Use of Raw and JPEG
Aug 17, 2023 05:55:59 #
Turkeylegs
Loc: Pine Bluff AR
As a professional photographer, I use raw exclusively. They are non-destructive, read-only files with a side care to keep any revisions.
Aug 17, 2023 06:10:47 #
billt1970 wrote:
And the answer is . . . it depends on what you are... (show quote)
You are hitting the nail on the head. Also news and sport photographers have to have the abiity to upload images fast to get the story out. JPG files are a lot smaller than RAW so they upload a lot faster
Aug 17, 2023 06:20:20 #
burkphoto wrote:
img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (show quote)
You pretty much mailed it but you did list one misconception Solid-state drives (SSDs) use flash memory to store data, which is not susceptible to magnetic fields like the spinning platters in traditional hard drives.
Aug 17, 2023 07:31:46 #
Canisdirus wrote:
I'll leave the judging to you then...since no one implied judgement...except you.
Ahhh.. Inference and implication are two different things.
Some can see past what is presented.
Aug 17, 2023 07:39:18 #
gwilliams6 wrote:
img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (show quote)
I'd be proud to own either of those photos!
---
Aug 17, 2023 09:51:26 #
Ysarex wrote:
The point remains that I can dial back the sharpening on the RAF file but you can't demosaic the camera JPEG to render better fine detail. Below I removed the sharpening pass from the PL-6 processing. With the sharpening pass removed in PL-6 you really are seeing a difference in how the CFA is demosaiced. Still much better fine detail than the SOOC JPEG.
‘Ever sharper’ has never been my goal.
Aug 17, 2023 10:00:37 #
Aug 17, 2023 10:25:42 #
Aug 17, 2023 10:26:26 #
Bill_de wrote:
I'd be proud to own either of those photos!
---
---
Thanks so much.
Cheers and best to you.
Aug 17, 2023 10:32:33 #
jcboy3 wrote:
I do RAW and JPEG if I need to provide images to a client immediately. This is usually for events, where I don't have time to do RAW conversions. Final product is always based on RAW conversions, but if they need images quickly I also capture JPG and provide those as well as processed RAW.
Same for me.
Aug 17, 2023 10:34:10 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
rehess wrote:
‘Ever sharper’ has never been my goal.
Nor mine, but I do like to get as much detail in my image as my lens is capable of recording. Why bother using good lenses if you're not going to take advantage of them?
Aug 17, 2023 10:35:59 #
Ysarex wrote:
Nor mine, but I do like to get as much detail in my image as my lens is capable of recording. Why bother using good lenses if you're not going to take advantage of them?
Aug 17, 2023 10:47:34 #
Ysarex wrote:
Nor mine, but I do like to get as much detail in my image as my lens is capable of recording. Why bother using good lenses if you're not going to take advantage of them?
I’ve often had lenses that could receive more detail than the film/sensor could record, but I don’t look for more detail. I could always use Pentax’s “pixel shift” to improve resolution recorded, but I don’t need to see the fleas on the back of the squirrels or groundhogs in our backyard.
Aug 17, 2023 10:56:47 #
Ysarex wrote:
The difference in rendered detail is basically in the demosaicing of the CFA. Look at the tree bark and moss on the trees.
The comparisons on your indicates source are not really comparing sharpness and detail. Each of them includes a proprietary Fuji profile compared to an image edited on a computer with a descriptions similar to this pair:
38/122: "Out of camera JPEG shot with Astia/Soft profile."
39/122: "Raw file edited to taste using a beta version of Adobe Camera Raw 11. Edited using the Provia/Standard camera profile. Adjustments limited to exposure parameters, color and contrast. Sharpening set to 25%. Lens corrections turned off."
What you see in the bark and the moss is a difference in saturation and local contrast. You don't even mention which Fuji profile you were using.
When the original raw file is "edited to taste" that does not mean that there was any attempt to match the Fuji preset. Besides, Sorry Charlie, StarKist doesn’t want tuna with good taste, but tuna that tastes good!
Regardless, all of the comparisons I have seen show that a raw file conversion done on the computer can be made to look better than the JPEG SOOC, assuming that the photographer knows how to use the software. I have never seen a comparison go the other way.
Aug 17, 2023 11:21:22 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
selmslie wrote:
The comparisons on your indicates source are not really comparing sharpness and detail.
I didn't say my comparisons were comparing sharpness and detail. Why would you say that they were when I didn't?
Concerns with demosaicing the Fuji X-Trans CFA are longstanding and well documented and involve the rendition of fine detail.
selmslie wrote:
Each of them includes a proprietary Fuji profile compared to an image edited on a computer with a descriptions similar to this pair:
In what way specifically does a variation in camera input profile alter the demosaicing of the raw file?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.