Rookie Question Regarding Post Processing (Page 7): Sorry, I fell for your garbage in the past, and I did show you, and you denied it even when the proof was right in front of you.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Ysarex wrote:

That's because you failed the last time you tried and you'll fail again this time and you know it. You're a no-show spewing BS and as soon as you're challenged for your BS it's tail between your legs and run.

Sorry, I fell for your garbage in the past, and I did show you, and you denied it even when the proof was right in front of you.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

BigDaddy wrote:

Sorry, I fell for your garbage in the past, and I did show you,

You showed us an abject failure -- here it is: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-704155-6.html#12395155

BigDaddy wrote:

and you denied it even when the proof was right in front of you.

I provided proof of your failure.

You're just whining while you run away tail-between-legs NO SHOW.

Let's do it again. You just posted this: "Not only could I "fix" it with one click, I could adjust it any way I liked with one click in ACDSee's jpg editor using the WB tool." OK, I have ACDSee's jpg editor and we can look at the one click results that it generates.

Wow! that's a serious screwup of the cyan patch on the colorchecker as ACDSee crashes and burns. Just look at the fabric of the couch -- major fail.

You're full of BS NO SHOW.

(Download)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Ysarex wrote:

This is false. When the camera's auto WB fails it's much more difficult to correct the error by processing the JPEG that is already screwed up (unless of course you have very low standards or maybe colorblind). Most people can't do it as you previously proved.

Although the WB tool works differently on a JPEG than it does on a raw file, if you have already come close with Auto WB (or Daylight, Tungsten, etc.) you can still get it to work.

I took you image and clicked on the "blue square should be gray" with the eyedropper:

and I had no trouble making it gray.

It was just as easy with your second example:

Of course there are still other serious drawbacks to editing an 8-bit JPEG or TIFF instead of the more common 14-bit raw file so, if anyone is going to edit anyhow, they are better off skipping the camera's JPEG.

There is no point in making such a federal case out of this. CHG_CANON already said just about everything that need to be said back on page one.

LEWHITE7747 Loc: 33773

gwilliams6 wrote:

You usually have good and correct info Chg-Canon, but this time you are spreading some falsehoods.

Raw files contain ALL the data that your camera's image sensor can capture, all the data, all the colors, without any compression unless you chose compressed raw format.

As a longtime pro and also a longtime Professor of Photography at a state university, with both a BFA Degree in Photography and a Masters Degree in Digital Photography, I have to know the facts and have taught them to my hundreds of photography students over the years.

Jpegs on the other hand are greatly compressed image files to conserve space and size. Your camera's processor algorithms apply a lot of color space settings, sharpness, noise reduction and other corrections which not only throws out some data, including some colors, but reduces the dynamic range as it compressions the image into a jpeg.

An example, on my 61mp Sony A7RIV, the uncompressed raw files are over 80mb to 110mb, the jpeg files are from 50mb to 61mb. Anyone who says the uncompressed raw files and the greatly compressed jpegs are the same or contain the same amount of data is totally wrong.

Current jpeg quality from the best cameras is much better now than it used to be, but you still will never have all the image info and flexibility in post if you never shoot raw files. Most of the world is fine with the look of the best jpegs, but you can not do as much in post, or recover as much in post with already processed jpegs.

When you shoot raw files you dont have to set the white balance as it can be set in post as raw files contain all the color data. This gives you a lot more latitude for color adjustments . With a jpeg you have far lesser ability to correct an image if the white balance setting was chosen incorrectly before exposure.

Raw images look duller SOOC and must be processed to bring out all that data, but in the end raw files can achieve the maximum image quality possible with your lens and camera.

I shoot raw+jpeg, raw to one card, jpegs to the other card simultaneously. I use the jpegs for quick turnaround for any publications or news services that need my images quickly from a shoot. Then when I have time I process the raw files for my best final output for my clients. The jpegs also serve as redundant files if ever I get a corrupt card with my raw files. Doing paid work, I must have redundancy.

If you dont need all the quality and extra processing of raw files, just shoot jpegs and be happy. For me as a pro I did not invest in the best gear and then not take advantage of all the image quality it can give me.

Here a Sony A1, Sony 200-600mm lens image from a raw file, 391mm, ISO 1600, f6.3, 1/4000 sec. I could not get all this ultimate detail and resolution from the jpeg of the same image. Oh the jpeg would have looked ok, but i wanted every bit of uncompressed image quality, dynamic range, color pallet and more .

And here from the raw files with my 61mp A7RIV, The Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, California. Sony A7RIV, Sigma Art 24-70mm f2.8 DG DN lens, ISO 100, 24mm, f8, 1/80 sec. handheld

Cheers and best to you.

You usually have good and correct info Chg-Canon, ... (show quote)

Here are two JEPG photos untouched out of the camera $600 Used 7Dll with a Canon 100-400 ll lens. I am sure you can find something wrong with them, but I think most people would find little difference in their quality. Your expertise and credentials are very good, but most people won't appreciate your education. My MBA mantra "The Law of Diminishing Returns" is something that must be taken into consideration.

(Download)

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

LEWHITE7747 wrote:

Here are two JEPG photos untouched out of the camera $600 Used 7Dll with a Canon 100-400 ll lens. I am sure you can find something wrong with them, but I think most people would find little difference in their quality. Your expertise and credentials are very good, but most people won't appreciate your education. My MBA mantra "The Law of Diminishing Returns" is something that must be taken into consideration.

They look great to me.
ESPECIALLY the dock scene!

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

selmslie wrote:

Although the WB tool works differently on a JPEG than it does on a raw file, if you have already come close with Auto WB (or Daylight, Tungsten, etc.) you can still get it to work.

I took you image and clicked on the "blue square should be gray" with the eyedropper: and I had no trouble making it gray.

Of course and I've never claimed otherwise. The WB tools will typically "make gray" whatever you click on as you just did. The point that I'm making counters claims that say the tools work the same as they do with raw data or that it's just as easy to adjust WB with a JPEG as with raw data -- that it's no problem. Those claims are false.

The JPEG will have already been white balanced. If it's off then the WB tools will "make gray" what you click on and may move the JPEG in the right direction but they won't fully correct the error and can often make matters worse. The point is adjusting WB in a JPEG where it's off due to the camera is not at all easy or "no problem."

Here's that autoWB version of the colorchecker and chocolate tin. I used BigDaddy's noted ACDSee WB tool. Sure it made the gray patch I clicked on gray and moved in the right direction overall -- however notice how gray the rest of the grayscale is and the color patch failures. It's not one click easy as is falsely claimed. It's not even carefully-adjust-sliders easy. All efforts to make a global adjustment to the entire image will fail. It becomes a difficult exercise in selecting parts and pieces of the image for local adjustment -- PIA!

P.S. Other vendor tools will generate different outcomes and some will be closer and maybe a few worse than ACDSee here but all will demonstrate similar failures.

(Download)

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

Longshadow wrote:

They look great to me.
ESPECIALLY the dock scene!

They do look great. But JPEG results SOOC can vary wildly if your shots are changing from direct sun to shade to under a canvas tent to artificial light to etc., etc.

Personally, I found the switch to raw files gave me more control over white balance and exposure. But my experience to post processing is limited to Lightroom Classic and PS.

I'll be the first to admit that there could very well be newer software that can handle JPEGs as well as LR handles raw files.

Color rendition- both accuracy and consistency- is important for my work. I can't show a client 20 shots of a wedding reception and have inconsistent white balance in the photos. I am much happier with the results I get working with raw files than with JPEGs.

But maybe I just suck at working with JPEGs. I'll never know.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

steve_stoneblossom wrote:

They do look great. But JPEG results SOOC can vary wildly if your shots are changing from direct sun to shade to under a canvas tent to artificial light to etc., etc.

Personally, I found the switch to raw files gave me more control over white balance and exposure. But my experience to post processing is limited to Lightroom Classic and PS.

I'll be the first to admit that there could very well be newer software that can handle JPEGs as well as LR handles raw files.

Simple white balance adjustments are my primary reason for using RAW.

Papa Joe Loc: Midwest U.S.

Gene, my suggestion:
Start learning post processing with whatever you usually shoot and are comfortable with. jpg.s are fine to begin with. You'll probably get some advice to shoot raw because of more options, and this is true, (later), but I think it might be better to start with the basics, and you can do (learn) plenty with just .jpgs. Main thing: always make a duplicate to work on, then if you 'mess up'... no problem.
Just my two-cents worth.
God Bless,
Papa Joe

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

Longshadow wrote:

Simple white balance adjustments are my primary reason for using RAW.

I've recovered harsh, horrendous WB errors with raw files. I concur.

I can't speak for other software, but LR does not give me nearly as precise control of WB of JPEGs as it does with raw files.

kcooke Loc: Alabama

[quote=Thomas902]
Like so many other crafts far too many newbies want a quick and EZ way in...
So I want to play Stairway to Heaven so maybe I just go out and buy a Gibson EDS-1275 Double Neck just like Jimmy Page... Problem Solved?

The EDS 1275 was used live as a matter of convenience and for showmanship. In the studio the following were used
For acoustic parts 1960s Harmony Sovereign H1260.
For the body of the song 1965 Fender XII (12 string Stratocaster )
For the solo of the song a 1959 Fender Telecaster. Just FYI

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Too many people subscribe to advanced software to edit RAW files to impress people they don't even like.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

GeneinChi wrote:

I know this is a basic question but I don’t know the answer so please don’t respond like I’m an idiot. Keep the snark at the door. I’m pretty much a rookie regarding post processing having done some basic editing with JPEGS. If I want to teach myself more advanced techniques do I need to be shooting in raw or does a program like Luminar work with jpegs? I have two slots in my camera so I can shoot one in jpeg and one raw.

While learning, if you record both raw and JPEG files, you can experiment with each and determine for yourself what the adjustment limits are for each type of file, and more fully understand what to do to cope with those limits.

You don't need two slots to record JPEG and raw files at the same time. But that can help you keep them separate, if that's your goal.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

kcooke wrote:

The EDS 1275 was used live as a matter of convenience and for showmanship. In the studio the following were used
For acoustic parts 1960s Harmony Sovereign H1260.
For the body of the song 1965 Fender XII (12 string Stratocaster )
For the solo of the song a 1959 Fender Telecaster. Just FYI

Not the most pertinent info, but good to know someone cares about the details!

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

burkphoto wrote:

While learning, if you record both raw and JPEG files, you can experiment with each and determine for yourself what the adjustment limits are for each type of file, and more fully understand what to do to cope with those limits.

You don't need two slots to record JPEG and raw files at the same time. But that can help you keep them separate, if that's your goal.