data but selectively using curve to decide you
want to compress; the highlight or the shadow or special curve for your
situation. With RAW, you make your decision later. With JPEG, the camera
makes all the decision by itself. Also, when a scene has huge dynamic
range and you want to preserve them, you can make two pictures from the
same RAW file, one a bit underexpose to preserve the highlight and one a
bit overexposed to show the shadows. Then blend them in Photoshop.

If in case you severely underexpose a JPEG picture, you would notice
that your picture would be very poterize if you have to adjust the level
over half a stop. With RAW, the same picture would still look fine and
will still be good enough up to 2 stops. This simply demonstrate that
there are a bit more information from the sensor which JPEG/TIFF would
need to throw away.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 10:53:25 PM

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

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 17:20:31 GMT, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems "bmoag"
<aetoo@hotmail.com> wrote:

>If you do not know why you should use raw you should not use raw.
>If you understand why you would want to shoot in raw format you will never
>want to capture images in any other format (unless your memory card is
>running out of space!).

You'd still "want" to shoot raw though, no? :-)
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 1:30:10 AM

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

In message <218Ie.155$Wi6.54@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
l e o <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:

>Also, when a scene has huge dynamic
>range and you want to preserve them, you can make two pictures from the
>same RAW file, one a bit underexpose to preserve the highlight and one a
>bit overexposed to show the shadows. Then blend them in Photoshop.

It is really ridiculous that you need to do this; this should all be
done by the RAW conversion process, or with something like PS CS2's
"HDR" mode, you should be able to open or save in HDR mode from ACR,
with white balance applied (but some of the controls greyed out), to do
the RAW conversion without transfer curves, to the HDR format. I don't
know how Adobe missed this idea; I automatically assumed that CS2's HDR
would be a conversion option for ACR. Even 16-bit could be used for
saving, as 16-bit-gamma2.2-adjusted images have plenty of precision and
dynamic range possible; all you would need is an adjustment layer that
put your own desired transfer curve onto the image, possibly even doing
contrast by zones (modulate the high frequency content of compressed
zones to emphasize detail.

We are in the dark ages of software.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 1:44:46 AM

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

<JPS@no.komm> wrote:

>> Also, when a scene has huge dynamic range and you want to preserve them,
>> you can make two pictures from the same RAW file, one a bit underexpose
>> to preserve the highlight and one a bit overexposed to show the shadows.
>> Then blend them in Photoshop.
>
> It is really ridiculous that you need to do this; this should all be
> done by the RAW conversion process,

With the Curves interface in CS2's camera raw, the need to blend two
conversions of the same RAW file is pretty much in the past; if the
data is in the RAW file you can get the right tonal curve to use it
in one conversion now.

> I don't know how Adobe missed this idea; I automatically assumed that
> CS2's HDR would be a conversion option for ACR.

Not necessary; if a RAW file only has 12 bits of data, going to 16 bit
in Photoshop is enough, no?

HDR has *way* more range than you can ever get from one RAW file. I've
tried a seven-shot bracket sequence and that still leaves a vast amount
of unused headroom.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 2:56:54 AM

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

In message <11f2emeq85apde4@corp.supernews.com>,
Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

> <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>
>>> Also, when a scene has huge dynamic range and you want to preserve them,
>>> you can make two pictures from the same RAW file, one a bit underexpose
>>> to preserve the highlight and one a bit overexposed to show the shadows.
>>> Then blend them in Photoshop.
>>
>> It is really ridiculous that you need to do this; this should all be
>> done by the RAW conversion process,
>
>With the Curves interface in CS2's camera raw, the need to blend two
>conversions of the same RAW file is pretty much in the past; if the
>data is in the RAW file you can get the right tonal curve to use it
>in one conversion now.

Yes, that's a good way of opening, but the "Curves" tool is rather
crude; it is spatially inefficient. I frequently find that the
pixel-spacing of the interface is way too coarse to make a proper curve;
the most important part of the curve to do accurately often falls within
the height of only 2 or 3 pixels, and even if you can see a curve
bending away from the top or bottom line, quite a bit of it winds up at
0 or 255.

I am not the type of person to be pleased for long with software
features; I can always see a much better way to do things, and PS
"curves" are posterizing, pixelized junk, IMO.

>> I don't know how Adobe missed this idea; I automatically assumed that
>> CS2's HDR would be a conversion option for ACR.

>Not necessary; if a RAW file only has 12 bits of data, going to 16 bit
>in Photoshop is enough, no?

Why did you clip the part where I said even 16-bit gamma-adjusted data
is pretty sufficient for a RAW?

>HDR has *way* more range than you can ever get from one RAW file. I've
>tried a seven-shot bracket sequence and that still leaves a vast amount
>of unused headroom.

HDR goes into the hundreds of thousands, or millions, with 1.0
representing 255 in the 8-bit mode. It is a bit flaky in the info tool,
though, as values will go negative as you increase brightness with the
"exposure" tool.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 3:10:53 AM

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

<JPS@no.komm> wrote:

> Yes, that's a good way of opening, but the "Curves" tool is rather
> crude; it is spatially inefficient. I frequently find that the
> pixel-spacing of the interface is way too coarse to make a proper curve;

It is; the scale is too large for normal use, probably in order to
accommodate extreme use. I'd rather have a button to choose the scale.
Still, I have yet to encounter a situation where this prevented me from
getting what I wanted out of it, so the imperfection doesn't really
bother me terribly.

>>> I don't know how Adobe missed this idea; I automatically assumed that
>>> CS2's HDR would be a conversion option for ACR.
>>
>> Not necessary; if a RAW file only has 12 bits of data, going to 16 bit
>> in Photoshop is enough, no?
>
> Why did you clip the part where I said even 16-bit gamma-adjusted data
> is pretty sufficient for a RAW?

I was replying to the part where you assumed that HDR would be a conversion
option in ACR, which doesn't really make sense since there's not enough data
in ACR to use for HDR.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 3:47:18 AM

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

In message <11f2jnta45dqe29@corp.supernews.com>,
Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

>I was replying to the part where you assumed that HDR would be a conversion
>option in ACR, which doesn't really make sense since there's not enough data
>in ACR to use for HDR.

Yes, there is. 16-bit gamma-adjusted loses some highlight precision,
and HDR would allow you to make 1.0 the normal clipping point, and keep
the highlights.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 6:47:47 AM

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <11f2jnta45dqe29@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I was replying to the part where you assumed that HDR would be a conversion
>>option in ACR, which doesn't really make sense since there's not enough data
>>in ACR to use for HDR.
>
>
> Yes, there is. 16-bit gamma-adjusted loses some highlight precision,
> and HDR would allow you to make 1.0 the normal clipping point, and keep
> the highlights.


I have not played with Photoshop CS2's HDR mode. Is it similar to
CaptureOne's High Contrast Mode? Neverthless, like curve, the setting is
done globally which I have no problem to archieve. But there are
situation where you want to brighten the foreground and leave the
background exposure as is (forgot to use fill flash). Or doing something
like "digital graudate filter." I have not yet seen a RAW program that
can do that automatically.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 7:07:44 AM

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

In message <nlfIe.470$WD.441@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
l e o <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>> In message <11f2jnta45dqe29@corp.supernews.com>,
>> Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I was replying to the part where you assumed that HDR would be a conversion
>>>option in ACR, which doesn't really make sense since there's not enough data
>>>in ACR to use for HDR.
>>
>>
>> Yes, there is. 16-bit gamma-adjusted loses some highlight precision,
>> and HDR would allow you to make 1.0 the normal clipping point, and keep
>> the highlights.
>
>
>I have not played with Photoshop CS2's HDR mode. Is it similar to
>CaptureOne's High Contrast Mode?

No; it's a data/file format, not a rendering curve.

>Neverthless, like curve, the setting is
>done globally which I have no problem to archieve. But there are
>situation where you want to brighten the foreground and leave the
>background exposure as is (forgot to use fill flash).

Fixing that, in a literal way, would require painting a mask. You could
fake it by masking based on levels, but this, like "fill light"
functions, gives strange results if overdone.

>Or doing something
>like "digital graudate filter." I have not yet seen a RAW program that
>can do that automatically.

That's why you need a precision data format, and layers.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 11:01:50 AM

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

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <nlfIe.470$WD.441@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> l e o <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
>
>>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>>
>>>In message <11f2jnta45dqe29@corp.supernews.com>,
>>>Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I was replying to the part where you assumed that HDR would be a conversion
>>>>option in ACR, which doesn't really make sense since there's not enough data
>>>>in ACR to use for HDR.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, there is. 16-bit gamma-adjusted loses some highlight precision,
>>>and HDR would allow you to make 1.0 the normal clipping point, and keep
>>>the highlights.
>>
>>
>>I have not played with Photoshop CS2's HDR mode. Is it similar to
>>CaptureOne's High Contrast Mode?
>
>
> No; it's a data/file format, not a rendering curve.
>
>
>>Neverthless, like curve, the setting is
>>done globally which I have no problem to archieve. But there are
>>situation where you want to brighten the foreground and leave the
>>background exposure as is (forgot to use fill flash).
>
>
> Fixing that, in a literal way, would require painting a mask. You could
> fake it by masking based on levels, but this, like "fill light"
> functions, gives strange results if overdone.
>
>
>>Or doing something
>>like "digital graudate filter." I have not yet seen a RAW program that
>>can do that automatically.
>
>
> That's why you need a precision data format, and layers.



Masking is indeed labor intensive. Perhaps you should try this technique
(The Layer Mark). It works for me.

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/digital-blendin...

All I have to say is with RAW, I don't need to take two pictures with
different exposures as if using 8-bit JPEG. I think you know that anyway.

You can find the digital graudate filter tutorial via google. It's easy
and I like the result.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 5:45:33 PM

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

l e o wrote:
> JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>> In message <nlfIe.470$WD.441@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> l e o <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> JPS@no.komm wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <11f2jnta45dqe29@corp.supernews.com>,
>>>> Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I was replying to the part where you assumed that HDR would be a
>>>>> conversion
>>>>> option in ACR, which doesn't really make sense since there's not
>>>>> enough data
>>>>> in ACR to use for HDR.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there is. 16-bit gamma-adjusted loses some highlight precision,
>>>> and HDR would allow you to make 1.0 the normal clipping point, and keep
>>>> the highlights.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have not played with Photoshop CS2's HDR mode. Is it similar to
>>> CaptureOne's High Contrast Mode?
>>
>>
>>
>> No; it's a data/file format, not a rendering curve.
>>
>>
>>> Neverthless, like curve, the setting is done globally which I have no
>>> problem to archieve. But there are situation where you want to
>>> brighten the foreground and leave the background exposure as is
>>> (forgot to use fill flash).
>>
>>
>>
>> Fixing that, in a literal way, would require painting a mask. You could
>> fake it by masking based on levels, but this, like "fill light"
>> functions, gives strange results if overdone.
>>
>>
>>> Or doing something like "digital graudate filter." I have not yet
>>> seen a RAW program that can do that automatically.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's why you need a precision data format, and layers.
>
>
>
>
> Masking is indeed labor intensive. Perhaps you should try this technique
> (The Layer Mark). It works for me.
>
> http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/digital-blendin...
>
> All I have to say is with RAW, I don't need to take two pictures with
> different exposures as if using 8-bit JPEG. I think you know that anyway.
>
> You can find the digital graudate filter tutorial via google. It's easy
> and I like the result.


I looked at Photoshop CS2's HDR (32bit). It requires 3 and more pictures
taken at actual different exposures (different output from the same RAW
file won't work). I'd do that if I am taking landscape photos with
tripod setup.

Neverthless, I discover that RAWShooter seems to be the best of the bunch.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 9:09:20 PM

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

"l e o" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:nlfIe.470$WD.441@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
SNIP
> I have not played with Photoshop CS2's HDR mode. Is it similar to
> CaptureOne's High Contrast Mode?

No, it is a method that allows to exceed the camera's dynamic range
(needs to be done by actually capturing a larger range). The task that
follows is then how to fit that huge range of luminances into the
limited range of a monitor, or even harder the range of prints.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hdr.shtml

Bart
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 2:44:45 AM

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

>"Also popular, when multiple exposures aren't possible
> (for example when there is movement in the scene),
>is to process the RAW file twice....

Colin, did you notice the words "when multiple exposures aren't
possible"? And did you read it in context - the quote was referring to
simply blending two files with different compensations. It was NOT
about using the Merge to HDR function.

So, like Mr Nixon, I'm waiting for your response - did you try it, and
did it work?

>So Doug's question, while not diplomatic, is in fact valid,
>and your put-down seems to indicate that you don't quite
>grasp it all either.

No, it *isn't* valid. (Let's ignore the diplomacy issue.) You can NOT
use the same RAW file differently processed, in a merge to hdr process.
All you will get is "There is not enough dynamic range in these photos
to construct a useful HDR image".

Now given that you have told *others* off for not grasping the topic -
I think it would be appropriate for you to return and clarify this.
And if you are wrong, be grown up enough to admit it.


PS - A small addendum. You *can* in fact fool PS into trying it, but
only by falsifying the EXIF data to indicate the exposures 'truly'
differed. However, you will not get a useful result, and are likely to
get that same message anyway. Using the same RAW file defeats the
entire point of having the function.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 6:27:21 AM

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

In message <1_oIe.749$WD.278@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
l e o <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:

>Neverthless, I discover that RAWShooter seems to be the best of the bunch.

Well, its "highlight contrast" and "shadow contrast" sliders apply the
type of curve that is very difficult to apply with Adobe Curve tools,
with it's coarse interface posterized by the small number of pixels used
in the interface, and the 256-value limit. One-pixel resolution makes
it extremely difficult to get oft-needed curves that could be expressed
much more easily with a different type of interface.

The DirectX audio plugins for dynamics that I was using several years
ago had dynamics curves that had controls like slope/knee and sharpness
for each, as well as gain for the middle line, and endpoints.

It would also help if you had an option to have a non-linear vertical
axis, scaled like this:


255
254
252
248
....






....
7
3
1
0

The curves should be algebraic formulas, generated either by direct
input, or intuitive creation tools, not 256-entry tables for 15-bit
images.

Photoshop is very conservative with its tools, and IMO, doesn't have a
lot of vision about making things more intuitive and useful.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
!