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

[JBW]

I needed a house shot for the blog. Found this one taken with my Fujifilm. I had forgotten how limiting JPEG is. I missed all of the tools in Capture 1. Not sure if this means that I have become too dependent upon pp for my photography.

[george013]

I needed a house shot for the blog. Found this one taken with my Fujifilm. I had forgotten how limiting JPEG is. I missed all of the tools in Capture 1. Not sure if this means that I have become too dependent upon pp for my photography.

Nearly all of the pp is done on the raster image. The jpg is a disk file of a compressed raster image. Once it's decompressed and loaded into memory, you've a raster image back. Only a very few tools depend on the raw data.
I don't know Capture 1.

What's wrong with this picture?

George

[JBW]

Nearly all of the pp is done on the raster image. The jpg is a disk file of a compressed raster image. Once it's decompressed and loaded into memory, you've a raster image back. Only a very few tools depend on the raw data.
I don't know Capture 1.

What's wrong with this picture?

George

Capture 1 draws a distinction between RAW and other types of input. Only RAW (okay Raster based RAW) has access to all of the tool set.

I'm not happy with the sky and roof. It would have been an easy fix in Capture 1.

[Ndukes]

It all looks very natural and pleasing to me. As a long time devotee of RAW I have to say that modern in-camera jpeg processing is really impressive.

[george013]

Capture 1 draws a distinction between RAW and other types of input. Only RAW (okay Raster based RAW) has access to all of the tool set.

I'm not happy with the sky and roof. It would have been an easy fix in Capture 1.

Maybe this will help. https://help.phaseone.com/en/co7/library/import.aspx
If you google on "capture one editing jpg" you find more.

George

[Stagecoach]

I needed a house shot for the blog. Found this one taken with my Fujifilm. I had forgotten how limiting JPEG is.

Jpegs may have some limitations Brian but in this case there's a lot that can be done to this image with the most basic tools. Dropped highlights, improved contrast but may have lifted the shadows in the house area too much.

[Black Pearl]

Nearly all of the pp is done on the raster image. The jpg is a disk file of a compressed raster image. Once it's decompressed and loaded into memory, you've a raster image back. Only a very few tools depend on the raw data.
I don't know Capture 1.

What's wrong with this picture?

George

Thats kind of missing the original point just so you can create an unnecessary point. The actual point is that less information is retained in the jpeg (raster, pasta or spaghetti it doesn't matter) file than the original raw so while the tools may be the same their effectiveness isn't always as effective.

[george013]

Thats kind of missing the original point just so you can create an unnecessary point. The actual point is that less information is retained in the jpeg (raster, pasta or spaghetti it doesn't matter) file than the original raw so while the tools may be the same their effectiveness isn't always as effective.

??????????????????

Read post 1.

And you know, your statement

less information is retained in the jpeg

is so repeating,repeating,repeating.....
Try to use other words and explain what you want to say, or think to say.

George

[xpatUSA]

I needed a house shot for the blog. Found this one taken with my Fujifilm. I had forgotten how limiting JPEG is. I missed all of the tools in Capture 1. Not sure if this means that I have become too dependent upon pp for my photography.

I don't fully understand, Brian.

Are there tools in Capture One (pardon my ignorance) that can not be replicated by any means in the GIMP or in RawTherapee (which I believe you have or had) or even (shudder) LS/PS?

To avoid obfuscation by JPEG, let's assume that the posted image was saved as 4:4:4 (1x1) at 100%, not 4:2:0 (2x2) at 6.6 CR. Then, let's discuss what Capture One can do that other editors can not?

What would your aims be with the posted image, or is it just a fr'instance?

Here's a demo with RT, probably not to your taste, sorry:

[JBW]

I don't fully understand, Brian.

Are there tools in Capture One (pardon my ignorance) that can not be replicated by any means in the GIMP or in RawTherapee (which I believe you have or had) or even (shudder) LS/PS?

To avoid obfuscation by JPEG, let's assume that the posted image was saved as 4:4:4 (1x1) at 100%, not 4:2:0 (2x2) at 6.6 CR. Then, let's discuss what Capture One can do that other editors can not?

What would your aims be with the posted image, or is it just a fr'instance?

Here's a demo with RT, probably not to your taste, sorry:

Actually it is very much to my taste. I'm not absolutely convinced that Gimp can't do everything that Capture 1 can with a JPEG. I am absolutely convinced that I don't know how to do it. Things like gradient masks, clarity and structure, black and white with colour hints are some things that come to mind.

[JBW]

Jpegs may have some limitations Brian but in this case there's a lot that can be done to this image with the most basic tools. Dropped highlights, improved contrast but may have lifted the shadows in the house area too much.

Apparently I'm having a bad day. Both yourself and Ted improved the shot significantly. Perhaps my first mistake was being too lazy to add one more step and I pp in Gimp rather than C1. I used to be good in Gimp but have forgotten much of what I knew as I concentrated on learning C1.

[xpatUSA]

Actually it is very much to my taste.

Thank you, Brian!

I'm not absolutely convinced that Gimp can't do everything that Capture 1 can with a JPEG. I am absolutely convinced that I don't know how to do it. Things like gradient masks, clarity and structure, black and white with colour hints are some things that come to mind.

I am in the same boat - you are certainly not alone. I've yet to use layers or masks for anything - which is why RT is good enough for me. In other words if a capture is unrecoverable through global adjustments, off to the trash it goes.

I find that the GIMP color decomposition tool is really good for the purposes of analysis, not that many do that sort of thing. The histogram tool is pretty good - lotsa pedantic info.

[Stagecoach]

Apparently I'm having a bad day. Both yourself and Ted improved the shot significantly. Perhaps my first mistake was being too lazy to add one more step and I pp in Gimp rather than C1. I used to be good in Gimp but have forgotten much of what I knew as I concentrated on learning C1.

Brian, I'm not familiar with either Gimp or Capture 1 but from what I have heard of them I would be absolutely astounded if they did not have the basic tools to enable sorting this image almost as good as you could achieve if working on the RAW.

I think it's all about the workflow, looking at the image, deciding whats wrong/improvable and working through step by step. The most obvious thing on this was highlights of the sky area, tackle that first, then the local shadows around the house to taste, then contrast globally and a bit of extra locally mid and upper left.

Edit : I mentioned RAW based on the assumption that 99% of people know what I'm referring to

[Shadowman]

I normally shoot RAW but there are times when I want to try specific filters/effects that are only captured in jpeg format. I just prefer to remember to set back to RAW when I finish.

[JBW]

It all looks very natural and pleasing to me. As a long time devotee of RAW I have to say that modern in-camera jpeg processing is really impressive.

Absolutely. I just like to putter around with the shots and RAW allows me to do more puttering

[billtils]

Only RAW (okay Raster based RAW) has access to all of the tool set.

Brian

I don't know what tools you wanted but were not able to access, but I have yet to find a tool that I wanted to use but which was only active in RAW and not in jpeg. I'm also not sure what you wanted to do with the image, but here's a version I spent less than 5 minutes on.



It's posted simply to illustrate that the tools work, not as a comment on your image. (I used the levels, RGB curve, gradient mask in local adjustments, sharpening, clarity, and color balance tools).

[Mike Buckley]

I have yet to find a tool that I wanted to use but which was only active in RAW and not in jpeg.

The software that I use has two valuable tools only available when editing raw photos: a white balance tool that "reads" the white balance determined after capturing a white balance card in the scene and the tool that allows me to change the exposure. On the other hand, it speaks volumes that those are the only two tools available in my software that are not available when editing JPEGs; I've always thought the advantages of shooting raw files has been dramatically overestimated and that thought comes from someone who has been shooting raw exclusively for about ten years.

[JBW]

Brian

I don't know what tools you wanted but were not able to access, but I have yet to find a tool that I wanted to use but which was only active in RAW and not in jpeg. I'm also not sure what you wanted to do with the image, but here's a version I spent less than 5 minutes on.



It's posted simply to illustrate that the tools work, not as a comment on your image. (I used the levels, RGB curve, gradient mask in local adjustments, sharpening, clarity, and color balance tools).

one that comes to mind is auto mask. The following quote comes from capture 1

"Does Capture One for Sony support TIFF/JPG file editing?
Yes, you can edit and organize TIFF/JPG files in both Express and Pro versions. But it’s not really reasonable since RAW files contain more information and Capture One tools are designed primarily to work with RAW."

Apparently it doesn't work as well with JPEG or TIFF.

[george013]

The software that I use has two valuable tools only available when editing raw photos: a white balance tool that "reads" the white balance determined after capturing a white balance card in the scene and the tool that allows me to change the exposure. On the other hand, it speaks volumes that those are the only two tools available in my software that are not available when editing JPEGs; I've always thought the advantages of shooting raw files has been dramatically overestimated and that thought comes from someone who has been shooting raw exclusively for about ten years.

In the RAW-converter you start with 14 bit, when using a jpg you start with an already compressed file of 8 bit. That 14 bit is important when editing. And probably 16 bit will be used internal.

Brian,

Did you try Capture 1 with jpg now? I would be surprised if you can't.

George

[JBW]

In the RAW-converter you start with 14 bit, when using a jpg you start with an already compressed file of 8 bit. That 14 bit is important when editing. And probably 16 bit will be used internal.

Brian,

Did you try Capture 1 with jpg now? I would be surprised if you can't.

George

Yes I have it just has limited capabilities compared to RAW