Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Question about processing
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 next>>
Mar 24, 2014 20:01:44   #
wingnut1956
 
Hi..I'm pretty new to the whole world post processing thing other than simple edits. I am shooting in RAW/JPEG fine and when I preview the pics before editing the jpegs and the raw look to be 100% identical, at least to my eye. Using a nikon 3200 and so far it's been mostly buildings and landscape shots. I guess what I'm asking is, is it really worth the extra effort to mess with the I pics in the first place, other than to remove obvious flaws, and if jpegs are so bad, why do the pics look the same? Am I doing something wrong? The pics usually download to the nio on software and I have the photoshop/lightroom/cloud monthly subscription package to try to learn the p.p. processes...thanks for any suggestions...I'm learning a lot from you guys

| Reply
Mar 24, 2014 20:03:17   #
wingnut1956
 
Sorry..that was to -NIKON-software

| Reply
Mar 24, 2014 20:05:43   #
Steve_m
 
wingnut1956 wrote:
Hi..I'm pretty new to the whole world post processing thing other than simple edits. I am shooting in RAW/JPEG fine and when I preview the pics before editing the jpegs and the raw look to be 100% identical, at least to my eye. Using a nikon 3200 and so far it's been mostly buildings and landscape shots. I guess what I'm asking is, is it really worth the extra effort to mess with the I pics in the first place, other than to remove obvious flaws, and if jpegs are so bad, why do the pics look the same? Am I doing something wrong? The pics usually download to the nio on software and I have the photoshop/lightroom/cloud monthly subscription package to try to learn the p.p. processes...thanks for any suggestions...I'm learning a lot from you guys
Hi..I'm pretty new to the whole world post process... (show quote)


Lately, the cameras are doing damn good job with JPEG's. Some professional photographers are shooting in JPEG only.

| Reply
Mar 24, 2014 20:05:44   #
PalePictures
 
wingnut1956 wrote:
Hi..I'm pretty new to the whole world post processing thing other than simple edits. I am shooting in RAW/JPEG fine and when I preview the pics before editing the jpegs and the raw look to be 100% identical, at least to my eye. Using a nikon 3200 and so far it's been mostly buildings and landscape shots. I guess what I'm asking is, is it really worth the extra effort to mess with the I pics in the first place, other than to remove obvious flaws, and if jpegs are so bad, why do the pics look the same? Am I doing something wrong? The pics usually download to the nio on software and I have the photoshop/lightroom/cloud monthly subscription package to try to learn the p.p. processes...thanks for any suggestions...I'm learning a lot from you guys
Hi..I'm pretty new to the whole world post process... (show quote)

The JPEGS usually look better not worse.(right out of the camera)
The reason why the photos look the same maybe because of your computer monitor. Monitors do make a big difference on how colors render.

Raw photos tend to look a little less vibrant.

| Reply
Mar 24, 2014 20:11:16   #
jaycohen13
 
Normally, JPEGs are pretty good. If you really want to use your creativity to enhance the image, the RAW file contains much more data and will not degrade as much as you make changes. It simply gives you a lot more tools to create the exact image you want. Some see it as a fun part of the process.
Normally, RAW files do not look great on the computer. They actually might look better on your camera before importing as the camera does some processing.
I recently switched to RAW only and I am enjoying it.

| Reply
Mar 24, 2014 20:36:57   #
amehta
 
wingnut1956 wrote:
Hi..I'm pretty new to the whole world post processing thing other than simple edits. I am shooting in RAW/JPEG fine and when I preview the pics before editing the jpegs and the raw look to be 100% identical, at least to my eye. Using a nikon 3200 and so far it's been mostly buildings and landscape shots. I guess what I'm asking is, is it really worth the extra effort to mess with the I pics in the first place, other than to remove obvious flaws, and if jpegs are so bad, why do the pics look the same? Am I doing something wrong? The pics usually download to the nio on software and I have the photoshop/lightroom/cloud monthly subscription package to try to learn the p.p. processes...thanks for any suggestions...I'm learning a lot from you guys
Hi..I'm pretty new to the whole world post process... (show quote)

There is a jpeg embedded in the raw file, the one in the nef file is the same resolution as the camera jpeg but lower quality (though barely noticeable). When you are previewing the nef, you might be looking at the embedded jpeg. When you use View NX2, it can apply the camera's post processing settings, so it can also take the raw file and reproduce the camera's jpeg.

Especially since you are new to it (I am also), I think shooting raw+jpeg makes sense, using the jpegs for most things while playing with the raw files, especially the ones which challenge the jpeg with extreme lighting.

| Reply
Mar 24, 2014 20:58:38   #
Whuff
 
When you use PP on raw files you can save them without any loss of data. Each time you save a jpeg you lose a bit of data. This loss of data will increase with multiple saves rendering your final product a lesser quality than if you had used a raw file. If you only intend to do very minor adjustments in PP you probably won't notice any loss but if you intend to do extensive processing, say in multiple PP programs it could become a problem for jpegs.

| Reply
Mar 24, 2014 22:06:54   #
Linda From Maine (a regular here)
 
Howdy. Didn't know if you were aware of the post-processing section on UHH. It has great tutorials and there are always members willing to help with specific issues. Here's the forum:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-116-1.html

To subscribe, scroll down on UHH home page 'til you see "all sections." Click in there to browse the specialty forums and subscribe.

| Reply
Mar 24, 2014 22:15:22   #
wingnut1956
 
Thanks...I was thinking it was something I was doing wrong..was expecting a much more noticeable difference between the two right out of the camera. I will keep experimenting with it all and hopefully learn something in the process.

| Reply
Mar 24, 2014 22:52:18   #
Trabor
 
Remember you are not really looking at the "Raw" raw data but rather that data run thru some converter on your computer- similar to the software in your camera that created the JPG It is not surprising hat they would look similar- the difference is that the converter on your computer can frequently improve on the default settings found in your camera

| Reply
Mar 24, 2014 23:04:55   #
mcveed
 
wingnut1956 wrote:
Hi..I'm pretty new to the whole world post processing thing other than simple edits. I am shooting in RAW/JPEG fine and when I preview the pics before editing the jpegs and the raw look to be 100% identical, at least to my eye. Using a nikon 3200 and so far it's been mostly buildings and landscape shots. I guess what I'm asking is, is it really worth the extra effort to mess with the I pics in the first place, other than to remove obvious flaws, and if jpegs are so bad, why do the pics look the same? Am I doing something wrong? The pics usually download to the nio on software and I have the photoshop/lightroom/cloud monthly subscription package to try to learn the p.p. processes...thanks for any suggestions...I'm learning a lot from you guys
Hi..I'm pretty new to the whole world post process... (show quote)


Just to clarify, you cannot look at a raw file. A raw file is a stream of digital data. In order to look at it it must be converted into a visible file such as jpeg or tiff. When you take a raw image the camera also creates a jpeg image so you can preview the image on your LCD display. Try shooting raw only and you will see what I mean. Some raw converters also apply the in-camera settings to the raw file when they convert it to jpeg. In this case the jpeg you intended to shoot and the converted raw image will look identical. However, the raw image will contain much more data which will allow you to tune it more precisely to the way you want it to look. In other words you can over ride those settings applied automatically by the camera during the raw conversion. This is much better than simply adjusting your jpeg image.

| Reply
Mar 24, 2014 23:39:27   #
wingnut1956
 
jaycohen13 wrote:
Normally, JPEGs are pretty good. If you really want to use your creativity to enhance the image, the RAW file contains much more data and will not degrade as much as you make changes. It simply gives you a lot more tools to create the exact image you want. Some see it as a fun part of the process.
Normally, RAW files do not look great on the computer. They actually might look better on your camera before importing as the camera does some processing.
I recently switched to RAW only and I am enjoying it.
Normally, JPEGs are pretty good. If you really wan... (show quote)

Jay..
You have some really awesome photos there! It's obvious I have a very long learning curve ahead of me

| Reply
Mar 25, 2014 00:29:22   #
rook2c4
 
mcveed wrote:
Just to clarify, you cannot look at a raw file. A raw file is a stream of digital data. In order to look at it it must be converted into a visible file such as jpeg or tiff. When you take a raw image the camera also creates a jpeg image so you can preview the image on your LCD display. Try shooting raw only and you will see what I mean. Some raw converters also apply the in-camera settings to the raw file when they convert it to jpeg. In this case the jpeg you intended to shoot and the converted raw image will look identical. However, the raw image will contain much more data which will allow you to tune it more precisely to the way you want it to look. In other words you can over ride those settings applied automatically by the camera during the raw conversion. This is much better than simply adjusting your jpeg image.
Just to clarify, you cannot look at a raw file. A ... (show quote)


I absolutely agree.

It seems many people believe that raw files have a certain "look" and are but just another image file format like jpeg, tiff, bmp, etc., but the raw format is not quite the same thing. What they are seeing when initially viewing the raw file are merely the settings applied by the image editor or image viewer, be it those from the imbedded jpeg or the editor's default settings.

| Reply
Mar 25, 2014 03:00:03   #
wingnut1956
 
rook2c4 wrote:
I absolutely agree.

It seems many people believe that raw files have a certain "look" and are but just another image file format like jpeg, tiff, bmp, etc., but the raw format is not quite the same thing. What they are seeing when initially viewing the raw file are merely the settings applied by the image editor or image viewer, be it those from the imbedded jpeg or the editor's default settings.


Ok, I'm starting to kind of understand What you are all saying..I am going to have to find some time and just play around with everything..it sounds like a lot of trial and error and see where it goes...thanks for all the replies and info

| Reply
Mar 25, 2014 07:23:59   #
Gene51 (a regular here)
 
raw files have embedded jpgs in them - this is what you see on the back of the camera or in your raw editor. JPG is a highly compressed output file, which is not suitable for extensive editing that involves tonal or color correction. Raw files, both uncompressed or lossless compressed have greater color depth, can use larger color spaces and generally provide greater fine detail.

They look similar because if you set your camera correctly, you are looking at a jpg preview and a jpg - they should look similar. The only advantage of the jpg is that it may have lens corrections applied during in camera processing, and you might have other modes enabled which provide highlight suppression or HDR, or sidelight/backlight compensation - none of which affect raw files. You can always get better quality results from applying a few simple corrections to most images if you start out with a raw file.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.