Wow...Huge difference in K10D images

Darius4522 · 10-13-2007, 01:19 AM

I recall reading in here that converting K10D RAW images to jpgs resulted in a better image than straight jpgs. But not having decent software (apart from what came with the camera and Irfanview), I saw little reason to test this information. I had little to do today, so I spent 15 minutes or so testing this.

I was astonished by the results. Guess you can easily pick which is which, even with my rudimentary software (depite the minor color difference - although the 1st shot [the converted RAW to jgp] is truer).

The lens was a Sigma 70-300mm. The shot was taken at the Taj Mahal. I like the bird in the top centre, and the Muslim praying while the man, oblivious to him, sweeps.

MJB DIGITAL · 10-13-2007, 01:54 AM

ok so tell us how you did your test.
because it is two conversions of the same photo

did you shoot it in raw?

little laker · 10-13-2007, 02:04 AM

With the right software and knowledge you can really alter a jpg as well.

Here's an example.

I used your second picture

I rarely shoot in RAW, and still get some amazing results.

*Mallee Boy* · 10-13-2007, 03:06 AM

Hi Darius,
What part of Adelaide? I'm a former crow eater, east of Adelaide in the mallee and my wife is a Dover Gardens girl.

Your shots demonstrate that there certainly is a difference.

My problem, however, is what is the "truth" .....what is closest to accurately re-producing what you saw???? Please do not take this as any criticism of your photo at all, none is intended or implied, this is more of a general comment of the digital age of post processing.

I think (stress that bit..."I think")...that one of the great things about photography is the accurate re-production of what the photographer saw and wanted to capture.

An area of increasing dis-quiet or doubt, in my humble opinion, is the over emphasis on post processing and how it can distort the reality and be replaced by what someone wanted to see, rather than an accurate re-production of what was actually there.

So...what did you see? which is the more accurate portrail of what attracted you to take the shot? By this I mean the colours and tones of what you saw.

Good capture by the way, and yes, I shoot in RAW and convert using Lightroom, but try and keep the "manipulation" to a minimum in the interest of accuracy.
Cheers.

*Papou* · 10-13-2007, 03:20 AM

I think the bird (BIRD OF PEACE) in the pic really sets the Pic ey..Nice shot even though i do manipulate a shot to get it to how i want to see the Pic i totally agree with what Grant said about capturing what one sees rather than what one wishes to see.
To bring that out in most cases due to the loss ofinformation shooting jpeg i believe "Yes" you should if you can shoot in RAW mode....
Cheers

Darius4522 · 10-13-2007, 03:28 AM

I simply took one shot that I had taken with RAW+jpg. I used Irfananview for the jpg, and used the K10D software to convert the RAW shot to a jpgm and again used Irfanview. The first shot is the converted RAW shot. When looked at in high resolution, the first shot has far superior detail. The difference is amazing although it is not so easy to see in these images.

GWP = Adelaide, in the Unley area. The converted RAW shot is by far the closest. And because nof my limited software, I can't really alter any of my shots much. What I take is generally what you see... I can't even clone stuff out or insert beautiful skies on shot take in grey or dull days.

Laker, 90% of my shots are just high quality jpgs. If I have a really great shot to take, I just press the RAW button.

My jpgs , generally unaltered, have been published in numerous glossy travel magazines and newspapers without any problem.

*Mallee Boy* · 10-13-2007, 03:51 AM

Unley....god

I have terrible memories of going to watch the Redlegs play at Unley Oval and getting our butts kicked.

Any relation to the other famous SA Mitchell....Susan?

Like your website btw. You should catch up Jack Simpson who appears here occasionally and on dpreview...you have a lot in common.
Cheers

philmorley · 10-13-2007, 04:05 AM

hi, raw therapee (Raw Therapee - News) is a good raw convertor that is free (he asks for a $5 donation which 80 out of 35000 people have done) if you are after more software. Also many people like 'the gimp' or picasa.

Rgds
Phil

(go the 'pies!)

Darius4522 · 10-13-2007, 04:32 AM

Hmmmm....I'm an old bastard who still uses Win 98 version 2......most decent programmes don't work with it...but I'll give it a try! Thanks.

mattdm · 10-13-2007, 05:54 AM

Darius -- sounds like you need to try Linux. Get an Ubuntu or Fedora livecd, and then install "ufraw" (which will be part of the Linux distribution) or LightZone (which is proprietary software you can download for free).

Harald · 10-13-2007, 06:02 AM

Originally Posted by little laker

With the right software and knowledge you can really alter a jpg as well.

Here's an example.

I used your second picture

I rarely shoot in RAW, and still get some amazing results.

Sorry to say, but I prefer the first one (RAW conversion). Your version is unnatural and oversaturated. But I know many prefer such a style, othervise they wouldnt sell so much Canon gear...

Chako · 10-13-2007, 07:50 AM

What are you talking about? If you want saturated shots, you can get those from all camera systems. Not sure why you are attacking Canon. I am quite puzzled by your comment.

Harald · 10-13-2007, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by Chako

What are you talking about? If you want saturated shots, you can get those from all camera systems. Not sure why you are attacking Canon. I am quite puzzled by your comment.

Are you sure that you didnt dial to wrong forum?

And relax. I didnt attack to anybody. Are you really not aware what kind of bias Canon has in their jpeg default settings? And didnt you know that Pentax has rather opposite bias?

little laker · 10-13-2007, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by Harald

Sorry to say, but I prefer the first one (RAW conversion). Your version is unnatural and oversaturated. But I know many prefer such a style, othervise they wouldnt sell so much Canon gear...

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.

*jfdavis58* · 10-13-2007, 09:14 AM

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!

Originally Posted by Darius4522

I recall reading in here that converting K10D RAW images to jpgs resulted in a better image than straight jpgs. But not having ...