Why Raw?

Dave,
The whole thread is "Why RAW". You are correct that JPG is processed by the camera, and it's quite possible that the PC software bears some resemblence in terms of quality and algorithm. However, as P1C1 shows there are better, more sophisticated algorithms that do require a lot more computing power, and take a lot longer even on a 3GHz high end PC. But, for me at least, those results justify the extra processing power, disk space etc.
When I first started using JPG on the *ist-D I was completely over the moon with the quality. However, since mastering (IMHO!) the RAW workflow process, I've seen my image quality improve no end. Now, when I go back to regular JPG I am always severely disappointed. So, now, I only shoot RAW. Too many times I've shot JPG and thought "Bah! That was an ace image... if only I'd shot that RAW!" LOL!
Don't get me wrong, you can get fabulous images out of JPG-in-camera. But, once you've seen what RAW plus a good convertor (like P1C1) can do, you're not going to want to go back!!
Matt

Matt, thinking of a 3Gz P4 with 1Gb DDR Ram

Please don't tell me I will have to buy an even more powerful and expensive machine

Thanks
Kevin

Kevin,
I run P1C1 LE on a 3GHz P4 with 1Gb. Runs fine with 512Mb too. Also run a second copy (like Photoshop you can run on desktop and primary notebook) on a 1.8GHz Centrino tablet PC with 1Gb RAM. Prior to my tablet PC I was running on a 2.4GHz P4 notebook (that throttled down to 1.2GHz on battery and still ran C1 just fine).

C1 is really rather neat. It doesn't really matter how long it takes to process... you tweak the first image, put it on the queue, and get on with the next image. C1 just spits out the TIFFs or JPGs while you work on the subsequent images. Even though the actual number crunching takes a good while, you don't ever seem to notice it because it doesn't hamper your flow

I was contrasting the processing requirements of a small embedded CPU inside the camera that needs to take almost no power to give the battery life and process the image within a couple of seconds, versus a hunking desktop PC that takes maybe 30 seconds to process through C1LE. It's not surprising there's a LOT more maths going on in C1LE than could ever fit inside the camera! And the results show it too

Matt

Yes Matt, I agree with you and I guess this is yet another reason why it is best to use RAW.

I am using a slow PC, 850MHz AMD with 684 meg of RAM. I am using PS CS with the RAW converter and find it perfectly adequate for my needs. I have just timed it and it took 28 seconds to covert a file into PS format and I am happy with that. I spend far more time “fine tweaking” the shot both before the conversion and afterward in PS.

The things I have noticed to keep PS fast are:

1) Allocate as much memory to it as you dare (in Preferences)
2) If you have 2 hard drives, allocate the second one as the scratch disk. (in Preferences)
3) Copy all your files off your cameras memory card into a file onto your hard drive and work from there in PS.
4) Close all files as soon as you can and / or purge (Edit – Purge) when you can.
5) If, after doing many shots PS does slow down, then close and re-open it to get it back up to speed. If anyone knows an alternative to this I would like to hear it please as I am sure there must be a way!

Kevin, before replacing your 1GHz PC I would get as much memory in at as you can and try it. You may be happy with the result.

Dave.

too late! new PC ordered

main problem was not the speed but lack of features on my Athalon chip which prevents a lot of modern applications running, also small hard disk, no usb 2 etc

Going back to the basic question about RAW capture, I will try this soon to see what difference it makes to my A3 prints. I presume that if I was only making images for web use or small prints then any advantage would be wasted?

Absolutely not so You have four main advantages:
1. Better response to light, especially to huge differences
2. Ability to bring out more detail
3. Lower noise - especially useful for super high ISO images.
4. Finer, and quicker, control over white balance and overall colour balance.

Most of your images on ePz will be similar to JPG. However, if you try things like: http://www.ephotozine.com/gallery/showlargepic.cfm?photoid=213097 and http://www.ephotozine.com/gallery/showlargepic.cfm?photoid=213557 you get a better feel for P1C1. I nearly threw these away when using Adobe's RAW convertor. So glad I didn't Check out the high res versions. The iced grass was the most difficult - with other convertors the highlights just went "bleurgh" and there was no definition at all. Or the colour was just flat. Spent ages trying all the PS tricks I knew. Five minutes in C1 and I had exactly what I imagined when I took the shot... and some.

The only problematic thing, IMO, is that I've got very very picky about my lenses!! Shooting RAW shows what the glass is really like

Matt

John,

while I second nearly everything Matt says above, I think he's maybe overstating the case a little. For 90% of people 90% of the time, in-camera JPG is great. But then if you're here, maybe it's safe to assume you're in the other ten percent.

For example, if you're selling off your old M series lenses on ebay (are you quite mad?) then in-camera JPG will be quite acceptable. But then so would a VGA webcam. For family snapshots JPG will be fine, but if you're tackling a difficult lighting situation like Matt's examples then you really do need Raw.

RAW shooting has its disadvantages, too, particularly in terms of card and disc space, and (your) processing time. At the end of the day you can get some great images using JPG, and there's nothing magic about RAW that will make you take good pictures every time (insert smiley of choice).

Steve

http://www.siblingmedia.com/
http://www.siblog.co.uk/

Steve,

Absolutely agree... to a point LOL!

I did take the view "JPG for snapshots, RAW for serious", and have been caught out every time where the JPG was not up to my expectations and there was a fabulous opportunity. I had to purchase "dSLR tools" ($15) for Photoshop which saved me the last time I used JPG for a kiddies party shoot - allowing adjustments in exposure etc. So, as I mentioned, now I've got to the point where I shoot RAW only, just in case (and get ruthless with the files)

For me, at least, I find that RAW+C1 actually saves me time. I hardly spend any time in Photoshop now (as I used to do) tweaking and modding.

But, as you rightly say, there's nothing wrong with JPG for 90% of the people, 90% of the time.... until you get the hang of the RAW workflow

Matt

I am an old darkroom hound, so RAW restores my control of the image. I may be a snob, I shoot only RAW and use a of old M pimes as opposed to zoom lenses, but for those who want total control, RAW is the way to go.

FWIW, the Adobe RAW converter will let you render the *st D files at 11 metapixels right out of the converter, if you're going for big images. A very handy first step!!

Matt,

Sorry to bring this subject up again, but I have been giving CaptureOne a try lately.

At first, I was simply amazed with C1's abilities. But after giving it a better look, I found that C1 simply eliminates some detail, comparing the preview with the focus tool results... my greens turn to grays, and small coloured zones are eliminated. I guessed the color noise supression was doing it; I put it on manual and puled it to zero and, aha, great difference! Even so, I find the green foliage and trees to be very washed out.

I must be doing something wrong, but what can it be? I'll try to post some examples tomorrow. Thanks!

You are supposed to TRANSFER the activation. Call Adobe and get it straightened out!

Flink,
The general idea is that you work down the tabs from top to bottom.
So, first off, get the White Balance right! Don't rely on auto for this. Select one from the drop down list, and tweak it manually if necessary. This is where all the colour gets changed

Secondly, go to the Exposure tab. First, pick a film type that's suitable. Normally "Film Standard" is fine. However, for portraiture, I find that "Film Extra Shadow" is great (also superb for scenes with great changes in brightness where you want the detail shown in both highlights and shadows). "Film High Contrast" is great for images that "pop".
Having set the film type, use the auto adjust to get the exposure in the right area. Then manually adjust.
Once the exposure is correct, you may need to go back to the White Balance tab to adjust colour

Then it's the final stage - the "Focus" tab. Depending on your image, "Soft Look" may be your choice. This is my preferred method. However, "Normal Look" gives the harder, sharper, grainier look you might be used to.
Now adjust the sharpening values. If I use Soft Look, I normally go for an amount of 100 - 250, and a threshold of 2 or 3. Noise suppression is very powerful - if you have ISO200 images, turn the noise suppression to zero, colour banding to 15 (the camera default), and banding suppression off! (Very important for low ISO).

- Banding suppression does reduce the sharpness, and I find that the *ist-D almost always is fine with banding suppression at zero.

If you are using high ISO, then adjust the noise suppression until you get a reasonable compromise.

When that's all done, process the image!!

And if you haven't already done it, calibrate your monitor!!!!

Hope that helps,
Matt

Thanks Matt!

If you want to see what I'm talking about when I speak of color detail loss, check out this three pics:

http://formula9.net/files/p1c1test.zip

The photo was just a test and is not even in focus, but it serves my purpose. The first shows the Focus panel still in preview while calculating a sample of the finished pic. The second has default Color Noise Suppression and the third has it turned to 0. Check the differences in the rust coloring of the pipe that almost disapears (turns to grey, as do the leafs in the background).

In the meantime I have "calibrated" (with the Apple Preferences Display Profile ) my LCD monitor, a Sony SDM-S71 that was something nice when I bought it but now I realize colors change a lot with the viewing angle...
Since the calibration, and since I followed your advice to do the process in order, the effect I described seems to be less important, but present nonetheless, even with Zero color noise suppression... but maybe that's just me.

I am in the process of trying out Bibble Labs' Bibble 4.3 and NeatImage (wich has really surprised me thus far).

Thanks for your guidance and advice!

Flink,
As to calibration, try WiziWYG from www.praxisoft.com - available for PC and Mac, and free It handles LCDs very well, and I've had quite pleasing resuts with it.

Try adjusting the colour noise suppression Perhaps C1 is thinking the rust is colour noise...

Matt