Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-21-2009, 04:56 PM   #31
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by pcarfan Quote
I wonder what is so special about the jpeg engine.
for those who want to have a quick print on a 5x8 or less dimension. and for those who are too lazy to do PP work.

12-22-2009, 09:55 AM   #32
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
You don't need JPEG to do a quick print, nor does shooting RAW require you to do PP.
12-22-2009, 10:51 AM   #33
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
You don't need JPEG to do a quick print, nor does shooting RAW require you to do PP.
Marc, some printers and photo kiosks don't recognize RAW and in the event that you only have the memory card with you, and not the camera. and RAW is more advisable in post-processing. not to mention that it also eats a lot of space which can really be a bother.
12-22-2009, 12:08 PM   #34
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
True. I'm not saying JPEG has no place - just responding to the specific misinformation in your previous post. Had you said, "quick print at a kiosk" (something I've never done in my life, but recognize that others do), I'd not have taken issue with that statement. But since all my small prints are done at home, that was what I assumed you were referring to as well. And prints at home - of any size, actually - do *not* require JPEG.

Not sure what you mean by saying "RAW is more advisable in post-processing" - sounds almost like you are making that as an argument for shooting JPEG, but of course it's obviously the reverse. If you know you'll not want to do PP, RAW has no advantage. If you're not sure, RAW has the advantage, assuming you are OK with the size penalty. Note the size penalty goes away practically the moment you begin PP, since JPEG normally requires you to save copies of the file (assuming you don't wish to overwrite your originals). If on the other hand you were claim that if you shoot RAW, it is advisable to do PP, that's just a myth. A 100% falsehood perpetuated over the years, that may have once had basis in truth a decade or so ago (back when the statement "digital photography will never catch on" would also have been seen as probably true), but hasn't bee true for a very long time.

Again, I'm not out to convert anyone - just to correct the misinformation that unfortunately is very commonly spread about shooting RAW. When people make up their minds on how to shoot, I want it to based on facts.


Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 12-22-2009 at 12:14 PM.
12-28-2009, 04:09 PM   #35
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
True. I'm not saying JPEG has no place - just responding to the specific misinformation in your previous post. Had you said, "quick print at a kiosk" (something I've never done in my life, but recognize that others do), I'd not have taken issue with that statement. But since all my small prints are done at home, that was what I assumed you were referring to as well. And prints at home - of any size, actually - do *not* require JPEG.

Not sure what you mean by saying "RAW is more advisable in post-processing" - sounds almost like you are making that as an argument for shooting JPEG, but of course it's obviously the reverse. If you know you'll not want to do PP, RAW has no advantage. If you're not sure, RAW has the advantage, assuming you are OK with the size penalty. Note the size penalty goes away practically the moment you begin PP, since JPEG normally requires you to save copies of the file (assuming you don't wish to overwrite your originals). If on the other hand you were claim that if you shoot RAW, it is advisable to do PP, that's just a myth. A 100% falsehood perpetuated over the years, that may have once had basis in truth a decade or so ago (back when the statement "digital photography will never catch on" would also have been seen as probably true), but hasn't bee true for a very long time.

Again, I'm not out to convert anyone - just to correct the misinformation that unfortunately is very commonly spread about shooting RAW. When people make up their minds on how to shoot, I want it to based on facts.
Why is it a myth that PP is advisable when shooting RAW ?
12-28-2009, 04:51 PM   #36
Veteran Member
distudio's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney
Photos: Albums
Posts: 448
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonson PL Quote
Why is it a myth that PP is advisable when shooting RAW ?
Because anyone can open up Picasa or any such program and print a RAW image as if it were a jpeg without any additional processing.
12-28-2009, 05:26 PM   #37
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by distudio Quote
Because anyone can open up Picasa or any such program and print a RAW image as if it were a jpeg without any additional processing.
sadly, photo kiosks don't use Picasa yet.
12-28-2009, 06:55 PM   #38
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
I did something today I don't normally do, shoot RAW

Just out of curiosity to look at 3200 ISO performance on my K7

Note the shot below, resized to 20% and using 1 step noise removal in PSP X2

the shot is at 3200 ISO, 1/40th of a second with a 510mm lens at F13 (F8 on the 300mm F4 and a 1.7x AF TC) Hand held.

Attached Images
 
12-28-2009, 06:59 PM   #39
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
And vice versa - fast glass can't replace high ISO. Fast glass allows faster shutter speeds, but at the cost of DOF, and often sharpness, CA, vignetting, and other artifacts that tend to disappear as one stops down. So you have to make that choice, and sometimes one is more appropriate than the other. Plus, sufficiently fast glass is not available or indeed even feasible at many focal length (anyone ever seen a 300/1.2?)

And often, one needs *both* a large aperture and a high ISO to capture a given scene.
how true but F2.8 stopped down to F5.6 is faster than F5.6 stopped down to F11. Most low cost lenses are out performed by their faster counterparts at the same aperture, and all the ills that exist at the fast wide open apertures on good fast glass, exist to some extent on cheaper slower lenses. Perhaps my example is a little bit of an exaggeration but the concept applies.
12-28-2009, 08:34 PM   #40
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonson PL Quote
Why is it a myth that PP is advisable when shooting RAW ?
Because it's something that lots of people believe, but is in fact not true.
12-29-2009, 09:01 AM   #41
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,257
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Not sure what you mean by saying "RAW is more advisable in post-processing" - sounds almost like you are making that as an argument for shooting JPEG, but of course it's obviously the reverse. If you know you'll not want to do PP, RAW has no advantage. If you're not sure, RAW has the advantage, assuming you are OK with the size penalty. Note the size penalty goes away practically the moment you begin PP, since JPEG normally requires you to save copies of the file (assuming you don't wish to overwrite your originals). If on the other hand you were claim that if you shoot RAW, it is advisable to do PP, that's just a myth. A 100% falsehood perpetuated over the years, that may have once had basis in truth a decade or so ago (back when the statement "digital photography will never catch on" would also have been seen as probably true), but hasn't bee true for a very long time.

Again, I'm not out to convert anyone - just to correct the misinformation that unfortunately is very commonly spread about shooting RAW. When people make up their minds on how to shoot, I want it to based on facts.
Marc,
If you are saying that shooting RAW doesn't necessarily mean that you HAVE to do PP, I totally agree. Some of the pics I take in RAW are just great "as is" and warrant no further tweaking, except for saving a file in JPEG or TIFF (and that is not PP), which I normally do before I bring the photo files to my buddy down the street for printing.

JP
01-10-2010, 01:28 AM   #42
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Because it's something that lots of people believe, but is in fact not true.
Ok, thanks. I thought when I had changed from JPEG to RAW shooting, I had to take the time to set sharpening and contrast.

So if the picture looks good as it, it is fine just to save as JPEG and be done with it ?
01-10-2010, 10:26 AM   #43
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonson PL Quote
Ok, thanks. I thought when I had changed from JPEG to RAW shooting, I had to take the time to set sharpening and contrast.
You might if you don't happen to like the default sharpening and contrast settings from the particular RAW converter you use, and it doesn't provide a way of altering those defaults. Many will at least look at the setting you made in camera and try to honor those, if you prefer higher than default sharpening and contrast; others will provide a way of customizing the defaults in the software itself. But with most RAw software, one way or another, it should be possible to get results you like just fine without needing PP

QuoteQuote:
So if the picture looks good as it, it is fine just to save as JPEG and be done with it ?
Yes - and that's assuming your RAW workflow requires saving to JPEG at all. Most modern applications don't require this, whether you do PP or not - you can work with your RAW files directly. But of course, generating a JPEG - perhaps a lower resolution version - is a necessary step for pictures you intend to post online or otherwise share with others. I generally do PP on just the images I feel "need" it (and this "need" isn't because they were shot RAW, but because of the images themselves), then I kick off a batch conversion of just the images I want to keep these lower resolution JPEG copies of.
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, detail, dslr, iq, jpegs, k7, k7 noise, kx, levels, noise, photography, settings
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question Re: K-x a different kind of noise Katsura Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 12-05-2009 11:37 PM
Question about noise Lainey Pentax DSLR Discussion 16 05-27-2009 11:44 AM
Trying To Lay the D-Range Question to Rest Das Boot Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 5 12-25-2008 01:39 PM
Noise Reduction question k20d jbrowning Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 10-22-2008 04:18 PM
Another noise question Eddie Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 11-15-2007 10:47 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:27 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