| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/22/2005 03:30:01 PM · #1 |
I noticed nobobody mentioned anything about being able to access 16 bit data for greater detail and fidilty when shooting raw Is there anybody that can shed some light on that for me i think i know about it but then i dont think i know about it thanks
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 04:03:58 PM · #2 |
JPEG images are retstricted to 8 bits of data. This is normally more than acceptable for display purposes. Some situations benefit from additional bits, namely gradients and skin tones. Sunsets often have subtle gradients that can suffer from banding when extreme editing is done... There are many more situtions as well.
The problem is that just about any kind of editing you do is in some way destructive. For axample, adjust levels and curves and you'll often see the histogram starts to get chunks missing, and spikes.
When you are working with 12 (16 bit) images you start with more data. The benefit is that when you loose data from editing the final image is still within acceptable visual tolerances.
Check out some of the writings on Digital Outback, and Luminous Lansdcape for a more scientific example. I'm in the middle of the Camera Raw book, and highly recommend it as well.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 04:07:47 PM · #3 |
I know exactly what your talking about in the histogram i always seen it when i was working on something but never paid it any mind thinking that was how it was supposed to be. I guess that when i i take a raw file its automatically 16 bits i'll check out luminious landscapes thanks
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 04:18:39 PM · #4 |
The book "Real World Color Management" also has some great discussion of this, in the context of a color-managed workflow, of course. The biggest reason to shoot RAW, IMO, is the slightly extended dynamic range afforded by the RAW file. Where highlights would be clipped in a JPG, you still have some room left in the RAW file, while you've given up nothing in the shadows. Remember that RAW files are linear, whereas JPGs are not, so you can't always compare directly how much finer the gradations are in 16-bit, but there is definitely an advantage. Also keep in mind that the camera's dynamic range is less than what a 16-bit file can represent, more like 10-14 bits depending on the particular camera, the ISO setting, the temperature, and the exposure. In order to get maximum dynamic range, exposure must be perfect and noise must be minimized. Minimizing noise means lowest ISO. Temperature also has a big effect on the noise. You can actually see the difference between shots taken on a very cold day vs. on a warm day.
The other main advantage of RAW is the relative freedom from worries about white balance. It's still a good idea to get white balance right, but it is not essential and does not change the collected data if it is wrong. It's just more work to fix it later.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 04:38:24 PM · #5 |
And the final reason I really like shooting raw... As converters improve you can reinterpret the original files with higher quality. I did my first few months of images using dcraw / gimp. Now I use Bibble, and have been working on going bacj through my good images and converting them with Bibble for a much better output.
Once you shoot JPEG, that's it. No do-overs.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 05:39:37 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The book "Real World Color Management" also has some great discussion of this, in the context of a color-managed workflow, of course. The biggest reason to shoot RAW, IMO, is the slightly extended dynamic range afforded by the RAW file. Where highlights would be clipped in a JPG, you still have some room left in the RAW file, while you've given up nothing in the shadows. Remember that RAW files are linear, whereas JPGs are not, so you can't always compare directly how much finer the gradations are in 16-bit, but there is definitely an advantage. Also keep in mind that the camera's dynamic range is less than what a 16-bit file can represent, more like 10-14 bits depending on the particular camera, the ISO setting, the temperature, and the exposure. In order to get maximum dynamic range, exposure must be perfect and noise must be minimized. Minimizing noise means lowest ISO. Temperature also has a big effect on the noise. You can actually see the difference between shots taken on a very cold day vs. on a warm day.
The other main advantage of RAW is the relative freedom from worries about white balance. It's still a good idea to get white balance right, but it is not essential and does not change the collected data if it is wrong. It's just more work to fix it later. |
please explain to me kirbic as you have already been than helpfull already what you mean by linear when you make reference to raw files thanks
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 05:42:55 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
And the final reason I really like shooting raw... As converters improve you can reinterpret the original files with higher quality. I did my first few months of images using dcraw / gimp. Now I use Bibble, and have been working on going bacj through my good images and converting them with Bibble for a much better output.
Once you shoot JPEG, that's it. No do-overs. |
wait a minute i used draw to work on the last image i shot raw are you saying that bibble is better? iam gonna definatley have to download it i been hearing way to much about it lol
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 05:55:01 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by LEONJR:
Originally posted by cghubbell:
And the final reason I really like shooting raw... As converters improve you can reinterpret the original files with higher quality. I did my first few months of images using dcraw / gimp. Now I use Bibble, and have been working on going bacj through my good images and converting them with Bibble for a much better output.
Once you shoot JPEG, that's it. No do-overs. |
wait a minute i used draw to work on the last image i shot raw are you saying that bibble is better? iam gonna definatley have to download it i been hearing way to much about it lol |
Bibble has the ability to create better images than dcraw, however your software is no different than your hardware; It's easy to get caught up in going after "the next thing" instead of focusing on your photography :) Don't be in a hurry. There's so much to learn along the way...
BTW - If you really are looking to change from dcraw, I'd encourage you to look into using UFRaw. It's a MUCH more intuitive interface, and that in itself will help your conversion improve.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 06:12:35 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
Originally posted by LEONJR:
Originally posted by cghubbell:
And the final reason I really like shooting raw... As converters improve you can reinterpret the original files with higher quality. I did my first few months of images using dcraw / gimp. Now I use Bibble, and have been working on going bacj through my good images and converting them with Bibble for a much better output.
Once you shoot JPEG, that's it. No do-overs. |
wait a minute i used draw to work on the last image i shot raw are you saying that bibble is better? iam gonna definatley have to download it i been hearing way to much about it lol |
Bibble has the ability to create better images than dcraw, however your software is no different than your hardware; It's easy to get caught up in going after "the next thing" instead of focusing on your photography :) Don't be in a hurry. There's so much to learn along the way...
BTW - If you really are looking to change from dcraw, I'd encourage you to look into using UFRaw. It's a MUCH more intuitive interface, and that in itself will help your conversion improve. |
Oh you know what that what i have UFraw iam getting them confused lol i jus gotta get my hands on bibble
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 07:06:33 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by LEONJR:
please explain to me kirbic as you have already been than helpfull already what you mean by linear when you make reference to raw files thanks |
Your camera's sensor responds in a linear manner, that is, if you put in twice as much light, the output value gets twice as large. Your eye, however, does not reapond that way, it responds in a logarithmic manner. Simply, it takes a lot more light to double your eye's response. To make the camera's captures look right, a curve is applied to the data, making it non-linear. The RAW data has not had this correction applied.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 07:15:09 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by LEONJR:
please explain to me kirbic as you have already been than helpfull already what you mean by linear when you make reference to raw files thanks |
Your camera's sensor responds in a linear manner, that is, if you put in twice as much light, the output value gets twice as large. Your eye, however, does not reapond that way, it responds in a logarithmic manner. Simply, it takes a lot more light to double your eye's response. To make the camera's captures look right, a curve is applied to the data, making it non-linear. The RAW data has not had this correction applied. |
So thats a good thing right ?
|
|
|
|
02/22/2005 08:32:46 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by LEONJR:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by LEONJR:
please explain to me kirbic as you have already been than helpfull already what you mean by linear when you make reference to raw files thanks |
Your camera's sensor responds in a linear manner, that is, if you put in twice as much light, the output value gets twice as large. Your eye, however, does not reapond that way, it responds in a logarithmic manner. Simply, it takes a lot more light to double your eye's response. To make the camera's captures look right, a curve is applied to the data, making it non-linear. The RAW data has not had this correction applied. |
So thats a good thing right ? |
Ideally, the sensor would respond the same way our eyes do. Applying the transform later is a work-around, and isn't really the best thing but it is a physical necessity.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/15/2025 11:18:09 AM EDT.
