Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 10, 2006, 10:40 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

Shot the first one in RAW the second in jpg. How do you think they compare?



Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 11, 2006, 2:38 AM   #2
Member
 
Broncosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 37
Default

I think this is a great example of the benefits of shooting in RAW.

BTW: Is that a female green heron? My bird book only shows the male of this species.
Broncosaurus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2006, 2:48 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
monx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 107
Default

I´m probably a wierdo in this sense, but i find the RAW image over saturated. Could be me, but i find there is a certain "fakeness" in the colouring.

PS:"Wish i had the money to replace my D50 with a K100D when it comes out!"
monx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2006, 3:58 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

On my screen the jpeg looks much better. But to me, to compare a non-processed RAW with a jpeg is like comparing aplank with a wooden chair and say that the chair looks better. A RAW is the RAW-material for jpegs or TIFFs.

Kjell
bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2006, 5:00 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
monx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 107
Default

so very true kjell! The raw picture merely represents the persons editing choices and preferences.
monx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2006, 5:44 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,093
Default

I have to agree with monx, the RAW image has an oversaturated look. Kjell's analogy of plank vs. chair is quite accurate, the RAW image can be reprocessed to produce the tonal range of the jpeg and will usually show better detail. I have only started shooting RAW recently but I must admit that, with just a little time and effort, the results I get have a difficult to describe quality that elevates them above the jpeg.

Tom, you have always displayed images that have been so well exposed and so sharp that we are not at all concerned about capture method. A perfectly exposed jpeg will look just as good as a properly processed RAW file. It is where dynamic range issues, or poor exposure, must be dealt with that RAW shines.

In this case I like the subtle colours of the jpeg. BTW which image best matches the actual colour of the bird?

Ira
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2006, 6:14 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

The jpg file is closer to the actual color of the bird, but they were taken on two different days and the RAW file was an overcast day, while the jpg was on a sunny day.

Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2006, 6:38 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,093
Default

Here is my first attempt to increase the dynamic range of a scene using RAW processing, I read about this technique in Popular Photography magazine. It involves processingthe image oncefor the highlights and then again for the shadow and using layers to combine the results. (please ignore mediocre composition)

Ira
Attached Images
 
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2006, 8:35 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
thekman620's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,084
Default

I shoot RAW 99% of the time. Only switch to jpg if I'm in danger of runnng out of memory. I like it better for white balance adjustment and also, you can save a slightly overexposed photo. Another good reason for shooting RAW is that you'll always have the original data if you save it to your hard drive or burn it to a disk. I've found this handy especially if you plan to print. You can start from scratch again and really try to get it perfect as possible if you're going to print. As far as jpg having less detail than RAW, I really can't say I notice a difference....cheers.........Don.
thekman620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2006, 10:21 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

Ira - In the past I've occasionally converted to either the lighter or darker section, then either created a second layer of the wrongly exposed section and add a levels layer created using the second layer as a clipping mask, and adjust the other section through levels (or else do a levels layer, set the adustment and erase the part of the layer I don't want - does pretty much the same thing). However, this way of doing it is fussy and you have the problem of softening possible hard edges as well as being only able to push things (especially dark to light) just so far (does what I wrote make sense?).

Is your way of doing it easier than my old way of doing it? And do you avoid the problem of pushing things too far?
mtngal 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 6:25 PM.