Photography lessons

[koffiejunkie]

You guys make as if one can't adjust jpegs:

______________________________Click for larger view.

I certainly don't think you can't adjust JPEGs, but if you're going to adjust them anyway then there's no real argument against RAW.

 

[bwana]

Of course I can, but I mean one set of settings across all pictures, or maybe a few presets - like the "pictures styles" in the camera. Unless I nail it every time, I still have to do some extra work on each image.

You correct one and carry those corrections across to all the others that you shot under the same conditions - you can even save it as a pre-set.

You guys make as if one can't adjust jpegs:

I dont believe anyone is under that impression - I thought the whole idea was to get it right in the camera anyway

 

[marine1]

Started using RAW and it smashes JPEG out the park. It is amazing what you can do with RAW.

 

[koffiejunkie]

You correct one and carry those corrections across to all the others that you shot under the same conditions - you can even save it as a pre-set.

Yes yes, I know. Provided I get consistent results out of the camera. Which I'm not at the moment, but I'm getting there.

 

[koffiejunkie]

Started using RAW and it smashes JPEG out the park. It is amazing what you can do with RAW.

OK, I'm going to stick my foot in it. If RAW "smashes JPEG out the park" then your camera simply produce poorly processed JPEGs. The DSLRs I've shot with produce excellent JPEGs, and anyone who's well versed in Photoshop can do wonders with just about any image.

/me runs for cover

 

[koffiejunkie]

The only real big advantage for RAW to me is being able to easily correct white balance after the fact.

 

[marine1]

ROFL Koffie, no what I mean is that in terms of photoshopping and such, JPEG does not come close. I was also die hard JPEG fan but started on the weekend with RAW and I cannot believe what you can do with Lighroom for example.

 

[bwana]

Yes yes, I know. Provided I get consistent results out of the camera. Which I'm not at the moment, but I'm getting there.

So that we're on the same page you're blaming yourself for the inconsistent results?

The only real big advantage for RAW to me is being able to easily correct white balance after the fact.

How about 16bit image vs 8bit?

 

[marine1]

How about 16bit image vs 8bit?

really? I didnt know that.

 

[koffiejunkie]

ROFL Koffie, no what I mean is that in terms of photoshopping and such, JPEG does not come close.

I know, I just couldn't resit

I was also die hard JPEG fan but started on the weekend with RAW and I cannot believe what you can do with Lighroom for example.

Most of my pictures don't even exist in JPEG, except for the ones I sent to friends or uploaded to flicker. I'm still learning how to properly PP images so that they look natural but still have some punch. But Lightroom/Aperture is not just about RAW. It's about workflow. I just started using keywords for the first time - OMG! Most of the organisational bits and bobs I've picked up so far don't make a lot of sense to me, but dropping keywords into the mix made a few things come together nicely, and as my photo library starts growing (I'm near 5000 shots on the 40D, plus maybe about 1000 on my Cybershot at the same time, although I don't keep all from either) it's really starting to make sense.

 

[marine1]

Agreed with you on those points, in the beginning when Bwana started throwing all the terminology at me I had to go and look what the bloody hell he was on about

 

[koffiejunkie]

So that we're on the same page you're blaming yourself for the inconsistent results?

Absolutely. The only thing I've ever blamed the camera for is it's dog-pile implementation of AutoISO, but I've stopped using that for the most part.

How about 16bit image vs 8bit?

Oh, and that

 

[koffiejunkie]

Agreed with you on those points, in the beginning when Bwana started throwing all the terminology at me I had to go and look what the bloody hell he was on about

Him and ldmelsa still has me running for google from time to time

 

[ldmelsa]

Started using RAW and it smashes JPEG out the park. It is amazing what you can do with RAW.

What camera do you use? Sony A700, right?
That's odd, because that camera is excellent.
Maybe you just don't know how to use the jpeg yet.
I've never used that camera before so I would not know, but the Nikon D300/Canon 40D make superb jpegs.
Maybe the Sonys are poor at jpeg.

How about 16bit image vs 8bit?

Jpegs are 8bit
They have the bit-depth where it counts.
This is not something you have to concern yourself with, but let me explain:
Jpegs have 8 bits per pixel and raw usually has about 12 bits per pixel.
However, raw's data is a linear 12 bits of information, whereas jpeg is encoded in a non-linear transform. The data is logarithmic and therefore can have the bit-depth where it counts. The parts of the photo where 12 bit encoding would be useful can't even be picked up by the sensor in the first place.

 

[bwana]

Him and ldmelsa still has me running for google from time to time

lol - I'm living in google these days. If only technology would stand still for a while and let me catch up?

Jpegs are 8bit
They have the bit-depth where it counts.
This is not something you have to concern yourself with, but let me explain:
Jpegs have 8 bits per pixel and raw usually has about 12 bits per pixel.
However, raw's data is a linear 12 bits of information, whereas jpeg is encoded in a non-linear transform. The data is logarithmic and therefore can have the bit-depth where it counts. The parts of the photo where 12 bit encoding would be useful can't even be picked up by the sensor in the first place.

Thanks for taking the time to explain to this luddite but I cant find any references to back the idea that having less data at your disposal is better than having more. Its all bit depth, bit depth, bit depth, and it goes on. A lot of people seem to agree that being able to use the extra bit depth to bring out detail from the shadows (and to a lesser degree from the over exposed highlights) is a good thing.

 

[ldmelsa]

lol - I'm living in google these days. If only technology would stand still for a while and let me catch up?

LOL
Where do you think I got that gobbledegook?


I can't keep a straight face any longer:

This is not something you have to concern yourself with, but let me explain

 

[Calico182]

just my 2 cents regarding the RAW vs JPEG debate.

I have only used RAW ever since being contacted a couple years back by a French company interested in using my images on advertising billboards over there. Unfortunately they would only accept the original RAW files

Since then I only use RAW, wouldn't want to be in that situation again - but I actually prefer the control I get from the RAW files compare to JPEG.

That's just my opinion anyway

 

[arf9999]

Jpegs are 8bit
They have the bit-depth where it counts.
This is not something you have to concern yourself with, but let me explain:
Jpegs have 8 bits per pixel and raw usually has about 12 bits per pixel.
However, raw's data is a linear 12 bits of information, whereas jpeg is encoded in a non-linear transform. The data is logarithmic and therefore can have the bit-depth where it counts. The parts of the photo where 12 bit encoding would be useful can't even be picked up by the sensor in the first place.

Not entirely true. A 12 bit raw file will allow for a much higher dynamic range than a jpeg. What this will mean that in an image where there is a very high contrast a jpeg will usually clip the highlights and/or lose shadow detail. RAW allows the photographer to decide how to treat the image, and good RAW software will allow a much higher latitude than the in-camera RAW/jpeg conversion. The real problem with jpegs isn't loss of detail, but rather this loss of dynamic range.

Also, image adjustments on an already (lossy) compressed format are destructive... they add additional artifacts. They might not be that noticeable, but they're there.

The only real disadvantages of using RAW is the file size and corresponding slower operation of the camera (file transfer and buffer), as well as the additional steps required in your workflow.

 

[ldmelsa]

A 12 bit raw file will allow for a much higher dynamic range than a jpeg.

This is a common misconception.

What this will mean that in an image where there is a very high contrast a jpeg will usually clip the highlights and/or lose shadow detail.

Not true. The highlights get clipped by the chip, before it even gets to the DSP. If you clipped your highlights too much, you have to ditch the shot. Unlike film, chips don't have a gradual overload. Fuji SuperCCD cameras do, but most digital cameras don't. Having said that, the Fuji cameras work just as well in jpeg. And what about film scanned to jpeg? No highlight clipping there!
Actually, the only reason a person gets overexposed shots is because he/she does not know how to drive their camera. The format has nothing to do with it.

RAW allows the photographer to decide how to treat the image

So does jpeg. The only benefit of soothing raw, that I can see, is being able to set your WB in post. This can be helpful if your camera has bad WB under tungsten light, for example. Smaller WB adjustments can easily be done on jpegs.

and good RAW software will allow a much higher latitude than the in-camera RAW/jpeg conversion.

Today's digital cameras make great jpegs, and shooting in raw is throwing half of the camera away. The camera is not just a chip. The Nikon D300 makes the best jpegs I have ever seen. I can't recreate that in raw, and why should I if I can get the jpeg from the cam?

The real problem with jpegs isn't loss of detail, but rather this loss of dynamic range.

Nonsense. The dynamic range of the photo is created by you, the photographer, and your ability to see light and knowing how to use your chosen format (knowing its limits), whether it's print film, slide film or digital.

Also, image adjustments on an already (lossy) compressed format are destructive... they add additional artifacts. They might not be that noticeable, but they're there.

The compression from the camera is low enough. It's not mathematically lossless, but it's very good. As I said before, it's got more to do with the sensitivity of your chip, which makes this a moot point. Get over it. It's all in your mind.

The only real disadvantages of using RAW is the file size and corresponding slower operation of the camera (file transfer and buffer), as well as the additional steps required in your workflow.

Not the only disadvantages. The other disadvantage is that you can't use the cameras in-camera jpeg processing. It has become so good, that even the engineers working on raw software are saying that they're having a tough time keeping up with Nikon and Canon's in-camera jpegs.

 

[bwana]

JPG vs RAW - it's all down to the individual.

If you're not adept at post processing or find the cost/benefit doesnt add up then of course you should stick with the camera manufacturer's interpretation of what your image should look like. I used to develop and process my own film so the benefits of shooting in RAW were obvious even more so after years of shooting exclusively in JPG.

Drive or be driven - I doesn't matter as long as you get to where you want to be.