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

View Poll Results: Which format do you shoot in?
NEF 12 28.57%
JPEG Fine - Large 22 52.38%
JPEG Fine - Medium 4 9.52%
JPEG Fine - Small 0 0%
JPEG Normal - Large 4 9.52%
JPEG Normal - Medium 0 0%
JPEG Normal - Small 0 0%
Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 2, 2006, 9:59 AM   #31
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 54
Default

Well, after letting this topic brew for a few days, I must admit it's turned into a pretty interesting debate. I've read many different viewpoints within this thread - a couple of which I really don't agree with.

Since making this thread, I have learned the folly of shooting in Medium sized JPEG, and have since switched to using the Large - Fine setting.

I understand that RAW images have a bit more flexibility over JPEGS when it comes to post-processing. But I have seen countless examples of JPEG shots that take my breath away. And in the end, that's all I want to take, regardless of format. I'm currently having fun setting the white balance, exposure, etc. for my JPEG images. So I will continue to do so. If that doesn't make me a worthy DSLR owner, so be it.

I will say that since I purchased my D50, I've seen a definite improvement in quality over my Panasonic FZ-20 shots from 6 months ago. That alone makes me a happy owner.


Great quote:

rey wrote:
Quote:
It may even be good to understand the camera's limitation under JPG mode, instead of relying on PP to make great images.
PoweredBySoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2006, 3:37 AM   #32
Member
 
TexasHillbilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 62
Default

I have a DSLR because of what great pics I can get from the camera, If i wanted to do alot of post processing I'd go back to film and do it likeI did in my dark room 25 years ago. Today we all have better chopices with better equitment and each his on.

But with pics like this straight out of the camera who needs to set and PP pics for hours on end? I'd much rather be out enjoying my camera than setting on a computer playing with processing.

Sure I agree that Raw is better quality but most people dont need that quality or are not willing to learn to process the pics for the added benifit it gives.

There are many reasons to have and enjoy a DSLR rather than just using Raw data to process, and I think your remark was totally uncalled for and much un appericiated

If the camera companys only made DSLRs for people that are going to use the RAW mode then they sure would not be giveing us such a great pics right out of the camera as these





TexasHillbilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2006, 7:19 PM   #33
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

TexasHillbilly wrote:
Quote:

There are many reasons to have and enjoy a DSLR rather than just using Raw data to process, and I think your remark was totally uncalled for and much un appericiated
Whose remarks were uncalled for? Now you will have a dozen people gunning for you....:G

And I like the images you posted, and if you had shot them in RAW, no doubt you could have restored the highlights on that pretty hybrid Mallard.

When this discussion started I has no examples of what I mean by "blowing the highlights" to post. I have taken some images to illustrate my point and in a few days, after I've
"rigged them" (:O ) I will post an example.

Dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 2006, 1:45 AM   #34
Member
 
TexasHillbilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 62
Default

Quote:
I find the "... go and buy a P&S if you don't shoot RAW - you aren't fit to have a DSLR" attitude I see a lot on the forums rather patronising. Maybe it's just me being over sensitive. Different things suit different people. I enjoy taking pictures more than I enjoy post processing them.

Keith.
That is what my statement was referring to

no one is fit to have a DSLR withotu shooting in raw

sorta set the wrong way with me and a few others

Perry
TexasHillbilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 2006, 5:23 PM   #35
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

All right, here's a quick and dirty visual example of the benfits of RAW/

This file is a direct conversion from the orignal shot as it came out of the camera. I blew the highlights. Not a great picture to begin with...

Nontheless, here it is.

[img]www.davidbarkinphotography.com/Temp/SWANJPG1.jpg[/img]


Now here is the shot manipulated by the Camera RAW converter of Photoshop.

[img]www.davidbarkinphotography.com/Temp/SWANDNG1.jpg[/img]

For the original file, I will leave it up for a week for downloading at:

www.davidbarkinphotography.com/tmp/

Caution, it's a 12 MEG file...:?

Dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 2006, 5:52 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 215
Default

But where is the JPEG for comparison?

I did the same type of comparison BUT shooting RAW+JPEG and posted in this thread the best highlight recovery I could do with both and concluded there was no benefit in RAW for highlight recovery. Also, I still haven't come across an explanation why RAW should be any better at highlight recovery. If you digitise 12 bits to make a RAW file and take the top 8 bits to make the JPEG (or gamma compress the RAW to make the JPEG - I don't know which is true) why should the blown highlights be preserved in the RAW & not in the JPEG? It doesn't make any sense. I can see some potential benefit if the white balance multipliers used to generate the JPEG from the RAW exceed the limit of an 8 bit number in the JPEG, but does (or can) that actually happen? Is it only likely if the white balance is way off?

I know there are some real differences with RAW: more linear bit depth, no JPEG compression artefacts, better re-interpolation for higher resolution, but I have yet to see highlight recovery as one of them. Also, I have not yet seen the benefit of the increased linear bit depth in anything I have tried. I even tried to see the benefit of the 12 bit RAW in the shadow recovery but couldn't - maybe JPEG is gamma corrected so the shadows aren't as lost as you think - I don't know.

I would be happy to spend the extra money on memory cards to hold the photos, the extra discs to store them and the extra hours to post process them, and the extra money to buy the software to post process them if I saw some benefit, but mostly I don't. For now I will shoot fine JPEG except when I am shooting birds and then I use RAW.

Keith.

DBB wrote:
Quote:
All right, here's a quick and dirty visual example of the benfits of RAW/

This file is a direct conversion from the orignal shot as it came out of the camera. I blew the highlights. Not a great picture to begin with...
keith1200rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 2006, 6:50 PM   #37
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

keith1200rs wrote:
Quote:
But where is the JPEG for comparison?

I did the same type of comparison BUT shooting RAW+JPEG and posted in this thread the best highlight recovery I could do with both and concluded there was no benefit in RAW for highlight recovery. Also, I still haven't come across an explanation why RAW should be any better at highlight recovery. If you digitise 12 bits to make a RAW file and take the top 8 bits to make the JPEG (or gamma compress the RAW to make the JPEG - I don't know which is true) why should the blown highlights be preserved in the RAW & not in the JPEG? It doesn't make any sense. I can see some potential benefit if the white balance multipliers used to generate the JPEG from the RAW exceed the limit of an 8 bit number in the JPEG, but does (or can) that actually happen? Is it only likely if the white balance is way off?

I know there are some real differences with RAW: more linear bit depth, no JPEG compression artefacts, better re-interpolation for higher resolution, but I have yet to see highlight recovery as one of them. Also, I have not yet seen the benefit of the increased linear bit depth in anything I have tried. I even tried to see the benefit of the 12 bit RAW in the shadow recovery but couldn't - maybe JPEG is gamma corrected so the shadows aren't as lost as you think - I don't know.

I would be happy to spend the extra money on memory cards to hold the photos, the extra discs to store them and the extra hours to post process them, and the extra money to buy the software to post process them if I saw some benefit, but mostly I don't. For now I will shoot fine JPEG except when I am shooting birds and then I use RAW.

Keith.

DBB wrote:
Quote:
All right, here's a quick and dirty visual example of the benfits of RAW/

This file is a direct conversion from the orignal shot as it came out of the camera. I blew the highlights. Not a great picture to begin with...
Both of these images are JPEGS, reduced for the net. Surely you wouldn't want me to post the full sized images?

If you note, I offer the original file, all 12 megs of it so that you can see if I "cheated."

In other words, JPEG 1, is the result of manipulating the image straight from the camera. Yes it was RAW. I did no work in Adobe, merely converting it AS IS. The second image was worked on in Camera Raw, 3/4 reduction in exposure to restore the highlights.

I don't think you get it.

Dave

Missed this point. Shooting RAW plus JPEG would get the same results. The reason you can restore highlights is the additional data that RAW captures.

To put it another way, JPEG captures 16 million plus colors, Shooting RAW captures, well, I really don't know the eact number - 256 million. Quite a bit more...:lol:

Dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 15, 2006, 4:08 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 215
Default

Dave,

My point is that showing the benefit of RAW over JPG is only valid if you take the same shot as RAW and JPEG, manipulate them both to get the best highlight recovery you can and see if the result is better from the RAW than from the JPEG.

The comparison I posted did exactly that.

If all you do is take a RAW shot, convert to JPEG, then manipulate the RAW and convert to JPEG and compare the two JPEGs you have proven nothing.


Keith.
keith1200rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 15, 2006, 8:38 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

As a photographer you have to shoot in whatever format works for you. I use both RAW and JPEG. When doing stock, portrait or any other critical photography where I need most control over the image, I use RAW. Especially for stock work, JPEG in camera processing creates artifacts that cause the picture to be rejected by many agencies. Batch processing makes manipulating RAW files easier, and storage is not an issue as Nikon NEF files are compressed.

JPEG does have its place for me. For family snapshots and non critical (I'm not getting paid for it) I use JPEG. You do have less exposure latitude, but then you should be working to nail exposure anyway.

There is nothing wrong with shooting in JPEG, and nor should you feel you hve to shoot in RAW to be a "real" Photographer. Go out and shoot in whatever format works best for you.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 15, 2006, 10:11 AM   #40
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

keith1200rs wrote:
Quote:
Dave,

My point is that showing the benefit of RAW over JPG is only valid if you take the same shot as RAW and JPEG, manipulate them both to get the best highlight recovery you can and see if the result is better from the RAW than from the JPEG.

The comparison I posted did exactly that.

If all you do is take a RAW shot, convert to JPEG, then manipulate the RAW and convert to JPEG and compare the two JPEGs you have proven nothing.


Keith.
When you shoot in Jpeg you are getting the image that your in-camera settings provide. So in a sense you are correct because RAW disables such things as Sharpening or White balanece.

However, shooting RAW does NOT alter the exposure. There is no difference in exposure in a shot taken with RAW and a shot taken with JPEG.

In this example I am only interested in showing that is is possible to regain the highlights lost by a poor exposure. In this case almost 3/4 of an F-stop.

This is a valid example of that.

Dave
DBB 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 5:54 AM.