| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/06/2004 07:12:36 PM · #1 |
If you would, please tell me if there is a better FREE program to process my RAW images? I would also like to know the difference in quality between unopened jpegs, and raw files? I havent seen a side by side comparison, but I have had 20x24's printed off of my jpegs file that look wonderful!
|
|
|
|
09/06/2004 07:14:55 PM · #2 |
I would love to know this too. I definitely notice a HUGE difference in quality between the two. I also know that the raw conversion in CS is MUCH better than the canon software my cam came with.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2004 07:19:37 PM · #3 |
I dont have the cs version yet...I am still working with 7? I dont have the money for it yet?
|
|
|
|
09/06/2004 07:28:41 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
09/06/2004 07:30:31 PM · #5 |
You know you can dload a trial version for 30 days, free. CS that is.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2004 07:42:33 PM · #6 |
C1 from PhaseOne has been mentioned on another thread sometime this week. It's a software for processing camera raw files. I don't have this software (I use PS CS) but I wondered whether the C1 LE is better than Photoshop's raw converter plug-in. There are different versions - C1LE is $99.00 according to their website.
PhaseOne
|
|
|
|
09/06/2004 08:02:37 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by parrothead:
If you would, please tell me if there is a better FREE program to process my RAW images? I would also like to know the difference in quality between unopened jpegs, and raw files? I havent seen a side by side comparison, but I have had 20x24's printed off of my jpegs file that look wonderful! |
Check out this one:dcraw
I haven't used it so no guarantees from me. I read about it on DPReview forums. I don't think it has been updated to support the new Canon raw format used by the Mk II & 20D but should be fine for your 10D. And the price is right. |
|
|
|
09/06/2004 08:48:44 PM · #8 |
The best explanation of RAW vs JPEG I have seen is Understanding Raw Files from Luminous Landscape.
The most compelling reason I see to shoot in RAW is that it uses 16 bits per pixel, which provides more versatility, especially at the low end. This allows me to push the limits of my camera a lot harder, especially for sports photography, as I find can reliably underexpose to get faster speeds and then push up the levels in post-processing without getting banding.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
09/06/2004 11:29:34 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
The most compelling reason I see to shoot in RAW is that it uses 16 bits per pixel, which provides more versatility, especially at the low end. |
Probably you mean it allows you to edit in 16-bit mode. Most RAW modes onyl provide 12 actual bits of data per channel (not taking into account sensor design). I think the Olympus E-1 provides 14 bits.
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
This allows me to push the limits of my camera a lot harder, especially for sports photography, as I find can reliably underexpose to get faster speeds and then push up the levels in post-processing without getting banding. |
But don't forget you have to expose to the right to really get all that sweet bitness out of your raw file. Taking an underexposed shots and bringing it up a stop or two introduces considerable noise. It's not a very convincing argument for shooting RAW, but it sure is a helluva lot better than the alternative (a completely unusable JPEG shot). |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 12:11:07 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
This allows me to push the limits of my camera a lot harder, especially for sports photography, as I find can reliably underexpose to get faster speeds and then push up the levels in post-processing without getting banding. |
But don't forget you have to expose to the right to really get all that sweet bitness out of your raw file. Taking an underexposed shots and bringing it up a stop or two introduces considerable noise. It's not a very convincing argument for shooting RAW, but it sure is a helluva lot better than the alternative (a completely unusable JPEG shot). |
In most cases, that is exactly what I do. In sports shooting, one must sometimes make compromises. The lighting is out of the photographer's control, but fast shutter speeds are critical. When dropping the cash for a faster lens is not an option, neither is exposing to the right.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
09/07/2004 01:22:01 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
In most cases, that is exactly what I do. In sports shooting, one must sometimes make compromises. The lighting is out of the photographer's control, but fast shutter speeds are critical. When dropping the cash for a faster lens is not an option, neither is exposing to the right. |
Naturally, I presume you do the right thing and otherwise go left. Churches are another bad place; alas, the Light of Christ is not enough to fill my lens. Another place where film still reigns supreme (what a compromise!).
Are these amateur sporting events? Pro events always seem to have enough lighting. |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 04:03:47 AM · #12 |
A sad discovery I made about my beloved D70. My RAW format is lossy and only has actually 9.4 bits of resolution. :(
"Is the Nikon D70 NEF (RAW) format truly lossless?"
//www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2004/05/02-1.html
A few important excerpts:
sensor data is first quantized using a curve that maps the 4096 linear values returned by the sensor into 683 discrete values
The quantization is a lossy operation, and converts 12 bits into 9.4 bits' worth of resolution (dynamic range is unchanged)
The curve is a gamma correction curve, linear for values up to 215, then quadratic.
In conclusion, Thom is right - there is some loss of data, mostly in the form of lowered resolution in the highlights. |
|
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: 09/17/2025 01:34:47 PM EDT.
