Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

If you missed this spectacular so-far-57-page scrum, here's how it started:So! I've been contentedly shooting only jpegs in a compact camera since 2007. I PP every shot I show. I learned on and still use Photoshop Elements. I'm now up to PSE-11, as high as my computer will go.

The original thread (http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-294480-1.html) caused me to question whether I ought to at least dink around with raw capture. I went out yesterday to see if I could deliberately overexpose a scene, and drag it back to something usable if I had a raw+jpeg capture.

You must bear in mind that I have not been PP-ing in raw before, so I am in my larval stage. I also had a hecka time because I discovered that while raw files made in 2011 with a Nikon P7000 would open with Adobe Camera Raw in PSE-11, raw files made with a Nikon P7800 yesterday would not: "camera unsupported." (Thanks a lot software nerds.) But I got some help from NikonBrain (thanks again) and was able to get a workaround so I can open and play with NRW's from my P7800.

BTW, Special Thanks to Jim Bob, MinnieV, PeterFF, and Jenny for kind remarks on the previous interminable thread! And sorry if I forgot anybody. :D

I must say that, while I will still probably shoot a lot of jpegs and keep doing what I've been doing, I am impressed by what I can do with raw! Now, I don't want all y'all purists to go all weepy on me; I didn't say I was a convert. But I see the difference, and Jim Bob, I hope you do, too. There is a difference! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

First, a PP'd jpeg shot at what I thought was about the correct exposure. The day is cloudy bright. There are blown highlights, especially on the roof of the building at right.

(Download)

Deliberately overexposed (by a full stop if I recall) jpeg SOOC. Look at that roof on the right and the bright wall on the left; totally blown. Obviously the original Raw file looks exactly like it.

(Download)

This is a rework from the shot above, the overexposed jpeg. I applied my usual corrections, trying to drag something usable out of it. The wall and roof are still totally blown, but overall it's not terrible.

(Download)

THE RAW FILE: To appear here the reworked Raw (NRW) file has to be converted to jpeg. Bear in mind that this is a first attempt by someone who has not done raw before. I was mostly paying attention to the blown highlights. It's been sharpened and dinked with here and there. If you open at 100% and toggle between this and its jpeg, even I hafta admit there's no contest. Raw blows jpeg away.

(Download)

TheDman Loc: USA

Which one is the raw?
- Ah, there it is.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

The last one. I have to say, without even knowing what I'm doing, I'm impressed. Clearly I need to be learning better how to do this.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

This does not demonstrate anything as every sample is reduced to a JPG to post on UHH. Instead post a SOOC JPG and a SOOC raw w/o PP as a TIFF 16.

TheDman Loc: USA

Sure it does, it let's you see that you can recover highlights better with the raw file.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Thank you for taking the time to demonstrate some of the differences. Hopefully it will be valuable to others. The images do illustrate the latitude point quite nicely in the wall and roof detail. However it also shows that the original JPEG produces results that many would be happy with.

I was amused a little by your choice of subject. Vintage transport is always intriguing, but the fact that the clock post obscured some of the lettering so that it reads "Troll" was quite ironic. This is in no way directed at your good self, or any other specific individual, but it did make me chuckle.

Thanks, and take care. :thumbup:

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Yeah, I'm not sure why I would do that. The point of the exercise was to see what could be done with an overexposure (in raw) that I couldn't do with a jpeg. If you open the last two in separate tabs at 100% and toggle between them, the difference is striking. So striking, in fact, that I'm beginning to wonder is I am becoming a (albeit reluctant) convert. :lol: :mrgreen:

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

I SWEAR I did not see that! I was paying rapt attention to composition and exposure and real serious stuff. Really! Honest! :shock: :hunf:

GTinSoCal Loc: Palmdale, CA

Did you look at the images?
THAT is what it demonstrates.
Clear and concise.

Good job, Chuck.
I enjoyed your post, even the "not a convert" line :-) :lol:

GT

geezer7 Loc: Michigan

Regarding your problems with Elements 11 and the P7800, have you tried updating Elements? I had the same problem when I bought my D7100 and a simple update brought in a later version of Camera Raw and then everything was fine. Give it a try! 😄

geezer7 Loc: Michigan

Oops! Just noticed your other post. Looks as if you have solved your problem. I am using Windows 7 and 8.1 so perhaps updates are more compatible.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I am not sure you understand my drift.

By converting to JPG you kill the color depth as well as the dynamic range.

Allowing the viewing of both JPG AND TIFF images will show the differences even more.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

You're right, Ron; I don't think I follow you. How do I upload a tiff if I can only upload JPG, GIF, BMP, or PNG format? And the other question is, why would I "...post a SOOC JPG and a SOOC raw w/o PP as a TIFF 16?" The SOOC raw file looks just as limp as the SOOC jpeg, which so far as I know is pretty typical of unworked raw files. As I understand it, jpegs look good(ish) out of the camera because the camera has taken the raw data and applied corrections, then compressed it, plus discarded unused data. Raw files have had no corrections applied, so they are flat, and also need sharpening (more than jpegs, at least theoretically). The set of jpegs I've posted above, to my eye anyway, clearly (in a literal sense) show the difference. The jpeg made from the reworked raw file just blows the doors off any of the jpegs. :-D

blackest Loc: Ireland

only if you have a monitor or print capable of showing the difference.
not unusual for a monitor to use just 6 bits a channel so can't show a jpeg fully let alone a 16bit tiff. bit like the tv ads for tv's how can you tell its better on your old tv?

GTinSoCal Loc: Palmdale, CA

:lol: :lol: :lol:

the truth!

GT