Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-12-2007, 02:00 PM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,026
QuoteOriginally posted by attack11 Quote
there's a series in my flickr account, every jpg from that shoot has the same colors for the sky/grass/cement.
Interesting. The RAW processed image looks like you had a polarizer or UV filter on your lens. I've never seen that effect before (I've seen more details in RAW processed image comparisons though). I'll follow up w/ comparison images when I do my testing...

07-12-2007, 02:29 PM   #17
Senior Member
c.r.brown's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 214
QuoteOriginally posted by rhermans Quote
And here is my problem - I have not yet had the change to send a raw image to a printer (only know of printing services that work with jpg) that gives anything better than the jpg.

Ok raw is still the best to post process but does it have any other use.
I dont think youll find any printers that accept RAW files because it means they have to 'process' them. Depending on where you send them for printing their are multiple file formats to use. JPG is considered a LOSSY or COMPRESSED format that leaves artifacts when saving it to a smaller file size (not dimensionally) its primary use is as a web format.

In my profession (Graphic Design) we typically use Hi res TIFFs for printing and when unavailable then use JPG. Really it all depends on what compromises you want to make.
07-12-2007, 03:11 PM   #18
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 211
All right, I'll join in with my views!

I shoot mostly jpg, and have only recently moved to raw+jpg shooting.

Advantages of jpg:
* Smaller files mean more capacity on your cards. Even if memory cards are relatively cheap (now), it's still a consideration. And I suppose a habit.
* Smaller files mean easier post-processing. I may have an 'expensive' camera, but my laptop is about 3 years old and I can tell you that it's much more comfortable handling a 4Mb-sized file than it is handling an 11Mb-sized file.
* Easier distribution. Copy to hard drive, open editing software, quick tweak on levels, curves, etc, resize, save/email to friends. At a quality level that is still quite sufficient for all but the most discerning recipient.

Advantages of raw:
* Purity of the original image
* Greater scope for image correction

I get the advantages, but sometimes they're just not that compelling!
07-12-2007, 03:25 PM   #19
Veteran Member
stewart_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,864
QuoteOriginally posted by benjikan Quote
The RAW vs JPEG Debate is one that has been raging for quite some time now. (snip)

I don't consider either that worthy of loyalty or debate. As far as I'm concerned, both formats are simply a means of transferring images to my computer. Neither will stay in their original format after transfer. Instead, both are converted into lossless or lossy (uncompressed or compressed, depending on image content and intent to later edit) TIFF files using Corel's Paint Shop Pro (superior to low-end Adobe products, with only full-fledged Photoshop being somewhat better). The end result, prints, is virtually the same using either format to initially transfer images from the camera.

stewart

07-12-2007, 04:15 PM   #20
Veteran Member
stewart_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,864
QuoteOriginally posted by attack11 Quote
are you serious? the same settings, the same time there's no difference. what you're seeing is the the camera body vs photoshop. also, incase you didn't notice the graphics link to the exif data.

I think "kenyee" is talking about the different direction of sunlight in both images. Note the shadows, particularly your own in the second (JPEG) image. That establishes which direction the sunlight was coming from. In the first image (RAW), you're shooting more towards the sun (less light on the image side of your subject). In the second image (JPEG), you're shooting with the sun more directly behind you (more light on the image side of your subject). The same principle applies to the sky. It is clearly more that direction of sunlight than JPEG versus RAW which accounts for the differences between those two images.

stewart
07-12-2007, 04:19 PM   #21
Veteran Member
stewart_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,864
QuoteOriginally posted by attack11 Quote
the light source (sun) and atmosphere didn't change

But the direction of that sunlight did change. See my previous message.

stewart
07-12-2007, 04:20 PM   #22
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 248
Since you are talkin RAW. As a novice what is the easiest Raw program to use and needs the least ram to use.The software i got with my k10d crashs my puter is there one thats less demanding on puter ram.I havent been able to shoot raw because of this. Any suggestions appreciated.

07-12-2007, 04:26 PM   #23
Veteran Member
stewart_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,864
QuoteOriginally posted by attack11 Quote
series

consistant color in all the shots except the 1 raw.

Yes, and in all those images you're standing in the same general area (the grassy area seen in the JPEG image shown here) with the sunlight coming from a similar direction, except that one RAW image where you've clearly moved and are photographing more towards the sun.

stewart
07-12-2007, 05:24 PM   #24
Pentaxian
Arpe's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,450
Yes I've been meaning to try RAW for about 2.5 years now... Just never seem to get around to it.
07-12-2007, 06:35 PM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Owego, NY
Posts: 976
QuoteOriginally posted by trumpyman Quote
Since you are talkin RAW. As a novice what is the easiest Raw program to use and needs the least ram to use.The software i got with my k10d crashs my puter is there one thats less demanding on puter ram.I havent been able to shoot raw because of this. Any suggestions appreciated.
I don't know about Windows, but on my Linux box:

digiKam is great for previewing images on your hard drive, and can even preview RAW files as a gallery on your screen with default exposure settings, allowing you to easily go through a set and throw away the "super duds". As I understand it, there are very similar programs available for Windows. If you want to PP an image further, you can open it up in digiKam's editor, or another editor such as the infamous GIMP or CinePaint.

ufraw is the de facto GUI frontend for Dave Coffin's dcraw RAW converter utility, which was known for quite a while as being able to blow away Canon and Nikon's RAW converters in terms of quality. (Maybe this quality difference is why Nikon tried to start forcing people to use their software via their NEF whitebalance encryption shenanigans - that kind of backfired on them as it's one of the reasons Nikon was 100% blacklisted as far as purchase choices for my first DSLR, same for many other people.) I don't know about the Windows version (there are versions for Linux, MacOS X, and Windows), but ufraw on my Linux machine is great for "batch postprocessing" in which I go through a set of PEFs image by image, quickly previewing them for exposure and sometimes tweaking the exposure away from ufraw's autodetection defaults. I usually spend 10-15 seconds per image on manual labor, of course on my slow computer it takes 20-40 to convert a PEF to JPEG. Exposure compensation is the limit of postprocessing for most of my PEFs. Note that since ufraw added support for dcraw's noise reduction capabilities, I have been shooting 100% PEF with my K10D.
07-12-2007, 07:49 PM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,026
and if you do use Linux, Lightzone is free:
Light Crafts > LightZone 2.0 > Download
Even on Windows, it's a really cool app. You can watch the videos to get an idea:
LightZone :: Video tutorials
What's nice is that it treats your RAW files truly as negatives...they're untouched. Everything you do is processed as a layer so you can roll back to your negative if you want.

stewart: thanks for noticing that the sun is in a different direction in that RAW image. That would explain the different sky color (I think).
07-12-2007, 08:07 PM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,482
Necessary to have this debate every month or two, as so many people are switching from compact fixed-lens cameras to DSLRs are are, therefore, new to the raw vs jpeg issue.

I agonized over this in the way I agonize over lots of things - that is to say, unnecessarily. Now, it all seems quite simple to me.

The only good reason not to shoot raw is file size. Raw files are bigger - much bigger. This means you get fewer shots per card. It takes longer to transfer the photos from the card to your computer. And backing up your files takes more time and costs a little more money.

In some cases, the difference in size is decisively in favor of jpeg. At a swim meet a month ago, I shot 7 MB of photos. I filled up my three 2 GB cards with PEF images. When I loaded my last card - a 1 MB card - into the camera, there was still about an hour to go in the meet. I switched to jpeg out of necessity. I didn't miss a shot. But when I got back to my computer, it was easy to see which shots had made it to my computer as raw files: they were the ones I got better tonal range from. I would note also that I wouldn't bother with raw if I were, oh, shooting pictures for employer ID badges, or if I set up a security camera, etc. I might not bother with raw the next time I go around my house taking photos of my "stuff" for my property insurance records.

But most of the time, the difference in size is little more than a minor annoyance. So it takes 10 minutes to transfer 120 photos to your computer than than 3 minutes - big deal. And besides the fact that jpegs are smaller, they have no other real advantage.

In fact, the whole debate is actually an illusion or is at least cast in very misleading terms, because you are shooting raw whether you want to or not. That's how the camera works! The proper question isn't, raw or jpeg? It's, where does the conversion get performed, in the camera or on your computer? If you keep the raw file, you can eat your cake and have it, too.But if you let the camera do the conversion, well, remember that in-camera conversion is a one-shot, no-money-back deal, because you're letting the camera throw away a huge amount of data forever.

Will
07-12-2007, 09:24 PM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Portland, Oregon
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 475
QuoteOriginally posted by benjikan Quote
Hello all...

The RAW vs JPEG Debate is one that has been raging for quite some time now.
. . .
RAW is akin to a recording that is done directly to Pro Tools without compression and JPEG is what that recording might sound like after converting the signal for MP3 listening. That signal has been compressed and as a result has lost some of the high end and low end definition as well as the dynamic range. This analogy can be directly transposed to visual media. In photography RAW is the pure unadulterated signal. Now why would anyone even consider JPEG unless they felt that their image was not worthy of that kind of rendition. It should not come down to a question of memory or cost of storage etc. It is an image that merits the best resolution possible that may in the future be used for a support that needs the kind of resolution that only RAW can provide.

You may think.."Well it is only a snap shot." Well todays snapshot may be tomorrows historical archive. You are leaving a trace of history for future generations to view. Give your image the respect it deserves. Shoot in RAW...
To keep the recording analogy going - it really depends how you're going to play that recording. I have friends who have invested thousands in stereo equipment and others who listen to their CDs on crappy boomboxes or solely through their computer and crappy computer speakers. Do they need the highest definition recordings? I don't think so.

Does every image that only ends up being displayed on a computer and perhaps printed up at 8x10 inches *need* to be shot in RAW? No.

I shot jpeg alone for over a year and got the quality of shots I wanted and have printed images up to 20x30 inches and been happy with them. To each his or her own. Who cares what you shoot as long as you and yours are happy with the results.
07-12-2007, 10:09 PM   #29
PDL
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: PNW USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,126
II have to chime in here again.

As long as you have a consistent workflow and are satisfied with the results - RAW vs. JPEG is mute. However, I choose RAW.

On the rare occasion that I shoot JPEG it is the same basic workflow.
1. Work as hard as possible to compose, expose and capture what I want the final image to be - in the camera (dedicated thought process to minimize post processing)
2. Copy the SD card contents to my Wolverine - system file copy not using a PP program.
3. Copy the folders off the Wolverine and onto my hard drive - in the Wolverine Folder (which is burned to DVD - usually during a all night burn party on my part)
4. Copy the images from the Wolverine folder to a monthly folder.
5. Using my PP software - either PPL or Lightroom (I have not reloaded PSE 5.0 since I do not like how it behaves) review the images. (I can review the images using the file system - I am running Visa with the Pentax codec, so I can see the thumbnails in the native file system)
6. Export the image after doing adjustments, straightening, color temp and sharpening as a JPEG for web and printing purposes (except if using Lightroom locally - i.e. no need to save the JPEG - just print and go).
7. Process the JPEG (usually just adding a copyright statement) resize for web - in some cases straighten. (I hate to crop - I shoot as if I were using slide film - the frame, only the frame, nothing but the frame)
8. Upload - print - whatever I have to do.

Notice that this workflow (it works for me so don't expect to change my mind) is fundamentally the same for RAW and JPEG. That is the essence of what I am trying to do.

I shoot RAW 99.999% of the time - I have 13 GB of SD cards and a 40GB Wolverine that will suck the pictures off a 4GB card in less than 10 minutes. In my case file size does not matter, burst rate does not matter to me either - peeling paint and rust don't move all that fast. I did shoot a cricket match last December and found that 5 images were all my *ist Ds could handle. I guess it comes down to experience and knowing what the sport is and where to be to get that "perfect" shot. Remember - 30 years ago only a few people could afford motor drives - and those photographers managed to do a pretty good job of catching the moment.

I really don't care what you shoot - but it is all about the image and digital imaging is about information - so why start out by limiting the information? Back when I shot film I used the lowest ISO (ASA) I could -- to get the most information - why would I not do that now?

PDL

Last edited by PDL; 07-12-2007 at 10:13 PM. Reason: clarification on point 5
07-12-2007, 10:47 PM   #30
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Middle Island, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15
jpg shooter on a k10d here ocassionaly I will shoot raw when I know I dont trust the camera conversion that why there is a dedicated raw button right. I have played with my k10d sharpness satration etc settings enuf no. of times to settle down with settings that I like eventhough there are moments where I think dang I just have used raw but belive me that is rare.
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, debate, decision, future, image, jpeg, media, observations, photography, resolution, vs, vs jpeg
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 or JPEG Cloudy Wizzard General Talk 26 10-03-2007 04:44 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:50 PM. | 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