Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:04 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 5:56 am 
1.Raw picture taking on DSLR, converted to JPEG throught the help of softwares.


2.JPEG picture taken by a DSLR


Does 1 and 2 have a difference?...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:20 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 9962
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand
Yes, because you get to choose lots more settings in the RAW converter software, than you get in the camera.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 9:53 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 6950
Location: The Netherlands, Ridderkerk
RAW is a dream-come-true! I used to shoot in Jpeg, then switched to RAW+Jpeg and now I shoot RAW only. Don't ever want to shoot in Jpeg anymore. You do need proper software to work with it though...

- Bjorn -

_________________
Street and documentary photographer | Google+ | Twitter

Leica M9-P (my article on Camera Labs) | Leica D-Lux 5 | 50mm Summilux


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 12:49 pm 
RAW does mean allot more work, so if you're planning on taking 100+ pictures of something, RAW is going to make you process all of the pictures before you can use them.

With more options, comes more patience... (or something like that)

Something to consider when shooting RAW.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 12:54 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 6950
Location: The Netherlands, Ridderkerk
That's true indeed. I spent more time processing photos I shot for an assignment a while back than actually taking the photos... :)

Still, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, for me anyway. One thing to watch out for though, is the mentality of "Ah, never mind, I'll fix that later". I've found myself to not worry too much about spot-on exposure and color, and while RAW allows for a lot of corrections to be done in PP, it can make you somewhat lazy.

- Bjorn -

_________________
Street and documentary photographer | Google+ | Twitter

Leica M9-P (my article on Camera Labs) | Leica D-Lux 5 | 50mm Summilux


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 5:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:28 pm
Posts: 492
Location: Belgium
What I have read in a comment made by a pro in a photography magazine is that if you choose the highest quality and your exposure is good, a JPEG will suit nearly every purpose. For processing RAW will take more time but it does is said to include +/- 1 stop more headroom in the highlights...

What bothers me on RAW is the huge filesize. My little A350 doesn't like those huge filesizes, especially not when shot in burst mode...hopefully the A7XX will have those RAW's for breakfast in the future :D !

_________________
Sony α77V/VG-C77AM/α350/18-70/70-400 G SSM/NEX-5/18-55 OSS/Lowepro Pro Trekker 600 AW/CompuTrekker AW/Nova 140 AW/Street & Field gear/Toploader Pro 75 AW. And a huge wishlist...

My photos on Flickr...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 2:03 am
Posts: 1430
Location: Gold Coast Australia
Hi All,

With all the recent talk about this subject, I decided to use my PSE which I’ve had for 6 months to find out for myself. As a test, I shot a jpeg fine and one raw using a 2 rung step ladder as a tripod, VR was turned off and each shot had a 2 second timer.
The shots Taken:

Flower was taken in Jpeg Fine, Flower was taken in Raw and converted to Jpeg with no processing and the other shot was taken in Raw with auto processing in PSE.

The colours of the Jpeg where the most natural for my eyes and I could look at the flower in question to compare. Folks get their eyesight tested but how many have them tested for colour blindness no matter how slight any colour blindness may be.

My thinking is, if severe processing is not performed, then Raw is a waste of time for me, although I can see many benefits for PP.

Cheers

_________________
Nikon D7000, Nikkor 80 - 400G, Nikkor 18- 200 VR II, f3.5-5.6.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:05 am 
Hi Bjorn,
You mentioned that we need proper software to convert jpeg to raw. Which software do you prefer, or use? Is the software provided with the camera by reputed brands like Panasonic, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony or Pentax usually sufficient or something else is needed? If you want to convert raw to jpeg without editing, is batch processing possible? Can effects like white balance and exposure compensation be done satisfactorily in post processing?
Thanks,
Jinay.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 10:14 am 
Jinay, you have questions there that I also wanted to ask =p

I went to a friends house and played around with Canon's software and I saw something like "Batch Process" so I guess that's an yes. But as for other brands you mestioned, I'm not quite too sure.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 10:34 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9805
Location: UK
Hi folks,

I've moved this thread over to Imaging and Video Editing Software: you might find some answers to the questions raised in other threads in this section.

There's a case to make that the camera manufacturer's own RAW converter is a good place to start as they know a great deal about the characteristics of their sensors and, in Canon's case at least, also provide built in correction profiles for their lenses. But arguably the heavyweights, such as Adobe, provide more functionality in addition to the basic task of converting the RAW data. For myself, and speaking strictly as a "happy snapper", I prefer to let Canon's own DPP software do the RAW conversion and lens corrections if needed. I can then use DPP's "batch processing" to send the keepers over to Adobe Bridge as (lossless) 16 bit TIFF files from where I can invoke Adobe Camera Raw to do the bulk of my post-processing, finishing off as needed by finally transferring the images across to PhotoShop.

Bob.

_________________
Olympus OM-D E-M1 + M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8, Lumix 7-14mm f/4, Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH, M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8, M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8.
Leica D Vario-Elmar 14mm-150mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 ASPH.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2010 11:54 am 
With raw you can cook the picture as much as you like.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2010 6:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 357
Hi Bob, out of curiosity, are you sending the RAW processing settings and then opening raw files under ACR or are you opening tiff files under ACR? That'd be interesting to hear if Canon allows you to save out changes to RAW files, I guess in a sidecar readable by ACR?

Some of my latest edits I totally redid in ACR after I saw how much noise was popping up even in 16 bit tiffs after performing tone curve adjustments.

Image

This is a crop from a nikon D40 13.5x19 inch image, that would print at 240 PPI.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2010 7:21 am 
That's because ACR performs noise reduction. You can easily perform noise reduction on the 16 bit TIFF too.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2010 7:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 357
Hi pgtips,

It is not the same effect, I've tried it. ACR produces a superior output compared to a two-step process.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2010 9:55 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9805
Location: UK
Hi capital,

DPP exports TIFFs and then calls Adobe Bridge with a pointer to the correct folder. Those TIFFs, from my 5D2, are HUGE so I have to remember to delete them once the images have been saved as PSD files in PhotoShop. Not a particular problem as, even if I forget, the next time I start Bridge I'll soon see if those old TIFFs are still around.

Bob.

_________________
Olympus OM-D E-M1 + M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8, Lumix 7-14mm f/4, Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH, M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8, M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8.
Leica D Vario-Elmar 14mm-150mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 ASPH.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group