Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Question about processing
Page <prev 2 of 2
Mar 25, 2014 08:03:36   #
norman816
 
They will both look the same but with raw u can do a little more. And u can save the picture when opening many times in a Tiff. Jpg lose something every time u open them

Reply
Mar 25, 2014 08:37:21   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
Jpgs lose after opening - only if saved - due to recompression. Merely opening and closing without saving causes no data loss.

Reply
Mar 25, 2014 09:14:24   #
ygelman Loc: new -- North of Poughkeepsie!
 
wingnut1956 wrote:
Jay..
You have some really awesome photos there! It's obvious I have a very long learning curve ahead of me
Whew! Lucky you did not say "steep" learning curve. -- or as some would insist instead, "shallow".

Reply
 
 
Mar 25, 2014 09:54:00   #
mldavis2
 
I think there is some mis-information here.

First, all cameras dump RAW data from the sensor. In order to view the image on the LCD screen of the camera, the in-camera computer converts the RAW data into a viewable image - not necessarily a JPEG image, although if you are shooting JPEG, the images are stored on the card as such. It may vary with camera manufacturers, but if you are shooting RAW only, the image is interpreted as a viewable image for the LCD screen but stored as RAW. There is no embedded JPEG unless you have a thumbnail function available and turned on. There is no JPEG image stored in a RAW file which would be a waste of space and which is why you need a RAW converter to view them on your computer / editor. If there was an embedded JPEG image, you wouldn't need a RAW converter, just a JPEG extractor.

Second, JPEG images coming from a camera have been modified based on the default settings of your camera before being saved on the card. These settings can also be changed by the user on most cameras and include saturation, contrast, sharpness among others. Unless you have these turned off in your camera, a JPEG image should appear "better" than a RAW image which can look flat, dull and slightly soft, or unless your editor is set to "auto-enhance" viewed RAW files.

Those with experience shooting RAW will also note that if you turn on the RGB channel viewer or the over-exposure warning on your LCD screen, you will see that where there may be a flashing overexposed area on the LCD screen, often there is data there which can be extracted in your RAW editor. If you save the image as JPEG, that data is gone. JPEG is, by definition, limited to 8-bits of data where the RAW image has 16-bits to work with which can effectively extend your tonal range on both ends of the scale.

JPEG is OK if you have good, even lighting, if you aren't enlarging your images for printing and if you need the card space, or are satisfied with the default output from your camera.

Reply
Mar 25, 2014 10:16:27   #
jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK
 
There's nothing wrong with JPEGS at all; it is a myth that you must use RAW; for most people, JPEGS are as good as it gets, especially on a modern camera. Only if you are a pro, or a perfectionist, then by all means use RAW. I gave up on this approach years ago- why waste so much time in front of a computer? I still sell just as many JPEGS as ever I did with raw edited JPEGS- so now I don't bother !

Reply
Mar 25, 2014 10:40:30   #
mldavis2
 
jeryh wrote:
There's nothing wrong with JPEGS at all; it is a myth that you must use RAW


I don't recall seeing anyone saying "you must use RAW". It all depends on what and where you shoot and how you use your images. Please re-read the last sentence of my post.



:-D

Reply
Mar 25, 2014 10:42:36   #
James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)
 
mldavis2 wrote:
I think there is some mis-information here.

First, all cameras dump RAW data from the sensor. In order to view the image on the LCD screen of the camera, the in-camera computer converts the RAW data into a viewable image - not necessarily a JPEG image, although if you are shooting JPEG, the images are stored on the card as such. It may vary with camera manufacturers, but if you are shooting RAW only, the image is interpreted as a viewable image for the LCD screen but stored as RAW. There is no embedded JPEG unless you have a thumbnail function available and turned on. There is no JPEG image stored in a RAW file which would be a waste of space and which is why you need a RAW converter to view them on your computer / editor. If there was an embedded JPEG image, you wouldn't need a RAW converter, just a JPEG extractor.

Second, JPEG images coming from a camera have been modified based on the default settings of your camera before being saved on the card. These settings can also be changed by the user on most cameras and include saturation, contrast, sharpness among others. Unless you have these turned off in your camera, a JPEG image should appear "better" than a RAW image which can look flat, dull and slightly soft, or unless your editor is set to "auto-enhance" viewed RAW files.

Those with experience shooting RAW will also note that if you turn on the RGB channel viewer or the over-exposure warning on your LCD screen, you will see that where there may be a flashing overexposed area on the LCD screen, often there is data there which can be extracted in your RAW editor. If you save the image as JPEG, that data is gone. JPEG is, by definition, limited to 8-bits of data where the RAW image has 16-bits to work with which can effectively extend your tonal range on both ends of the scale.

JPEG is OK if you have good, even lighting, if you aren't enlarging your images for printing and if you need the card space, or are satisfied with the default output from your camera.
I think there is some mis-information here. br br... (show quote)

=============

Agree...

However...

Some people do not wish (or rather and or) do not have the time to "tinker" with A RAW file and to them .jpg is enough.

I shoot 95% of my work in RAW and I personally like to "tinker". I also have my own "Pre-Sets" that I have saved in all software I have to save time and to keep the images shot in the same light in consistency.

I do think that it is more of a preference of the person (photographer) shooting any given event or scene.

I shoot different mode where I believe the best for the shot - i.e. = Manual, Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, and yes, even "Program Mode" = And some PROS call the "P" mode for Professional mode. - However, that is a tongue-in-cheek thing.

RAW will give you a better image, true = but Only if you tinker with it and know what you are wanting from the captured image.

Reply
 
 
Mar 25, 2014 11:24:05   #
barry.lapoint Loc: Colorado
 
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)


I don't believe you're doing anything wrong at all. Jpg is fine to shoot in but there really is a HUGE difference in the information the actual Raw vs Jpg file has. You may not be seeing any difference because of the computer screen you are looking at them on. My 30" Mac screen allows me to see a very different result from Raw to Jpg. The Jpgs seem to all be quite a bit more contrasty and lack the real depth of color saturation that Raw seems to have. For me, it really depends on my anticipated end result. If I'm shooting for web then jpg is certainly fine in all cases but if I'm shooting for print...it has to be Raw in my book. You have a lot more fine tune options with Raw in post.

Reply
Mar 25, 2014 12:00:57   #
georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.
 
I have been shooting it RAW+JPEG since it first available on my cameras. I have both Canon and Nikon. Straight out of the camera the two have always looked pretty much identical. I did find that the RAW files could be adjusted much better in PhotoshopCS 3's RAW converter than a straight JPEG can be adjusted in Photoshop. Photoshop CS's RAW converter has fine tuning adjustments that seem better than what exists in Photoshop itself, and some adjustments that don't exist in Photoshop at all or in any other processing software I have seen. Actually I usually end doing the PP twice, First in RAW, then after conversion to TIFF in Photoshop, (and then a third or fourth time with Topaz's plugin filters, or Photomatix which I found can do it's detail enhancing adjustments not only on HDR bracketed exposures but on a single exposure in TIFF) but I like the results much better. As other members have pointed out their is more information in the highlights and shadows that can be restored as detail where as in the JPEG you may end up with blown highlights and flat dark shadows that are irretrievable, where as they are retrievable and fixable with RAW adjustments. RAW also allows better white balance adjustment than is possible with with the JPEG, many photographers brag they do not worry about the correct white balance camera setting because they can correct it in RAW adjustments PP. Thus you can make those white balance adjustments that are "in between" the camera's fixed settings.
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)

Reply
Mar 25, 2014 13:54:23   #
The Watcher
 
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)


Try it again, but bypass the Nikon software. With your files listed on the screen, right click on a jpeg and then click on open with. Photoshop or CC should be on that list, have it open the file. After you have a good look at it, don't close it. Bring your file list up again and open the nef file like you did the jpeg. You should see a difference. If you want to see the jpeg again, just cancel the nef file.

Reply
Mar 25, 2014 19:03:10   #
wingnut1956 Loc: chicago
 
The Watcher wrote:
Try it again, but bypass the Nikon software. With your files listed on the screen, right click on a jpeg and then click on open with. Photoshop or CC should be on that list, have it open the file. After you have a good look at it, don't close it. Bring your file list up again and open the nef file like you did the jpeg. You should see a difference. If you want to see the jpeg again, just cancel the nef file.

Thank you everybody for your input. ..definitely have some good ideas to play around with. I did start to notice small differences in color tones after looking much closer. All I really have at this point are night shots of vegas, and I know I need to shoot many more types if shots in other lighting to maybe see more results to compare with. Now that the weather is getting better I'm looking forward to getting out more.

Reply
 
 
Mar 25, 2014 20:52:03   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
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)


Wingnut, Palepictures is correct. However, a lot more can be brought out of the RAW file using ACR than can be done with a .jpg.
--Bob

Reply
Mar 25, 2014 21:52:37   #
The Watcher
 
The Watcher wrote:
Try it again, but bypass the Nikon software. With your files listed on the screen, right click on a jpeg and then click on open with. Photoshop or CC should be on that list, have it open the file. After you have a good look at it, don't close it. Bring your file list up again and open the nef file like you did the jpeg. You should see a difference. If you want to see the jpeg again, just cancel the nef file.
---------------------------------------------------------------
wingnut1956 wrote:
Thank you everybody for your input. ..definitely have some good ideas to play around with. I did start to notice small differences in color tones after looking much closer. All I really have at this point are night shots of vegas, and I know I need to shoot many more types if shots in other lighting to maybe see more results to compare with. Now that the weather is getting better I'm looking forward to getting out more.


Wingnut, If you've done what I've suggested above. Then reload the nef file into Photoshop and start playing with those sliders, starting with exposure and just watch what happens. When you're done playing just hit cancel and the file will remain unchanged.

Reply
Mar 25, 2014 23:29:53   #
James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)
 
barry.lapoint wrote:
I don't believe you're doing anything wrong at all. Jpg is fine to shoot in but there really is a HUGE difference in the information the actual Raw vs Jpg file has. You may not be seeing any difference because of the computer screen you are looking at them on. My 30" Mac screen allows me to see a very different result from Raw to Jpg. The Jpgs seem to all be quite a bit more contrasty and lack the real depth of color saturation that Raw seems to have. For me, it really depends on my anticipated end result. If I'm shooting for web then jpg is certainly fine in all cases but if I'm shooting for print...it has to be Raw in my book. You have a lot more fine tune options with Raw in post.
I don't believe you're doing anything wrong at all... (show quote)

=====================

Read this.. (It IS a long one) = I suggest that you save and read in segments....

http://www.slrlounge.com/school/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide

=============

AND----------

http://www.lightstalking.com/should-you-really-shoot-in-raw

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 2
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.