Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-27-2008, 09:18 PM   #16
PDL
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: PNW USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,103
Why don't you go find out?

QuoteOriginally posted by PentaxPoke Quote
I didn't start this thread. I ask a simple thing: Show me. Simply show me an example so that I may be a believer like you. Why do people post endless threads on why RAW is better without proof in real pictures? I would love to see one of your cutting-edge photos in the 5th percentile world where jpeg doesn't cut it. Educate me. Isn't that what message boards are about? I can't imagine when I might sequentially rotate a picture 10 times and save after each rotation. I want to see where I can really benefit from RAW. I will accept it if I can see it! I have no reason to stay with jpeg if someone can show me RAW is better. Why post arguments in favor of RAW when you are not willing to show an example!?! Is RAW vs. jpeg is nothing but a religious war?
Yes you continually miss the point. It is not up to us to “Prove” anything – it is up to you to do a little work before you basically go off and tell anyone that RAW is not “better” than JPEG.
So – go here:
White Balance Follies
quote:
"These are just two simple examples of how working with a fully baked JPG file out of the camera seriously reduces the ability that one has to fix white balance and exposure problems, especially when strong adjustments are needed. There simply isn't enough information available in a JPG to do the job as well as with raw files.”

Also got to these sites – read and learn:
Understanding RAW Files Explained
Raw Truth 1
quote:
By preserving the RAW data when we shoot, we offer ourselves the best chance of creating the vision that we first saw in the viewfinder. Shooting “JPEG” limits the technical potential of every photograph that we take.
There are other reasons, such as reduced colour space, reduced bit depth, and baked in sharpening, but the above should be enough to help you realize what you're giving up when you shoot JPG instead of raw when you don't have to."
Edit: Have you ever tried to unsharpen an oversharped JPEG? Why not be able to go back to the original data?
The Raw Flaw
This article talks about potential issues with RAW formats being available in the future – again – it is your choice.
(Note – All the above is from one site - and there is more out there)

More “Proof”:
RAW Vs JPG
Expose Right
Why Shoot Raw? - Lonestardigital.com
Adobe - Design Center : Why shoot raw?
RAW vs. JPEG
"The richness, detail (sharpness), color range and ability to adjust these settings end up being so much greater with a Raw file, even though what a Raw file looks like before processing is anything but rich and sharp."
Shoot in RAW, Always!
RAW vs JEPG: Why I shoot RAW | Alphatracks
Tutorials - The RAW File Format

Now why shoot RAW?
Image Posterization

There – I have done your work for you – all the “Proof” you need – you should be an evangelist by the time you finish reading the articles. But, I think you will not change not matter what “Proof” is shown.

The Elitist – formerly known as PDL


Last edited by PDL; 04-27-2008 at 09:28 PM. Reason: Added in my emphasis and edit
04-27-2008, 10:31 PM   #17
Veteran Member
PentaxPoke's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,411
QuoteOriginally posted by PDL Quote
But, I think you will not change not matter what “Proof” is shown.

The Elitist – formerly known as PDL
There you are wrong. You make a very convincing argument I have not seen here before. This is exactly what I was looking for. The first link in particular. I appreciate your posting of this information I have not seen in any of the raw vs jpeg discussions. The mods should make your post a sticky.

Thank you for taking the time to prove your case.

Last edited by PentaxPoke; 04-27-2008 at 10:48 PM.
04-28-2008, 07:07 AM   #18
PDL
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: PNW USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,103
QuoteOriginally posted by PentaxPoke Quote
There you are wrong. You make a very convincing argument I have not seen here before. This is exactly what I was looking for. The first link in particular. I appreciate your posting of this information I have not seen in any of the raw vs jpeg discussions. The mods should make your post a sticky.

Thank you for taking the time to prove your case.
Welcome to the world of subtly. Hopefully you will not have to find yourself in that place where extensive changes are required to “get” that image you think you saw in the viewfinder.

I think this is a first for me – to have possibly changed someone’s position on this forum. Thanks for your kind words.

Remember, if JPEG works for you – great. However, if you find the need to do subtle changes then the granularity of RAW really comes to the forefront. JPEG is like having a sledge hammer when you need to drive in a finish nail. RAW is like having set of hammers to meet the needs (once in a while a sledge hammer is what you want).

The Elitist – formerly known as PDL
04-28-2008, 08:46 AM   #19
Veteran Member
PentaxPoke's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,411
QuoteOriginally posted by PDL Quote

I think this is a first for me – to have possibly changed someone’s position on this forum. Thanks for your kind words.


The Elitist – formerly known as PDL
Well you clearly did. The difference is that you took the time to actually show proof of your position with photographs. So many times I have read these raw vs jpeg posts. People typically just quote details from information theory, but rarely show photographic examples of the limitations of jpeg corrections and how this information is useful to photographers as opposed to pixel peepers on message boards.

Thanks again. You made a convert. I came from the film world, so I clearly have some more to learn.


Last edited by PentaxPoke; 04-28-2008 at 08:54 AM.
04-28-2008, 10:55 AM   #20
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 109
I am sorry to hijack the thread, but can someone please check out the thread on RAW processing.


https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-processing-software/26149-i-can-t-se...photo-lab.html

Carry on. Thanks.
04-28-2008, 01:54 PM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Northamptonshire - England
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 496
you don't always have the time or chance to fiddle with WB I had some terrible shots that were recovered by ajusting the white balance
04-28-2008, 02:47 PM   #22
Veteran Member
PentaxPoke's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,411
So what you are telling me is that I can just keep the k20d white balance on Auto, and never have to fool with it again, because I will select the correct one in postprocessing of the RAW file. You guys are going to make me lazy.

Well if I am going RAW now, I see no need whatsoever of RAW+ for me. RAW+ will just add more work for me, and I will still need to worry about the camera setting white balance if I want the jpeg image. Also, on the k20d at best jpeg, the jpeg file is about 10MB and the PEF raw is about 15MB, so the jpeg will eat up alot of space. I also just ran a test and noticed that in RAW+ mode, the burst shooting is considerably slowed down with the bandwidth of writing and processing both the RAW and the jpeg compared to RAW PEF alone.

If I'm goin' RAW, I'm goin' all the way...


Last edited by PentaxPoke; 04-28-2008 at 02:58 PM.
04-28-2008, 04:01 PM   #23
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London
Posts: 1,067
Hi LDB

Well you certainly stirred up an unintentional 'hornet's nest', judging by the feisty tone of some of the replies your initial question generated......lol ! So let's turn the subject of RAW vs JPEG on it's head for a moment. Just supposing for arguments sake that you are taking photographs using your shiny new 10 megapixel DSLR......the model is totally irrelevant at this stage, although naturally it will be a Pentax of some sort !!!! Having captured your first JPEG picture at 10MP, open the resulting file up in the editing *software that was supplied with your camera which you've obviously *loaded onto a computer. The EXIF data will probably indicate that the JPEG file contains roughly between 3.5 - 4.0MP of recorded data......so the question you need to ask yourself is:
What the hell has happened to the remaining 6.0MP of information and why has it mysteriously disappeared into thin air ??
I willingly accept it's entirely possible that you never intend to print out the majority of your digital photographs larger than say
6" x 4" or 7" x 5", in which case choosing the JPEG option may never be a cause for concern on your part. However, imagine the following scenario where you unexpectedly get invited to a relatives wedding and the Bride & Groom ask if you wouldn't mind taking some unofficial photographs for them on their special day with your professional looking DSLR. It's glorious weather and the sun is reflecting strongly on the white bridal gown, causing noticeable shadows in the folds of the dress......in other words, the contrast range is exceeding the sensors capability to record all the detail in the resulting JPEGs !!!
THAT'S an example of how a JPEG will typically fail and the recoverable RAW setting will come to your rescue, proving it's worth it's weight in gold, although it's still not necessarily a fail-safe method of guaranteeing perfect results. That comes down to many things including experience and judgement on the part of the photographer ! My advice for what it's worth is to do what suits you best, but be aware of the potential pitfalls where JPEGs are concerned. On most occasions JPEGs will suffice, but there is a damned good reason why professionals and seasoned amateurs generally choose to stick with shooting RAW images.
It's called the 'Belt & Braces' approach, enabling photographers to dig themselves out of tricky situations, so happy shooting.......

Best regards
Richard

Last edited by Confused; 04-29-2008 at 05:15 AM.
04-28-2008, 10:16 PM   #24
Veteran Member
PentaxPoke's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,411
I have just learned something else in this experience. I have been shooting examples in RAW and then converting them using the Pentax Photo Lab (PPL), as well as Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) through Photoshop Elements 6. Consistently, every shot I have converted looks better to my eye if I do it with ACR instead of PPL. That really surprised me. In fact, the ACR conversions look even better than the camera jpeg! I tried it on two settings: Bright and Natural. Just simply using ACR and setting to "Auto" gave me jpegs that look like what my eye saw in color, sharpness, and saturation. This is really surprising to me. I didn't post the pictures here because I don't have enough bandwidth left to post sizes that would show what I am talking about. Here is a description though of photos of a house and a grassy front yard:

PPL or camera jpeg on Bright: A bit too saturated. Grass looks greener than reality (I wish it was that green).

PPL or camera jpeg on Natural: Color is a bit better, but more "bland" in terms of contrast and sharpness.

ACR on auto: Looks like what I saw with my own eyes. I was actually a bit astonished when the picture converted, that my other jpegs appeared that far off.

Maybe the ACR converter is more sophisticated than what can be put in a camera, or what is available in a free software package like PPL?
04-29-2008, 01:36 PM   #25
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Lone Tree, Colorado, USA
Posts: 77
QuoteOriginally posted by LDB Quote
Yes, I know this is a highly discussed subject and I've read some threads on it. I'm not asking to start over from scratch, rather to see if I have any inkling on the decision or not. Hopefully nobody will get upset with another inquiry.

My picture taking will be pleasure not professional, i.e. not for pay, but just for myself or family. Probably 99%+ will only be viewed in emails or in forum threads and message groups. If one were to be printed it would likely be 5x7 or smaller. Given that type shooting I'm wondering which way to record the shots. My thought is jpeg is sufficient but both would give me the raw file if/when I ever wanted it and since memory cards are fairly inexpensive shoot both.

I should add I have zero familiarity with any image software of any sort and initially would be looking for something as simple as see it, shoot it, view it. Thanks for any and all feedback based on those criteria.
I know that I'm "Johnny Come Lately" to this discussion, but my two cents worth:

The answer for me (maybe others) is BOTH.

I'm leaving on vacation May 1. My K200D is set to RAW + JPEG. The color space in-camera is set to sRBG. I'm quite careful to attempt to set the WB accurately with an in-camera preset or a manually set WB.

My 8GB of memory on 3 SD cards will yield me 360 or so RAW + JPEG images....plenty for me. So why do I retain both?

I plan on putting maybe 150 of the best JPEGs on a couple of CDs or DVDs and running them over to Walgreens/Costco/Target or where ever and getting them developed quickly for the wife to view them. These outfits use sRBG so I know that my JPEGs will be good with them. That'll be $28 USD or so. Now she can enjoy them.

The 360 (maybe less) RAW images will be viewed and a small fraction processed by me at my leisure. My RAW converter is set to Adobe RBG. I'll be happy knowing that the print quality of a RAW file after the adjustments I make is vastly superior to the quality of JPEG image. All I have to do is compared the processed and home-printed RAW image to the JPEG print to know I've done (for me) the right thing.

Gotta remove this K00D banner next to my name.
04-29-2008, 10:38 PM   #26
PDL
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: PNW USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,103
Well - some of us have different experiences with how we show people our images. My significant other is very good on the old PC - so I gathered all my images and my son's images of our trip and told her to pick the ones she liked. Showed her how to open PPB and click the red select flag. (Windows Vista, calibrated monitor, 1,900 RAW+200 odd JPEG [from my Toshiba P&S] images; a mixture of Beethoven, Dave Mathews, Gipsy Kings and Eric Clapton later -- [forays into BB King, Vivaldi and one Led Zeppelin]) She had around 284 images picked out. I converted them in Lightroom and burned them to a DVD and copied them - with a few non vacation images - to a 2GB SD card that now feeds the photo frame on her desk at work.

Now she wants to go through the images and make a coffee table book. She also wants me to build a web site so she can show me off - so to speak. With the software I have (PPB and Lightroom) viewing RAW is as simple as viewing JPEG's, heck even Vista can view PEF thumbnails in explorer - JPEG is only necessary when I send the images to Costco (20x30 poster image hanging in her office -- from a *ist Ds no less) or showing off pictures to my co-workers who are still using XP.

So - I only shoot RAW - if I need a JPEG, I create it as necessary. If I am going to edit (using MS Digital Image Suite) I export out of PPB or Lightroom as a 16 bit TIFF so editing will not eat into the quality. Conversion to JPEG is the last thing I do before I ship it off to be printed or entered into a contest (like here).

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL
04-30-2008, 12:43 PM   #27
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Lone Tree, Colorado, USA
Posts: 77
QuoteOriginally posted by PDL Quote
Well - some of us have different experiences with how we show people our images. My significant other is very good on the old PC...........So - I only shoot RAW - if I need a JPEG, I create it as necessary. If I am going to edit (using MS Digital Image Suite) I export out of PPB or Lightroom as a 16 bit TIFF so editing will not eat into the quality. Conversion to JPEG is the last thing I do before I ship it off to be printed or entered into a contest (like here).

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL
Dear Elitist-

If only my wife and I could communicate digitally (don't start down that road). She is a 100% true blue luddite. If I asked her to unplug my PC from the wall socket, she would have to call tech support. She knows nothing......absolutely nothing except how to look at images on my PC when I'm sitting next to her, or viewing the Kmart JPEG products I hand her in an envelope ala 1971.

Some people might call me lucky.
04-30-2008, 01:59 PM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 337
QuoteOriginally posted by PentaxPoke Quote
I have just learned something else in this experience. I have been shooting examples in RAW and then converting them using the Pentax Photo Lab (PPL), as well as Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) through Photoshop Elements 6. Consistently, every shot I have converted looks better to my eye if I do it with ACR instead of PPL. That really surprised me. In fact, the ACR conversions look even better than the camera jpeg!
This is something that's been known for a long time. Pentax processes their jpegs very softly. You'll see it in most of the reviews of the k10d. Pentax's own raw converter mimics the in-camera softness. ACR is able to pull out significantly more details. I'm not sure what choices pentax has made, but as it stands you're better off using non-pentax converters.
04-30-2008, 03:31 PM   #29
Senior Member
Mark Castleman's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Westminster, Colorado
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 298
In these discussions I keep seeing how people put forth that using RAW will markedly increase the amount of time you spend working at the computer. Personally I cannot understand why folks use two (or more) programs to work on their files when there are programs that do it all seamlessly. I realize that Lightroom and Aperture are not cheap, but at some point is your time not worth something to you? I use Aperture and I have been very happy with it. I can work with RAW files from my K10, jpeg from my Canon Powershot or tiff from my scanner and all the editing tools are there for me and all my changes are nondestructive to boot. Personally I find the software from Pentax nigh onto unusable, but that is just me.
04-30-2008, 10:06 PM   #30
Veteran Member
rfortson's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Houston TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,129
I shoot both. I've found on the K20D that the jpegs are fine for me 90% of the time. However, the raw file is my insurance policy to help me when I screw up the exposure or white balance. I paid $35 for a Transcend 8GB Class 6 SDHC card and I get ~220 shots of raw+jpeg on the card (I have two) so storage isn't a problem.

Raw has saved my bacon on numerous occasions.
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, jpeg, photography, threads
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[K10D RAW+]Exposure difference between RAW and JPEG sterretje Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 04-13-2010 02:06 AM
JPEG, RAW, JPEG + RAW...huh? Raptorman Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 14 12-22-2009 11:49 AM
RAW or JPEG tkcampbell Pentax DSLR Discussion 24 12-13-2009 04:31 PM
RAW + JPEG with JPEG on One Star quality laissezfaire Pentax DSLR Discussion 58 12-10-2008 02:42 PM
raw vs .jpeg ???? nathancombs Post Your Photos! 1 10-15-2007 09:30 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:06 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