Pax Roseana or X marks the rose

[JBW]

This may be the wrong place for this question but here goes anyway. If this had been taken with a Fujifilm FinePix HS50EXR which has RAW capabilities and all around better specs than my FinePix S4200 would the end product have been better?

[Ndukes]

My 'knowledge' of raw versus JPEG tells me that the advantages of raw mainly only come into play if one needs to play around with brightness, contrast and colours. Raw will enable you to recover all data captured by the sensor while JPEG discards data in in-camera processing. Also 12 or 14 bit raw facilitates increases in contrast with less chance of introducing banding than 8 bit depth raw.
Looks like this wonderful low key image needed little or no pulling and dragging in post processing and the scale of the image was well captured by the optics and sensor of your S4200.
So, for me the answer is no.
Nice one Brian.

[JBW]

My 'knowledge' of raw versus JPEG tells me that the advantages of raw mainly only come into play if one needs to play around with brightness, contrast and colours. Raw will enable you to recover all data captured by the sensor while JPEG discards data in in-camera processing. Also 12 or 14 bit raw facilitates increases in contrast with less chance of introducing banding than 8 bit depth raw.
Looks like this wonderful low key image needed little or no pulling and dragging in post processing and the scale of the image was well captured by the optics and sensor of your S4200.
So, for me the answer is no.
Nice one Brian.

One vote for no. And you have pinpointed my dilemma rather nicely. For what I shoot my 4200 with a little help from some pp primarily in Gimp does a very credible job. Unless there would be a significant improvement it would be a poor use of resources to upgrade the camera.

It would be nice if there was someone near me with an HS50EXR but as far as I know there are none on the island where we live and I rarely get out of the yard let alone off the island.

[Ndukes]

One vote for no. And you have pinpointed my dilemma rather nicely. For what I shoot my 4200 with a little help from some pp primarily in Gimp does a very credible job. Unless there would be a significant improvement it would be a poor use of resources to upgrade the camera.

It would be nice if there was someone near me with an HS50EXR but as far as I know there are none on the island where we live and I rarely get out of the yard let alone off the island.

I don't think I know anyone with either model but I shall take a close look at specifications and reviews of both models later and hope to give my more informed take on the comparison given my knowledge of your specialised area of photography. Macro demands a whole different set of criteria. I'll come back later on this. I'm certain that you will get useful advice also from others in the meantime.

[IzzieK]

I think it is not a matter of what camera to use in a shot..it is the output that makes a difference plus the post processing. I normally shoot in both JPEG and RAW, but I only like the JPEG for quick look and RAW for post processing which is what it should be. Now that my JPEG is getting bigger than Microsoft Windows viewer's capability (meaning taking too long to load) I think I will stick to just RAW on my camera as it waste a bit of space on my SD storage. (I better not forget to change that setting on my camera...) I believe that having a camera with the capability of RAW output will always be an advantage...

[JBW]

I think it is not a matter of what camera to use in a shot..it is the output that makes a difference plus the post processing. I normally shoot in both JPEG and RAW, but I only like the JPEG for quick look and RAW for post processing which is what it should be. Now that my JPEG is getting bigger than Microsoft Windows viewer's capability (meaning taking too long to load) I think I will stick to just RAW on my camera as it waste a bit of space on my SD storage. (I better not forget to change that setting on my camera...) I believe that having a camera with the capability of RAW output will always be an advantage...

one vote for yes.

[Shadowman]

Brian,

It's really a yes/no answer. RAW capture may benefit you during the processing stage, but it also retains all information regarding the shot and isn't usable as an output image until converted to jpeg, PNG, or TIFF. Capturing in jpeg is beneficial because it is readily available for print, a smaller file, and when captured correctly easily converted to TIFF to minimize quality loss upon numerous re-openings. There would be no loss of quality when reopening RAW files.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Brian,

I suppose it all depends upon what you are shooting. What we don't know is what you have 'had' to do to this image in PP to produce what is shown.

In theory you should be able to set up this shot, select the best settings on your camera for it and produce it with no additional PP on your existing camera JPEGs. If shot with either your present camera or the one you mention that has RAW capability and you PP the RAW file to produce the same at the resolution seen on screen here I doubt you could tell any difference.

[JBW]

Brian,

It's really a yes/no answer. RAW capture may benefit you during the processing stage, but it also retains all information regarding the shot and isn't usable as an output image until converted to jpeg, PNG, or TIFF. Capturing in jpeg is beneficial because it is readily available for print, a smaller file, and when captured correctly easily converted to TIFF to minimize quality loss upon numerous re-openings. There would be no loss of quality when reopening RAW files.

one yes/no

[JBW]

Hi Brian,

I suppose it all depends upon what you are shooting. What we don't know is what you have 'had' to do to this image in PP to produce what is shown.

In theory you should be able to set up this shot, select the best settings on your camera for it and produce it with no additional PP on your existing camera JPEGs. If shot with either your present camera or the one you mention that has RAW capability and you PP the RAW file to produce the same at the resolution seen on screen here I doubt you could tell any difference.

Seeing as you asked... here is the original.


To get from here to there I did the following

in Picasa
(1) flip it
(2) crop it
(3) export it the first time
(4) do a light 'neon' to get sharp edges
(5) add a little shadow
(6) export the second time

Open both in Gimp
(1) soft light and adjust the neon
(2) merge with the original
(3) clone and make 4 copies for depth merge with slightly different grey bases then depth merge
(4) convolution matrix to normalize
(5) select the single petal to work on
(6) antialias petal
(7) nl filter petal
(8) level petal
(9) curves petal
(10) colour balance petal
(11) deselect petal
(12) convolution matrix to normalize
(13) emboss, soft light adjust to bring out a little more detail and darken the background
(14) export

Open in Picasa and add frame.

export and post.

-------------------------------------

If I can do all that in my camera I sure enough hope someone would tell me how.

Naturally the individual steps (except where noted) were done on individual layers and merged as the process progressed.

PS I may have forgotten a step or two and there were certainly trial and error steps that fell by the wayside but this is pretty much how I did it.

[Loose Canon]

Hey Brian!

Some good stuff already listed. There are compelling reasons to shoot .jpg. All of which have been hashed time and again in the Forum. And I agree you get credible results with what you do.

But from what I can tell in your case the question may not be what kind of shooting you do, but what kind of processing. Recently I have seen some fairly heavily processed images from you including this one from your description. And I can relate!

I want the freedom/knowledge to know that I have the choice of relatively lossless processing if I want/need it (and let’s face it, I always do!). I think that has a very definable (and large) value when looking at allocating resources and a value that is an absolute must and worth the price of admission. At least for me.

Before I continue a couple of things occur to me that I’m not sure of. Does Picassa handle RAW? Because if you are processing both before and after in this program, and plan to continue to do so if you get a RAW shooter, and it only handles .jpg then I would say that the freedom/value is drastically decreased. Possibly to the point of completely diminished return. To recognize full potential resource value you would want a workflow that has .jpg as only an output format and does not require .jpg as part of the processing flow. That alone could decide for you at this point.

So continuing? There is no question that RAW processing is going to give you not only more control of what you want (and not what the camera wants), but better image quality in the final analysis. Especially considering the amount of processing folks like you and I do. This may come under a “Peace-of-Mind” concept. A cost-to-benefit analysis isn’t always immediately obvious.

In the long run, and if you are looking at eliminating .jpg for anything but output format, and merely judging from where from you have come and to where it looks like you are heading with your work, I think it is very likely you would benefit from a RAW shooter. I think you will see benefits that cannot necessarily be ascertained by a one-shot evaluation. Especially as you continue to expand the processing phase. And be glad you made the expenditure.

That you are even considering this and making inquiries speaks a volume.

Guess that makes me a "yes" this time around!

Best luck with your decision.

[JBW]

Hey Brian!

But from what I can tell in your case the question may not be what kind of shooting you do, but what kind of processing. Recently I have seen some fairly heavily processed images from you including this one from your description. And I can relate!

I want the freedom/knowledge to know that I have the choice of relatively lossless processing if I want/need it (and let’s face it, I always do!). I think that has a very definable (and large) value when looking at allocating resources and a value that is an absolute must and worth the price of admission. At least for me.

Before I continue a couple of things occur to me that I’m not sure of. Does Picassa handle RAW?

in the long run, and if you are looking at eliminating .jpg for anything but output format, and merely judging from where from you have come and to where it looks like you are heading with your work, I think it is very likely you would benefit from a RAW shooter. I think you will see benefits that cannot necessarily be ascertained by a one-shot evaluation. Especially as you continue to expand the processing phase. And be glad you made the expenditure.

That you are even considering this and making inquiries speaks a volume.

Guess that makes me a "yes" this time around!

Best luck with your decision.

I wasn't sure but Picasa handles the following RAW formats;
Adobe (.DNG)
Canon (.CRW, .CR2)
Casio (.RAW)
Fuji (.RAF)
Hasselblad (.3FR)
Kodak (.DCR, .KDC)
Leica (.DNG, .RAW)
Minolta (.MRW)
Nikon (.NEF, .NRW)
Olympus (.ORF)
Panasonic (.RAW, .RW2)
Pentax (.PEF)
Ricoh (.DNG)
Samsung (.DNG)
Sigma (.X3F)
Sony (.ARW, .SRF, .SR2)

I also think you have expressed it well, I am becoming quite interested in where I can take a shot. I have the highest regard and admiration for those who want the most life like shot but I do seem to be headed down a different path.

Did I mention that the HS50EXR has an option for manual focus, a manually adjustable telephoto and the ability to stack up to four shots in camera. Luckily there are no stores near me that sell this model at the present so there is no way to rush the decision.

[Loose Canon]

Did I mention that the HS50EXR has an option for manual focus, a manually adjustable telephoto and the ability to stack up to four shots in camera. Luckily there are no stores near me that sell this model at the present so there is no way to rush the decision.

I consider manual focus indispensible for studio work. Or at least studio work as it pertains to shooting static objects. Having to deal with auto focus for every take is a huge pain shooting static objects. Manual? Set it and forget it (kinda!) Plus if you want to get into focus stacking at some point it is needed. Or, well, at least the ability to disable auto focus anyway.

[DanK]

you'd probably get more responses if you posted this in the digital cameras forum at the top of the page.

The two cameras seem to differ in quite a number of respects, http://cameradecision.com/compare/Fu...nePix-HS50-EXR. Some of them might matter more than the ability to shoot raw. Terry mentioned manual focus. Given what you shoot, I would want to check how close the other camera focuses or what maximum magnification you can get.

If I understand your processing correctly, you seem to be saving as a jpg repeatedly. Is that what Picasa is doing with the two export stages? Or are these exports to a lossless format, like TIFF? Every time you save as a jpg, you are loosing detail.

The main issue with raw is flexibility in editing. For example, you can recover more from shadows and highlights, and you can change white balance without distortion. You can completely avoid sharpening in some areas. You are less likely to get pixelation with extreme edits. Etc. Whether this will matter for your shots is really not easy for someone to know without trying. I know folks who do very good work, printed very large, shooting jpeg. However, sometimes it does matter.

[Ndukes]

It looks like you are getting some really good advice here especially from Terry. Also, from your list of processing steps as outlined I would conclude that really you are potentially restricted with JPEG's straight from camera and need to put your own stamp on them. Given that practically anything you do in post-processing on a JPEG will (in theory at least) lose data captured by the sensor, I now feel that you should be trying to move towards raw to obtain the best possible results. So, based on your additional information regarding your typical work flow, you could transfer me from your 'no' list to the 'yes' one.

I also had a look at the spec's of both cameras and would conclude the following (for what it's worth, and forgive me if you are way ahead of me on all of this):-
The difference between the sensors of both cameras appears to be insignificant as regards resolution, pixel pitch and physical size. I'm not sure about noise comparison but it's probably not much different. So the issue of difference in depth of field is not relevant here as it would be for example if you were considering an aps-c size dslr, or even more so a full frame.

But, apart from the ability to shoot in raw, the following are the areas where I would imagine the trade up would appear to be of some benefit for macro work:-

Minimum macro focusing distance is halved from 2 cm. to 1 cm.
Tilting screen as distinct from fixed screen.
Screen resolution - 4,600 dots as compared to 2,300. (this represents an increase in screen resolution of roughly 1.4x.)
The HS50EXR has a hot shoe which could give you more flexibility if you want to use flash for macro.

I would add that there is clearly a familiarity advantage in considering upgrading from the same stable rather than switching brands.

Hope this helps.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Brian,

Going back to your initial question,

If this had been taken with a Fujifilm FinePix HS50EXR which has RAW capabilities and all around better specs than my FinePix S4200 would the end product have been better?

I still suggest the answer to this is no. My reasoning is that I believe an almost identical result could have been obtained by getting things as you want them in camera, for this one 'basically' that would have meant lighting to ensure the background was darker than the flower. We then come on to the word 'better' which complicates things somewhat as it is so subjective. 'Better' to you will not be the same as 'better' to others

We then come on to the RAW vs Jpeg aspect which has been covered very well and there is no doubt that RAW is going to give you an advantage in PP theoretically but only you can decide if you consider the advantage it gives is needed for your final results. Can you define what you are not happy with in your final results that RAW may be able to solve?

As for the camera upgrade, the advantages are quite clear and seem to be more in the 'useability' area than image quality (other than RAW ability).

Grahame

[JBW]

you'd probably get more responses if you posted this in the digital cameras forum at the top of the page.

The two cameras seem to differ in quite a number of respects, http://cameradecision.com/compare/Fu...nePix-HS50-EXR. Some of them might matter more than the ability to shoot raw. Terry mentioned manual focus. Given what you shoot, I would want to check how close the other camera focuses or what maximum magnification you can get.

If I understand your processing correctly, you seem to be saving as a jpg repeatedly. Is that what Picasa is doing with the two export stages? Or are these exports to a lossless format, like TIFF? Every time you save as a jpg, you are loosing detail.

The main issue with raw is flexibility in editing. For example, you can recover more from shadows and highlights, and you can change white balance without distortion. You can completely avoid sharpening in some areas. You are less likely to get pixelation with extreme edits. Etc. Whether this will matter for your shots is really not easy for someone to know without trying. I know folks who do very good work, printed very large, shooting jpeg. However, sometimes it does matter.

Picasa does use jpeg for saving but it is minimal processing. Gimp allows either their own no loss system or TIFF. As I said at the beginning this is probably the wrong forum but this is the forum where the people who know my work are.

[JBW]

Hi Brian,

Going back to your initial question,

I still suggest the answer to this is no. My reasoning is that I believe an almost identical result could have been obtained by getting things as you want them in camera, for this one 'basically' that would have meant lighting to ensure the background was darker than the flower. We then come on to the word 'better' which complicates things somewhat as it is so subjective. 'Better' to you will not be the same as 'better' to others

Grahame

I think you are right that lighting and camera settings would have reduced my pp. You are certainly right that usability is significantly enhanced with the camera upgrade.

I suppose in an ideal world I would get both the lights and the camera. But this is not Utopia.

There is also my pleasant reality that I am beginning to bump up against the outer limits of my present camera. Not all of them and certainly not all of the time but it is happening.

In time manual focus, in camera stacking, raw, manual telephoto and the other enhanced usability factors will convince me that I really do need a better camera. But that will be the future. Right now it is time to go out and enjoy taking some shots before the super typhoon hits.

[DanK]

Picasa does use jpeg for saving but it is minimal processing.

Brian, the issue is not the amount of processing. It is simply saving. Every time you save a jpeg, even with no processing at all, you lose information. When I first started in digital years ago, I thought this might be exaggerated, so I simply took an image, saved it, opened it, saved it again, and so on. The degradation of the image became visible fairly soon. That was with a camera that was very low resolution by today's standards, but the principle is the same. If Picassa will only save in jpegs, you would be better off doing all of your editing in the GIMP, and not saving as a jpeg again until you need to, e.g., to post to the web.

In time manual focus, in camera stacking, raw, manual telephoto and the other enhanced usability factors will convince me that I really do need a better camera.

Given your work in macro, I'd suggest that the two most important issues will be control over focus and lighting. For the former, you need manual focus, the ability to take AF off the shutter button, or both. For the latter, you need a hot shoe and a threaded socket on the bottom for attaching a bracket. As someone who does mostly macro, I'd suggest that you put these high up on your list whenever you do get to upgrading.

Re in-camera stacking: if you mean focus stacking, I am not aware of any cameras that do this. There are cameras that will combine images with different exposures (in -camera HDR), but that is entirely different. I may be wrong; perhaps there is a camera that stacks. However, everyone I know stacks in software. I don't know if the GIMP can do this. I have it on my Linux desktop but have never tried it. Photoshop can do it, although not with a lot of flexibility. There are also specialized software packages--the Combine packages, which are free, and Zerene and Helicon, which are not.

Dan

[JBW]

Brian, the issue is not the amount of processing. It is simply saving. Every time you save a jpeg, even with no processing at all, you lose information.

Given your work in macro, I'd suggest that the two most important issues will be control over focus and lighting. For the former, you need manual focus, the ability to take AF off the shutter button, or both. For the latter, you need a hot shoe and a threaded socket on the bottom for attaching a bracket. As someone who does mostly macro, I'd suggest that you put these high up on your list whenever you do get to upgrading.

Re in-camera stacking: if you mean focus stacking, I am not aware of any cameras that do this. There are cameras that will combine images with different exposures (in -camera HDR), but that is entirely different.
Dan

Picasa does accept RAW but I am not aware if it will export in RAW. certainly there is no way to change from JPEG to TIFF before exporting. When I move between Rawtherapee and Gimp I usually do it in TIFF.

My 4200 has neither manual focus nor a hot shoe.

Gimp has a 'depth merge' filter which gives minimal stacking. I will certainly look into Combine.

Thanks for taking the time to educate me.
Brian