Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 8, 2007, 7:48 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
hercules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sparta, Greece
Posts: 2,649
Default

This is actually the first time i tried testing raw, i took one with raw and the other Jpeg and opened raw in photoshop CS2 but i don't see a difference from one to the other, here are those 2 shots that were just resized, i kind of thought that when you used raw that you were supposed to do color sharpening saturation in photoshop, so what am i missing thanks.
hercules is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 8, 2007, 8:53 AM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

It looks to me like the jpeg picture has better contrast/saturation than the raw...

In a perfect exposure there should be no difference!
For an inexperienced person a jpeg picture is sometime a better selection than a 'badly' processed raw picture...

-> The raw picture allow you more leeway in adjustent in case you goofed the exposure in the 1st place (i.e. get more out of the leafy shadow areas on the bottom of your picture for example)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2007, 9:59 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
hercules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sparta, Greece
Posts: 2,649
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
It looks to me like the jpeg picture has better contrast/saturation than the raw...

In a perfect exposure there should be no difference!
For an inexperienced person a jpeg picture is sometime a better selection than a 'badly' processed raw picture...

-> The raw picture allow you more leeway in adjustent in case you goofed the exposure in the 1st place (i.e. get more out of the leafy shadow areas on the bottom of your picture for example)
Thanks, that's weird after i saw them side by side is where i saw a difference in contrast, saturation, and color.
hercules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2007, 10:44 AM   #4
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

NHL is right on the money!

There are a very few very competant post processing gurus that really know how to tweak a RAW image to get more out of it. But for 95% of us, the real benefit RAW provides is the ability to correct White Balance and Exposure problems. If white balance and exposure are good out of camera, RAW won't provide any noticable benefit.

Unfortunately, IMO, it's one of those myths perpetuated - serious photographers ONLY shoot RAW. That's just nonsense. As I mentioned there are a few that really know how to process and can take a great image and make it outstanding. But many people use it as a crutch for not getting proper exposure and white balance out of camera. And I'll admit there are some situations where it's difficult to do that - and RAW is a very useful tool in those instances. But if you're not shooting in those instances shooting JPEG will, as NHL mentioned, often yield better results with a lot less time spent post processing.

What WOULD be of use for a shot like that is a circular polarizer (depending on where the sun was). Otherwise, some added saturation and contrast (which can be done to the JPEG in PP as well) will do just as much for the image as shooting in RAW


Attached Images
 
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2007, 10:54 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
nickphoto123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,356
Default

I must be missing something, but which is your RAW convered shot and your Original Jpeg?

Nicholas
nickphoto123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2007, 5:07 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
hercules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sparta, Greece
Posts: 2,649
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
NHL is right on the money!

There are a very few very competant post processing gurus that really know how to tweak a RAW image to get more out of it. But for 95% of us, the real benefit RAW provides is the ability to correct White Balance and Exposure problems. If white balance and exposure are good out of camera, RAW won't provide any noticable benefit.

Unfortunately, IMO, it's one of those myths perpetuated - serious photographers ONLY shoot RAW. That's just nonsense. As I mentioned there are a few that really know how to process and can take a great image and make it outstanding. But many people use it as a crutch for not getting proper exposure and white balance out of camera. And I'll admit there are some situations where it's difficult to do that - and RAW is a very useful tool in those instances. But if you're not shooting in those instances shooting JPEG will, as NHL mentioned, often yield better results with a lot less time spent post processing.

What WOULD be of use for a shot like that is a circular polarizer (depending on where the sun was). Otherwise, some added saturation and contrast (which can be done to the JPEG in PP as well) will do just as much for the image as shooting in RAW
Thanks for the info JohnG i appreciate it, i think JPEG would be best also, what image did you PP the Jpeg or raw one looks good
hercules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2007, 5:07 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
hercules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sparta, Greece
Posts: 2,649
Default


hercules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2007, 5:10 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
hercules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sparta, Greece
Posts: 2,649
Default

nickphoto123 wrote:
Quote:
I must be missing something, but which is your RAW convered shot and your Original Jpeg?

Nicholas
The top one is Jpeg and the bottom raw
hercules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2007, 9:04 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
nickphoto123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,356
Default

Had time to look.

Two different shots: Raw at 1/250 at f8 at ISO 100.

Jpeg at 1/320 at f8 at ISO 100.

The Jpeg had less light at the sensor hence the 'apparant' better contrast.

As stated a Circular Polarizer is usually best for these type ofshots.

Why don't you shoot a Raw+Jpeg image and then convert the Raw at your software' sdefault settings, then post the resized raw and Jpeg here for us to comment on.

Regards,

Nicholas
nickphoto123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2007, 1:59 AM   #10
Junior Member
 
obakesan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1
Default

Hi

I guess that rather than repeating what others have said I'll say that there are fewer and fewer differences between the image you'll get from RAW and from the in-camera JPG engine. I've recently done up some page on that, so perhaps flick over to that and then after you've looked at your shots again (using the methods I talk about) you might find that the RAW is not really for you.

my first evaluation of what RAW was doing compared to in-camera JPGs

and for more specific to DSLR testing

I found that for the compacts the difference is more remarkable, but the image processors in cameras are getting better, so the differences seem to be shrinking.

However, if you're likely to
  • want more post processing[/*]
  • fix exposure[/*]
  • retain highlights especially on easy to saturate colours like RED GREEN or BLUE
[/*]
you might want shoot some pictures in RAW. The only drama is that I find it's frustrating to be photographing something in JPEG when I really wanted RAW. Luckilly my Coolpix allows me to make a JPEG from a RAW file in camera if I'm trying to make space on my card ... :-)

Remember that both files you look at(RAW and JPEG) will be displayed in 8 bit on your computer, its only the software (like PS) which can then manipulate the greater bit depths and then display again. What this means is that unless you're applying some substantial modifications to cause the smooth transition of tones to become a stepped one that not much advantage can be had with either.



See Ya

:-)
obakesan is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:37 PM.