[BruceBanner]

Ok, so here's my quasi-technical comparison of four "development" programs (or the "development" function of more general programs):

A photo was presented as .DNG image data to each of four "development" programs. Image was taken 90 degrees from horizontal and recorded in largest possible format in the camera, at highest possible resolution. All four were used to export to an uncompressed TIFF where possible using other program defaults. (No modifications to the image in terms of saturation, hue, brightness, gamma, etc.)

Only DCU saved a rotated image. Silkypix ("SP6") failed to preserve camera information, all the others recorded it accurately. Serif Affinity Photo ("SAP") saved the picture at 300dpi with 48 bit pixel data depth, but compressed the image using LZW (theoretically lossless, so not necessarily a problem - there was no option to save the file in an uncompressed format). SAP also created a slightly larger image in terms of pixel width and height at 300dpi. All the others recorded the standard image dimensions in uncompressed format but at 600dpi (600 dpi was selected where available as an option). SP6 saved the TIFF at 24 bit depth, Cyberlink saved it at 32 bits, and DCU saved it at 48 bits. Cyberlink failed to record the color space, so instead of "sRGB" (as selected in the camera), the field in the ExIf data is blank.

Resultant Filesizes(Kb):
Cyberlink PhotoDirector: 141,356
Silkypix_6: 105,976
Digital Camera Utility 5: 211,989
Serif Affinity Photo: 258,197

Origin Info: CP *1; SP6: No Data; DCU: *1; SAP: *2

*1 - program recorded origin data, but changed the "program name" field to its own name.
*2 - program recorded origin data, giving "program name" as "Pentax K-1 Ver. 1.50", providing release level of the firmware in the camera.

SP6 failed to preserve camera information, all the others recorded it correctly. None preserved "advanced photo" information, such as the lens used. SP6 and DCU provided the ExIf version level (0230 and 0221, respectively), but neither of the other two did so.

DCU saved the image without having rotated it 90 degrees - all the others did, though without having asked for it, apparently based on the orientation data supplied by the camera.

Image quality: I used the Windows photo viewer program to compare the four TIFF files, both in terms of general appearance and resolution. Resolution precision was inferred from using the "zoom" tool to enlarge the picture to the point of pixellation. As to that, DCU came in first and Silkypix came in second, though it appears the pixels were dithered or subjected to a gaussian blur. Then comes Cyberlink, and then Serif Affinity Photo, which was the worst on both counts - I felt that it brightened up the image a good bit, apparently "correcting" for my "error" in lighting (creating unwanted highlights, possibly because of having taken defaults) and it was excessively and unusably pixelated at much less enlargement than the other programs. My conclusion was that it's a great editing program, but lousy for development. Here's the kicker: none was significantly better than the JPEG as it came out of the camera (recording both uncompressed JPEG+RAW - two 64Gb memory cards, don't you just love it?). I suspect that Ichikawa Laboratories (which produced both Silkypix and the DCU from Ricoh) is responsible for the algorithm used for "development" within the camera itself.

At this point, I can't see much advantage in recording the RAW data at all. I can't think of anything a "development" program can do to the RAW data that I can't do just as well to a JPEG. And it takes longer to store all that data on the memory card, so why bother?

I shoot RAW for recovery purposes. I needed it earlier in my day more so than now, however there are still things I like to have greater control over that Jpg just can't give over RAW. Things such as WB/Temp, Shadow recovery (I don't tend to blow highlights out so much these days), stuff like that. You can see examples of some peoples work where they've done a shot that looks like HDR, the range is incredible, shots like being indoors and shooting at a window towards outside. Everything is viewable, what's going on inside the house as well as outside, nothing is blown out (clouds are perfect) yet inside the room you can still see objects clearly, nothing overly dark. These shots are not HDR, they are a single RAW file just properly exposed with the intention of lifting shadows and pulling back highlights to get everything nice and viewable. You simply can't have that much room to move with that sorta shot with a Jpg.

I'm confused why you'd downrate Affinity Photo for not having sync when Photoshop (its competitor) doesn't have a sync either.

Lightroom is a totally different type of application.. it has a sync though.. but thats apples and bananers between it and photoshop/affinityphoto.

I would downrate AP for features such as clunky UI and odd handling of highlights/shadows... stuff like that... where it can be compared directly with Photoshop (and not lightroom since Affinity doesn't offer a lightroom type application).

Because these days it's pretty hard to separate LR and PS from one another, it's subscription based and if you choose one or the other it doesn't matter, you end up with access to both. The ability to move from LR to PS is fluid, however you cannot Sync masking and layering work from PS (once applied and back in LR) to other files (not that perhaps you'd want to). You could almost think of LR/PS as one program these days, like toggling a tab in another 'all in one' program.

But I do see your point, LR technically is not PS and vice versa.

What I discovered when looking for an alternative to Adobe (cause no one likes being in a subscription based service, amirite!) is that the 'Sync' feature of LR seems to be greatly omitted. When you shoot professionally and have a good bunch of images that you want a consistent look to, and you want the processing done as quickly as possible, Syncing is a HUGE bonus! It's probably my most important feature I look for now in an editor, if it doesn't have it I don't even waste any more time thinking about it.

I do understand for the hobbyist, that takes one image that's Landscape, the next upload a Flower, the next a Portrait etc, that kinda shooter does not always need Sync. The hobbyist in me doesn't need it as much as the paid jobs do.

Thanks for this comparison. I always enjoy such investigations. Did you rotate the file in post?

I did not - it was interesting to see that one of the programs did it automagically without my approval.

What do you mean by "recorded in largest possible format" and "highest resolution"? Afaik the K-1 always records full-sized raw files?

Just that when I go through all the settings, I always select options for the largest file size and maximum number of pixels - and for the non-cropped FF option with the K-1, that's as big and full as the image is going to get. I haven't tried it, but I believe that if you pick the APS-c crop or the 1:1 (square) crop, the data stored does not include what's outside the boundaries of the cropped image. Not certain about that, though.

IMHO If you don't want to change or edit the images as they are in ooc jpegs, there is no point to shoot in raw. OTOH, for someone who likes to edit images, raw does make sense.

and

I shoot RAW for recovery purposes. I needed it earlier in my day more so than now, however there are still things I like to have greater control over that Jpg just can't give over RAW. Things such as WB/Temp, Shadow recovery (I don't tend to blow highlights out so much these days), stuff like that. You can see examples of some peoples work where they've done a shot that looks like HDR, the range is incredible, shots like being indoors and shooting at a window towards outside. Everything is viewable, what's going on inside the house as well as outside, nothing is blown out (clouds are perfect) yet inside the room you can still see objects clearly, nothing overly dark. These shots are not HDR, they are a single RAW file just properly exposed with the intention of lifting shadows and pulling back highlights to get everything nice and viewable. You simply can't have that much room to move with that sorta shot with a Jpg. ...

That's really interesting. I'll have to look into that further - I have the impression from my first use of the product that Affinity will do all the same stuff on JPEG data that it can on RAW. I'm going to have to read the instructions, I reckon.

[sbh]

Affinity has the weakest recovery capabilities of all apps that I have used. As much as I like it, shadow and highlight recovery is... well, bad. It doesn't show the full capabilities of raw files. So maybe try a different app if you want to explore raw potential.
I use Silkypix DS8 and there is the feature HDR and also Dodge. Both are different ways to get the most out of an image. It's rather hidden in the exposure section. Not sure where it is in DS6.
In DCU it is in the custom adjustments (not where the brightness slider is but in the other section).

[BruceBanner]

I did not - it was interesting to see that one of the programs did it automagically without my approval.



Just that when I go through all the settings, I always select options for the largest file size and maximum number of pixels - and for the non-cropped FF option with the K-1, that's as big and full as the image is going to get. I haven't tried it, but I believe that if you pick the APS-c crop or the 1:1 (square) crop, the data stored does not include what's outside the boundaries of the cropped image. Not certain about that, though.



and



That's really interesting. I'll have to look into that further - I have the impression from my first use of the product that Affinity will do all the same stuff on JPEG data that it can on RAW. I'm going to have to read the instructions, I reckon.

It can't, it's not even software dependent, it's just plain and simple not possible. There is far more data in a RAW file, it's why cameras give the option of shooting RAW in the first place, it allows for a far stronger image manipulation than what a Jpg output can manage. It's not something of an opinion I am speaking here, this is actually just scientific fact.

From personal experience, when I have come across someone who doesn't shoot RAW it's because of two reasons;

1) The RAW file looks lifeless and not as nice straight out of the camera compared to choosing to shoot Jpg instead

2) The RAW file continues to look even worse and more dull like when loaded into a software program for editing.

The user is then perplexed as to why bother with RAW, especially if the same shot but Jpg right off the bat looks so much better. It's a good point, and a valid one, because typically all RAW files end up as Jpgs on some file sharing site.

But if the user is not an experienced editor, not pushing the boundaries of what is possible with a RAW file then that is typically the Jpg shooter. I'm not talking about over processing a RAW file here, I'm talking very simple stuff, even just the basic sliders such as Exposure, Shadows, Highlights, Whites and Blacks, but you can push those sliders waaaay further before encountering issues, the RAW file just has far greater Dynamic Range capabilities.

There is a very strong rule for shooting Jpg only too however. It depends on what you shoot and your individual skill level, but if you get 95% of the shot right in camera at the time you take the shot, you may feel the image only benefits from slight post processing editing and therefore Jpgs are fine.
As I said earlier, I use RAW always, and needed it more in the beginning. I can't begin to tell you the amount of times I've thanked my lucky stars I shot this shot RAW or that, the recovery level is astounding should I have made a booboo. Now I feel I get far higher success rates in camera, the need for RAW is perhaps not there as much as it used to, but there are still plenty of situations I wouldn't want to shoot in without RAW (Concerts, Public Speaking, Weddings etc).

Oddly I guess this is what I think should be the case. The Newbie (at least in terms of editing) should be shooting RAW, and then weaning themselves off RAW to Jpg, rather than what's common which is newbies shooting Jpg when in actual reality RAW files would make more sense for them (better retrieval rates and teaches more about editing due to it's less constrained values/limits).

Right now I am only just starting to entertain the idea of shooting RAW+ (every shot taken is saved as a RAW file along with a Jpg to boot). If you would like to get an idea of where my current photography ability is at please click on my flickr link in my signature below. Every shot I have ever taken started as a RAW file, I have never uploaded a SOOC (Jpg Straight Out Of Camera).

Affinity has the weakest recovery capabilities of all apps that I have used. As much as I like it, shadow and highlight recovery is... well, bad. It doesn't show the full capabilities of raw files. So maybe try a different app if you want to explore raw potential.
I use Silkypix DS8 and there is the feature HDR and also Dodge. Both are different ways to get the most out of an image. It's rather hidden in the exposure section. Not sure where it is in DS6.
In DCU it is in the custom adjustments (not where the brightness slider is but in the other section).

I can't comment on this, by RAW editing experience has been mostly in LR and PS, I have touched on RawTherapee and it is quite interesting how the same RAW file can begin it's editing process looking so differently on different platforms. All software that looks at an image is bringing to the table it's own interpretation of the file.

I have been taking pictures for almost sixty years, now, so, as you observe, BruceBanner, I find I almost never want to make "development" adjustments to the images. Though a big factor there is the fact that I can now take a hundred pictures and it costs me no more in time or trouble than taking ten, since I don't have to mess with chemicals, papers, film, etc. Back when a thirty-six frame roll of film cost two and a half bucks (and a gallon of gas cost about thirty cents) one had to be economical with his shots, not just because of the cost, but also because you have to stop what you're doing and reload after those thirty-six frames had been exposed. So I can take a dozen shots of the same thing with different exposure values, composition, etc., and throw eleven of them out to keep the one good one. And that without using up a single percent of the camera's storage capacity.

I get your point regarding exploitation of the greater dynamic range available in raw formats. I'm thinking that a good raw development program would be a good thing to have but I just don't think there are any that are really good. I'm just distinguishing between the ones I think are "not bad" and those that (as my grandmother would have said) "aren't worth the powder and shot it would take to blow them away."

Part of what I'm thinking is from my experience with software engineeering. I'm thinking about the process of importing the raw data into any program for viewing and editing. I agree with your final comment, BruceBanner, because I can't imagine that the software doesn't do some kind of "interpretation" or preliminary "development" just to do the import. It would have to make some "decisions" about how to treat the data it is receiving in order to display it for editing. I don't imagine that what I'm seeing on the monitor is the raw image itself, merely a software-created representation of that image, and there almost have to be design decisions made at software development time about how to handle that representation. I feel that none of those I tested actually gave me access to the raw data - what I was seeing was the result of a conversion process along with editing capability. What I was really evaluating, I reckon, was the effectiveness of the conversion, and not the editing functionality. But from what I've seen, Affinity does have the best editing functions; it does have the capability to do anything one might wish to do with the raw image data, and everything I might have done in a darkroom fifty years ago, and it does equally well with JPEG and the raw image resulting from its own conversion process.

You may have sold me, though, on retaining the capability of recording both, particularly in view of the fact that I can put several hundred pairs of images on the two 64Gb cards I've got in the camera. I do end up saving both in my computer, and I've been thinking that may be a waste of space. I need to come up with a policy for deciding whether and when to delete the raw data.

By the way, here's another question. Anyone got any notions about the differences between DNG and PEF files? Any reason to think one is better than the other for technical reasons? I've been saving in DNG only because I figure that's a more transportable format but I have no sense of whether one is inherently superior to the other.

[ThorSanchez]

I get your point regarding exploitation of the greater dynamic range available in raw formats. I'm thinking that a good raw development program would be a good thing to have but I just don't think there are any that are really good. I'm just distinguishing between the ones I think are "not bad" and those that (as my grandmother would have said) "aren't worth the powder and shot it would take to blow them away."

I'm curious what features or functions you think are missing from every single RAW development program.

[ThorSanchez]

As I said earlier, I use RAW always, and needed it more in the beginning. I can't begin to tell you the amount of times I've thanked my lucky stars I shot this shot RAW or that, the recovery level is astounding should I have made a booboo. Now I feel I get far higher success rates in camera, the need for RAW is perhaps not there as much as it used to, but there are still plenty of situations I wouldn't want to shoot in without RAW (Concerts, Public Speaking, Weddings etc).

I'd characterize the times I'm glad I have RAW's extra dynamic range and flexiblity as "always". I'm sure I'm not great at manually setting up exposure and not blowing highlights and keeping detail in shadows, etc, etc. But I think any time I'm out shooting and take 50 or 100 shots I have a significant number that were C- or even D-grade pictures that were turned into solid keepers or even favorites because I was shooting RAW.

The attached picture is a good example, if more extreme than most cases. Family was in Iceland in June, we're going on a hike at Arnarstapi. I have the camera set in manual, hanging from my Blackrapid strap. My youngest comes running towards me, I throw the camera up to my eye and hit focus/shutter just as he jumps. Then I see that it was at least two stops underexposed. With RAW, no problem. JPG would probably have been unusuable.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

I'm curious what features or functions you think are missing from every single RAW development program.

As I pointed out earlier, I didn't do an exhaustive comparison of editing features, I compared the quality of the resultant image from the conversion from raw data as imported by the programs. Any editing of the resultant images would have blown the value of the comparison. So my view of the editing capability of the programs I looked at (a limited list, since I never purported to have reviewed "every single" program) is entirely subjective and intuitive. I agree, though, that such a comparison would be valuable. Perhaps one could get a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts to fund six months of work researching that issue, compiling test results and writing up a report.

As to your photo, well, that's a great picture. Looks like you used a polarizing filter on it. However, I've been able to do exactly the same thing you're describing on JPEG data using both PhotoImpact 7 (running under XP) and Affinity (Win 7*64). The important thing is to make sure the JPEG is 100% uncompressed, because any compression results in a loss of data. It occurs to me that I should have checked to see how many bits per pixel are being stored in the camera with both formats. The "depth" reported by those programs will necessarily be limited to that of the incoming data.

---------- Post added 2018-11-16 at 08:54 AM ----------

Technical specifications page fails to state the bit-depth of the images the K-1 can produce, but does state that the minimum for a monitor to display the images would be 24 bits per pixel. In addition, comparing an uncompressed JPEG at highest resolution gives exactly the same specifications as does a PEF format image: 36Mb (7360*4912), which leads me to believe that exactly the same level of detail is recorded in each. So it appears that the only value in recording both formats is to be able to store a limited-data JPEG just for purposes of review, a very large thumbnail, if you will, which can be much lower resolution and subjected to data loss through compression.

Specifications | PENTAX K-1 | RICOH IMAGING

Here's a pretty good article on the subject from Adobe:

https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf

apparently the K-1 sensor produces fourteen bits per pixel, while that of the K-50 generates twelve.

source: Pentax K-1 vs Pentax K-50

Moreover, there appears to be no difference between raw and jpeg in terms of the amount of data recorded (given assumptions stated above) - see p.115 of the K-1 operation manual. what I haven't been able to find out is how many bits per pixel are recorded (as opposed to those produced by the sensor) in the two formats. My guess is that each is designed to hold twenty-four bits per pixel (eight bits for each of the RGB data recorded) while some of that capacity is unused, since that's a current standard for JPEGs anyway. Now I'm curious to know whether that excess ten bits is in fact unused, or is it preserving data regarding luminance or some such? Note that the color depth is unrelated to the metadata stored with the image that also describes the characteristics of each pixel in the mapped image.

[Riggomatic]

A quick comparison of DNG vs PEF.

Pentax K-5 with SMC-K 50mm f1.4 at f8, ISO 200, 1/4 sec.
On a tripod, with the 2 sec delay.

DNG file : 15,897,910 bytes
PEF file : 15,698,311 bytes

Both images opened in Affinity Photo. Only "manipulation" was clicking the develop button, and then exporting the image to .jpg. So however the software interprets the RAW data, is the only difference on the .jpgs.

I pretty sure I can see a difference in the images. The PEF converted file looks a smidge brighter, or maybe the color is a little more saturated. Of those two images, the PEF version looks more true to life to me. I'll need to retry the experiment with different items, just to confirm there is a difference, or isn't a difference.

Is that 199599 extra bytes in the DNG file just extra headers or is it more useful information? Opening the RAW files in Notepad++, and doing a compare, just crashed the program, and I'm not going to take the time to do a line by line comparison (108986 lines of information in notepad++ for the DNG and 105836 lines for PEF).

I did shoot these in the RAW+ mode, and the SOOC images look identical, but there is a difference in how the RAW files are converted in the software, and using the windows image preview.

Image 1 DNG (converted in Affinity)
Image 2 PEF (converted in Affinity)

[BruceBanner]

I have been taking pictures for almost sixty years, now, so, as you observe, BruceBanner, I find I almost never want to make "development" adjustments to the images. Though a big factor there is the fact that I can now take a hundred pictures and it costs me no more in time or trouble than taking ten, since I don't have to mess with chemicals, papers, film, etc. Back when a thirty-six frame roll of film cost two and a half bucks (and a gallon of gas cost about thirty cents) one had to be economical with his shots, not just because of the cost, but also because you have to stop what you're doing and reload after those thirty-six frames had been exposed. So I can take a dozen shots of the same thing with different exposure values, composition, etc., and throw eleven of them out to keep the one good one. And that without using up a single percent of the camera's storage capacity.

I get your point regarding exploitation of the greater dynamic range available in raw formats. I'm thinking that a good raw development program would be a good thing to have but I just don't think there are any that are really good. I'm just distinguishing between the ones I think are "not bad" and those that (as my grandmother would have said) "aren't worth the powder and shot it would take to blow them away."

Part of what I'm thinking is from my experience with software engineeering. I'm thinking about the process of importing the raw data into any program for viewing and editing. I agree with your final comment, BruceBanner, because I can't imagine that the software doesn't do some kind of "interpretation" or preliminary "development" just to do the import. It would have to make some "decisions" about how to treat the data it is receiving in order to display it for editing. I don't imagine that what I'm seeing on the monitor is the raw image itself, merely a software-created representation of that image, and there almost have to be design decisions made at software development time about how to handle that representation. I feel that none of those I tested actually gave me access to the raw data - what I was seeing was the result of a conversion process along with editing capability. What I was really evaluating, I reckon, was the effectiveness of the conversion, and not the editing functionality. But from what I've seen, Affinity does have the best editing functions; it does have the capability to do anything one might wish to do with the raw image data, and everything I might have done in a darkroom fifty years ago, and it does equally well with JPEG and the raw image resulting from its own conversion process.

You may have sold me, though, on retaining the capability of recording both, particularly in view of the fact that I can put several hundred pairs of images on the two 64Gb cards I've got in the camera. I do end up saving both in my computer, and I've been thinking that may be a waste of space. I need to come up with a policy for deciding whether and when to delete the raw data.

By the way, here's another question. Anyone got any notions about the differences between DNG and PEF files? Any reason to think one is better than the other for technical reasons? I've been saving in DNG only because I figure that's a more transportable format but I have no sense of whether one is inherently superior to the other.

And now it might be my turn to apologise to you. Just yesterday I created this thread here; Is This Jpg Somehow Better (Recovery) Than It's RAW Version? - PentaxForums.com

I suggest you give it a good read, it's really making me question shooting RAW now myself!

The only thing I think is perhaps missing from not shooting RAW is better WB control, but that will too be my next experiment.

Honestly, if I can move off RAW files that would be a delight, I relish the prolonged high burst frame rate and higher buffer limits, not to mention smaller file sizes.

I'd characterize the times I'm glad I have RAW's extra dynamic range and flexiblity as "always". I'm sure I'm not great at manually setting up exposure and not blowing highlights and keeping detail in shadows, etc, etc. But I think any time I'm out shooting and take 50 or 100 shots I have a significant number that were C- or even D-grade pictures that were turned into solid keepers or even favorites because I was shooting RAW.

The attached picture is a good example, if more extreme than most cases. Family was in Iceland in June, we're going on a hike at Arnarstapi. I have the camera set in manual, hanging from my Blackrapid strap. My youngest comes running towards me, I throw the camera up to my eye and hit focus/shutter just as he jumps. Then I see that it was at least two stops underexposed. With RAW, no problem. JPG would probably have been unusuable.

Well... now I too urge you to have a look at the aforementioned thread; Is This Jpg Somehow Better (Recovery) Than It's RAW Version? - PentaxForums.com

I too was under this impression, but my little experiment this week threw me completely, my Jpg conversion of the RAW shot seemed better to work with and had greater recovery limits, I do not understand this at all.

If you still had the original RAW file of your shot, copy it onto a SD card, put in your camera body, convert it to Jpg with no Jpg processing on, and then edit that, see if it really is struggling to do what you could manage with the RAW file... be an interesting test.

As I pointed out earlier, I didn't do an exhaustive comparison of editing features, I compared the quality of the resultant image from the conversion from raw data as imported by the programs. Any editing of the resultant images would have blown the value of the comparison. So my view of the editing capability of the programs I looked at (a limited list, since I never purported to have reviewed "every single" program) is entirely subjective and intuitive. I agree, though, that such a comparison would be valuable. Perhaps one could get a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts to fund six months of work researching that issue, compiling test results and writing up a report.

As to your photo, well, that's a great picture. Looks like you used a polarizing filter on it. However, I've been able to do exactly the same thing you're describing on JPEG data using both PhotoImpact 7 (running under XP) and Affinity (Win 7*64). The important thing is to make sure the JPEG is 100% uncompressed, because any compression results in a loss of data. It occurs to me that I should have checked to see how many bits per pixel are being stored in the camera with both formats. The "depth" reported by those programs will necessarily be limited to that of the incoming data.

---------- Post added 2018-11-16 at 08:54 AM ----------

Technical specifications page fails to state the bit-depth of the images the K-1 can produce, but does state that the minimum for a monitor to display the images would be 24 bits per pixel. In addition, comparing an uncompressed JPEG at highest resolution gives exactly the same specifications as does a PEF format image: 36Mb (7360*4912), which leads me to believe that exactly the same level of detail is recorded in each. So it appears that the only value in recording both formats is to be able to store a limited-data JPEG just for purposes of review, a very large thumbnail, if you will, which can be much lower resolution and subjected to data loss through compression.

Specifications | PENTAX K-1 | RICOH IMAGING

Here's a pretty good article on the subject from Adobe:

https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf

And now I am starting to believe you lol. And I think the Jpgs are 8bit?

apparently the K-1 sensor produces fourteen bits per pixel, while that of the K-50 generates twelve.

source: Pentax K-1 vs Pentax K-50

Moreover, there appears to be no difference between raw and jpeg in terms of the amount of data recorded (given assumptions stated above) - see p.115 of the K-1 operation manual. what I haven't been able to find out is how many bits per pixel are recorded (as opposed to those produced by the sensor) in the two formats. My guess is that each is designed to hold twenty-four bits per pixel (eight bits for each of the RGB data recorded) while some of that capacity is unused, since that's a current standard for JPEGs anyway. Now I'm curious to know whether that excess ten bits is in fact unused, or is it preserving data regarding luminance or some such? Note that the color depth is unrelated to the metadata stored with the image that also describes the characteristics of each pixel in the mapped image.

I'm not sure that's right, if Jpgs are 8bit and K-1's are 14bit, and RAW files are just simply larger files than Jpgs, doesn't that suggest more data?

[ThorSanchez]

Well... now I too urge you to have a look at the aforementioned thread; Is This Jpg Somehow Better (Recovery) Than It's RAW Version? - PentaxForums.com

I too was under this impression, but my little experiment this week threw me completely, my Jpg conversion of the RAW shot seemed better to work with and had greater recovery limits, I do not understand this at all.

If you still had the original RAW file of your shot, copy it onto a SD card, put in your camera body, convert it to Jpg with no Jpg processing on, and then edit that, see if it really is struggling to do what you could manage with the RAW file... be an interesting test.

Here are two copies of that shot, cropped to 1:1. First is a crop of my RAW file developed in Lightroom. The second is a jpg converted in-camera then exposure compensated and cropped with RawTherapee, but no other changes. The jpg is clearly much blotchier less sharp, less details. Maybe there's minimal difference at smaller sizes, viewed on a phone or a tablet.

You'll have to do a lot more convincing to make me switch from RAW to jpg.

[BruceBanner]

Here are two copies of that shot, cropped to 1:1. First is a crop of my RAW file developed in Lightroom. The second is a jpg converted in-camera then exposure compensated and cropped with RawTherapee, but no other changes. The jpg is clearly much blotchier less sharp, less details. Maybe there's minimal difference at smaller sizes, viewed on a phone or a tablet.

You'll have to do a lot more convincing to make me switch from RAW to jpg.

Yeah agreed, your RAW is better to work with than it's JPG counterpart (a process I found myself agreeing with... till this week).

My 'convincing' is not really convincing per se, but more like I feel I have stumbled upon a situation of my own making whereby the Jpg is trumping the RAW when coming to the editing process

This makes very little sense to me, and I encourage you to have a look at the thread I linked (ach I'll link it again below) as that really is the 'convincing' part. Proof is in the pudding with this particular shot, thus far the edits are in favour the the Jpg looking cleaner and better. Odd indeed.

Is This Jpg Somehow Better (Recovery) Than It's RAW Version? - PentaxForums.com

...

And now I am starting to believe you lol. And I think the Jpgs are 8bit?

I'm not sure that's right, if Jpgs are 8bit and K-1's are 14bit, and RAW files are just simply larger files than Jpgs, doesn't that suggest more data?

The bits per pixel is 24 for both, I think, eight bits per color for three colors - but neither is actually recording eight full bits per pixel per color. This is all getting too confusing for my poor li'l pea-brain - if I could do arithmetic I wouldn't have had to have become a lawyer.

[Riggomatic]

Here's a white paper on digital raw captures.

https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf