photo_dark Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Just for the sake of messing around, I took an image where my flashes didn't fire and decided to see how much detail can be pulled from the original either in RAW or JPG... just to see exactly how much information is lost in the JPG conversion. This is an EXTREME example, but the results should give you an idea of what kind of information is preserved by shooting RAW vs shooting JPG.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_dark Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 Second image, converted to JPG, then attempted to bring back information in photoshop...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_dark Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 adjusted in RAW viewer... brought back information using DPP and then converted to JPG...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apetty Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 A good reason for spy's to shoot RAW :) With that said, I always shoot raw. A lot can be done with the info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthijs Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Uhm... the answer of course is: Shoot RAW when you think the picture is important enough that you want more options to save it or make it better. And everybody's view no the importance of a picture differs. That said: Wow, impressive difference. Matthijs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_dark Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 Lol... this post wasn't a question :) I've always shot RAW since my first DSLR. This post is more for the benefit of others still shooting JPG wondering what all the RAW hoopla is about. I thought it was a pretty interesting example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnson_d. Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 The jpeg picture is sharper ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anov Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 The JPG has more contrast too ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tien_pham Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Jpeg shooters nowadays are the professionals whose photos need to be sent to a newspaper/magazine right away without post editing. Time-sensitive photos I mean. Of course, if you are a landscape pro, it is always better to shoot with RAW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_dark Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 not in the full size :) I shoulda posted the originals.. you can almost read the text on the computer with the RAW adjusted image... not even close with the JPG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_wu6 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Shooting with raw does not prenvent one getting a JPG at the same time. When CF card was expensive, one might worry about storage capacity. Now it's not an issue (in most of cases), I don't see any reason not shooting with raw (One always has an option to throw raw away if JPG is good enough). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Rather than shooting RAW this strikes me more as good reason to get exposure right in the first place. All the pics are unusable IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_oleson Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 This is a different sort of case from anything I've done, but I've found a significant difference in sharpness between RAW and JPG images of the same frame. Due to the size of the files, though, I still shoot JPGs routinely and save RAW for when I'm making photographs as opposed to just taking pictures...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 "Rather than shooting RAW this strikes me more as good reason to get exposure right in the first place. All the pics are unusable IMO." Well, of course one should try to get it right the first time, and of course these pictures are unusable. The point here is that the JPEG is not merely badly underexposed. It is so badly underexposed that it seems to show NO data. If one can pull this much data out of a JPEG that is such a wreck, think what one could do with one that was underexposed by, say, three stops. By the way, the adjustments of brightness (among other things) in RAW after the fact are very simple to do, in case one has never done them. Perhaps a generation is coming along that says "ho-hum" to all of this, but for me it is absolutely astonishing that I can get home from shooting and say, "Underexposed? No problem." Imagine doing that and saying that just a few years ago. It is like getting a second chance to get the shot right. --Lannie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 This example demonstrates that an unusable photo shot in RAW is slightly less unusable in jpg. That doesn't seem to be a good proof of anything. A good proof would be a photo that was not usable in jpg but looked terrific when processed from RAW. Come back with something that shows that and we have a good example. Otherwise, this is just a good example for forensics. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_hall5 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 The point is the amount of extra data that is captured with the RAW file. As I have said many times, it is not about "repairing" an image, but often haveing the extra data to give more flexability in post processing. This allows me to "finish" the image with a much higher level of control and greater options, not "repair" it. We are not just capturing light here, we are captureing data, and the more the data the better, not just for exposure, but every asspect of image quality. Example, took some photos for the company I work at for their new web site. I shot in RAW. Several of the shots were bracketed for the purpose of HDR. I loaded the image into the HDR software and tone mapped it(this is the realistic type of HDR, not crazy fake looking stuff). I out putted to 8 bit tiffs thinking they are for the web so that should be more than good enough. Once loaded back into lightroom I applied the same preset that I had used on some RAW images to give the nice rich blue skys that they wanted. With the 8 bit Tiffs the sky started to band rather badly in many images. There was just to much info lost in the 8 bit file to give the look that I needed/wanted. The raw files had no problem. The sky looked about the same in each image before the preset was applied. For what it is worth, I was shooting with 17-40 f4 (no polorizer) and a 5D. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffOwen Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 If RAW holds more information than a converted jpg then it seems to me than the camera algorithm is not using the data available correctly. In this case it is the shadow detail that has been 'recovered' by using the RAW converter. Why can't the camera jpg algorithm make use of this data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_hall5 Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 " Why can't the camera jpg algorithm make use of this data?" 16bits of info vs 8bit2 of info http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_dark Posted July 18, 2008 Author Share Posted July 18, 2008 Jeff.... This post was meant as an example of how much information is actually available in a RAW file to those who either don't use it, or don't understand it. It's like going to your great aunt's house and she brings out her wedding photo album and puts it on the coffee table. Like it or not, it's just a conversation piece :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_dark Posted July 18, 2008 Author Share Posted July 18, 2008 @ Geoff. Of course the pictures are unusable... In case you hadn't noticed the umbrella to the right that didn't fire. I was trying out some new lighting gear and my friend was the unlikely target of my trials :) @ Jason That is exactly the case. I'm finding more and more that I am trying to stretch the 16bit file format as far as I can. I try to do all the corrections I can in lightroom if they are needed, then still export as a 16bit Tiff so I have a little extra wiggle room in photoshop before I finally make the conversion to 8bit for final changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronda Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 I always shoot RAW I'm not good enough to know when a photo has turned out till I get it home on the PC and look at it if it wasnt for RAW I would have a lot of cruddy photos. (Course even then most my pictures are sub par if not total junk) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juans eye Posted July 18, 2008 Share Posted July 18, 2008 Why cant we all just get along :) I think it is useful to know that you can pull an image from a file that appears to show nothing. Another tool in the toolbox. Thanks /bing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now