Wow...Huge difference in K10D images

[Harald]

Originally Posted by little laker

I could have easily reduced the saturation Harald.
I was trying to bring out some of the detail in the detail in the circles at the top, and the only way to have that detain in the circles with reduced saturation would have involved a little photoshop work.

I do not understand this jpeg vs. RAW thing.

If you want post process your pictures, RAW is made for it. It is not easier to PP jpegs but more diffcult. And it is even more difficult to maintain picture quality.

You CAN do basic PP:s for jpegs if you have to, but it is not the primary purpose of them. RAW softwares are nowadays very easy to use even for newbies.

[mtnbearhug]

Originally Posted by Harald

I do not understand this jpeg vs. RAW thing. .

In my mind the reason we take pictures is the capture the moment. This has been eluted to earlier in this thread..

In my understanding of the difference between the jpeg and Raw is that the raw offers a bigger range of color and sharpness (which is why the MB of the pic is larger). So initially the Raw should give you a better picture than a jpeg. The main problem is the MB size of the pic... Is my thinking correct ????

There is a place for PP.. for sure.. not all pictures are perfect.. but I dont like sitting infront of a computer "fixing" my pics... I dont mind giving them a little brush but I like them as natural as be.. PP is fun and if that is the look I am wanting them I dont mind sittingn in front of the computer..


ok ok ok. im dont babbling now..

[Harald]

Originally Posted by mtnbearhug

In my mind the reason we take pictures is the capture the moment. This has been eluted to earlier in this thread..

In my understanding of the difference between the jpeg and Raw is that the raw offers a bigger range of color and sharpness (which is why the MB of the pic is larger). So initially the Raw should give you a better picture than a jpeg. The main problem is the MB size of the pic... Is my thinking correct ????

Yes, as far as I understand. But actually the size of the files is not an severe problem because 2 Gb + cards are not expensive anynore. I have one 2gb and one 1 Gb card and shoot RAW:s exclusively.

Originally Posted by mtnbearhug

There is a place for PP.. for sure.. not all pictures are perfect.. but I dont like sitting infront of a computer "fixing" my pics... I dont mind giving them a little brush but I like them as natural as be.. PP is fun and if that is the look I am wanting them I dont mind sittingn in front of the computer..

Basic fixing can be done to the jpegs also, but even it is done very much more conveniently without affecting the picture quality when RAW workflow is used. More extreme PP is then just RAW thing only. Some of it can be done to jpegs, but you usually pay for it severely in picture quality. If we are talking about web-size pictures and normal monitors to view them, jpegs are usually enough if extreme PP is not needed.

If you dont want sit in front of your computer, then jpeg way with basic fixing is yours. You know the tradeoffs and benefits and make your decisions accordingly. Very good.

[Peter Zack]

Originally Posted by jfdavis58

Again?

Why must we continue to go down this dark alley without so much as a candle? The RAW vs JPEG debate has long ago been shown moot.

I can find a dozen reasons in both photos to prefer either over the other. But what does it matter? Generally the PC monitor is a crap viewing medium and I doubt you'd consider mailing everyone a nice 'B' sized full bleed of both images for evaluation; or would you?!?!

I'm glad for you in your discovery of RAW utility; be happy!

Yup!! Agreed.

[lapeen]

For me there is a time and a place for both. I don't know that the picture in the OP was the best example of the difference because it's easy to get the result of the 'B' photo with a jpeg and free software (I use Picasa). Maybe that is why people are feeling a little contentious.

I don't EVER see myself shooting all RAW. I HATE having to process EVERYTHING. I want to snap, upload, hit "I'm feelin' lucky" (which works perfectly 95% of the time), and get printed or blog. I only shoot RAW in weird lighting, portaits for other people, and low light.

But that's just me If you want to shoot RAW all the time or jpg all the time... knock yourself out

[Cideway]

Originally Posted by Darius4522

GWP = Adelaide, in the Unley area.

Good to see another crow eater coming out of the wood work. Planning down the track to organise an Adelaide Pentax shoot.

[little laker]

Originally Posted by jfdavis58

Again?

Why must we continue to go down this dark alley without so much as a candle? The RAW vs JPEG debate has long ago been shown moot.

I can find a dozen reasons in both photos to prefer either over the other. But what does it matter? Generally the PC monitor is a crap viewing medium and I doubt you'd consider mailing everyone a nice 'B' sized full bleed of both images for evaluation; or would you?!?!

I'm glad for you in your discovery of RAW utility; be happy!

I almost can't believe that I've agreed with everything that I've seen you post lately John
I must be getting old or something

[stewart_photo]

Originally Posted by Harald

I do not understand this jpeg vs. RAW thing.

If you want post process your pictures, RAW is made for it. It is not easier to PP jpegs but more diffcult. And it is even more difficult to maintain picture quality. (snip)

First of all, when you look at the earlier images posted by Darius4522, do remember that you're looking at an user altered RAW image versus an assumingly unaltered JPEG image. Adjustments were made to the RAW file in the conversion software (contrast, WB, saturation, etc) before saving that image as a JPEG or TIFF file to the hard drive, while it appears the default camera settings were used for the JPEG file. Had those default camera settings (contrast, WB, saturation, etc) been adjusted to provide an image similar to the RAW file, both images would have obviously turned out virtually identical.

Next, you might understand this "thing" a little better by noting some RAW-only advocates continue to post misleading information to support this position. For example, you made the claim above that JPEG is more difficult to post process than RAW, which is clearly utter hogwash. Once a RAW file is converted into either JPEG or TIFF with the conversion software (a necessary step since no graphics editing software can edit a RAW file directly), there is absolutely no difference between the two images from that point on. Both can be saved in lossy or lossless format, with the exact same post processing tools used for each.

Finally, this JPEG versus RAW "thing" comes up every few weeks, with the same points made and disproven each time. In the end, most agree there are no huge differences between the two file formats if handled correctly by the user. So, lets head this "thing" off now by agreeing there are few differences (just a preference instead), that not everyone is going to use a camera in the same manner as another, and that one single way of doing things in this regard is not that much more proper than, or superior to, the other.

At that point, there is very little else remaining to debate about.

stewart

[Peter Zack]

Originally Posted by stewart_photo

At that point, there is very little else remaining to debate about.

stewart

Repeat. Yup, agreed

[JamesD]

I'm very interested in this discussion as a newbie about to receive my k10d this week and not having shot anything in RAW before.

Would someone mind correcting me? Here is what I've gained from your previous discussion.

RAW contains all the data whereas jpeg has compressed it. There are various jpeg settings (i.e. fine) which compress to varying degrees. Once in the jpeg format it is more or less a done deal whereas in RAW we have much more leeway to post process the image.

I will need two software programs to post process the images I make with my camera. One is a conversion program to convert the RAW images into jpegs or tiff or whatever...

The other is a photo-editing program similar to PS, PSE, PSP and so forth. But from what I just read, it appears that a program like PhotoShop Elements 6 (which my wife has) will "not" convert her RAW images into jpegs but will allow her to manipulate those RAW images to correct white balance and so forth.

Am I way off base or more or less on the mark?

Secondly, for a newbie, what relatively easy to understand programs would you recommend?

Thanks.

Oh... a friend mentioned both Silkypics and Faststone as two free/shareware programs to consider. Any help would be appreciated.

[stewart_photo]

Originally Posted by JamesD

I'm very interested in this discussion as a newbie about to receive my k10d this week and not having shot anything in RAW before.

Would someone mind correcting me? Here is what I've gained from your previous discussion. (snip)

Yes, JPEG files are compressed. However, in the higher quality modes (selected in-camera), you'll will not see any visible differences in the actual images as a result of that compression.

As far as post processing is concerned, the main difference between the two file formats is that one is initially processed in-camera (JPEG) using the settings you select versus the other initially processed on the computer (RAW) using the settings you select. Virtually everything, with either file format, can be further adjusted using graphics editing software (Photoshop, etc). After processing the RAW file, you'll need to convert it to either lossy or lossless JPEG or TIFF. The JPEG file can also be saved in either lossy or lossless JPEG or TIFF. Obviously, the lossless formats will help avoid any degradation of the image quality during the editing process afterwards.

Any program supporting Adobe Camera RAW 3.7 or later will read Pentax K10D RAW files. When you open the RAW file, you'll be given the option to adjust WB, contrast, saturation, and so on (you can also just accept the defaults). Again, the resulting image will be saved in either JPEG or TIFF afterwards.

Finally, here is a list of the top five freeware image editing programs, listed by popularity (downloads). All provide a wide varity of tools and nearly all of the latest versions of each are Photoshop plug-in compatible. I'm not sure which, if any, support Adobe Camera RAW 3.7.

- IrfanView by IrfanView

- Ultimatepaint by JTL Development

- VCW Vicman's Photo Editor Pro by VicMan Software

- ImageN by Pixoid

- FastStone Image Viewer by FastStone

Hope all this helps you in some way.

stewart

[JamesD]

Thanks, Stewart. It answers some questions, further educates me and creates some confusion.

I'm looking right now at the current issue of Popular Photography and the article is: Why Raw Works. Here are a few quotes from that article:

"Sometimes there are good reasons to shoot JPEGs. You might be running out of space on your memory card, or you know you'llnever make prints of the pictures or maybe you're just a really, really, self-assured photographer.

But the JPEG format has limits. Since the file gets compressed the moment it's taken, your camera's settings are written in stone. Make the wrong call on the white balance, for instance, and it will be a Sisyphean effort to fix the tone in Adobe PS.

Want to rein in your contrast and saturation-happy JPEGs? You can either become adept at manipulating your camera's image settings on the fly, or forget JPEG and shoot RAW to take permanent charge of your shadows and highlights."

What follows are examples of mistakes made in the camera when shooting on a blue-sky day but not taking into account that his subject was in shade near water. The result was that the camera's auto white balance was tricked into making the sky-reflecting water a ghastly blue. RAW let the shooter correct the shot from cooler to warmer, easily.

From this I think I learned the following:

- for important shots, use RAW.
- most shots would be fine in "fine" JPEG.
- when processing my RAW images later, I will need a RAW conversion program such as Faststone.
- Photoshop Elements 5 or 6 is fine to do the post processing but not to make the RAW conversion.
- I can save the RAW images as RAW, JPEG, TIFF depending upon the space I have and the uses I wish to make of the images.

I hope I have this correct. It's all quite new to me.

Question: When my new camera arrives (k10d) will the software that comes with it, allow me to make RAW conversion to JPEGs? Will this software also allow me to do post processing like changing white balance?

Thanks so much.

Question two: is the Raw button on the side of the camera like a toggle button. Press once for a RAW shot if the camera is "set" for JPEGs. If the camera is set for RAW, press once for a JPEG?

[CJCram]

I just received my K10D a week ago. The most useful setting for me is the Raw + Jpeg setting. I bought a 4gb card for $55 and I can save 188 raw + jpeg images on it. For the pictures that turn out nicely and I want to make sure I maintain full image quality or to do a few minor manipulations, I work with the raw images. All others I leave as Jpegs that were processed in camera. Right now my image processing kind of sucks- I have Adobe Photoshop CS, which doesn't support DNG or PEF and so I convert my images into 16 bit tiffs (with the Pentax software) and then use photoshop to process. Eventually my husband plans on getting a Linux image processing system set up using Gimp. As a bonus, we have over 500 gb of hard drive space to save our images on

[JamesD]

Hi

Do you mean that the RAW + JPEG setting allows you to shoot both at once? I'm obviously confused by what you mean when you say, "The most useful setting for me is the Raw + Jpeg setting." Is it an either/or setting or is this done simultaneously?

Also, what does this mean: "For the pictures that turn out nicely and I want to make sure I maintain full image quality or to do a few minor manipulations, I work with the raw images. All others I leave as Jpegs that were processed in camera."

How do you know if an image will turn out nicely so that you'll work with RAW while leaving the others as JPEGs?

Man... I'm just totally confused by all of this. I thought that we had an option to either set it to shoot in RAW "or" in JPEG but not both at the same time. How could it shoot both at one and the same time? Or does it save it in both formats?

I can understand how you might have set the camera to shoot in RAW and after a dozen or so shots decided to reset it to JPEG so the remainder would be in that format.. a sort of either/or proposition.

Please... take away the fog of confusion from this poor newbie.

[CJCram]

LOL, sorry, I'm a newbie too! Yes, there is a setting that will allow the camera to save both a RAW file and a Jpeg at the same time It makes it easier for me to look at my pictures (because I can use any software to do it with the Jpegs) and pick the ones I really like. Often I will choose ones that I thought had great composition or lighting and then use the raw images to do any post processing that may be helpful to the picture (a little more contrast, desaturation, shadows and highlights). Then I can delete the raw images I don't need to keep (because they take up a lot of space) and keep them only as Jpegs. Does that make sense? It's just what I like to do so far, but I'm sure it'll change as I learn Good luck!