Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > RAW question

Reply
Thread Tools

RAW question

 
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2008
On Jun 25, 2:25*pm, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:25:20 -0400, Alan Browne
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >tony cooper wrote:

>
> >> I am surprised that no one was able or willing to offer a
> >> before-and-after image of the effects of RAW processing.

>
> >There is no such thing as a before-and-after image for the effect of raw
> >processing as any raw image, due to its high dynamic range can yield any
> >number of correct JPG or other images.

>
> There isn't? *It would seem easy to me shooting RAW+.jpg. *Post a link
> to the .jpg right out of the camera, and then post a link to the RAW
> version that has been adjusted to improve the image and saved-as a
> .jpg. *Sounds dead simple to me.
>
> >As I said in another post it is analogous to darkroom work where
> >technical and creative variations in process (at the film or print) can
> >yield very different, but desired results.

>
> >Trial version of Elements and CS3 can be downloaded for trial.

>
> Yes, yes. *I know. *
>
> >> *That seemed
> >> like a simple thing to provide and something that would make the case
> >> for RAW.

>
> >The case for raw has been made by many people who use it to yield the
> >highest quality images.

>
> Certainly. *The case for *them*. *The case for the undecided hasn't
> been made or everyone would be using RAW. *
>
> Look...I'm not *demanding* that anyone do anything that they can't be
> arsed to do. *I'm suggesting that if someone wants to show off their
> expertise with RAW, this is a good opportunity to show what can be
> done.
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


I don't have anything for Nikon Raw images, but I do have a few shots
from a canon.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045031
The top image is the jpeg out of the camera at a good exposure, the
next one down is the jpeg when over exposed by 2 stops, the bottom one
shows how much of the image can be recovered from the raw file.

There is a lot more to raw then just recovering over exposed images,
like way better control of white balance and color space.

Scott
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2008
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:12:53 -0700 (PDT), Scott W
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Jun 25, 2:25*pm, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:25:20 -0400, Alan Browne
>>
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >tony cooper wrote:

>>
>> >> I am surprised that no one was able or willing to offer a
>> >> before-and-after image of the effects of RAW processing.

>>
>> >There is no such thing as a before-and-after image for the effect of raw
>> >processing as any raw image, due to its high dynamic range can yield any
>> >number of correct JPG or other images.

>>
>> There isn't? *It would seem easy to me shooting RAW+.jpg. *Post a link
>> to the .jpg right out of the camera, and then post a link to the RAW
>> version that has been adjusted to improve the image and saved-as a
>> .jpg. *Sounds dead simple to me.
>>
>> >As I said in another post it is analogous to darkroom work where
>> >technical and creative variations in process (at the film or print) can
>> >yield very different, but desired results.

>>
>> >Trial version of Elements and CS3 can be downloaded for trial.

>>
>> Yes, yes. *I know. *
>>
>> >> *That seemed
>> >> like a simple thing to provide and something that would make the case
>> >> for RAW.

>>
>> >The case for raw has been made by many people who use it to yield the
>> >highest quality images.

>>
>> Certainly. *The case for *them*. *The case for the undecided hasn't
>> been made or everyone would be using RAW. *
>>
>> Look...I'm not *demanding* that anyone do anything that they can't be
>> arsed to do. *I'm suggesting that if someone wants to show off their
>> expertise with RAW, this is a good opportunity to show what can be
>> done.
>>
>> --
>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

>
>I don't have anything for Nikon Raw images, but I do have a few shots
>from a canon.
>http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045031
>The top image is the jpeg out of the camera at a good exposure, the
>next one down is the jpeg when over exposed by 2 stops, the bottom one
>shows how much of the image can be recovered from the raw file.
>
>There is a lot more to raw then just recovering over exposed images,
>like way better control of white balance and color space.
>

An interesting comparison, and the first I've seen of actual results.

The ability to manipulate an image in post-processing, by whatever
means, is both a blessing and a curse. We can recover what would have
been lost shots, but we pay the price in dollars for the programs and
time to learn and use the programs.

Sometimes I wonder if it's worth it. Glancing through your gallery, I
came across the photo "Family when I was small" (Old Pictures). That
shot was taken when we took one, two a the most, photos of a scene.
That shadow of the person taking the photograph is something that all
of us have in some photo in the family album (a real album with prints
secured in black corner triangles). The shot is memorable just for
that.

Today, though, we take ten or fifteen shots of that group, and we'd
look at the LCD at the last picture before taking the next one and
move so the shadow isn't there. In post processing, we'd find shots
where Audrey and Howard (I think I've picked the right names) were
looking at the camera and smiling brightly, stick it under the
background layer, and use a mask in Photoshop to replace the faces
with posterity-acceptable ones. We all end up with plastic-perfect
shots.

Two weekends ago, I rented a pontoon boat and my family (daughter,
son-in-law, son, daughter-in-law, two grandchildren, my wife, and I)
all spent the day cruising on a river in the Ocala National Forest.
My daughter took over 400 images, and I took just over a hundred.
That's more exposures than I think I ever took in a whole year on
film.

But I digress. And ramble. Thanks for the comparison shots. And, I
*am* impressed that your grandparents met Linus Pauling. Do you still
juggle?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2008
On 26 Jun 2008 00:40:18 GMT, Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In rec.photo.digital Alan Browne <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> tony cooper wrote:

>
>>> I am surprised that no one was able or willing to offer a
>>> before-and-after image of the effects of RAW processing.

>
>> There is no such thing as a before-and-after image for the effect of raw
>> processing as any raw image, due to its high dynamic range can yield any
>> number of correct JPG or other images.

>
>That's only true if what you want is a general purpose
>comparison. It's always possible to do specific purpose
>comparisons. For example, take a shot in both jpeg and raw, select a
>bit of intricate well focussed detail and process both to extract
>maximum detail and compare. The same can be done for recovery of
>detail from dark detail and partially blown highlights.
>
>> As I said in another post it is analogous to darkroom work where
>> technical and creative variations in process (at the film or print) can
>> yield very different, but desired results.

>
>> Trial version of Elements and CS3 can be downloaded for trial.

>
>>> That seemed
>>> like a simple thing to provide and something that would make the case
>>> for RAW.

>
>> The case for raw has been made by many people who use it to yield the
>> highest quality images.

>
>There is a general case for RAW to be made in terms of flexibility of
>changing colour balance and exposure compensation. But if you get WB
>and exposure nearly correct the case for RAW has to be made in other
>terms, such as detail capture. Here the results are extremely variable
>depending on how good are the jpegs different cameras produce. Some
>camera models lose obvious amounts of fine detail in their best
>quality jpegs, others lose none.
>
>It's a very idea to some of your own detailed comparisons, because you
>will then learn enough from what you see to be able to dismiss a great
>deal of the accepted wisdom about RAW spouted by those who don't
>experiment but simply repeat fashionable opinion.


There's a certain arrogance expressed in the photography newsgroups
that distresses me. It comes out in the discussions about glass,
camera bodies and their integral parts, post-processing schemes, color
management, and workflow. The idea seems to be that if you have
mediocre photographs that what you are lacking is the mechanical means
to take or process the images.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2008
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:25:20 -0400, Alan Browne
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>tony cooper wrote:
>>
>>> I am surprised that no one was able or willing to offer a
>>> before-and-after image of the effects of RAW processing.

>>
>>There is no such thing as a before-and-after image for the effect of raw
>>processing as any raw image, due to its high dynamic range can yield any
>>number of correct JPG or other images.

>
>There isn't? It would seem easy to me shooting RAW+.jpg. Post a link
>to the .jpg right out of the camera, and then post a link to the RAW
>version that has been adjusted to improve the image and saved-as a
>.jpg. Sounds dead simple to me.


The amount of processing a RAW converter can do is very large and all of
it is adjustable.

You can turn out thousands of different JPG, TIFF or DNG images from a
Raw file.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



 
Reply With Quote
 
clandestin_écureuil
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2008
tony cooper wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2008 00:40:18 GMT, Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> In rec.photo.digital Alan Browne <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>> I am surprised that no one was able or willing to offer a
>>>> before-and-after image of the effects of RAW processing.
>>> There is no such thing as a before-and-after image for the effect of raw
>>> processing as any raw image, due to its high dynamic range can yield any
>>> number of correct JPG or other images.

>> That's only true if what you want is a general purpose
>> comparison. It's always possible to do specific purpose
>> comparisons. For example, take a shot in both jpeg and raw, select a
>> bit of intricate well focussed detail and process both to extract
>> maximum detail and compare. The same can be done for recovery of
>> detail from dark detail and partially blown highlights.
>>
>>> As I said in another post it is analogous to darkroom work where
>>> technical and creative variations in process (at the film or print) can
>>> yield very different, but desired results.
>>> Trial version of Elements and CS3 can be downloaded for trial.
>>>> That seemed
>>>> like a simple thing to provide and something that would make the case
>>>> for RAW.
>>> The case for raw has been made by many people who use it to yield the
>>> highest quality images.

>> There is a general case for RAW to be made in terms of flexibility of
>> changing colour balance and exposure compensation. But if you get WB
>> and exposure nearly correct the case for RAW has to be made in other
>> terms, such as detail capture. Here the results are extremely variable
>> depending on how good are the jpegs different cameras produce. Some
>> camera models lose obvious amounts of fine detail in their best
>> quality jpegs, others lose none.
>>
>> It's a very idea to some of your own detailed comparisons, because you
>> will then learn enough from what you see to be able to dismiss a great
>> deal of the accepted wisdom about RAW spouted by those who don't
>> experiment but simply repeat fashionable opinion.

>
> There's a certain arrogance expressed in the photography newsgroups
> that distresses me. It comes out in the discussions about glass,
> camera bodies and their integral parts, post-processing schemes, color
> management, and workflow. The idea seems to be that if you have
> mediocre photographs that what you are lacking is the mechanical means
> to take or process the images.
>
>



Tony, imagine how they would have reacted when the best cameras were made
of wood and canvas?

Yet somehow even in those days they managed to be creative. I have a large
format book published in the latter part of the nineteenth century. It is a
"current event" book, not historical and shows horse drawn carriages (and
trams) in city streets and sailing clippers in the harbours. It shows Canal
Street in New Orleans with the traffic consisting of horse drawn wagons
loaded with goods, trams and men in Bowler hats and Women in bustles. Some
of those photos are magical, I can look at them for hours. The real skill
is in photography, not in collecting photographic equipment. Some of us
understand that. Others are doomed to a life of frenetic collecting.

Rita?

Secret Squirrel

--

Ingrid Rose

clandestin.ecureuil(insert missing symbol here)gmail.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2008
In rec.photo.digital tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:12:53 -0700 (PDT), Scott W
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>On Jun 25, 2:25pm, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:25:20 -0400, Alan Browne
>>>
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> >tony cooper wrote:
>>>
>>> >> I am surprised that no one was able or willing to offer a
>>> >> before-and-after image of the effects of RAW processing.
>>>
>>> >There is no such thing as a before-and-after image for the effect of raw
>>> >processing as any raw image, due to its high dynamic range can yield any
>>> >number of correct JPG or other images.
>>>
>>> There isn't? It would seem easy to me shooting RAW+.jpg. Post a link
>>> to the .jpg right out of the camera, and then post a link to the RAW
>>> version that has been adjusted to improve the image and saved-as a
>>> .jpg. Sounds dead simple to me.
>>>
>>> >As I said in another post it is analogous to darkroom work where
>>> >technical and creative variations in process (at the film or print) can
>>> >yield very different, but desired results.
>>>
>>> >Trial version of Elements and CS3 can be downloaded for trial.
>>>
>>> Yes, yes. I know.
>>>
>>> >> That seemed
>>> >> like a simple thing to provide and something that would make the case
>>> >> for RAW.
>>>
>>> >The case for raw has been made by many people who use it to yield the
>>> >highest quality images.
>>>
>>> Certainly. The case for *them*. The case for the undecided hasn't
>>> been made or everyone would be using RAW.
>>>
>>> Look...I'm not *demanding* that anyone do anything that they can't be
>>> arsed to do. I'm suggesting that if someone wants to show off their
>>> expertise with RAW, this is a good opportunity to show what can be
>>> done.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

>>
>>I don't have anything for Nikon Raw images, but I do have a few shots
>>from a canon.
>>http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/61045031
>>The top image is the jpeg out of the camera at a good exposure, the
>>next one down is the jpeg when over exposed by 2 stops, the bottom one
>>shows how much of the image can be recovered from the raw file.
>>
>>There is a lot more to raw then just recovering over exposed images,
>>like way better control of white balance and color space.
>>

> An interesting comparison, and the first I've seen of actual results.


> The ability to manipulate an image in post-processing, by whatever
> means, is both a blessing and a curse. We can recover what would have
> been lost shots, but we pay the price in dollars for the programs and
> time to learn and use the programs.


Here's an example where the dollar cost was zero, because all the
programs involved are free, and where the amount of processing
involved was so simple and standard that the time involved in learning
to do it was negligible.

I had started to use PTLens for perspective correction. But PTLens
only accepts jpegs, so using it involves an extra step of jpeg
compression, plus there is bound to be some detail lost in the
perspective correction as well. I wanted to know how much.

So I did the same simple processing to two images, one in which I
started with the RAW image, and the other in which I started with the
accompanying jpeg image produced by the camera.

I found that there was very little detail lost in the extra jpeg
compression step plus the perspective transformation, so little that
it was more than compensated for by the very slight extra gain in
detail provided by starting from RAW.

JPEG: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_malcolm/2440484093/

RAW: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_malcolm/2441447204/

I had previously looked for and failed to find any loss of detail
comparing my Sony R1 RAW files with the corresponding JPEGs. In this
particular case the detail was present in an area that was also
overexposed, so the extra dynamic range of the RAW image helped.

--
Chris Malcolm http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2008
In rec.photo.digital Chris H <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:25:20 -0400, Alan Browne
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>tony cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am surprised that no one was able or willing to offer a
>>>> before-and-after image of the effects of RAW processing.
>>>
>>>There is no such thing as a before-and-after image for the effect of raw
>>>processing as any raw image, due to its high dynamic range can yield any
>>>number of correct JPG or other images.

>>
>>There isn't? It would seem easy to me shooting RAW+.jpg. Post a link
>>to the .jpg right out of the camera, and then post a link to the RAW
>>version that has been adjusted to improve the image and saved-as a
>>.jpg. Sounds dead simple to me.


> The amount of processing a RAW converter can do is very large and all of
> it is adjustable.


> You can turn out thousands of different JPG, TIFF or DNG images from a
> Raw file.


You can also turn out thousands of different JPG, TIFF or DNG images
from a JPG file. JUst not quite so many thousands

--
Chris Malcolm (E-Mail Removed) DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2008
Chris Malcolm wrote:
[]
> JPEG: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_malcolm/2440484093/
>
> RAW: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_malcolm/2441447204/
>
> I had previously looked for and failed to find any loss of detail
> comparing my Sony R1 RAW files with the corresponding JPEGs. In this
> particular case the detail was present in an area that was also
> overexposed, so the extra dynamic range of the RAW image helped.


Chris,

When the "exposures" in the JPEG image are so different, I find this
comparison not very useful. You would have seen more detail in the street
name had you simply turned down the exposure. Perhaps this is why I have
my DSLR pernamanetly set to -1/3 stop!

Cheers,
David


 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2008
In rec.photo.digital tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2008 00:40:18 GMT, Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:


>>There is a general case for RAW to be made in terms of flexibility of
>>changing colour balance and exposure compensation. But if you get WB
>>and exposure nearly correct the case for RAW has to be made in other
>>terms, such as detail capture. Here the results are extremely variable
>>depending on how good are the jpegs different cameras produce. Some
>>camera models lose obvious amounts of fine detail in their best
>>quality jpegs, others lose none.
>>
>>It's a very idea to some of your own detailed comparisons, because you
>>will then learn enough from what you see to be able to dismiss a great
>>deal of the accepted wisdom about RAW spouted by those who don't
>>experiment but simply repeat fashionable opinion.


> There's a certain arrogance expressed in the photography newsgroups
> that distresses me. It comes out in the discussions about glass,
> camera bodies and their integral parts, post-processing schemes, color
> management, and workflow. The idea seems to be that if you have
> mediocre photographs that what you are lacking is the mechanical means
> to take or process the images.


Ah yes. You know you're becoming a good photographer when people tell
you that you must have a very good camera

--
Chris Malcolm (E-Mail Removed) DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 
Reply With Quote
 
me@mine.net
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2008
On 26 Jun 2008 08:10:33 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Chris Malcolm
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In rec.photo.digital tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>I had started to use PTLens for perspective correction. But PTLens
>only accepts jpegs, so using it involves an extra step of jpeg
>compression, plus there is bound to be some detail lost in the
>perspective correction as well. I wanted to know how much.


FYI, Bibble Labs has a raw converter that incorporates PTLens and Noise
Ninja.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Canon 7D S-RAW/M-RAW Question Paul Furman Digital Photography 4 09-15-2009 09:02 PM
Re: Canon 7D S-RAW/M-RAW Question John McWilliams Digital Photography 2 09-04-2009 10:32 PM
Re: Canon 7D S-RAW/M-RAW Question Arun Digital Photography 0 09-03-2009 03:53 AM
Adobe PS RAW convertor vs Nikon RAW convertor Vlad Gunko Digital Photography 8 01-25-2005 07:43 PM
How raw is RAW format? Editor www.nutritionsoftware.org Digital Photography 4 12-22-2003 07:33 PM



Advertisments