Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Landscape Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 8, 2008, 3:35 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
musket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,782
Default

bahadir wrote:
Quote:

Good comparison, musket, which made me download the trial version of DXO and compare with the CS3!The DXO has a lot of controls and givescrisp results by default but in the end I found it hard to leave the controls of CS3 like 'fill light'.

As for the jpeg and raw comparison, it changes with different camera makes and models. I used the Nikon D40x as back up for a while and I should say I didn't care much shooting raw at all! However I invariably shoot raw withthe K10D. Now, should you download the full size jpeg and raw studioshots with the D80by Phil (DP reviews) there's no discernibledifferenceeven at 100% enlargement, imo.Some colours (especially reds) looked a tad punchier to me at jpeg! (whichis a matter of finding one's ideal adjustmentat raw conversion of course) . Well...as long as the pictures are perfectly exposed under good lighting, I'd use the jpeg with your camera. But the nerly one stopdynamic range advantage of the raw (could only be acquired by processing though) shouldn't beoverlooked for contrasty scenes ; )







Thanks for the feedback......



re: DXOI have three versions to choose from :-)

The DXO optics pro v4 Iupdated to v4.5



the v4.5 is great for batch, just load the folder and leaveDXO at it's default

I think thats what I was trying to illustrate above.

For keystone correctionI would give the edge to zoner8 based on my own attempts

the other 2 versions (v5 & v5.2.1)have a different interface and the prepare section

is extensive with lots of operator control, an optional addonbeing a film simulation

pack (not freeI might add).



I wonder which version they use now for evaluation? ...The latest DXO update is v5.2.1



There are lots of bits and pieces inother softwareI find useful as well.



Re: Pentax K10d & DXO I see there are only seven modules availableso far,

lucky you were able tofind a suitable module to try out.......................musket.







musket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2008, 11:55 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Gerafix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 374
Default

Well this is not a real comparison at all since these are all jpegs. One of the main things about RAW is the 12-bit per channel colour support (4096 colours per channel), while jpeg is 8-bit per channel only (256 colours per channel), so you are losing a lot of potential information there. Some more factors to consider is colour space, and unless you are using Safari or Firefox 3 with colour management enabled (disabled by default) you have the potential to incorrectly see a pictures colour space. Also that is why the newer Canon models, 40D for example have upgraded 14-bit per chan RAW capability, that's a whopping 16384 colours in each channel.

edit-always get mixed up with channels/pixels ;p
Gerafix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 10, 2008, 11:08 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

musket wrote:
Quote:
A lot is said about RAW versus JPG shooting and in some cameras...
The fuller tonal range in the versions posted here from RAW is clearly evident in the mid-tones and darker areas, to my eye, on my monitor.

However we are not comparing 'RAW' shooting here with 'jpg' shooting; we are are comparing the camera's built-in RAW conversion with a RAW conversion done later in software outside the camera. All cameras have a converter to jpg, but only some of us can switch it off to stop it throwing away some image data!

If I had a RAW option that gave visibly better results I'd use it at least when I wanted a very best result. But as a jpg is generally the end result for display, it's a matter of finding the best converter. If the camera's built-in software uses the same algorithm as the manufacturer's own external post processing software, surely there'll be no automatic difference by default, butsaving theRAW version will give accessible and better control?
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2008, 4:51 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
musket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,782
Default

Gerafix wrote:
Quote:
Well this is not a real comparison at all since these are all jpegs. One of the main things about RAW is the 12-bit per channel colour support (4096 colours per channel), while jpeg is 8-bit per channel only (256 colours per channel), so you are losing a lot of potential information there. Some more factors to consider is colour space, and unless you are using Safari or Firefox 3 with colour management enabled (disabled by default) you have the potential to incorrectly see a pictures colour space. Also that is why the newer Canon models, 40D for example have upgraded 14-bit per chan RAW capability, that's a whopping 16384 colours in each channel.

edit-always get mixed up with channels/pixels ;p

Thanks for the heads up.......



A fair argument, 'WISIWIG' (what you see is what you get) :-)

Colour-space, colour management, colour quantization, crt and lcd

nvidiacards, radon cards and not forgetting conversion algorithms

monitor fine tuning, graphic card tweaking etc all result in 'WISIWIG' :-)

don't forget the eyesight differences between individuals



In platforms like 'windows' we can evenchange monitor colour profiles

begging the question...........is everybody looking at the same thing? :lol:




To presuppose that the camera manufacturers and web designers

are all stupid and are using the wrong 'colour palette and conversion

software' is another favourite assumption made by many :P

thusallowing the software/camera manufacturers to promote their produce ..............musket.

musket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2008, 5:13 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
musket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,782
Default

Alan T wrote:
Quote:
musket wrote:
Quote:
A lot is said about RAW versus JPG shooting and in some cameras...
The fuller tonal range in the versions posted here from RAW is clearly evident in the mid-tones and darker areas, to my eye, on my monitor.

However we are not comparing 'RAW' shooting here with 'jpg' shooting; we are are comparing the camera's built-in RAW conversion with a RAW conversion done later in software outside the camera. All cameras have a converter to jpg, but only some of us can switch it off to stop it throwing away some image data!

If I had a RAW option that gave visibly better results I'd use it at least when I wanted a very best result. But as a jpg is generally the end result for display, it's a matter of finding the best converter. If the camera's built-in software uses the same algorithm as the manufacturer's own external post processing software, surely there'll be no automatic difference by default, butsaving theRAW version will give accessible and better control?

Thanks also for the feedback.......



'A lot of the information is thrown away before post processing to jpg'

is a fair assumption...................



So I think your idea is to choose what information should be kept and

what should be thrown away............



how? ..... does the jpg conversion algorithm allow you that option?



WhatI notice most about about the displayed differences are in saturation,

contrast, and brightnessthe result is still a 256 colour jpg.........................musket.

musket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2008, 5:16 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Gerafix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 374
Default

There are standards of course, which the International Color Consortium help to establish: http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter
That link will bring you to their ICC Version 4 test page, if your system supports ICC v4 then the image will appear normal. Newest Safari or Firefox 3 with colour management turned on are the best options for compliance in my opinion. With ICC v4 compliance your browser reads embedded profile information and correctly displays the colours in the image you are attempting to see (to the best of its knowledge of course). It is not a panacea but it is a whole lot better than not.
Gerafix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2008, 3:58 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

Gerafix wrote:
Quote:
...With ICC v4 compliance your browser reads embedded profile information and correctly displays the colours in the image you are attempting to see (to the best of its knowledge of course). It is not a panacea but it is a whole lot better than not.
This is wonderful for best possible colour matching to the original captured image, but isn't it still bog-standard 8-bit ber channel jpeg so far as tonal range is concerned?
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2008, 4:19 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Gerafix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 374
Default

Alan T wrote:
Quote:
Gerafix wrote:
Quote:
...With ICC v4 compliance your browser reads embedded profile information and correctly displays the colours in the image you are attempting to see (to the best of its knowledge of course). It is not a panacea but it is a whole lot better than not.
This is wonderful for best possible colour matching to the original captured image, but isn't it still bog-standard 8-bit ber channel jpeg so far as tonal range is concerned?
Yep, but with the proper ICC profile it will at least represent the tones much much more better. I've been using it for a week or so now and there is definitely a big difference from even my own pictures that I have posted. When looking at a jpeg in Photoshop and a jpeg on a website with browser without colour management the difference is very tangible. Though I do prefer Adobe RGB over sRGB.

edit- if you are working in sRGB space you may not see a difference between in-editor and in-browser, but Adobe RGB covers a much wider tonal range, especially in the greens. That being said you do have to be more careful about posterization in Adobe RGB when converting/editing jpegs. That being said I haven't encountered many posterization problems, to my knowledge at least. Also I think it is good to have it even if you do use sRGB, because not everybody uses it anyway, so it is a good option to have.
Gerafix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2008, 4:58 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
bahadir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 6,263
Default

musket wrote:
Quote:
bahadir wrote:
Quote:

Good comparison, musket, which made me download the trial version of DXO and compare with the CS3!The DXO has a lot of controls and givescrisp results by default but in the end I found it hard to leave the controls of CS3 like 'fill light'.

As for the jpeg and raw comparison, it changes with different camera makes and models. I used the Nikon D40x as back up for a while and I should say I didn't care much shooting raw at all! However I invariably shoot raw withthe K10D. Now, should you download the full size jpeg and raw studioshots with the D80by Phil (DP reviews) there's no discernibledifferenceeven at 100% enlargement, imo.Some colours (especially reds) looked a tad punchier to me at jpeg! (whichis a matter of finding one's ideal adjustmentat raw conversion of course) . Well...as long as the pictures are perfectly exposed under good lighting, I'd use the jpeg with your camera. But the nerly one stopdynamic range advantage of the raw (could only be acquired by processing though) shouldn't beoverlooked for contrasty scenes ; )
Thanks for the feedback......


re: DXOI have three versions to choose from :-)

The DXO optics pro v4 Iupdated to v4.5


the v4.5 is great for batch, just load the folder and leaveDXO at it's default

I think thats what I was trying to illustrate above.

For keystone correctionI would give the edge to zoner8 based on my own attempts

the other 2 versions (v5 & v5.2.1)have a different interface and the prepare section

is extensive with lots of operator control, an optional addonbeing a film simulation

pack (not freeI might add).


I wonder which version they use now for evaluation? ...The latest DXO update is v5.2.1


There are lots of bits and pieces inother softwareI find useful as well.


Re: Pentax K10d & DXO I see there are only seven modules availableso far,

lucky you were able tofind a suitable module to try out.......................musket.
Thanks for the elaboration! I've also included the modules for the K20Dfor just in case : ) I think I expressed my opinions regarding the use of Jpeg and raw brief enough. So, 'WISIWIG' ...I liked that my friend:-)

I had experienced usingaRGB and sRGB, butfound itdifficult to convey the better results by the aRGB with the popular webbrowsers people use, so, in the end I found the raw a pretty good compromise! Below is a side by side comparison - the subject matter is my father, btw!- (aRGB vs sRGB) I think I don't need to mention which is which, relying on the 'WISIWIG' : )





Now, as for the DOX, the version they use for evaluation is the v5.2.1. Below are two comparativealmost 100% crops from the raworiginal of apicture of the Artemis Temple I posted recently which you might remember (!) The first onewas convertedwith the DXO and the latter with the CS3..






bahadir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2008, 6:03 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Carrots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 377
Default

RAW straight out of the camera should actually look a bit worse than JPG (when viewed on a "normal" LCD monitor)
It has no sharpening or anything else applied. When you view it in CS3 Camera RAW, it will typically auto-apply the settings recommended by the camera I think, so they will look almost identical.

The strength comes in when you do some PP, like the "fill light" or "recovery" in CS3. As well as the greater tonal range because of the 12 or 14bit sensor. (450D also has 14 bit sensor).

Also the ease of white balance adjustments.
Carrots 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 12:16 PM.