Pentax RAW vs. JPEG in processing

[bethtphotos]

<p>Using the Pentax K10d, I have always been shooting JPEGs and editing (using Photoshop Elements) for saturation, contrast, color, etc., to come up with my final image. My results have been good...most of the time. I do note that I often have to remove Color Cast, or adjust Brightness, but I think I might have to do that anyway.</p>

<p>My question is this: is there a noticeable (to the naked eye...my consumer) difference in the final versions of the photograph if I start with a RAW image, & make the appropriate changes in my Pentax PhotoLab software vs. starting with a JPEG image & editing in PSE? Does shooting the image in RAW offer any other benefits?</p>

<p>I understand that I may have more control in the editing phase with my Raw files, but as I'm not yet skilled with gamma, curves & all that there is to know, I'm not sure if the end result is worth the learning curve. Thoughts?</p>

[monika_epsefass]

<p>RAW, as opposed to jpg, is a very forgiving format. It's like having an original negative, which can be reproduced over and over, to your taste. If you have mistakenly over- or underexposed, you can correct by two stops without further ado. This is hard with jpgs.<br /> Remember that RAW is raw material, a basic file, to which you add to your taste. Colour profiles, colour corrections, etc... before converting them to a final jpg. Any changes you make will - also due to the size of raw files, never be as harsh as with a jpg. You can immediately notice huge manipulations in your histogram, which in some cases, will show you a corrupted curve with blanks when you are too hard on a jpg. This is rather hard with a raw file.<br /> A jpg mostly used data already programmed in your camera (saturation, hue, sharpness) and gives you an immediate, almost final, result. With raw, you work more slowly. Everything that is already added in a jpg needs to be elaborated and processed. Think of it as the difference between fast food and a gourmet meal. Only when the image is the way YOU want it (and not your camera) you stop the process and say "convert, please. thank you."<br /> And don't worry - it's not as hard as it sounds - the postprocessing steps are not that complicated, unless you strive for higher goals. ;-) Also, the added control gives you - in my opinion - a better understanding why things work in a certain way, and how you can influence them.</p>

<p>Worth a try, really.</p>

<p>(And if you need good literature on this issue, you might want to try the books of Scott Kelby)</p>

[godfrey]

<p>Using RAW will enable a much greater range of adjustment than JPEG format, and effectively much more dynamic range as well. </p>

<p>If you're using Photoshop Elements, forget about Pentax Photo Lab. Just install any recent version of the Camera Raw plugin (v3.7 is what I have as I use Photoshop CS3) and you can process your K10D RAW files in PSE. Or switch the K10D to produce DNG raw files and you can process them using any version of the Camera Raw plugin v2.4 or later. </p>

[garydem]

<p>you stated that you are using pe to remove a color cast or adjust the brightness on a fairly often basis. this means that you are misssing the wb in the field with the camera. if you are constantly adjusting the brightness in pe this means that you are missing the optimum exposure.<br>

i also shoot jpeg and use pe7 and maybe cs2. but i have been shooting with a slr/dslr since 1970. the first 32yrs with slides. when you shoot slides you have to get it right in the slr for there is no pp. you get it right or you throw out the slide. a slide has virtually no tolerance for errors in field work. this is the way i learned to shoot. all that experience and knowledge lets me shoot jpeg with very good likely hood that the shot is right in terms of wb and exposure. when i open my shots in pe7 and hit auto exposure almost everytime nothing happens, the pic brightness remains the same. this says it has the right exposure. jpegs have very very little tolerance for error in the field work. you pretty well have to nail the shot every time. this is also the same with film slides. you can do pp to jpegs but it should be of the touchup or minor adjustment type.<br>

with raw you can almost rebuild the image if you have to in the raw converter. it is very user friendly. if the exposure or wb is off by a bit, just correct it in the converter. raw is not putting a premium of nailing the shot in the field. of course, with raw if the user should be getting the shot ok then this helps later by making the pp simpler and gives the likely hood of a great shot a boost.<br>

if you are constantly making many adjustmenyts to your pics just to get to the medium or ok level, then i would suggest that you switch to raw. this gives the format type and software in the converter that is user friendly to image adjustemnts.</p>

[bethtphotos]

<p>Thanks, thats all really helpful!<br>

Monika, you make it seem easy, and well worth the attempts. I also like what you had to say about the Raw file being more forgiving than the jpg, and the harsh manipulations a little less so. </p>

<p>Godfrey, thanks for the tips on the plugin for my PE...will definitely do that and keep working at it.<br>

Gary, I'm not constantly adjusting the wb or brightness, but I do notice that I often have WB issues..I do very well with natural light or flourescents, but struggle a bit more w/ wb in studio, or at client sites (like in a warehouse or colonial office). That said, judging from your note, it would seem that Raw would benefit me in those situations certainly.<br>

Thanks very much all! I'm learning already!</p>

[garydem]

<p>beth-awb in dslrs work great if you are dealing with outdoor lighting of any kind. in the reading of reviews of the super many dslrs that i have read i notice one consistant item- in dealing with mixed light or nonoutdoor light you are taking your chances with the dslr awb. if the scene is dim enough so that your flash is the predomenant light source then you are ok again. but do not mix the light sources if they all play a part in the light of the scene. if you do the the awb will again have a problem.<br>

some years ago i shot weddings with film, but now if i ever shot a wedding, even if i am a constant jpeg shooter, i would instantly switch to raw just because of the mixed and different light source problem. also, there is a trick you can use if you have an unknown light as the source. simply shoot a test shot that includes a pure white card in the scene, later in the converter note the color temp that gets that card back to full pure white and use it on all othrer shots that you have made in the same light. if you move to another room with differnt lights, shoot another test shot. i have a trio of color test plastic cards(white, black, neutral grey) in the bottom of my camera bag just in case.</p>

[robert_martin5]

<p>In general, third party RAW processors do not read the in camera settings, so when the image is first viewed with the RAW processor it probably will not match the JPG form the camera. Photoshop and others use the white balance data, but use default values for all other parameters. Adobe released Camera profiles for Nikon, Canon, and Pentax cameras that work with Lightroom 2 and Photoshop CS4 ACR 5.x RAW converters. They have a standard profile for the Pentax K10D, K20D, and K200D cameras. These profiles will generally give results that are very close to JPG from the camera with in camera parameters set to the nominal values. I don't know what versions of Elements will work with these profiles. <br>

RAW converters from the camera manufacturer will read the in camera settings and when you first open the RAW file it will match the JPG from the camera, at least it does with Nikon Captuer NX for my Nikon camera. I use Photoshop CS4 and ACR 5.3 for all my RAW processing and use the new Camera Porofiles from Adobe. Photoshop has a lot more capability than software from the camera manufacturer and runs much faster on my computer. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>My question is this: is there a noticeable (to the naked eye...my consumer) difference in the final versions of the photograph if I start with a RAW image, & make the appropriate changes in my Pentax PhotoLab software vs. starting with a JPEG image & editing in PSE? Does shooting the image in RAW offer any other benefits?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Below is an image to show a noticeable difference I always run into shooting intensely colored flowers in broad daylight shooting jpeg over raw. The top image is what I always get shooting jpegs of these types of flowers on my Pentax K100D. </p>

<p>When shooting jpegs of these flowers I'm always having to adjust exposure to get these flowers from turning into flat color blobs on the LCD screen. The problem with this is that I have to underexpose so much that it makes the image dark and the jpeg histogram on the camera's LCD bunched up on the far left. I mean it's an image that's suppose to look like it's shot in bright daylight, not dim and overcast. Anyway, when exposing to get it to look good on the LCD screen the jpeg always looks like crap when lightening the image in Photoshop which always shows a lot of noise and posterized blobs of detail in the shadows and lower mid tone regions. </p>

<p>Now I just shoot raw and expose according to the histogram in not allowing any spikes to show up on the right which creates a preview showing blown out color blobs on the LCD similar to the top image , but in ACR I have tools that can recover a ton of detail, color and dynamic range that I couldn't get shooting jpeg. </p>

<p>Just try to edit the top image to make it look like the bottom. And if you want to see a difference editing in wider color spaces that you'll get in ACR convert this sRGB image to AdobeRGB and ProPhotoRGB and increase saturation and see the differences in the oranges you get. In sRGB on my system the Hue/Sat tool in CS3 doesn't even change the color of the orange flowers no matter how much I increase saturation.</p><div></div>

[diane_madura]

<p>Beth, one more reason to shoot RAW is that with JPEG files, there is a greater chance that posterization will show up.</p>

[bethtphotos]

<p>Gary, I completely understand what you're saying about the mixed light situations. I was dealing with that just yesterday, and the RAW photos I took give me a significant ability to adjust the photos' wb. But when I shoot weddings I take soooo many shots, that the thought of post processing every single one of them seems like a time consuming task. <br>

Tim: thank you for uploading the comparison pics. I was shooting yesterday & comparing RAW files to JPEG but hadn't sat down to process yet. The difference you show is significant, and if I'm understanding correctly, you're not doing alot of complicated steps to get to that result. Your RAW colors are richer, the contrast deeper, the sharpness more intense. Great example, thank you.<br>

Diane, do you mean that in Raw I'll get less pixelation with the edits? I'm sure you're right.<br>

Thanks all.</p>