Three different ways to shoot and process photos (Page 2): Raw can often do that but I choose raw to get better image quality than possible from any camera JPEG software. Processing a...

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

David Taylor wrote:

Choose raw to fix your screwups.

Raw can often do that but I choose raw to get better image quality than possible from any camera JPEG software.

Processing a raw file I always create a better quality final image than it's possible to generate as an SOOC JPEG from the same camera same scene regardless of the camera settings. I use processing software that's better than the software in the camera and I can tailor the processing to the specific image. The processing software in the camera is constrained by multiple limitations and the inability to address the image in any way locally.

Quite simply processing a raw file I can't produce a final result image with IQ as bad as the JPEG from the camera.

There are numerous reasons why but here's a simple example to make the point. We all encounter occasions where we have to or want to take a photo in low light -- a high ISO photo. So sitting here at my computer I took a photo of my mouse at ISO 6400. Now as a rule most folks will want that photo to retain as much detail as possible while at the same time suppressing the inevitable noise.

Camera software steps up: My Canon camera has two levels of high ISO noise reduction that "Reduce image noise. Especially effective at high ISO speeds." I shot them both so we can compare -- I call them level "sucks big" and level "super sucks." Now my joking aside noise reduction is processor intensive work. We know how to do a good job of it but bottom line is we just can't afford the processing overhead to put it in our cameras. We really can't expect the processor in the camera to compete with the resources of a computer.

In addition to my camera's two SOOC JPEGs I also processed a raw file. Let's have a look first at 100% samples. From the left we see the camera's level 1 NR processing (sucks big). It does a poor job reducing noise and turns the detail in the photo to mush. In the middle is the level 2 NR from the camera which super sucks. Noise processing is pretty good but fine detail is completely missing -- calling it super sucks is being generous. Now that's it if you're shooting SOOC JPEG. You get to choose between sucks big and super sucks. Get it sucking right from the camera -- isn't that the JPEG shooter's mantra?

The right side image has the best noise reduction while at the same time retaining the best detail. I processed the raw file in DXO which does a stellar job dealing with noise. If you want the best possible image quality you won't get it from the camera -- the camera software is designed to a different target -- it has to cut corners and it does.

(Download)

camera level 1 NR
camera level 1 NR...

(Download)

(Download)

raw processing NR
raw processing NR...

(Download)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

David Taylor wrote:

Choose raw to fix your screwups.

Try a new song - this one's gettin' old. Or try a raw workflow so you can speak from experience.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Ysarex wrote:

Raw can often do that but I choose raw to get better image quality than possible from any camera JPEG software.

Processing a raw file I always create a better quality final image than it's possible to generate as an SOOC JPEG from the same camera same scene regardless of the camera settings. I use processing software that's better than the software in the camera and I can tailor the processing to the specific image. The processing software in the camera is constrained by multiple limitations and the inability to address the image in any way locally.

Quite simply processing a raw file I can't produce a final result image with IQ as bad as the JPEG from the camera.

There are numerous reasons why but here's a simple example to make the point. We all encounter occasions where we have to or want to take a photo in low light -- a high ISO photo. So sitting here at my computer I took a photo of my mouse at ISO 6400. Now as a rule most folks will want that photo to retain as much detail as possible while at the same time suppressing the inevitable noise.

Camera software steps up: My Canon camera has two levels of high ISO noise reduction that "Reduce image noise. Especially effective at high ISO speeds." I shot them both so we can compare -- I call them level "sucks big" and level "super sucks." Now my joking aside noise reduction is processor intensive work. We know how to do a good job of it but bottom line is we just can't afford the processing overhead to put it in our cameras. We really can't expect the processor in the camera to compete with the resources of a computer.

In addition to my camera's two SOOC JPEGs I also processed a raw file. Let's have a look first at 100% samples. From the left we see the camera's level 1 NR processing (sucks big). It does a poor job reducing noise and turns the detail in the photo to mush. In the middle is the level 2 NR from the camera which super sucks. Noise processing is pretty good but fine detail is completely missing -- calling it super sucks is being generous. Now that's it if you're shooting SOOC JPEG. You get to choose between sucks big and super sucks. Get it sucking right from the camera -- isn't that the JPEG shooter's mantra?

The right side image has the best noise reduction while at the same time retaining the best detail. I processed the raw file in DXO which does a stellar job dealing with noise. If you want the best possible image quality you won't get it from the camera -- the camera software is designed to a different target -- it has to cut corners and it does.

Raw can often do that but I choose raw to get bett... (show quote)

You're either preaching to the choir, Joe, or you are trying to help someone overcome cognitive dissonance with a healthy dose of stubbornness. Good luck with that. Or many work on a "raw" solution to fix humans.

David Taylor

Gene51 wrote:

Try a new song - this one's gettin' old. Or try a raw workflow so you can speak from experience.

Use it regularly.

David Taylor

Ysarex wrote:

Raw can often do that but I choose raw to get better image quality than possible from any camera JPEG software.

Processing a raw file I always create a better quality final image than it's possible to generate as an SOOC JPEG from the same camera same scene regardless of the camera settings. I use processing software that's better than the software in the camera and I can tailor the processing to the specific image. The processing software in the camera is constrained by multiple limitations and the inability to address the image in any way locally.

Quite simply processing a raw file I can't produce a final result image with IQ as bad as the JPEG from the camera.

There are numerous reasons why but here's a simple example to make the point. We all encounter occasions where we have to or want to take a photo in low light -- a high ISO photo. So sitting here at my computer I took a photo of my mouse at ISO 6400. Now as a rule most folks will want that photo to retain as much detail as possible while at the same time suppressing the inevitable noise.

Camera software steps up: My Canon camera has two levels of high ISO noise reduction that "Reduce image noise. Especially effective at high ISO speeds." I shot them both so we can compare -- I call them level "sucks big" and level "super sucks." Now my joking aside noise reduction is processor intensive work. We know how to do a good job of it but bottom line is we just can't afford the processing overhead to put it in our cameras. We really can't expect the processor in the camera to compete with the resources of a computer.

In addition to my camera's two SOOC JPEGs I also processed a raw file. Let's have a look first at 100% samples. From the left we see the camera's level 1 NR processing (sucks big). It does a poor job reducing noise and turns the detail in the photo to mush. In the middle is the level 2 NR from the camera which super sucks. Noise processing is pretty good but fine detail is completely missing -- calling it super sucks is being generous. Now that's it if you're shooting SOOC JPEG. You get to choose between sucks big and super sucks. Get it sucking right from the camera -- isn't that the JPEG shooter's mantra?

The right side image has the best noise reduction while at the same time retaining the best detail. I processed the raw file in DXO which does a stellar job dealing with noise. If you want the best possible image quality you won't get it from the camera -- the camera software is designed to a different target -- it has to cut corners and it does.

Raw can often do that but I choose raw to get bett... (show quote)

Time waster. All that faff.

w00dy4012 Loc: Thalia, East Virginia

Gene51 wrote:

Try a new song - this one's gettin' old. Or try a raw workflow so you can speak from experience.

DAN Phillips Loc: Graysville, GA

As I have stated before. I go for reality. If a picture is post processed, I don't know if it is real or not. The camera may have been in the desert or it may not. I'm a creature of habit. I took crime scene phots for many years, the courts want reality not fluff. I don't comment on many pictures because I know it may not be real. With today's technology you can easily pull parts of pictures from various sources and call it your own. I go for the reality, every time.

David Taylor

DAN Phillips wrote:

As I have stated before. I go for reality. If a picture is post processed, I don't know if it is real or not. The camera may have been in the desert or it may not. I'm a creature of habit. I took crime scene phots for many years, the courts want reality not fluff. I don't comment on many pictures because I know it may not be real. With today's technology you can easily pull parts of pictures from various sources and call it your own. I go for the reality, every time.

srt101fan

DAN Phillips wrote:

As I have stated before. I go for reality. If a picture is post processed, I don't know if it is real or not. The camera may have been in the desert or it may not. I'm a creature of habit. I took crime scene phots for many years, the courts want reality not fluff. I don't comment on many pictures because I know it may not be real. With today's technology you can easily pull parts of pictures from various sources and call it your own. I go for the reality, every time.

So you don't like painting, music, theater, movies, literature, unless they're "real". And of course you define "real".

Understood; just enjoy looking at your crime scene photos. But please recognize that some of us might have a broader range of appreciation of the arts....

David Taylor

srt101fan wrote:

So you don't like painting, music, theater, movies, literature, unless they're "real". And of course you define "real".

Understood; just enjoy looking at your crime scene photos. But please recognize that some of us might have a broader range of appreciation of the arts....

Clearly, he was talking about his choice in photography. You have to deliberately misunderstand because you have no real argument.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

controversy wrote:

....Rather, this is about how images are processed.....

I hope you realise that "processed" is a dirty word to some - in particular those who think that PP is for people who can't "get it right in camera".

David Taylor

R.G. wrote:

I hope you realise that "processed" is a dirty word to some - in particular those who think that PP is for people who can't "get it right in camera".

PP is a crutch for the the inept majority.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

David Taylor wrote:

PP is a crutch for the the inept majority.

PP is a powerful tool for optimisation. If your comment reflects how you see the majority, it says something about you. Even the inept ones can claim that they're trying to do something to optimise their shots. Are you going to criticise them for that? We're all somewhere on the learning curve.

David Taylor

R.G. wrote:

PP is a powerful tool for optimisation. If your comment reflects how you see the majority, it says something about you. Even the inept ones can claim that they're trying to do something to optimise their shots. Are you going to criticise them for that? We're all somewhere on the learning curve.

Claim is all they can do. They're still inept.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Gene51 wrote:

...try a raw workflow so you can speak from experience.

David Taylor wrote:

Use it regularly.

David Taylor wrote:

PP is a crutch for the the inept majority.

David Taylor wrote:

Time waster. All that faff.

So let's clarify where you're coming from here. To the suggestion that you try a raw workflow, you replied that you use it regularly. But you have repeatedly said that postprocessing is a crutch, that it's used largely to correct mistakes, and that it's a waste of time. Can you tell us how you regularly use a raw workflow without postprocessing?