Pentax ist ds - raw vs jpeg

I read in several reviews of the ist ds that the quality of pictures shot in jpeg mode is pretty poor, with a lack of detail, and that it is necessary to shoot in raw mode to get good pictures out of this camera.
I personnally never shoot in raw mode, considering that the use of raw converters is not particularly easy.
However, I use the jpeg mode in the highest quality setting, using three lenses (Pentax 18-55mm F3.5-5.6, 50mm DFA F2.8 macro and Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX), and I consider that I get extremely good results, sharps et full of detail.
Are the pictures shot in raw mode really so much better, or are the reviewers simply trying to devaluate this little gem of a camera ?

Patrick,
I can honestly say that RAW is so much better
There are many reasons, and most of these have been outlined in the Digital Photography section on this site. True, it takes a little while to get used to RAW, but once you start you are hooked! It's like the difference between sending your films off to get prints done by someone else, and hand developing them in the darkroom


My Capture One guide: https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1765
(Capture One isn't that hard!)

Discussion on RAW: https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1902

Comparison of RAW convertors: https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1724

TIFF, JPG, RAW: https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1692

JPG vs RAW: https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1431

BUT, if JPG gives you what you want, stick to that - it'll save you time and disk space

Hope that helps!!

Matt

The masses tend to follow the crowd without much thought. Canon and nikon dominate the advertising arenas and therefore get all the advertising media sponsored press.
I rember one group of photogs I took to shoot Arctic wolves in Great Slave Lake. I rember one fella in particular, who burned through 8 rolls of Velvia, with his new nikon f5 and humongous 400mm nikon with a teleconverter. This group was packing some serious cameras with some serious glass.
My mz5, and 28-200, and sigma 400, seemed liked toys in comparison.
Back in Winnipeg a few weeks later, I got my share of ooohs and awes.
I had to choose small light equipment so I'd have a free hand to help my client carry a tuba case that happened to have a lens in it, for a guy that sticks out in my memory, because he was embarrassed to show us his pictures afterwards. He mistakenly thought that the equipment makes the image...I've argued with no success with a guy who swore on the superior optics of his 'blad against my pentax portrait lens and yes I conceeded his lens was sharper, but who could tell after he stuck on the (nessesary) diffusion filter for portraits?
In the end, It's weather you find the right level of quality and are satisfied with the results that matter. Faster computers, and higher demand ultimately mean we'll all be working with some sort of raw file, in the future, but in the mean time go with what works.

sorry i fordot to log in

Whilst it may well be true that RAW has more potential for quality, it would be unfair to say that the JPEG images from the *istD series are poor - in fact I would describe them as excellent.

I will get to trying out RAW capyure soon, but it's going to have to be pretty good to not just end up as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist....

I'll let you know how it goes

You'll need to give it time - RAW processing takes a little skill and practise, just like hand developing!
Matt

MattMatic said "You'll need to give it time - RAW processing takes a little skill and practise, just like hand developing!
Matt"
I say wait for Pentax to come out with the *ist ds4 featuring the "MattMatic" filter for extracting the sharpest Jpegs possible IN CAMERA!

Basically agree with MattMatic - I started with RAW and so only taken a handful of piccies in jpeg mode (eg if feared running out of memory card space) since getting the *istD. Jpeg quality is good, but RAW is better - more shadow detail and so on. I use RAWShooter and adjustments and processing are so easy.
Andy

Patrick,

I too shoot in RAW; like Matt said it really gets you hooked once you start. It is a tiny bit more of work but it brings immense control over how your photo ends up. It's simple to describe it: everything from white balance to noise reduction to sharpning is in your hands, not the camera's.

Having said that, I also think my DS makes a great job out of it's JPEGs. Pictures in RAW end up better, but your last question rings a resounding 'yes' in my head.

When you have some spare minutes, download CaptureONE, Bibble, RAWShooter or ACR and give it a try.

Thank you all for your answers to my question. However, I still don't quite understand the interest of raw files. Flink says that it gives you control of all the parameters of the picture, but ithis is equally possible with jpeg and that's what I do all the time. I adjust exposure, contrast, colours, sharpness just as I want. So, what is really the difference ?

Patrick,

You're obviously happy with JPG - so stick with it

Regarding the reviews they tend to compare the default settings of each camera, and Pentax take a conservative view of image sharpening - preferring you to do any serious sharpening on the PC.

With respect to RAW, it's not as simple as you believe Flink to make out RAW captures 12-bits per pixel (4096 values), whereas JPG captures 8-bits (256 values) per image pixel. However, JPG also throws away most of the blue channel (keeping only 11%). Now, as has been mentioned, if JPG is fine for you - that's great! But for me (and other RAW users) you just get a level of detail, dynamic range, and control you absolutely cannot get with JPG - no matter how much you adjust in-camera. You have the ability to adjust shadow and highlight detail, to push and pull the exposure by a couple of stops without noticable image degradation, to emulate different film types (e.g. Velvia), to handle wide dynamic range situations in a single shot (e.g. http://www.ephotozine.com/gallery/showlargepic.cfm?photoid=331702 ), to make fine adjustments on colour balance, to get accurate colour reproduction in the workflow (you can only approximate this in JPG), etc, etc.

But, as I said before, it takes quite a bit of effort and time to master RAW. And again, if you don't need it or aren't interested, don't bother

Just take great pictures

(Oh yes, and LOL @ Don's comment )

Matt

Very well put, Matt.

If I had felt there was any real quality issue, then I would have certainly explored RAW by now. As it is, I will be exploring it as an exercise as part of my beginners Photoshop presentations that I do for camera clubs.

The "nitty-gritty" is the final product, of course. When we enter competitions and the prints are side by side at A3 it's very clear that there is no difference in quality between JPEG users and RAW users, in fact some photographers using JPEG capture show clearly very superior work.

How can this be? I suspect the answer lies in the individual's expertise in Photoshop, which in many cases is a more significant factor than the difference between RAW and JPEG.

Unfortunately, this can't be demonstrated on a web site! But have a look at Sue's picture of a White Rose on EPZ. Super picture, JPEG, some nice PS CS2 manipulation, and a superb A3 print with lots of lovely delicate detail in highlights and shadows.

http://www.ephotozine.com/gallery/ulpics/77235_1133032845.jpg

John: http://www.ephotozine.com/gallery/showlargepic.cfm?photoid=374712

Absolutely agree. I've seen some stunning work by photographers with 3 mega pixels compacts. Then there's the subject of personal style etc etc!! I'll be interested to hear your experiences with RAW too

Matt

Matt,

Effectively, after having seen your picture on ephotozine, I can now understand why you shoot raw pictures! Wow ! When I say that I get great results with jpeg, it's nowhere approaching even by far the quality of yours.
So I think I'll exercise with jpeg for another 30 years (hope I can make it because I'm already 55), and then switch to raw when I master photography like you do.
With all my most sincere congratulations.

I'm glad you laughed and want to make people fully aware it was intended as a compliment...really, the noise filter in these cameras started out as some ingenius guys' technique, that became a plug in, for some version of photoshop, that camera makers studied to devise algorithyms for my ist ds2.
It really is a software solution, as both Sony and Nikon using the same sensor performed poorer at high iso settings than the pentax in some reviews.
I predicted (wrongly) some time back that when dslrs finally broke the sub $5000.00 mark that they'd have "Film" filters built in, by that I meant they'd have a setting for emulating Velvia, or kodakchrome or agfa ultra 50 etc, in order to lure prosumers away from film.
I'm still hopeful that my next digital camera will be an evf using a DLP chip ( think rear projection tv)to reflect light on to 3- 6mp cmos sensors with leaf shutter lens and no mirror......