Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-17-2018, 02:29 PM   #1
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Lancaster
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,821
Vintage glass, RAW or JPEG?

RAW. Thread closed

But is it quite so cut and dried? I have LBA which has led to me having ten vintage manual lenses. I want to exploit their characteristics so I am going to put them on my K30 and play. Now normally I shoot RAW and process but am I losing the character of the lens by doing that? And if I am not going to process (I am thinking of using this as a no prosessing, wysiwyg challenge) do I need to shoot RAW at all? After all, the K30/50/70 does a nice job of jpeg! Thoughts? I am still a newbie and every day is a school day.

04-17-2018, 02:41 PM   #2
Ari
Veteran Member
Ari's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Freehold, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 856
Shoot in RAW - it's not that you are going to gain or lose anything (much) while shooting, but you will gain much more flexibility in post. And, because Pentax is one of the few cameras that can actually shoot in DNG natively, you don't have to spend time converting your RAW images before working on them.
04-17-2018, 02:50 PM   #3
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Lancaster
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,821
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Ari Quote
Shoot in RAW - it's not that you are going to gain or lose anything (much) while shooting, but you will gain much more flexibility in post. And, because Pentax is one of the few cameras that can actually shoot in DNG natively, you don't have to spend time converting your RAW images before working on them.
Ok I will be using my K30 rather than my K3 so file size wont be an issue and raw is a more genuine representation of what you captured. Also, if I decided not to process, I guess jpeg defeats the object. It will be interesting to see if anyone uses jpeg and why though.
04-17-2018, 03:06 PM - 1 Like   #4
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Washington Cascades
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,991
QuoteOriginally posted by Cerebum Quote
After all, the K30/50/70 does a nice job of jpeg!
If you are happy with the camera jpgs and are not going to spend the time to process the images then shooting RAW is a waste of effort. Remember the jpg is just a RAW developed by the settings in the camera. No different than taking that RAW and developing it on the computer. You can adjust the camera settings quite a bit to suite your taste.
QuoteOriginally posted by Cerebum Quote
Now normally I shoot RAW and process but am I losing the character of the lens by doing that?
I am not sure I understand what you mean by this? If you are losing the character of the lens it is because of the way you processed the image. Do you like the camera jpgs better?

04-17-2018, 03:15 PM - 2 Likes   #5
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 4,833
QuoteOriginally posted by Cerebum Quote
...Now normally I shoot RAW and process but am I losing the character of the lens by doing that?...
It depends in part on how your process. Let's pretend an old lens gives a yellow cast to photos. With JPG and no processing, all your photos will stay yellow. With raw and the ease of adjusting white balance, you can keep the yellow look or correct it, your choice. You can go back later and change your mind about processing styles if you start from raw data.

If you remain uncertain, try raw+JPG.
04-17-2018, 03:23 PM - 1 Like   #6
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Lancaster
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,821
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
If you are happy with the camera jpgs and are not going to spend the time to process the images then shooting RAW is a waste of effort. Remember the jpg is just a RAW developed by the settings in the camera. No different than taking that RAW and developing it on the computer. You can adjust the camera settings quite a bit to suite your taste.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by this? If you are losing the character of the lens it is because of the way you processed the image. Do you like the camera jpgs better?
Thanks Jatrax This is exactly what I was wondering. I haven’t tried either much yet so don’t currently have a preference, although with my af lenses on my K3 I always shoot RAW

As for the character of the lens, when I process raw I often change sharpness, warmth, saturation amongst other things. I want to learn the characteristics of each lens which I see as getting an unaltered image to see what the lens gives me, naturally that being the case, would raw give me the virgin image?
04-17-2018, 03:27 PM - 1 Like   #7
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,575
QuoteOriginally posted by Cerebum Quote
RAW. Thread closed

But is it quite so cut and dried? I have LBA which has led to me having ten vintage manual lenses. I want to exploit their characteristics so I am going to put them on my K30 and play. Now normally I shoot RAW and process but am I losing the character of the lens by doing that? And if I am not going to process (I am thinking of using this as a no prosessing, wysiwyg challenge) do I need to shoot RAW at all? After all, the K30/50/70 does a nice job of jpeg! Thoughts? I am still a newbie and every day is a school day.
When you shoot RAW, you're capturing a lot more information than your computer or printer can reproduce visually. With all processing options in your software set to zero or disabled, you see the image exactly as the sensor captured it, flaws and all, but there's also a lot more information behind the image that you don't see - colour and contrast gradations, for example. If you can't see them, you'd think they might be unimportant, but they add a great deal of flexibility and smoothness in your post-processing options. As you add overall contrast, local contrast (clarity), tone curves, colour adjustments, etc. all that extra information is helpful in pulling out the best possible image.

When you shoot JPEG, all of that extra information is thrown away. You can still make all the same adjustments, but if the extra information is gone, they'll be based on what's left. Worse still, JPEGs have a lot of sharpening, tone curve, contrast and other adjustments built into them. As a result, you're not seeing the exact image that the sensor recorded - you're not seeing the exact image produced by that vintage lens. You're seeing a camera-enhanced version of it.

There's no right or wrong approach to this... we're all different. Choose what works for you. Me, I like to shoot RAW and see the image with all its character and flaws... be that low contrast / micro-contrast, poor sharpness, etc. I can always process my RAW files to look like an in-camera JPEG, but I can never remove the adjustments baked into an actual in-camera JPEG.

04-17-2018, 03:54 PM - 2 Likes   #8
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2016
Location: East Coast
Posts: 2,903
QuoteOriginally posted by Cerebum Quote
As for the character of the lens, when I process raw I often change sharpness, warmth, saturation amongst other things. I want to learn the characteristics of each lens which I see as getting an unaltered image to see what the lens gives me, naturally that being the case, would raw give me the virgin image?
If you're after what the lens does, then RAW is "true" and jpeg is not. As already said, jpeg out of the camera is a processed RAW where you had little to no control on how it was processed. Yes, when you process and sharpen etc. you are changing things, and if you're after what really came out of the lens, then don't do it. That all said, you might find that you want to take that RAW file and apply something, even perhaps a camera profile to breath some life into what might be a very flat and, well, RAW looking image. But seriously, why even worry about this? SD cards are pretty cheap, as is mechanical storage (versus SSD). Just shoot in RAW+ and then you can be lazy and look at jpegs if that's what you initially feel like, but when locked up on a rainy day and nothing to do, you might suddenly find yourself crawling through some of those RAW files discovering you're quite happy to have all the options. And some of those vintage lenses produce beautiful photos. Why wouldn't you want max control and shoot in RAW+?
04-17-2018, 04:06 PM - 1 Like   #9
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Washington Cascades
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,991
QuoteOriginally posted by Cerebum Quote
I want to learn the characteristics of each lens which I see as getting an unaltered image to see what the lens gives me, naturally that being the case, would raw give me the virgin image?
The RAW is the plain data, but what you see when you view it is the software's interpretation of that data. If you view on the camera screen it is using the develop settings in the camera. If you view it on the computer it is using the develop settings built in to the viewing software. If you import to Lightroom it is using the default develop settings from Lightroom. If you import to Lightroom (or other RAW developer) and process it you are using the develop settings from your changes.
I think to get what you seem to be saying you want you might have to shoot film. Sorry, but this is digital and nothing is fixed or going to give a "virgin image" the image data is ALWAYS being interpreted by the software that is being used.

---------- Post added 04-17-18 at 04:09 PM ----------

I always shoot RAW and use Lightroom import develop presets to cover most of the effort. And I think RAW is the way to go for most people. But if there is no desire to do post processing then there is nothing inherently wrong with shooting jpgs. But the camera jpgs are not going to be any more 'virgin' than any other interpretation of the image data.
04-17-2018, 04:23 PM - 1 Like   #10
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Lancaster
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,821
Original Poster
I REALLY appreciate the time taken on these answers. Raw+ is a good suggestion, just as a tester I have had a recent splurge (super tak 55mm, Carl Zeiss tessar 50mm & a Helios 44m-4 (I also have bids in on pentax-m 28 & 100mm and a Mir)) and can't wait to play. Also, this gives my expensively repaired K30 purpose (my K3 is #1). I will be working in an interesting location (small northern market town). I have already photographed much of it in my halfhour lunch breaks and my plan is to take a different lens every day, just to mix things up. Knowing the characteristics of each lens will be fun but I suspect that learning them will be even more entertaining.

Said market town also has six charity shops. I see a future full of vintage glass. Oh happy day.
04-17-2018, 04:25 PM - 4 Likes   #11
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by Cerebum Quote
RAW. Thread closed
Having a vintage lens mounted should not make any more difference in regards to capture format than what you might eat for breakfast that day.


Steve

(...cereal or eggs when shooting with vintage glass? )
04-17-2018, 04:26 PM - 2 Likes   #12
Unregistered User
Guest




The jpegs from newer Pentax cameras are quite sophisticated, you may find that you are not be able to significantly improve on them. You should reset the jpeg sharpening and other parameters beforehand, the stock ones are somewhat aggressive. Pentax can make shadow and highlight corrections before you shoot as well. If your jpegs consistently need a lot of work you are probably doing something wrong—usually the the white balance isn’t set correctly. Most Pentax cameras allow you to save the RAW file after the last shot in the buffer if you think you need it.

As long as you are thinking vintage, RAW is like shooting negatives, jpegs are like shooting slides.

You have to try it both ways to see if it is worth the time, effort, and expense for you.

Last edited by Unregistered User; 04-17-2018 at 04:27 PM. Reason: more info
04-17-2018, 04:39 PM   #13
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Lancaster
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,821
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
The RAW is the plain data, but what you see when you view it is the software's interpretation of that data. If you view on the camera screen it is using the develop settings in the camera. If you view it on the computer it is using the develop settings built in to the viewing software. If you import to Lightroom it is using the default develop settings from Lightroom. If you import to Lightroom (or other RAW developer) and process it you are using the develop settings from your changes.
I think to get what you seem to be saying you want you might have to shoot film. Sorry, but this is digital and nothing is fixed or going to give a "virgin image" the image data is ALWAYS being interpreted by the software that is being used.

---------- Post added 04-17-18 at 04:09 PM ----------

I always shoot RAW and use Lightroom import develop presets to cover most of the effort. And I think RAW is the way to go for most people. But if there is no desire to do post processing then there is nothing inherently wrong with shooting jpgs. But the camera jpgs are not going to be any more 'virgin' than any other interpretation of the image data.
So I am doomed to live a processed life! How depressing lololol given the suspicion with which my wife would greet the introduction of chemicals into my life, I think I will have to settle for an image that is not quite virgin.......... (Is that possible? Virgin being an absolute state! That's akin to saying something is only slightly dead) we need a term for only mildly messed around with........ Like ruffled

---------- Post added 04-17-18 at 04:49 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Having a vintage lens mounted should not make any more difference in regards to capture format than what you might eat for breakfast that day.


Steve

(...cereal or eggs when shooting with vintage glass? )
Surely porridge, coincidentally my breakfast of choice. But what of the other lenses? Kit zooms, cereal, limiteds, a nice pan or croissant and the big zooms must be a full english
04-17-2018, 04:51 PM   #14
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,575
QuoteOriginally posted by Cerebum Quote
So I am doomed to live a processed life! How depressing lololol given the suspicion with which my wife would greet the introduction of chemicals into my life, I think I will have to settle for an image that is not quite virgin.......... (Is that possible? Virgin being an absolute state! That's akin to saying something is only slightly dead) we need a term for only mildly messed around with........ Like ruffled
I think the point is (and I'm sure you understand this already ), RAW gives the least-processed image from your lens. It'll be subject to the sensor's recording of it, and any non-software-related signal-processing, but it's the most accurate recording your camera can produce. You can then do whatever you want to optimise it or alter it to your tastes.

Bear in mind that even film also doesn't give a completely true representation, as different films have different colour and contrast (amongst other) characteristics. So you're not really any worse off with digital. It's just a little different, is all
04-17-2018, 04:53 PM   #15
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Lancaster
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,821
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Cipher Quote
The jpegs from newer Pentax cameras are quite sophisticated, you may find that you are not be able to significantly improve on them. You should reset the jpeg sharpening and other parameters beforehand, the stock ones are somewhat aggressive. Pentax can make shadow and highlight corrections before you shoot as well. If your jpegs consistently need a lot of work you are probably doing something wrong—usually the the white balance isn’t set correctly. Most Pentax cameras allow you to save the RAW file after the last shot in the buffer if you think you need it.

As long as you are thinking vintage, RAW is like shooting negatives, jpegs are like shooting slides.

You have to try it both ways to see if it is worth the time, effort, and expense for you.
I have read about the quality of Pentax jpegs but haven't explored them. Maybe, once I know the lenses in a format I am use to, my next challenge can be to nail jpeg. The trouble is, every time I think my learning curve is flattening out, something new curls it up and I fall over again!

---------- Post added 04-17-18 at 04:57 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
I think the point is (and I'm sure you understand this already ), RAW gives the least-processed image from your lens. It'll be subject to the sensor's recording of it, and any non-software-related signal-processing, but it's the most accurate recording your camera can produce. You can then do whatever you want to optimise it or alter it to your tastes.

Bear in mind that even film also doesn't give a completely true representation, as different films have different colour and contrast (amongst other) characteristics. So you're not really any worse off with digital. It's just a little different, is all
I was wondering that about film. In one of my processing programs you can apply a filter that replicates the different types of film. I am thinking that jpeg is a whole new challenge so I have decided to run with the lightly ruffled raw files

---------- Post added 04-17-18 at 05:01 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
I think the point is (and I'm sure you understand this already ), RAW gives the least-processed image from your lens. It'll be subject to the sensor's recording of it, and any non-software-related signal-processing, but it's the most accurate recording your camera can produce. You can then do whatever you want to optimise it or alter it to your tastes.

Bear in mind that even film also doesn't give a completely true representation, as different films have different colour and contrast (amongst other) characteristics. So you're not really any worse off with digital. It's just a little different, is all
I was wondering that about film. In one of my processing programs you can apply a filter that replicates the different types of film. I am thinking that jpeg is a whole new challenge so I have decided to run with the lightly ruffled raw files at least then I can experience the personality of the lens within fixed parameters
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, cameras, challenge, characteristics, contrast, data, day, develop, film, image, import, jpeg, jpegs, jpgs, lens, life, lightroom, pentax, pentax cameras, photography, post, process, settings, time, view
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PENTAX new glass-old glass - lens tubes designed like old glass? corporate identity? camyum Pentax Full Frame 3 09-24-2017 02:52 PM
Different exposure between RAW and JPEG in RAW + JPEG - possible? BigMackCam Pentax DSLR Discussion 15 10-08-2016 01:50 AM
Raw + jpeg versus embedded jpeg cpk Pentax DSLR Discussion 20 12-23-2014 08:44 AM
JPEG, RAW, JPEG + RAW...huh? Raptorman Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 14 12-22-2009 11:49 AM
RAW + JPEG with JPEG on One Star quality laissezfaire Pentax DSLR Discussion 58 12-10-2008 02:42 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:16 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top