Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-12-2016, 01:22 PM   #31
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by MetteHHH Quote
That would depend entirely what you mean by "superior".
i defined "superior" clearly, it's not an arguable position.

the main reason for shooting jpeg is practicality... event shooting where you need hundreds of images, etc.

maybe you should re-read the title of the thread: "jpeg less noise and sharper than raw"; the o.p. is referring to pq, not convenience.

QuoteOriginally posted by MetteHHH Quote
If you read the thread, the OP was surprised that his RAW-file image was not inherently superior to the JPG image: This confusion stems from people praising the RAW format indiscriminately.
no, that confusion stems from a lack of experience and knowledge about cameras.

correct processing of the raw file will *always* give better pq than the in-camera jpeg.

01-12-2016, 01:51 PM   #32
Pentaxian
newmikey's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,590
QuoteOriginally posted by djam Quote
I redid my test this evening and used a tripod instead of hand holding and result seemed not to be as bad this time, however having applied the same adjustments in lightroom I would still expect the RAW file to be much better, but to my eye it isn't. The top photo is the auto mode JPEG. The middle pic is the "RAW" file from manual, and the bottom pic is the jpeg from manual mode. Again I must say that these aren't nearly as troubling as the pics I took last night hand held.So, what do others think? Shouldn't the pic from the RAW file be much cleaner and sharper than the JPEG with identical post processing adjustments?
Correction: the second one is not "the "RAW" file from manual"" as you stated. Raw files cannot be shown on a forum. Exif of the image it is a jpeg which resulted from a raw conversion through Adobe Lightroom 5.7.1 but with settings entirely unknown to us. The difference may be lost on you, but there definitely IS a difference.

The jpeg which resulted from the raw file can only be as good as your raw conversion skills are. If it is worse than the OOC jpeg (either from Green mode or from Raw+ mode) you may need to get more skilled at converting raws and using LR/ACR or you may want to try out other non-Adobe raw conversion packages available.

Any other conclusion is
01-12-2016, 02:46 PM   #33
Senior Member
Larrymc's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 226
QuoteOriginally posted by djam Quote
I have a question regarding my K-5lls. I have always felt there was a bit more noise in my RAW images than should be when shooting in low light situations but just assumed it was the limitation of my camera. Tonight while doing some testing to see if certain settings might give me better results I decided to see what kind of results the camera would give me if I just shot in green(auto) mode. I was shocked to find that the JPEGs produced in AUTO (green) were much less noisy and sharper than the RAW+ files. I ended up shooting about 12 different shots at various focal distances (16-50mm) in green mode, noting what settings the camera used and then shot the same settings in manual mode RAW+. After importing and comparing the 3 images in lightroom the result was always the same with the Auto mode JPEG being significantly sharper and less noisy than both the RAW and JPEG shot in Manual with identical settings. It's almost as if there is a slight "haze" or "film" over the RAW+ files that reduces resolution. Has anyone else noticed this and what could explain it? Again just to clarify what I did: I first shot an image using green mode(auto), so if the camera in auto mode shot an image at 1/60 2.8 3200 I would turn the dial to M and adjust settings to 1/60 2.8 3200 and single focus exactly where focus point was in auto. Result being the RAW and JPEG produced in M mode was much noisier than JPEG produced in green(auto) mode.
Thoughts???
Try Silky Pix Developer Studio that was shipped with your K-5IIs. From what I understand SPDS uses the exif preset data from the RAW PEF camera file to develop your photo and Lightroom does not use that data. Using Silky Pix Developer Studio might get you closer to where your Auto Jpeg is. You also might need to make sure you are using the right camera profile for the K-5 in lightroom.
01-12-2016, 02:48 PM   #34
Site Supporter
MetteHHH's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 987
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
i defined "superior" clearly, it's not an arguable position.
You have definitely made it very clear how you define "superior". I won't get in your way of feeling it again.

I still think the OP might be better off with JPG. Even if it places him in your category of having "a lack of experience and knowledge about cameras". I see people with lacks producing great images now and again, and, what is in my opinion more important, having fun in the process.

That is the great thing about hobbies: You don't need to pass a test of "sufficient knowledge" to enjoy it.

01-12-2016, 03:08 PM   #35
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 293
QuoteOriginally posted by MetteHHH Quote
That would depend entirely what you mean by "superior"...

...I shoot RAW because I like to post process: If you don't like post processing, then JPG is the superior format in terms of "which format will give me the best looking picture?".
I'll agree with that. Technically superior is different than functionally superior, and sometimes simpler is better if you don't fully understand something.

Take a multi-tool shaped like pliers for example. Sure, it might technically be more versatile than a single blade pocket knife, but if you can't figure out how to hold it comfortably your whittling will turn out like crap!
01-15-2016, 08:52 PM - 1 Like   #36
Site Supporter
Heavenly Creation's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Bradenton, FL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 51
I took my first photos today with my K3 and I had the camera set to Raw on SD 1 and jpeg on SD 2. I have since switched to just raw because to me the jpeg photos, even after enhanced on computer is a bit washed or pale compared to the Raw in my opinion. Here are two photos which were edited in Mac Photos.

Raw


Jpeg



Whatcha think?
01-16-2016, 10:24 AM   #37
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by MetteHHH Quote
You have definitely made it very clear how you define "superior".
no, it wasn't my definition, the text that i posted came from wikipedia, and i posted the link to back that up.

QuoteOriginally posted by MetteHHH Quote
I won't get in your way of feeling it again.
i posted cold hard facts, not "feelings".

perhaps the example that Heavenly Creation posted will help you understand the differences between jpeg and raw.
01-16-2016, 01:17 PM   #38
Site Supporter
MetteHHH's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 987
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
perhaps the example that Heavenly Creation posted will help you understand the differences between jpeg and raw.
Sweetie, I do understand the difference. I shoot raw.

I was trying to tell you, that while colour bit-depth might be the criterion that determines "superiority" for one person (a person who likes to post-process, for instance), to another person (for instance a person who does not wish to spend his time post-processing) immediate appearance of the camera output is a very valid criterion of "superiority". To such a person, your definition of "superiority", even if it rests on ifallible wikipedia documentation, might not be the best definition (as in "most useful definition"). To such a person, JPG might be more useful than RAW.

While you might find such people suffering from an inexcusable "lack of knowledge", they can actually be quite brilliant photographers. Or just people having loads of fun with their camera. AND they might still be entitled to advice - which was all I tried to give.

Not tech advice, but general advice. Friendly, unpatronizing advice.

...I can see that is not quite where I am at right now, so I don't really feel a need to continue this - I hope you agree.



01-16-2016, 03:04 PM   #39
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by MetteHHH Quote
Sweetie, I do understand the difference. I shoot raw.

I was trying to tell you, that while colour bit-depth might be the criterion that determines "superiority" for one person
>sigh<

the advantages of the raw format encompass more than just "colour bit-depth".

readers who are interested in the raw format can see examples of it being used here: Why shoot in RAW format? | www.dxo.com

mette, if you want to keep on telling the forum that i'm "praising the RAW format indiscriminately", as you put it earlier, well, you just go right ahead

i shoot both raw and jpeg 100% of the time, it's never an either/or situation for me, they both get recorded, and used where appropriate.
03-18-2016, 11:45 PM   #40
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,805
Brilliant analogy!

To make it more general, if I may paraphrase you...

QuoteOriginally posted by MetteHHH Quote
RAW is not a "superior" format. It simply allows you to process according to your own taste.

Think of it this way: Your SOOC JPEG image is a pizza from Domino's. The unprocessed RAW file is a basket of durum flour, tomato sauce, oregano, cheese and a cookbook preview of a pizza. The JPG you export from Lightroom after processing your RAW is the pizza you chose to bake by yourself.

You might compare your homemade pizza with the ready-made one, but you can't look at the ingredients and cookbook preview and blame it for not tasting like pizza.
Does this make the various in camera or in program filters different recipes of pizza?
03-21-2016, 05:06 PM   #41
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 21
Just to add another factor... I found that when I processed my oly or nikon RAW files via a third party app*** I could not duplicate the in-camera jpegs. I could duplicate them via oly's software. That didn't mean one was better or worse, but yeah... unless the program you use to develop the RAW files on the computer applies exactly the same processing as the camera does (which in my experience, requires a program written by the camera manufacturer), then the jpegs that result will be different. Presumably Pentax is not different; while the third party software can read the RAW image, they all actually apply processing using their own algorithms - and only Pentax's own software would have the exact same algorithms as the camera.

*** I use PaintShopPro and it's associates and have tried several free options. I don't have lightroom.
03-22-2016, 09:33 PM   #42
Pentaxian
ScooterMaxi Jim's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,501
AFAIK, Larrymc and jyndi have been the only ones getting at the answer to the OP's question. You can't really expect that any software - other than the one that came with the camera - to match what is simulated out of the camera processing. I suspect that the Silkypix-based RAW converter comes quite close to what's set up in the camera. The OP hasn't exactly explained what he has set up in the camera. The stock settings are pretty marginal in several ways (red blowout, poor sharpening, etc.). Pentax has been routinely blasted in the western press reviews for inaccuracy/oversaturation of colors and low sharpening (deserved in the first instance, somewhat undeserved in the second, IMHO).

If the OP set-up sharpening in the Fine or Extra Fine range - chances are good that LR/ACR doesn't pick it up for RAW properly. Even if it does, LR has fallen behind in NR quality by several years compared to the leaders. Adobe also hasn't properly profiled Pentax cameras in several years. Keep in mind that I have used LR as my primary converter for the majority of the past 10 years (starting with v3), but LR has fallen pretty far behind in the past 2-3 years. So, very possibly Silkypix has the edge at least in reading the RAW directions. As for me, Capture One v9 clearly yields a sharper, lower noise JPEG (which has been tweaked for maximum quality for reference purposes) when I output at full size and maximum quality (however, lately I've defaulted to medium size for JPEGs because they are only used for reference purposes). This is true for me on the K-3, K-01, and the K-30 previously, but I don't have the K-5 series so can't comment on that directly.
03-25-2016, 07:52 AM   #43
Pentaxian
Helios 1984's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: The Mighty Republic of Canadia
Posts: 323
I have read folks saying that they could not see the difference between 60hz and 120hz monitors, others saying that there was no difference between 20$ earbuds and more expensive ones, I've read folks saying they could not see the difference between hand drawing and cell shading animation. I have a friend who cannot taste the difference between different brands of milk nor can he taste the difference between a homemade pizza and a frozen one...
03-26-2016, 09:19 AM   #44
Senior Member
Larrymc's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 226
QuoteOriginally posted by djam Quote
I have a question regarding my K-5lls. I have always felt there was a bit more noise in my RAW images than should be when shooting in low light situations but just assumed it was the limitation of my camera. Tonight while doing some testing to see if certain settings might give me better results I decided to see what kind of results the camera would give me if I just shot in green(auto) mode. I was shocked to find that the JPEGs produced in AUTO (green) were much less noisy and sharper than the RAW+ files. I ended up shooting about 12 different shots at various focal distances (16-50mm) in green mode, noting what settings the camera used and then shot the same settings in manual mode RAW+. After importing and comparing the 3 images in lightroom the result was always the same with the Auto mode JPEG being significantly sharper and less noisy than both the RAW and JPEG shot in Manual with identical settings. It's almost as if there is a slight "haze" or "film" over the RAW+ files that reduces resolution. Has anyone else noticed this and what could explain it? Again just to clarify what I did: I first shot an image using green mode(auto), so if the camera in auto mode shot an image at 1/60 2.8 3200 I would turn the dial to M and adjust settings to 1/60 2.8 3200 and single focus exactly where focus point was in auto. Result being the RAW and JPEG produced in M mode was much noisier than JPEG produced in green(auto) mode.
Thoughts???

To get your Auto RAW+ files to match your Auto JPEG files you need to convert the Auto RAW+ files in Pentax Digital Camera Utility 5.4.2 as the program will read the camera presets in the Auto RAW+ file and convert it with same presets that your Auto JPEG files display. This should eliminate your disparity between the RAW and JPEG displays. I'm not sure if any other RAW developer has this ability.


Larry

---------- Post added 03-26-16 at 11:23 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Helios 84-5 Quote
I have read folks saying that they could not see the difference between 60hz and 120hz monitors, others saying that there was no difference between 20$ earbuds and more expensive ones, I've read folks saying they could not see the difference between hand drawing and cell shading animation. I have a friend who cannot taste the difference between different brands of milk nor can he taste the difference between a homemade pizza and a frozen one...


And your point is????
03-26-2016, 09:31 AM   #45
Forum Member
john.margetts's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 84
QuoteOriginally posted by Larrymc Quote
To get your Auto RAW+ files to match your Auto JPEG files you need to convert the Auto RAW+ files in Pentax Digital Camera Utility 5.4.2 as the program will read the camera presets in the Auto RAW+ file and convert it with same presets that your Auto JPEG files display. This should eliminate your disparity between the RAW and JPEG displays. I'm not sure if any other RAW developer has this ability.


Larry

---------- Post added 03-26-16 at 11:23 AM ----------





And your point is????
If you want ooc jpgs, why shoot in RAW? The whole point of RAW is that it is not the same.
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!
adjustments, auto, camera, dslr, files, focus, folks, hand, image, jpeg, jpeg less noise, mode, photography, pic, post, presets, result, settings, shot, taste
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Different exposure between RAW and JPEG in RAW + JPEG - possible? BigMackCam Pentax DSLR Discussion 15 10-08-2016 01:50 AM
Is RAW going to give me a better tonal range than JPEG? slackercruster Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 22 04-02-2012 12:21 PM
JPEG looking much better than Lightroom RAW pcarfan Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 8 08-03-2011 12:15 PM
K-X shows more noise when shooting RAW than JPG??? crossover37 Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 04-20-2010 12:46 PM
RAW resolution worst than JPEG ? Matamanoa Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 6 04-19-2010 02:28 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:24 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