help with raw


claudio

Link Posted 13/01/2008 - 10:13
hi all
i have got a question, i tried to shoot in raw and use silkypix to convert it, at the end is asking me to save as jpeg or tiff, and i choosen tiff because i thought that if i save it in jpeg there no reason to shoot it in raw, am i right?.
the other things is that when i tried to look for printing all the company seems to accept just jpeg and im not sure to invest money in a printer even if i would like ( they seems quite expensive the a3 format ).
im sorry if i didnt explain in the correct way but im sure u will understand, everything is new for me.

thanks very much

claudio

Prieni

Link Posted 13/01/2008 - 10:22
Hi Claudio,

you are right that saving in tiff does make more sense than saving in jpg. This is especially true when you want to further process the image after development in SilkyPix. I almost always do that as well.

If you don't need to further work on the image before sending it off to the printer there is no problem with saving it as a jpg. (But make sure that either you took the shot in sRGB or converted it from AdobeRGB in Silkypix
unless the printer does use proper colour management).

You might ask: How is shooting RAW and saving in jpg different from saving in camera jpg in the first place?
Well, you can make a wealth of adjustments in SilkyPix. Let's take one example: Slightly blown highlights. If you have the jpg from the camera the highlights are blown already. If you have the RAW file you can recover quite a lot in SilkyPix. You then save the jpg from SP and the highlights are recovered.
So there is some point in developing in SP and saving in jpg.

Prieni
How inappropriate to call this planet earth when it is quite clearly Ocean. - Arthur C. Clarke
Prieni's PPG page

gartmore

Link Posted 13/01/2008 - 11:06
You can think of Raw as being like a film negative and Jpeg as a film transparency.

You work from the raw file/negative and it is never altered but your 'print' is manipulated in whichever way you want. A camera jpeg is a bit like a transparency in that there isn't much you can do with it.
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -

ikillrocknroll

Link Posted 13/01/2008 - 11:24
And generally the in-camera compression to jpg leaves you with terrible quality, from experience.

ChrisA

Link Posted 13/01/2008 - 11:40
gartmore wrote:
You can think of Raw as being like a film negative and Jpeg as a film transparency.

You work from the raw file/negative and it is never altered but your 'print' is manipulated in whichever way you want.

Keeping the original JPEG unaltered can be achieved in the same way you keep any other file unaltered - you "Save As" rather than "Save" when you're done editing, and create a separate file.

Quote:
A camera jpeg is a bit like a transparency in that there isn't much you can do with it.

I've heard this claimed before, but I don't understand it. Raw gives you the ability to recover more detail in some circumstances, but I'd be interested to know of any other things you can't do with a JPEG.

Prieni wrote:
Slightly blown highlights. If you have the jpg from the camera the highlights are blown already. If you have the RAW file you can recover quite a lot in SilkyPix. You then save the jpg from SP and the highlights are recovered.

I'm not sure what you mean here. It isn't true that you can recover burned out highlights from a RAW image. If the amount of light falling on the sensor is more than the maximum it can resolve, the detail is gone, and nothing in the world can get it back.

There's no such thing as a "slightly blown highlight". There may be smaller or larger areas of the image where the highlights are blown, but a highlight is either blown, or it isn't.

ChrisA

Link Posted 13/01/2008 - 11:41
ikillrocknroll wrote:
And generally the in-camera compression to jpg leaves you with terrible quality, from experience.

This is an extraordinary generalisation.

Do you have any examples to support it?

ikillrocknroll

Link Posted 13/01/2008 - 12:02
When I say terrible quality
I dont mean terrible, just worse than photoshop compression.
I shall take some examples if you want, but its not just noise and lower quality
If the white balance is wrong, its hard to sort it out, and highlights/shadows are often worse quality in my opinion, compared to RAW.

Maybe i'm completely wrong, but the one time I shot in jpg, I didnt like the quality of the results (this was just some things round the house), went back and shot in RAW and it worked out alot better.

johnriley

Link Posted 14/01/2008 - 09:31
Quote:
Maybe i'm completely wrong, but the one time I shot in jpg, I didnt like the quality of the results (this was just some things round the house), went back and shot in RAW and it worked out alot better.

That's a major generalisation from a very limuted experience...

In general, if the photographer pays proper attantion to getting the image right at the point of capture, as you would if you were shooting transaparency film, then the difference between RAW and JPEG capture will be very, very difficult to see, even at A3 print size.

We ran tests with a large audience at ADAPS and most people could not tell the difference. Of those who could, depending on subject matter sometimes RAW was seen to produce superior results, but also sometimes JPEG was. So the situation is not totally in favour of either type of capture.
Best regards, John

iceblinker

Link Posted 14/01/2008 - 12:58
With the full version of Silkypix, you have a finer degree of control, and more controls, with RAW files. Have a closer look and play with the controls to see what you can do.

Silkypix's sharpening algorithms are quite different from the camera's as well - which can make the images look quite different. It might be possible to get similar results with JPEGs if you turn the camera's sharpness all the way down before taking pictures - but that would partly defeat the object of using JPEGs (to PP save time).

If you have a large hard drive, and your camera works fast enough for your liking with RAW and plenty of space is left on your memory card, and you have good software like Silkypix, I see very little disadvantage in NOT shooting RAW.

TIFFs or JPEGs can be at generated at any time. Making a JPEG first doesn't stop you making a TIFF later, and vice versa.
~Pete

iceblinker

Link Posted 14/01/2008 - 13:25
[quote="johnriley"]
Quote:
In general, if the photographer pays proper attantion to getting the image right at the point of capture, as you would if you were shooting transaparency film, then the difference between RAW and JPEG capture will be very, very difficult to see, even at A3 print size.

The main advantage of RAW is that there is less need to get the image right at the point of capture. I might want to spend the time after rather than before taking the shot.

Also it will depend on the model of camera. I understand the K10D's JPEG generater is better than the *ist DS's, for example.
~Pete

Gasman295

Link Posted 15/01/2008 - 21:29
quote iceblinker
The main advantage of RAW is that there is less need to get the image right at the point of capture. I might want to spend the time after rather than before taking the shot.

I don't see the point in not getting the image right at the point of capture.
Its what i was taught to do when i did my City & Guilds in Photography (which i did to get to know how to get the best from my 1st SLR an MZ50) it saves on processing time , i know you can get your shadows & highlights colours etc better with PS etc .
I have just become the proud owner of a K100D Super (my 1st digital SLR) so i am learning again but with the grounding i already have it will make it easier .
So if you get it right when you press the shutter it gives you more time to do what we all enjoy TAKE GREAT PHOTOGRAPHS . Not sit in front of a PC screen developing . And its not as enjoyable as the darkroom.
Take a good look . It might not be there when you return.

iceblinker

Link Posted 15/01/2008 - 22:46
The point is that often you can spend more time deciding what is right later, if you wish to, and use technology more powerful than is built into the camera. This is possible for the average user to a greater degree now than ever before.

I respect those who don't want or need to do it this way. I hope the traditionalists respect the "modern way" too - dare I call it that. Of course it is still important to use the camera well - so it is not totally different.

What really matters is the end result, not how much time was taken to produce it, or when that time was taken. That is a matter of personal preference - as is the number of photos you take.

You don't HAVE to spend a lot of time in front of the PC if you shoot RAW. You might just want to on a few favourite or difficult pictures, and let a program convert the rest to JPEG or TIFF automatically using default settings - a similar though potentially better process than the camera uses.
~Pete

Gasman295

Link Posted 16/01/2008 - 18:03
Point taken . I was just thinking that the time taken up using PS etc could be better used, That said i do use Picasa and sometimes Elements occasionally.
I have yet to use my K100D in anger so to say,Still getting used to the menus as its a fair bit different than mt Fuji S5600 which i have been using for a while.
Take a good look . It might not be there when you return.

screwdriver

Link Posted 23/01/2008 - 20:50
Quote:
We ran tests with a large audience at ADAPS and most people could not tell the difference. Of those who could, depending on subject matter sometimes RAW was seen to produce superior results, but also sometimes JPEG was. So the situation is not totally in favour of either type of capture.

Were these tests prints John? If so your audience were looking at 8 bit images (or with some of the modern printers 10 bit) So you were showing 8 bit Jpegs against RAW images that had been reduced to 8 bit, of course people couldn't tell the difference.

The point with RAW is you can choose which 8 bits to send to the printer, and you can remap different parts of the image to 'compress' the tonal range into 8 bits, so you should (assuming correct exposure) be able to extract more detail from a 'bright' sky or from a dark shadow.

In subject matter with limited tonal range there will be little or no difference in the print file, but most subjects aren't that accommodating.

Chris

johnriley

Link Posted 23/01/2008 - 21:05
Sorry, screwdriver, but I think that misses the point.

The end result was a series of A3 prints, yes. One set from JPEG captured files and one set from RAW captured files.

Now if people can't tell the difference when looking at the prints from a normal distance, then there is no difference and no point in shooting in RAW.

As it happens, with a variety of subjects, there were differences when the prints were examined closely, but it wasn't conclusive. Some RAW-originated images were better but, surprisingly, some JPEG-originated images were better.

This seemed to depend on the sort of subject matter.

I can only report what was found and no-one had any axe to grind one way or the other. The point was to find out something and the conclusions were drawn from what was seen rather than the theory of it.

I would encourage anyone to try for themselves and see what the effects are on the sort of photography that they do. With an open mind of course!
Best regards, John
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.