Shooting Raw (Page 6): Point taken, but if they can conform to an 8-bit standard for all these years and still innovate with sensor technology, the jump to DNG can't be that great. I'm...

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

amehta wrote:

Conforming to any standard means you (the camera manufacturer) cannot do whatever you want, you have to "fit". If Sony says, "Ok, we'll use DNG", and in two years the develop an 18-bit sensor, they can't use it because DNG only supports 16 bit. It seems like the answer should be, "don't worry, it will just work," but that's not the way things work in the software world, and that's the world we're talking about here.

Point taken, but if they can conform to an 8-bit standard for all these years and still innovate with sensor technology, the jump to DNG can't be that great. I'm not a software engineer by trade, but I know a enough to be dangerous. Software/firmware is probably the most flexible part of the equation. I think I like your political/autonomy argument better... peace! :-)

amehta Loc: Boston

mdorn wrote:

Point taken, but if they can conform to an 8-bit standard for all these years and still innovate with sensor technology, the jump to DNG can't be that great. I'm not a software engineer by trade, but I know a enough to be dangerous. Software/firmware is probably the most flexible part of the equation. I think I like your political/autonomy argument better... peace! :-)

Conforming to the part which throws out data is a lot easier than conforming to the part which represents the true sensor technology.

erbPIX Loc: Greater New York City area

This subject gets a lot of mileage no matter where you look. Im still a JPEG shooter after running a side-by-side comparison using a Canon 60D. I can open a JPEG file with Camera Raw in Adobe Bridge (CS6) and do exactly the same things Willhiem mentioned with shadows and highlights plus all the other stuff and come out with a better-looking image (in my and my lovely wifes un-coached opinion) than when I did exactly the same things with the RAW version. And the difference in file size (in favor of JPEG) is ridiculous, not to mention that JPEG is a standard whereas RAW in not. :thumbup:

RAW

JPEG

GaryS1964 Loc: Northern California

Raw Therapee is free and if you get the latest version it will probably open your RAW files. It has many nice features for basic photo enhancement also.

I shoot RAW + Jpeg. Been doing it for about 3 years now. I try to set the camera up to get the best quality Jpeg but when I miss I take the RAW image and tweak it and then replace the the original Jpeg.

erbPIX Loc: Greater New York City area

Thanks for the tip, hadn't heard of it before. I'll take a look.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

amehta wrote:

The jpeg image the camera produces has had all the basic post processing steps applied: white balance, color adjustments (saturation, hue, ...), noise reduction, and sharpening. Then the data is compressed, in both space and color.

I've heard this said before, but I'm not convinced it is true. Why would a camera manufacturer ignore the settings used to make the photo. I assume that the camera manufacture sets the camera up to take the best possible picture as far as color balance, noise reduction and so on. They then give the user options to increase or decrease these settings ( I never mess with them and leave it for post processing where it can be done easily with about any editing software.) Even if I chose to alter the default settings for this stuff, it would not make me happy if the camera ignored my wishes, whether in raw or jpg. If I adjust the noise level the camera maker built into the camera, I expect the camera to do it?

amehta wrote:

When you view the jpeg, you are not viewing the raw file. If they look identical, it's probably because, when you are viewing the raw file, you are actually viewing the embedded jpeg, which is the same as the separate jpeg file, though it may be a different resolution and compression level.

If you read what I said, I said when the jpg is de-compressed (opened), you are seeing the raw file, but minus what the compression routine figured you can't see anyway. "Minus" is not a good term, it is the exact same amount of data the raw file had, but a small amount has been altered, not deleted. What is altered is colors that are numerically different, but so similar that the human eye (according to the compression algorithm) can not discern a difference. How much of a difference is determined by the compression level you set.

If you see a difference in the raw file from the jpg when taking both jpg+raw, the difference, like you said could be that the jpg might be a different resolution/compression level, or, that the raw editor has different default settings that is changing the look of the picture it is showing you on the screen.

At any rate, there is a ton, maybe several tons, of exaggeration regarding what you can do with a jpg vs raw file with an editor. I think the hog has a lot of people wasting a lot of time and space on raw files where it is not even remotely needed.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

erbPIX wrote:

This subject gets a lot of mileage no matter where... (show quote)

This has been my exact same experience, except with a lessor camera. My photo problems are seldom with anything a raw file could possibly fix anyway. Minor adjustment in white balance, contrast, noise and so on is easily done to a jpg. I once took a bunch of photos of a band at a bar with horrible lighting conditions. I did raw+jpg because I knew the quality would be less than stellar, but even then, I had to work like the dickens to get the raw files to the quality of the jpgs. Turned out to be an incredible waste of time and space.

I guess it could be some cameras just suck at making jpg's when also taking raw, and on some it'is configurable, so the user could be making the jpg's suck by configuring the jpg that way.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

amehta wrote:

Conforming to the part which throws out data is a lot easier than conforming to the part which represents the true sensor technology.

Is this your opinion, or is it fact? I really don't know. Did you or do you work for a camera mfg?

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

BigDaddy wrote:

At any rate, there is a ton, maybe several tons, of exaggeration regarding what you can do with a jpg vs raw file with an editor. I think the hog has a lot of people wasting a lot of time and space on raw files where it is not even remotely needed.

I agree. However, there are a lot of people who really enjoy post processing, and raw is perfect for them. It just irritates me when those same people tell me that if you are JPEG shooter, then you can't possibly be a serious photographer---arrogance and ignorance are not far apart.

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

mdorn wrote:

I agree. However, there are a lot of people who really enjoy post processing, and raw is perfect for them. It just irritates me when those same people tell me that if you are JPEG shooter, then you can't possibly be a serious photographer---arrogance and ignorance are not far apart.

I would agree with that, but there are a lot more people, or at least more vocal people, who insist that shooting RAW, is not real photography.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Wellhiem wrote:

I would agree with that, but there are a lot more people, or at least more vocal people, who insist that shooting RAW, is not real photography.

LOL. Since everyone shoots raw (if you use digital) regardless, I'm wondering who you are talking about? :-)

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

mdorn wrote:

LOL. Since everyone shoots raw (if you use digital) regardless, I'm wondering who you are talking about? :-)

I think your statement is incorrect. If you set your camera to shoot only JPG, then you are not shooting RAW. Additionally, I think many people are now using their smart phones and point & shoot camera, most (if not all) of which don't create RAW files.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

mdorn wrote:

I agree. However, there are a lot of people who really enjoy post processing, and raw is perfect for them. It just irritates me when those same people tell me that if you are JPEG shooter, then you can't possibly be a serious photographer---arrogance and ignorance are not far apart.

I'm one that enjoys post processing. I enjoy taking pictures, but I'm much more of a snapshooter than a photographer, a serious snapshooter with lots of snapshooting experience, but the truth is, a large part of why I take pictures is so I can mess with them in post processing. Raw files are a little different, at least for me. When I process raw files I use Silkypix raw editor. This is mainly for adjusting exposure, white balance, stuff like that. If I want to lose pimples off someones nose, crop the picture, add my daughters lips or eyes on her cat, I still use a my editing software. Since 99.99% of the adjustments I could make with the raw editor, I can make with my ACDSee editor, or CS2 or Elements 11, it just isn't worth it (for me) to fool with the raw data. If, I were a professional portrait photographer, working in a studio, taking my time setting everything up perfect with a high end camera and lens, perhaps I would do raw, but then I'm not sure why, I probably wouldn't need it then either, mqaybe even less. A perfect picture is a perfect picture. A close to perfect picture can still be fine tuned in a jpg, and a horrible picture can be deleted, jpg or raw:-)

amehta Loc: Boston

Wellhiem wrote:

I would agree with that, but there are a lot more people, or at least more vocal people, who insist that shooting RAW, is not real photography.

I think their point is that the result of editing the raw image is no longer photography.

FredB Loc: A little below the Mason-Dixon line.

russelray wrote:

I think your statement is incorrect. If you set your camera to shoot only JPG, then you are not shooting RAW. Additionally, I think many people are now using their smart phones and point & shoot camera, most (if not all) of which don't create RAW files.

Well, actually, your thoughts are incorrect.

A camera's sensor, regardless of size, manufacturer, pixel dimensions, or whatever, takes incoming photons of light and creates a "file", if you will, of the result of that conversion from wavelengths of light to digital 1s and 0s. This is the 'raw' file that everyone is talking about, which is not much more than measures of luminance from black to white. iPhone, Android tablet, DSLR, P&S, Bridge Camera,whatever. Doesn't matter. If it has a 'sensor', it converts analog data (wavelengths of light) into digital data (raw files).

After the raw file is created, additional processing needs to take place to create a 'finished' JPEG file. This is where the camera's photo settings and such are taken into account.

The JPEG is never the 'original' file, even when you set your camera to "JPEG" only. The JPEG is the RESULT, but not the original data. The raw data is simply purged if you don't need/want to keep it.