Three different ways to shoot and process photos: ...made an earlier attempt today to point out there are, to my thinking, three different ways to capture and process images to...

controversy Loc: Wuhan, China

...made an earlier attempt today to point out there are, to my thinking, three different ways to capture and process images to consider. Since the words raw and jpg appeared in the post, the comments rapidly devolved into a SOOC, get it right in camera, editing raws makes it better, you're dumb, I'm smart, and so on.

None of that was the point I was trying to raise. Following is a more direct attempt and includes an illustrative cartoon.

Once again, this is NOT about composition or exposure which, I think, is what most people refer to when saying "get it right" in camera. Rather, this is about how images are processed and, importantly, what your options are when, in those obviously rare times, you "get it wrong" in camera and want to salvage the image.

These fundamental ways of processing relate to things like white balance, saturation, contrast, sharpness, for example, and NOT EXPOSURE - again - NOT ABOUT GETTING THE EXPOSURE CORRECT.

1. Adjust the settings of your camera using its internal menu to create a jpg in-camera.

Things like color space, white balance, contrast, sharpness, and similar. When you take the photo, the sensor creates an analog raw file of exactly what the camera "sees", converts it to digital, applies all of the image processing settings you have made and saves the image as a compressed jpg file. "Technically" the photo is done at that point since the raw data is gone, the output is a jpg, and you can no longer make changes like white balance, saturation, contrast, sharpness, for example, to "what the sensor saw" since that sort of information has been removed from the jpg file. Certainly, one can edit that jpg file but you are no longer editing the "controls" that can be applied to the raw "what the camera saw" image. Rather, you are editing a representation of what the camera actually saw after it has been altered by the image processing settings you chose when taking the photo. Applying those rules implies that no further editing is indicated.

2. Elect to capture images in raw and then use the software supplied by your camera's manufacturer.

When you do this, the camera creates an analog raw file of exactly what it "sees", converts it to digital, and saves it to your camera memory card as a raw image file - unchanged. You, then, copy that file of "exactly what the camera saw" to your computer as a raw file and, from there, (using the camera manufacturer processing software) you can apply any of the image processing options that were available in the camera. You set the white balance, saturation, contrast, sharpness, for example, AFTER the raw file was created. Importantly, when editing raw, those things can be changed at the "what the camera saw" level -- which you CANNOT do in a jpg. Using this technique, you are doing essentially the same processing as in SOOC - but in this flow, it's like going back to that exact moment in time when you pressed the shutter and choosing the camera settings. And, you can "change your changes" anytime you want in those clearly rare instances when you would have chosen the wrong settings for a SOOC capture.

I'm interested in learning what anyone thinks is a reasonable argument as to why you wouldn't want to do this. After all, it's the EXACT same thing, using the EXACT same processing rules and algorithms that are built into your camera - just doing it outside of the moment when you're capturing an image and with the ability to change them at any time and try different (correct?) settings without making any change to the raw file that represents exactly what the "camera saw".

3. Just like #2, above, but using Photoshop or whatever.

(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You need courage to capture an image that no one has ever seen before.

Jamers Loc: Michigan

Boone Loc: Groundhog Town USA

Well said...and well stated!!! I love to hear what others may say about this?

Totally agree with all. I am picking up what you are laying down!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Love it.

Thanks,
Boone.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

CHG_CANON wrote:

You need courage to capture an image that no one has ever seen before.

I must be courageous then because every image I capture is mine alone. It doesn't matter how many hundred of thousands of photos of El Cap are taken every year they never see what I see.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I don't see that much difference between using the camera manufacturer's RAW conversion software and using PS/LR or similar, except that the third party software probably has more capabilities.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

I normally shoot raw. The only time that has been a minor problem is when I photographed a motor racing accident (a real bad one) and the police wanted copies for a possible coroners report. A lot of third parties do not have the processing software to even view the raw images. The police did get jpg copies. which they loved, a couple of hours after the event.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

controversy wrote:

NOT ABOUT GETTING THE EXPOSURE CORRECT.

*

controversy wrote:

2. Elect to capture images in raw and then use th... (show quote)

Or just use the software in the camera again. Most modern cameras now provide after-the-fact access to the camera processor. You can take your photos home and if you want to change something you see in a JPEG and have saved the raw file you can just re-process the raw file directly in the camera and make the changes you want right there. Fuji for example provides a shell program called X-Raw Studio so you can do that and see the image on your computer. X-Raw Studio will only function with the camera physically cabled to the computer because it uses the camera image processor to re-process the raw file.

I often just put a raw file back in the camera and use the camera software to generate a new and different JPEG.

Down side is that you're using the camera software which has limits imposed by things like processing speed. For example if you install as you suggest DPP from Canon and then using raw files re-create the camera JPEGs you can do even better than the camera since with access to the processing power of a computer the software does more. DPP makes Canon DLO availble when processing raw files and you can't get that from the camera.

* I'll put this down here but I think it has to be part of this discussion at some point. I expose my raw files more than it's possible to expose for an acceptable JPEG and I get better image quality because I do that. So I'm doing something with exposure that is not available to a JPEG shooter and that difference allows me better results. Exposure is not necessrily the same for both JPEG and raw.

David Taylor

controversy wrote:

...made an earlier attempt today to point out there are, to my thinking, three different ways to capture and process images to consider. Since the words raw and jpg appeared in the post, the comments rapidly devolved into a SOOC, get it right in camera, editing raws makes it better, you're dumb, I'm smart, and so on.

None of that was the point I was trying to raise. Following is a more direct attempt and includes an illustrative cartoon.

Once again, this is NOT about composition or exposure which, I think, is what most people refer to when saying "get it right" in camera. Rather, this is about how images are processed and, importantly, what your options are when, in those obviously rare times, you "get it wrong" in camera and want to salvage the image.

These fundamental ways of processing relate to things like white balance, saturation, contrast, sharpness, for example, and NOT EXPOSURE - again - NOT ABOUT GETTING THE EXPOSURE CORRECT.

1. Adjust the settings of your camera using its internal menu to create a jpg in-camera.

Things like color space, white balance, contrast, sharpness, and similar. When you take the photo, the sensor creates an analog raw file of exactly what the camera "sees", converts it to digital, applies all of the image processing settings you have made and saves the image as a compressed jpg file. "Technically" the photo is done at that point since the raw data is gone, the output is a jpg, and you can no longer make changes like white balance, saturation, contrast, sharpness, for example, to "what the sensor saw" since that sort of information has been removed from the jpg file. Certainly, one can edit that jpg file but you are no longer editing the "controls" that can be applied to the raw "what the camera saw" image. Rather, you are editing a representation of what the camera actually saw after it has been altered by the image processing settings you chose when taking the photo. Applying those rules implies that no further editing is indicated.

2. Elect to capture images in raw and then use the software supplied by your camera's manufacturer.

When you do this, the camera creates an analog raw file of exactly what it "sees", converts it to digital, and saves it to your camera memory card as a raw image file - unchanged. You, then, copy that file of "exactly what the camera saw" to your computer as a raw file and, from there, (using the camera manufacturer processing software) you can apply any of the image processing options that were available in the camera. You set the white balance, saturation, contrast, sharpness, for example, AFTER the raw file was created. Importantly, when editing raw, those things can be changed at the "what the camera saw" level -- which you CANNOT do in a jpg. Using this technique, you are doing essentially the same processing as in SOOC - but in this flow, it's like going back to that exact moment in time when you pressed the shutter and choosing the camera settings. And, you can "change your changes" anytime you want in those clearly rare instances when you would have chosen the wrong settings for a SOOC capture.

I'm interested in learning what anyone thinks is a reasonable argument as to why you wouldn't want to do this. After all, it's the EXACT same thing, using the EXACT same processing rules and algorithms that are built into your camera - just doing it outside of the moment when you're capturing an image and with the ability to change them at any time and try different (correct?) settings without making any change to the raw file that represents exactly what the "camera saw".

3. Just like #2, above, but using Photoshop or whatever.

...made an earlier attempt today to point out ther... (show quote)

Choose raw to fix your screwups.

WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

controversy wrote:

...made an earlier attempt today to point out there are, to my thinking, three different ways to capture and process images to consider. Since the words raw and jpg appeared in the post, the comments rapidly devolved into a SOOC, get it right in camera, editing raws makes it better, you're dumb, I'm smart, and so on.

None of that was the point I was trying to raise. Following is a more direct attempt and includes an illustrative cartoon.

Once again, this is NOT about composition or exposure which, I think, is what most people refer to when saying "get it right" in camera. Rather, this is about how images are processed and, importantly, what your options are when, in those obviously rare times, you "get it wrong" in camera and want to salvage the image.

These fundamental ways of processing relate to things like white balance, saturation, contrast, sharpness, for example, and NOT EXPOSURE - again - NOT ABOUT GETTING THE EXPOSURE CORRECT.

1. Adjust the settings of your camera using its internal menu to create a jpg in-camera.

Things like color space, white balance, contrast, sharpness, and similar. When you take the photo, the sensor creates an analog raw file of exactly what the camera "sees", converts it to digital, applies all of the image processing settings you have made and saves the image as a compressed jpg file. "Technically" the photo is done at that point since the raw data is gone, the output is a jpg, and you can no longer make changes like white balance, saturation, contrast, sharpness, for example, to "what the sensor saw" since that sort of information has been removed from the jpg file. Certainly, one can edit that jpg file but you are no longer editing the "controls" that can be applied to the raw "what the camera saw" image. Rather, you are editing a representation of what the camera actually saw after it has been altered by the image processing settings you chose when taking the photo. Applying those rules implies that no further editing is indicated.

2. Elect to capture images in raw and then use the software supplied by your camera's manufacturer.

When you do this, the camera creates an analog raw file of exactly what it "sees", converts it to digital, and saves it to your camera memory card as a raw image file - unchanged. You, then, copy that file of "exactly what the camera saw" to your computer as a raw file and, from there, (using the camera manufacturer processing software) you can apply any of the image processing options that were available in the camera. You set the white balance, saturation, contrast, sharpness, for example, AFTER the raw file was created. Importantly, when editing raw, those things can be changed at the "what the camera saw" level -- which you CANNOT do in a jpg. Using this technique, you are doing essentially the same processing as in SOOC - but in this flow, it's like going back to that exact moment in time when you pressed the shutter and choosing the camera settings. And, you can "change your changes" anytime you want in those clearly rare instances when you would have chosen the wrong settings for a SOOC capture.

I'm interested in learning what anyone thinks is a reasonable argument as to why you wouldn't want to do this. After all, it's the EXACT same thing, using the EXACT same processing rules and algorithms that are built into your camera - just doing it outside of the moment when you're capturing an image and with the ability to change them at any time and try different (correct?) settings without making any change to the raw file that represents exactly what the "camera saw".

3. Just like #2, above, but using Photoshop or whatever.

...made an earlier attempt today to point out ther... (show quote)

I like it.
Nicely explained

WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

Ysarex wrote:

* I'll put this down here but I think it has to be part of this discussion at some point. I expose my raw files more than it's possible to expose for an acceptable JPEG and I get better image quality because I do that. So I'm doing something with exposure that is not available to a JPEG shooter and that difference allows me better results. Exposure is not necessrily the same for both JPEG and raw.

BINGO

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I like options 2 or 3.

Yes, you can adjust the settings in your camera to preprocess your images but that has three disadvantages.

(1) you’re making judgments based on the image on the 3” screen on your camera, a monitor that you probably can’t adjust or calibrate.

(2) the adjustments you can make using out-of-camera software have much finer steps than the settings available in your camera.

(3) you can take the time to try adjustments and refine them without having the shot evaporate in front of you.

Some cameras will allow you to edit the image in camera but (1) is still a problem. Also the edits are only on the jpg and may not be nondestructive.

controversy Loc: Wuhan, China

JohnSwanda wrote:

I don't see that much difference between using the camera manufacturer's RAW conversion software and using PS/LR or similar, except that the third party software probably has more capabilities.

Well, for one thing, the manufacturer's raw processing software uses the exact same names and processing algorithms as the in-camera options. You're just applying the changes outside the camera but doing it externally lets you change your selections - something you can't do in-camera.

repleo Loc: Boston

controversy wrote:

...made an earlier attempt today to point out there are, to my thinking, three different ways to capture and process images to consider.

In brief, your question is .... '(using the camera manufacturer processing software) you can apply any of the image processing options that were available in the camera ....Using this technique, you are doing essentially the same processing as in SOOC - .....I'm interested in learning what anyone thinks is a reasonable argument as to why you wouldn't want to do this'.
My answer - I never use those 'scene' modes except when I am using my pocketable compact that doesn't have manual controls and doesn't shoot RAW. Why would I want to go to the trouble of processing them with the manufacturers' software to make them look exactly the same as the canned scene modes?