A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

[Manfred M]

which takes us back to my original question: am I relying too much on pp to correct improper technique.

+1 to what John has written.

I have no issues as to how an image is taken; to me it is the final result that is important.

That being said, I tend to think along the same lines as John does; if you are relying on PP raw to make up for weak camera work, then you might wish to think about improving your camera craft. On the other hand, if you are using it because of the nature of your photography, i.e. shooting at the edge of what your equipment can handled, then it is definitely the right tool. I definitely take a lot of shots where the lighting requires the use of raw.

One of my college photography instructors required that we shoot jpeg, rather than raw. At the time it seemed to be the wrong direction to me, but in retrospect I now understand why he did this. He wanted us to have good camera craft so that we got a good image SOOC, rather than using raw as a crutch to improve a weak capture.

[Black Pearl]

I can hear people shouting: there's that imbecile again!!!



THAT RGB RASTER IMAGE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FILE, IN MEMORY.

In first place created by a raw-converter based on the raw-file and the chosen settings. It can be saved to disk and opened again. All editing is done on that file. As long there's no need for a fall back on the raw data, there's no difference between raw, jpg,tiff etc.

Brian, even lens corrections are done on this file. But there're several conditions for that. First of all lens correction must be available, second the used lens must be know, being in the exif of the jpg and third the lens must be in the database of the program.

George

"there's no difference between raw, jpg,tiff etc."

Other than the bit depth, baked in settings such as colour space, white balance, lens corrections, film simulations, sharpness, noise reduction etc etc etc. Other than those you're right - there's no difference at all

[DanK]

I am certainly no expert and I only shoot RAW but I have always assumed that a well exposed JPG will give as good an image as RAW. It might be slightly different because of the in camera processing that takes place and this varies slightly from manufacturer to manufacturer. RAW comes into it own where the camera in JPG mode can't cope with the image you are trying to capture - usually in terms of dynamic range

John,

I don't agree. Are you suggesting that the difference is simply less processing (jpeg) vs. more (pp with raw), or that with a well-taken picture, jpeg processing should get you close to what you would get yourself? Neither is necessarily true. In-camera jpeg conversion can entail more processing. For example, Canon's landscape picture style adds a good bit of saturation in the green and blue range--more than I almost ever do when processing a raw image. Moreover, most cameras have several picture styles for creating jpegs, and these differ not only in the amount of processing, but in the nature of the processing. I think it is more accurate to think of jpeg conversions as different processing, differing in nature and amount.

Manfred wrote this:

That being said, I tend to think along the same lines as John does; if you are relying on PP raw to make up for weak camera work, then you might wish to think about improving your camera craft. On the other hand, if you are using it because of the nature of your photography, i.e. shooting at the edge of what your equipment can handled, then it is definitely the right tool. I definitely take a lot of shots where the lighting requires the use of raw.

I think there is a third reason to do my own processing rather than relying on the camera, and that is simply that the engineer designing a picture style can't possibly know what conditions you will face when you take a picture. You may encounter conditions that exceed what the camera can handle, as Manfred wrote. But you may run into things that are well within the camera's capability but that make for an unsatisfying image. A good example, I think, is the limited dynamic range one encounters on cloudy days. You might want to preserve that, in which case a jpeg is fine. You may not want to preserve that, in which case you need to stretch the range and boost contrast. The engineer(s) can't possibly anticipate that. The result is that your processing may look dramatically different from the in-camera jpeg, even if you have exposed perfectly.

JPEGs make sense to me in situations where one needs to shoot a lot and conditions are such that the pre-set processing algorithms are likely to be close enough. I don't typically encounter this in my own photography, but others do. For example, I would wager that the photographers who took my kids' wedding photos shot jpeg.

[John 2]

John,................... Are you suggesting that the difference is simply less processing (jpeg) vs. more (pp with raw),.........

Absolutely not but I don't think that is what I said.

....or that with a well-taken picture, jpeg processing should get you close to what you would get yourself?

Not quite. I would put it differently. Under non-challenging conditions, a JPG image can be perfectly acceptable albeit it might need some minor pp. Beyond that, RAW provides the flexibility to work with more challenging image files.

.......You may encounter conditions that exceed what the camera can handle, ....................

I think that I made just that point throughout both posts.

But you may run into things that are well within the camera's capability but that make for an unsatisfying image.

...or even see an image in your minds eye for which the image file merely becomes the raw material. Working in RAW/TIFF/PSD format, particularly as a 16 bit file, makes its subsequent development more achievable.

But we're not at odds Dan. The admittedly limited examples included in posts 36 and 40 were designed to answer Brian's original question and counter his concern that to PP is somehow an indication of a degree of failure. It's not. Where it is required, PP is nothing more than a justified means to an end.

[Cogito]

. Not sure if this means that I have become too dependent upon pp for my photography.

In the context of this thread,, Among other responders, at least George, Robin and Ted use (I won't say "are dependent on") post processing (I can see their exif data which contains pp info). I'd be willing to bet that everyone else does too. It's not dependency, it's necessary. There are a couple of alternatives posted of your original image which, even you have stated are improvements. Perhaps you need to take greater care in your post processing. Oh! And here's another... Like other responders I'm reliant on your jpeg but could have made the modifications in any one of many PP sofrware packeages

[Manfred M]

I think there is a third reason to do my own processing rather than relying on the camera, and that is simply that the engineer designing a picture style can't possibly know what conditions you will face when you take a picture. You may encounter conditions that exceed what the camera can handle, as Manfred wrote. But you may run into things that are well within the camera's capability but that make for an unsatisfying image. A good example, I think, is the limited dynamic range one encounters on cloudy days. You might want to preserve that, in which case a jpeg is fine. You may not want to preserve that, in which case you need to stretch the range and boost contrast. The engineer(s) can't possibly anticipate that. The result is that your processing may look dramatically different from the in-camera jpeg, even if you have exposed perfectly.

JPEGs make sense to me in situations where one needs to shoot a lot and conditions are such that the pre-set processing algorithms are likely to be close enough. I don't typically encounter this in my own photography, but others do. For example, I would wager that the photographers who took my kids' wedding photos shot jpeg.

Dan - I don't think I ever suggested that I would compare a SOOC jpeg versus an edited image.

The gist of where I was coming from was that so long as one does not push a jpeg (and its 8-bit data) too hard in PP to where we see artifacts, I suggested that it is possible to get good, compelling images from an edited jpeg, and in fact I often do that. There is a strange view out in the photographic community that jpeg images cannot be edited to get a decent product output.

Here are two edited images; one comes from a low quality (basic setting on my camera) jpeg from the camera and one comes a raw edit. Can you tell me which one is which?

Image 1





Image 2




I'll post the answer later. By the way, I usually shoot high quality jpegs, but only had one memory card along on my trip, so I went for lower quality jpegs to save space (and these work fine on Facebook posts).

[DanK]

John,

Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like we are on exactly the same page. Sorry I misunderstood.

Manfred, I wasn't disagreeing with you;I was just adding another reason why often resort to post processing

Dan


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Manfred M]

Manfred, I wasn't disagreeing with you;I was just adding another reason why often resort to post processing

Dan - I didn't think you were. I was more responding to two things we commonly hear / read:

1. A lot of photographers who have never worked with raw files shy away from working with it because their SOOC jpegs look better.

2. A lot of experienced photographers suggest anyone who doesn't with raw data is not getting the best image. I definitely think this could be viewed as being accurate you are looking at doing prints using a wide gamut printer, as I am not aware of any camera that produces jpeg images in colour spaces wider than AdobeRGB, where these printers definitely can produce colours that approach what the ProPhoto colour space can reproduce.

On the other hand, with the sRGB limitations of most computers connected to the internet and the default colour space used by most commercial photo printing companies, one can easily get away with edited jpegs for these outputs.

[xpatUSA]

In the context of this thread,, Among other responders, at least George, Robin and Ted use (I won't say "are dependent on") post processing (I can see their exif data which contains pp info).

For the record, my posted comparison image had the EXIF deliberately stripped, so how you saw any EXIF in my post is beyond me . . .

[JBW]

I think only you can answer that Brian. For a fairly straightforward non-contrasty subject , most modern cameras will produce the desired result in jpg. Particularly so if you are paying attention to your histogram and all you may need is some basic PP (cropping, sharpening, noise reduction etc.). But some of your macro shots are made under challenging conditions. For instance, deep BG shadow/brightly lit subject or made in a hurry before the subject takes flight i.e. you don't have time to get it just right. In those circumstances, you will need more in the way of PP and PP techniques. That's not dependence. That's just using the tools at your disposal to fit the challenge thrown up by the image. RAW data gives you more latitude in this respect.

fair enough.

[JBW]

I certainly never expected this heated debate. Apparently this is a subject that arouses passion for some photographers. What I have taken away from the discussion is that I could use more and better camera craft (to borrow a phrase from Grumpy) and that RAW gives the greatest post processing potential.

I've also decided to switch my camera to JPEG FINE / RAW. Just to see how they compare.

I'll keep reading this thread as long as the debate goes on.
Brian

[Mike Buckley]

am I relying too much on pp to correct improper technique.

I agree with John that that's a question that only you can answer, though my reasoning is different than the reasoning he explained. My thinking is that if you have the reasonable ease and desire to make better captures, you're relying too much on the post-processing when you don't make those better captures. The corollary is that if the quality of your captures is consistent with everything you hope to reasonably achieve, the degree to which you are relying on post-processing is reasonable.

[JBW]

I agree with John that that's a question that only you can answer, though my reasoning is different than the reasoning he explained. My thinking is that if you have the reasonable ease and desire to make better captures, you're relying too much on the post-processing when you don't make those better captures. The corollary is that if the quality of your captures is consistent with everything you hope to reasonably achieve, the degree to which you are relying on post-processing is reasonable.

My only possible answer is that I only work on the best and chuck the rest. Out of 100 shots I will usually keep less than 20 and end up working on one or two. Shooting outside means that I lose a lot of shots to wind and rapidly changing lighting. Which is not to say my consistency doesn't need improving.

I just came in from a testing shoot. Camera set to black and white, fine JPEG and RAW. Two things instantly caught my eye in pp.

1) RAW came up in colour and JPEG stayed in B&W.

2) and as much as I know this goes against conventional wisdom the RAW was the sharper better shot.

I'll be posting two SOOC'S in a while.

[Stagecoach]

I just came in from a testing shoot. Camera set to black and white, fine JPEG and RAW. Two things instantly caught my eye in pp.

1) RAW came up in colour and JPEG stayed in B&W.

The Jpeg was converted to a B&W from the camera sensor data.

2) and as much as I know this goes against conventional wisdom the RAW was the sharper better shot.

The Jpeg sharpening characteristics (and others) have been determined in camera by a combination of it's brain and your picture settings.

[JBW]

The Jpeg was converted to a B&W from the camera sensor data.



The Jpeg sharpening characteristics (and others) have been determined in camera by a combination of it's brain and your picture settings.

but perhaps modified by Capture 1?

[Stagecoach]

but perhaps modified by Capture 1?

Perhaps, but I can't understand why. So what happens if you open the Jpeg downloaded from the camera in another viewer?

and

I'll be posting two SOOC'S in a while.

Remember you can't post a SOOC RAW image. It will have been through a converter and changed to a Jpeg. (But I know Ted can with his knowledge and clever tools)

[JBW]

Perhaps, but I can't understand why. So what happens if you open the Jpeg downloaded from the camera in another viewer?

and



Remember you can't post a SOOC RAW image. It will have been through a converter and changed to a Jpeg. (But I know Ted can with his knowledge and clever tools)

Okay I was talking like the troglodyte I am. Here are two files uploaded from my camera to Capture 1. The color version was shot in RAW. The black and white in JPEG. Aside from downsizing they are exactly as they showed up in C1. I believe the color version is sharper.

I will open in a different viewer and see what happens.



https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-p2v49xwc4...0/test%2B1.jpg

Make up your own minds

Whichever viewer I use the color shot is significantly sharper.

[Stagecoach]

Make up your own minds

Whichever viewer I use the color shot is significantly sharper.

Brian, I can see the B&W on your blog but in my opinion I see little difference.

The perception of 'sharpness' is also affected by contrast and colour as far as I'm aware.

The reality I believe is that there are just so many variables that have determined the outcome of what I am viewing on screen between each of the two images that no 'generalised' conclusion could be made.

And enlarging them both ...........................

[george013]

Brian,

Despite the lack of response on my diagram, it gives answers on many questions here.

I'll try to explain once more. First of all focus on the RGB raster image in that diagram. That's the file you see on your monitor, that's the file you edit. If you do so, than you can ask yourself: where does that file come from?

Take your example of shooting jpg and raw at the same time and ask yourself that question.
That jpg is a diskfile created from an in-camera converted RGB rasterfile. It's saved to disk,memory card, with a 8 bit tonal depth and a compression.
The raw file is a file with the sensor info. You need a converter to create a RGB raster file.
If the converter and the settings are equal as in the camera, then the result will be equal. Otherwise you will have 2 different images. And don't forget that viewing a raw file in a viewer will show you the embedded jpg, not the raw-file.

So coming to the title of this post, your question. As long the converter is not falling back on the raw-data, there's no difference. It depends on the converter and/or editor. I use CaptureNx2, Nikon. I once played with jpg in that program. WB and exposure corrections where disabled. And that exposure correction isn't even an exposure correction.
The main difference is: where does that RGB raster file comes from? Is it from the converter, than you start with a 12,14,16 bit tonal depth RGB raster file. If it comes from a jpg, than your RGB raster file is extracted from a 8 bit compressed file, if it comes from a 16 bit tiff, well then you've nearly the same as from a raw file.

Another question was: do you need a raw file. Manfred answered that.

What converter do you use? You started with Capture One, than Capture One Sony and now Capture One Pro Sony.

George

[JBW]

Brian, I can see the B&W on your blog but in my opinion I see little difference.

The perception of 'sharpness' is also affected by contrast and colour as far as I'm aware.

The reality I believe is that there are just so many variables that have determined the outcome of what I am viewing on screen between each of the two images that no 'generalised' conclusion could be made.

And enlarging them both ...........................

Seems to me that everything considered shooting in RAW or JPEG depends upon personal taste. As in how much do I want to manipulate the shot.

To my way of thinking my computer has a lot more power than my camera and Cap.1 has a lot more power than the program in my camera. Seems reasonable to me to get the best shot I can in the camera and then have fun in Cap.1 and RAW.