[WMBP]

I can say with absolute confidence that the results I have now, while still not great, benefited substantially from the fact that I was shooting raw.

Um, I should add a note to that statement. The fact that I shot raw in itself doesn't do very much at all. What matters is

1. I saved the files as raw files so I have the data to work with
2. I have raw-processing software (Lightroom) that has the features I need to take advantage of that extra data
3. I know how to use my software
4. I took the time to use the software intelligently

Step 1 in itself is not worthless, because I can come back next year and do steps 2-4. But there's nothing particularly virtuous about shooting raw in itself. You then do have to take advantages of the opportunities that the raw files give you. These shots from the swim meet were difficult photos to process and it took me several hours to select the best (or least bad) images and post-process them.

Will

[PDL]

It is very simple to tell the difference.
JPEG F, E1, O
RAW E, F1, P
how did it tell - by looking --- no --- downloaded the images -- looked in properties
F, E1 and O -- 72dpi (Pentax Default)
E, F1 and P -- 240dpi (Adobe default for JPEG export from RAW).
it is called forensics. (no copyright notice either)

Now back to the question -
With RAW the data are processed by your conversion program at 16 bit (12 actually but lets not quibble) - that is 4096 values. When the data are converted to JPEG the software maps these values to 8bit 255 - but (and it is a BIG but) when you are manupulating the values in the RAW software - you are using all the bits available in RAW. The mapping from 4096 to 255 is controlled by the sliders you are working on, curves, levels etc. When you save the image (or export it - in lightroom the changes are saved in a small file) the software converts the 12 bit image to a 8 bit JPEG.
Now when you shoot JPEG in the camera - the PRIME JPEG processor does essentially the same thing - but it does not allow the same level of user control that software on your PC. What you are left with is a 8 bit image that has lost a lot of detailed information due to the very nature of JPEG - once the data are lost - it can not be recovered.
A real test is on marginal images that could use that extra RAW headroom.

Sorry - have to go now -getting paged -- a server is down.

PDL

[jfdavis58]

So people elsewhere are arguing over raw vs. jpeg comparing different shots. One of my favorite features of the K10D is having RAW+ as a feature. As long as you have a lot of SD cards, it's great!

So here are a couple of shots - shot in both jpeg (default settings) and RAW with the K10D. Post-processing: exposure changes and white balance in ACR; levels, color balance, and contrast for the jpegs etc. but nothing major (I'm not a pp pro - perhaps one of the reasons I like taking lots of pics and getting it as "right" as possible in camera). Some sharpening of the RAW before resizing and of both after resizing.

Tell me which is which (and see more from this small batch jpeg vs. raw Photo Gallery by betsypdx at pbase.com- all taken with the Super-Takumar 85mm f1.9).

(And, by the way, not all of these were perfectly exposed - some needed +1 or more EV in ACR, and significant levels "tweaks").

E


F


O


P



E1


F1


If anyone gets all of them (in the gallery) right, they'll get some kind of prize.

Raining where you live?

Wind blowing hard; lot's a dust and pollen blowing in the air?

Maybe a broken bone, strained muscle or just an old fashioned 'ache'.




None of the above?!?!?!?!?!




I'm trying hard to find a reason to stay around, to play nice, to contribute again. And I'm finding I need to be looking hard!

This threads a "yawner". Guess I'll go watch the grass grow; at least that's productive.

[WMBP]

I'm trying hard to find a reason to stay around, to play nice, to contribute again. And I'm finding I need to be looking hard!

This threads a "yawner". Guess I'll go watch the grass grow; at least that's productive.

What an odd post.

Will

[mph]

I just wanted to point out something that I haven't seen discussed in this thread. Most people listing the benefits of raw processing have addressed the adjustments you can make to exposure (and related matters like color balance) prior to reducing the color depth, and this is a major advantage of raw processing.

But another one is that the raw processor can use superior Bayer pattern demosaicing algorithms. As you know, each pixel in your camera's sensor only records one of red, green, or blue light. For each pixel in the final image, the other two channels have to be interpolated. If you shoot raw, your raw converter does this; if you shoot JPEG, the camera's processor does.

A raw processor has the luxury of a more powerful computer, and more time to do the work. (Remember, the camera has to keep up with 3fps shooting!) A better demosaicing algorithm can take advantage of things like edge detection, and can avoid spurious colored pixels at sharp edges, moire effects, and so forth. And by having the raw files around, you can take advantage of improved demosaicing algorithms as they are incorporated into future versions of raw processors.

[PDL]

What an odd post.

Will

That's mr. davis for you - he just can't let things go - almost like me - can't let a certain posters comments go.

Now I have to leave for several hours - some engineer edited the registry (deleted some stuff) on a server and now it will not boot. Oh weill, got some images in this morning anyway.

(All RAW by the way - potential images for this months contest)

PDL

[kenyee]

F, E1 and O -- 72dpi (Pentax Default)
E, F1 and P -- 240dpi (Adobe default for JPEG export from RAW).
it is called forensics. (no copyright notice either)

LOL. Clever. I would have guessed the first image of each set was RAW because of the extra color saturation in those images

[betsypdx]

Sorry to have not responded - I thought I'd have a couple hours Saturday morning before I took off to check in, but life interfered, and then I was away for four days. Of course, at least one person thought it was a total "yawner" so, maybe that can be my excuse - I was sleeping for four days (I wish!).

The RAW files are F, P, and F1 (PDL's forensics were almost right - but I've doubled checked three times, including downloading them myself and E is definitely the jpeg). (The full jpeg vs. raw gallery - A,C,F,G,J,L,N,P,Q,T,V,X,Z,B1,D1,F1,G1 = raw)

But, my point was not that either jpeg or raw is better than the other. What I do think is that the whole "if you don't shoot raw, you can't be a serious - or good - photographer" argument is ridiculous since most of us don't publish in glossy magazines or enlarge our pictures to poster size.

I was more than satisfied with the results using only jpeg for the first 14 months I had DSLRs. I don't think I wasted my expensive Pentax cameras and lenses (and the money spent printing over a thousand prints, including some at larger sizes) by shooting in jpeg for all that time. RAW does provide additional flexibility - but I have yet to master it - that is the post-processing to get the most out of it.

I probably didn't always get the best quality I could out of the camera with jpeg, but that's okay - digital has allowed me to take a lot more shots and learn more about what I like to shoot and what camera settings get me closest to the end result I want. Learning more about RAW is helping that as well.

To sum it up - I agree with those that argue for using RAW - but disagree when they put down those who don't.

And thanks for those who complemented the photos.

[stewart_photo]

(snip) To sum it up - I agree with those that argue for using RAW - but disagree when they put down those who don't. (snip)

Well said, betsypdx. Of course, I don't feel slighted using JPEG much of the time (pretty much all except commercial jobs) since even the most expensive so-called pro cameras, such as those $7000 Nikons and even one or two of those $15,000+ medium format budget busters, default to JPEG.

By the way, I like the images as well.

stewart

[rfortson]

Hi Betsy,

Your pictures looked great and I didn't even attempt to tell the difference between them. For well exposed shots, I think the differences are minimal at best.

However, when I screw up the exposure, raw has allowed me to recover over 1 stop of overexposure on some shots I really liked. For me, that's where raw helps me out. If I was a better photographer up front, or was more careful, I could shoot jpegs and not worry about it. I guess I figured I paid for raw so I'm going to use them.

[LeoTaylor]

Being a techy with no artistic ability to speak of I can't tell the difference between these fine photos, but I can correct a couple of errors.

PEF files, and most DSLRs, are 12 BITs per color, not 16 as mentioned. If you convert to 16 bit format to do your processing that is fine, but it does not magically make the photo 16 BITs. Many Astronomical cameras ARE 16 BIT mono, and with RGB filters are 16 BITs per color. It is not done so much for color range but because astrophotos often must squeeze a lot detail out of an object that is only slightly brighter than the background sky.

The Bayer standard is TWO greens for each red and blue, not equal thirds as mentioned. When I use my modified K110D with an Hydrogen Alpha filter I extract only the red, and the image is 1.5 megapixels. At 1520 * 1012 the camera does not have quite enough red pixels to fill my modest 19 monitor top to bottom!

Leo Taylor

[WMBP]

The RAW files are F, P, and F1 (PDL's forensics were almost right - but I've doubled checked three times, including downloading them myself and E is definitely the jpeg).

I got all three right (and for a logical reason, I might add). Where's my prize? :--)

But, my point was not that either jpeg or raw is better than the other.

No, that's MY point.

What I do think is that the whole "if you don't shoot raw, you can't be a serious - or good - photographer" argument is ridiculous since most of us don't publish in glossy magazines or enlarge our pictures to poster size.

Sorry, this is a straw man. I don't recall anybody -- on this list or anywhere else -- ever saying that you can't be a serious photographer if you don't shoot raw. Anybody who DOES say something that stupid doesn't deserve a response.

Sigh. Let me take one more stab at this.

Everybody shoots raw, willy-nilly.

We all shoot raw whether we like it or not, because that's how our cameras work. The issue isn't how you shoot, the issue is whether you let the camera do the raw-to-jpeg conversion for you and in the process throw away a lot of data received initially by the sensor, or whether you keep all that data and convert later on in your computer. There's no getting around this simple fact, and anybody who denies this is simply not in possession of the facts.

You may believe that the data the camera flushes down the digital toilet is not important. Of course, you won't really ever be sure about this, since you let the camera throw it away before you had a chance to look at it and decide for yourself. Still, this decision -- to let the camera decide -- is not too risky, because cameras in fact do a pretty good job at converting raw images most of the time, and so letting the camera do this for you is not an unreasonable compromise.

But there is simply no getting around the fact that the decision not to save the raw file is a practical compromise. Not saving as raw doesn't make anybody a bad photographer, or not serious, any more than buying a camera that costs only $500 makes someone not serious, or any more than shooting 35mm in the past made someone less serious than someone who shot medium or large format. There are plenty of different ways to be serious about photography, thank goodness!

I have more patience with this topic than some of our knowledgeable but curmudgeonly fellow listers because, well, perhaps because I spent two decades as a university professor and I know that what's boringly old hat to me may be exciting news to somebody else. The dslr has really attracted a mass market just in the last year, and a lot of those new users have never tried raw, still don't really understand the issues. For them in particular, it's important not to cloud the issue here with irrelevancies. This issue is a simple, practical and technical issue.

Summary: The cost of converting to jpeg in camera is hard to calculate, because it's pretty hard to put a value on data that was thrown away before you see the image. The cost of shooting raw files is simply monetary and much easier to calculate. THAT IS REALLY ALL THERE IS TO THIS ISSUE.

Will

[betsypdx]

However, while I hate to be a party pooper, I have to say that this particular test is meaningless. It's like showing someone two prints of the same fairly conventionally exposed photo, in identical frames, and asking an observer from a distance of five feet to tell which was processed at Walgreens and which was processed at the pro photo lab downtown. The possibility that the difference isn't obvious doesn't mean that serious photographers should start getting all their prints made at Walgreens.

I got all three right (and for a logical reason, I might add). Where's my prize? :--)

Sorry - you only guessed on the three - you had to get all of them right in the gallery to get the prize.

Sorry, this is a straw man. I don't recall anybody -- on this list or anywhere else -- ever saying that you can't be a serious photographer if you don't shoot raw. Anybody who DOES say something that stupid doesn't deserve a response.

Sigh. Let me take one more stab at this.

Sorry, but telling people who let the camera convert the raw data to jpegs (correction noted - yes, we all do "shoot" in raw) and let the camera "flush valuable data down the toilet" that they are akin to people who only get their prints made at Walgreens is a slam, and is in fact telling them that in your opinion they aren't as good, or as smart, or as serious as more "professional" photographers.

Unless, of course, you meant that Walgreen's does the highest quality printing available - but I don't think that was your point.

And, the hydrangeas had to be adjusted +1.25 EV in ACR with similar adjustments to the jpeg version - and others in the gallery had to have color balance adjustments, exposure adjustments, etc. - they weren't all "perfectly" exposed.

[PDL]

The RAW files are F, P, and F1 (PDL's forensics were almost right - but I've doubled checked three times, including downloading them myself and E is definitely the jpeg). (The full jpeg vs. raw gallery - A,C,F,G,J,L,N,P,Q,T,V,X,Z,B1,D1,F1,G1 = raw)

But, my point was not that either jpeg or raw is better than the other. What I do think is that the whole "if you don't shoot raw, you can't be a serious - or good - photographer" argument is ridiculous since most of us don't publish in glossy magazines or enlarge our pictures to poster size.

snip

To sum it up - I agree with those that argue for using RAW - but disagree when they put down those who don't.

I most likely fat fingered the file names on my comparisons - a better example would have been if you had changed the dpi to match - however - you might have changed the image quality and size of the images.

So I would like to know who is putting down people who shoot JPEG? Most of the threads - including this one - from people who shoot JPEG saying that RAW is a waste of time. Personally I do not care what you shoot - I care about what I shoot and I shoot RAW all the time now. When I first started with my DSLR I shot JPEG - but after trying to do some temp changes, shadow detail enhancements and such - I found that RAW provides me with that additional headroom. I have said it before - digital imaging is all about data - RAW gives you more data. Once you go from RAW to JPEG - data are lost - and it is not recoverable from the JPEG - it goes to the big bit bucket in the sky. You don't want to shoot RAW - fine - just don't try to put me down because I do either.

So why the gallery of JPEG vs RAW? To show what – that you can get nice images from JPEG – duh! DSLR’s in P mode or full auto, will capture “good” images around 95% of the time. However, I try to live entirely in that last 5% - that is why I shoot RAW – please try and stop telling me there is no difference – there is – it is subtle but it is there – especially when I want to print a TIFF image at 20x30 inches. JPEG falls flat when that is done.

PEF files, and most DSLRs, are 12 BITs per color, not 16 as mentioned. If you convert to 16 bit format to do your processing that is fine, but it does not magically make the photo 16 BITs. Many Astronomical cameras ARE 16 BIT mono, and with RGB filters are 16 BITs per color. It is not done so much for color range but because astrophotos often must squeeze a lot detail out of an object that is only slightly brighter than the background sky.

Leo Taylor

4096 is 2^12 just like I said. I have also said that I would love it if Pentax made a B&W equivalent of the K10D. No Bayer filter - just pure B&W - even at 12 bit (if it used the Sony CCD) that would be fantastic. If you wanted to shoot IR - Just put on the old Wratten 25 and blast away. I would be nice to have mirror lockup and a good viewfinder magnifier too.

PDL

[LeGoGubbe]

The correct answer is they are all JPEG's as you can not post a RAW file :0)
seriously, this is a way overblown argument all in all. Photo manipulation after the fact is an art in it's self from what I have seen. What works best for one may not do so well for another person. And even though RAW has more ability to manipulate the more basic aspects of a photograph. It is no panacia for decent shooting in the first place.
I am personally just not that good at the RAW software yet and so tend to only use it for shots I want to be able to fix like bright sky dark earth type situations.And Bracket shots can do just as well butr are also alot of work mixing together.
And I have to agree that E,and O are a bit better but see very little to recomend between the two jukbox shots and find F1 to be a touch better to my eye.
Kenn.

hahahaha LOL , i went for the E, o, and E1 as well :P until i realised that.