[UnknownVT]

Here is what I would have done with the raw image had I taken it. First the raw then your jpeg. Some may prefer the jpeg, others the raw. These are at 100% so either would look better at a smaller size.
Compared to the jpeg in my opinion the difference in detail is more than percieved. Yes there is more noise but the detail hasn't been smeared away by the cameras noise reduction. At least when you start with the raw file you have a lot more control over how much noise reduction is used.
If you want to get rid of ALL noise as in the jpeg then you might as well shoot jpeg and save yourself some time. Nothing wrong with that.

Nope we're basically saying the same thing - the RAW crop you showed has more noise - and looks more detailed -
it is a fine choice in this case - and I also prefer it -
but look at the two images more closely the "detail" on the cheek and chin of the main face is to a degree "false" -
it looks like a 5 o'clock shadow/whiskers -
but it is nothing more than shadow shading just grainy - that makes it look like that -
NR obviously removes that so that the RAW noisier version somehow looks more detailed -
plus psychologically we see what we would like to see - and I am not being factious -
if that is 5 o'clock shadow/whiskers - then what is it doing along the middle of the neck?
- you think he has some werewolf in him?
Examine the other areas like the eye and the sideburns and one can see the JPG is no worse.

Now the curtains behind the scene again looks more detailed but again it is the noise grain that makes it look more detailed
there is no way my humble 18-55 kit zoom on a K-x shooting at ISO5000 can capture that kind of detail - I mean we are talking about texture at the pixel level - so again it is a false detail.

However I do agree the RAW rendition is this case is much better (note: I have said MUCH - so there is no disagreement) - simply because it does look better - regardless of whether the perceived details are real or not.......

Also another major factor for me is that the overall color balance is better on the RAW version - my kudos to you for getting that - which I and many others have not managed - despite sincere and repeated (in my case) attempts.

So yes, if I really wanted that photo (unfortunately it's a cast-off shot which I merely use for demo/challenge purposes) and wanted to examine at the pixel level - I would say RAW is superior -

But the whole point I was making in the first place, was despite what looks like an "impossible" shot
- with many valiant failed attempts to correct -
at least 3 people (yourself included) can correct in less than 2 minutes on the JPG
- the fact that RAW is better in the end is worthwhile -
but RAW is/was not the only option/solution to get a result.

---

Last edited by UnknownVT; 04-15-2011 at 01:33 PM.

[dvest]

NR obviously removes that so that the RAW noisier version somehow looks more detailed -
plus psychologically we see what we would like to see - and I am not being factious -
if that is 5 o'clock shadow/whiskers - then what is it doing along the middle of the neck?
- you think he has some werewolf in him?
Examine the other areas like the eye and the sideburns and one can see the JPG is no worse.

Now the curtains behind the scene again looks more detailed but again it is the noise grain that makes it look more detailed
there is no way my humble 18-55 kit zoom on a K-x shooting at ISO5000 can capture that kind of detail - I mean we are talking about texture at the pixel level - so again it is a false detail.

Look at the guy in the background. His glasses and the stripe on his shirt. That's real detail. Not false. Everything else - I agree. RAW is not the only option. That's why I said I'm glad we have a choice. We can use either or both as we want.

Just so you know where I'm coming from I can't normally use high ISO's. A lot of my images are for stock. The images are examined at 100% and there can be pretty much no noise nor evidence of noise reduction in the image or it is rejected. For this reason 400 is usually my limit. I shoot raw so I can retain as much detail as possible and control the amount of noise reduction that is used. If I'm shooting for myself I'm free to do as I please so then I might go crazy and shoot jpegs at 800 iso!

[UnknownVT]

I can't normally use high ISO's. A lot of my images are for stock. The images are examined at 100% and there can be pretty much no noise nor evidence of noise reduction in the image or it is rejected. For this reason 400 is usually my limit. I shoot raw so I can retain as much detail as possible and control the amount of noise reduction that is used. If I'm shooting for myself I'm free to do as I please so then I might go crazy and shoot jpegs at 800 iso!

Ha-ha! I'm at the very other end of the scale - at a lot of venues I have to shoot to my max ISO setting ISO5000.

At ISO400 that shot would have been, using the same f/3.5 aperture, at about 1/3sec! - that's how low the light was - I was using 18mm (or 27mm for 35mm equiv) and I do not know of many lenses at 18mm that have much wider aperture than f/2.8 - so maybe 1/5 sec for f/2.8? and that's the overall stage - individuals would probably have lower overall lighting

So one has to shoot at HighISO there - otherwise there would be no shots......

That's why I like the K-x - because it allows me to shoot the HighISOs even in JPG to get "presentable" results.

Are you using a K-x or K-r these days,
or did you get the very desirable K-5?

[kh1234567890]

that's how low the light was

'Exposure bias: -0.3 EV'

[dvest]

Would you believe I'm using a "noisy" K-7? It has a noisy reputation anyway. It is pretty noisy in my opinion above about 800 iso but from 100-400 it's not bad at all. It's as good or better than the Nikon D300 I had before in that range. The noise that is there seems easier to clean up without leaving artifacts also. I really like the body and features and plan to move to the K-5 when I can. I did have a K-x and liked it a lot. It was much better above 800 but as low as it is there is some noise there. Like I said I can't have any noise so the high iso image quality wasn't of much benefit to me. I can see how it would be a great camera for what you do.

I think I understand the -0.3 ev mentioned in the post above. Gives you a bit faster shutter speed and helps keep the spotlighted areas from blowing out?

[UnknownVT]

Would you believe I'm using a "noisy" K-7? It has a noisy reputation anyway. It is pretty noisy in my opinion above about 800 iso but from 100-400 it's not bad at all.
I think I also understand the -0.3 ev mentioned in the post above. Gives you a bit faster shutter speed and helps keep the spotlighted areas from blowing out?

I recall your thread asking about the best Pentax for low ISO and on a look-see basis only, I thought the K-7 looked best at ISO100 followed by K-x, K-r, K-5 then K20D (the K10D did not have the same test samples to compare).

To think of it if I had a K-7 - either it, or I, would be sitting at home -
the dark jazz venue I shoot often is at ISO5000, f/3.5 to as low as 1/4sec!

Yes, the -1/3EV compensation is a slight safety to prevent blowing out the highlights - I also have highlight correction On -
even with the "belts and braces" - Brit expression for double-safety (Brit braces = US suspenders; Trivia: Brit suspenders = US garter belt - so a completely different meaning/context ) I can still get blown out highlights on important parts of the photo - like this shot -

ISO5000, f/4.5, 1/100, 95mm
because of the strong harsh stage lighting - I had to use recovery and adjust the exposure via ACR on this JPG - otherwise Hiromi (the female pianist)'s face would have been completely blown out.

Nowadays at the dark jazz club - I chimp
then adjust the exposure compensation for the shot -
that can vary from -1 2/3 stop to +1 stop depending on the subject/scene.


ISO5000, f/4.5, 1/15, 80mm -
this shot needed +0.7 stop compensation
to bring out the face which is in the shadow
and the white patterned shirt also fools the metering into thinking it's much brighter than it is........

But one would have thought this shot with even whiter shirt, being in the same spot on stage
- ought to need the same treatment -

ISO5000, f/4.5, 1/80, 68mm
but this needed -0.7 stop compensation otherwise the face would have been over exposed, and the background would have been too bright to depict the scene properly.

Again for extreme HighISO like ISO5000 - the blanket advice is to use RAW - but with the K-x I can get away with JPGs and seem to be able to get "presentable" results?

[outsider]

RAW files from my GF1, D700, and D300 all come out just as neutral as my K-5's files. That's just how RAW is.

If you're suggesting that all/most RAW files look the same across all/most/ makes models camera, you'd be wrong. It would be erroneous I think to say they generally look the same. I've read multiple times in pentax/nikon raw comparisons where nikon raw output is more contrasty, saturated, pentax more stripped down. It just makes sense for manufacturers to process their raw files from camera to camera, as they see fit.

[Ash]

Are you talking about RAW results that are taken in auto white balance mode? because if not the RAW results should be quite comparable. I do think however that my ISO 100 shots from my K-5 are as good as I've ever gotten from any of my previous cameras, including the *ist D, K10D and K20D.