DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> I believe in JPEG
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 163, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/25/2007 01:53:23 PM · #76
I made an interesting discovery about RAW processing for B&W that I like...

For the first time, within the RAW image processor only, I converted to B&W and did all the tonal adjustments there. It gave me the control I wanted and a better result than I usually get using traditional BW conversion techniques within Photoshop with Channel Mixer, Hue/Saturation and Selective Color. I was pleasantly surprised how well it worked and how nice the tones were.

What I found fascinating is that I can choose to process a single properly exposed image 'normally' or as low-key or high-key with excellent results in any of those output styles.

Message edited by author 2007-01-25 13:57:31.
01/25/2007 02:00:32 PM · #77
Always RAW.
- The D70 jpeg is a lot worse than a straight converted RAW (RAW has less artifacts, less soft -something else as sharper-, less moiré, better demosiacing)
- When I photograph I want to concentrate on exposure, focus and composition. I do not want to waste my time on setting whitebalance all the time in ever changing conditions. No problem with doing that later.
- I see big benefits in working with as high possible bitrate as straight from the CCD as possible.
- Size is not a problem. Altough I must admit that I was working on a 16-bit 5D file recently and when I used a couple of layers things got really slow. Need to upgrade my 1 Gig of RAM to something like 4 Gig I guess. :)

Also scan a lot of old photos for a historic society and than restore them to some extent. For that kind of work it is very useful to have a large as possible 16-bit scan (Epson Perfection 2400). You can make extreme light, color and contrast adjustments without getting to many gradients and stuff like that. The huge size gives a lot of data that you can use to clone with.

One advantage is that it is not for business, if that were the case I think I need to hire someone to process my photos. :)

What someone else does -> don't really care.
When you can get what you want with jpeg. Why not, good for you.
01/25/2007 02:07:48 PM · #78
JPEG VERSUS RAW ROUND 4,912,843

JPEG in BW = BW
RAW in BW = Color Image

Why? The camera takes a color image and in the case of the JPEG it processes the image into black and white. Its not a true black and white image and does not get the effect of film.

The RAW is the RAW sensor data which is of course color to begin with.
The advantage of using a RAW or even a color JPEG into a BW image is the additional tools avliable to make a truer BW. No real undefined advantage here on either side. But atleast with the raw you can go back to color.
01/25/2007 02:22:09 PM · #79
Ok so in a nutshell I think this sums up the two camps:

JPG Shooters

- It's convenient and faster to produce for print and web output.
- The loss of data and the added flexibility to control tonal range is not a major issue for them.
- Less storage space requirements
- Only format available with available hardware

RAW Shooters

- Don't mind the extra workflow.
- Prefer the flexibility to develop the "negative" more accurately and recover aspects to color and tonal range that simply cannot be retained by the lossy jpg format.
- Extra storage space is not an issue.

Is that pretty much it? I'm a RAW-only shooter. Like Karmat I'm not great at getting it right in camera in regards to WB or exposure but even if I was I'd still shoot in RAW only because the data is simply better. For straight out of the camera type photos jpg is probably just fine but for my work I need that finer detail and retainment of color, highlights and shadows because I am not trying to recreate what I saw but create what I originally envisioned. Until they make a camera that does the latter and can produce it as a jpg I'll stick to RAW. Actually when I am trying to recreate what I saw I'd still prefer RAW as I don't think jpgs can do that as well.

Edited for clarity.

Message edited by author 2007-01-25 14:48:50.
01/25/2007 02:31:04 PM · #80
I believe in JPEG....

wow. It sounds like you are making a deep theological or philosophical stand.

I guess what I have learned is to never marry yourself to any particular technology or format. JPEG may very well be the VHS of digital photography one of these days.

I have been happy using RAW recently. It always seems better to have more control. The more control you have over your photos and the process, the better.
01/25/2007 02:37:38 PM · #81
Even with all the reviews preaching the weakness of the K10D jpeg, and everyone claiming that it is a RAW shooters camera, I very rarely shoot RAW. If it's an important shot, I'll hit the RAW+ button, but thats not all that often. Even though K10D jpegs are heavily compressed (2-3mb) I can't tell the difference in detail from my 16mb RAW files. Maybe I don't know what I'm looking for, and if thats the case then ignorance is bliss...

Here's a fun game for everyone: save a jpeg 5 times, from the original each time, using PS save for web. Each time, increase the compression 10%. Tell me when you see the difference...
01/25/2007 02:38:30 PM · #82
Pretty much all my shots have been in JPEG, to be honest-I really didn't know what all the exact advantages of RAW were, and havn't taken the time to learn how to use it correctly. I am always wanting to improve my shots though and maybe start getting a portfolio out there that is print worthy! Maybe I need to start studying??? lol.
01/25/2007 02:43:03 PM · #83
Originally posted by yanko:

Ok so in a nutshell I think this sums up the two camps:

JPG Shooters

- It's convenient and faster to produce for print and web output.
- The loss of data and the added flexibility to control tonal range is not a major issue for them.
- Less storage space requirements

- Only format available with available hardware
01/25/2007 02:44:05 PM · #84
Originally posted by pottersclay75:

I believe in JPEG....

wow. It sounds like you are making a deep theological or philosophical stand.

I guess what I have learned is to never marry yourself to any particular technology or format. JPEG may very well be the VHS of digital photography one of these days.

I have been happy using RAW recently. It always seems better to have more control. The more control you have over your photos and the process, the better.


He BELIEVES screams the man
IT IS REAL I'VE SEEN IT screams the man
01/25/2007 02:50:18 PM · #85
Originally posted by GeneralE:

- Only format available with available hardware


So you don't get "raw" stone tablets as an option? :P
01/25/2007 02:52:52 PM · #86
As per my little experiment, If I looked real close and hard in a way that would make pixel peepers go "is that necessary?" I can see artifacts at 60% compression. It gets worse from there, slowly. Conclusion: for my purposes, jpeg IQ is more than sufficient, even when compressed.

Now, as for exposure... I haven't had a problem shooting up at whistler with shadows/highlights, and I DO shoot RAW+jpeg on important shots up there. I'm sure RAW performs better, which is why I take the odd shot in RAW, but I haven't had to "save" an image in RAW yet...
01/25/2007 03:02:01 PM · #87
I am strictly a raw shooter. I honestly dont remember the last time that I ever took my camera off of that setting, since I got a d70. First thing I did to my d200 was make sure it was set on raw. Granted, jpg has its andvantages, but here is a great comparison for all of you.

With the moderately decent dslrs (20d and above, d70 and above, etc) a jpg will read and shoot approximately 16.8 million colors. Camera Raw will capture up to 68.7 billion colors.

Dont know about all fo you, but those extra colors do mean something to me!
01/25/2007 03:14:47 PM · #88
Originally posted by amathiasphoto:

With the moderately decent dslrs (20d and above, d70 and above, etc) a jpg will read and shoot approximately 16.8 million colors. Camera Raw will capture up to 68.7 billion colors. Dont know about all fo you, but those extra colors do mean something to me!


But do you think you can really see all those extra colors?

"It is claimed that the human eye can distinguish as many as 10 million discrete hues (this number varies from person to person depending upon the condition of the eye and the age of the person). However, at the resolution of current screens and at a standard viewing distance people cannot distinguish more than a few hundred hues."
01/25/2007 03:29:09 PM · #89
For me, I depend on raw's exposure latitude for a certain final look that I give to most of my pictures. I can see why some people find it useful, and others do not. It is a tool- a dentist wouldn't use a jackhammer for his work. (But that certainly is questionable) ;-)

I used to shoot jpg before I got a the 5D though.
01/25/2007 03:37:00 PM · #90
**__The chicks dig it when you shoot in RAW.__**
01/25/2007 03:39:20 PM · #91
Originally posted by Strikeslip:

**__The chicks dig it when you shoot in RAW.__**

It must have something to do with being 'raw'

"Aw shit dude, that band is so raw"
01/25/2007 03:40:20 PM · #92
Originally posted by Strikeslip:

**__The chicks dig it when you shoot in RAW.__**



01/25/2007 03:59:52 PM · #93
Originally posted by option:

As per my little experiment, If I looked real close and hard in a way that would make pixel peepers go "is that necessary?" I can see artifacts at 60% compression. It gets worse from there, slowly. Conclusion: for my purposes, jpeg IQ is more than sufficient, even when compressed.

Have you compared prints of each version?
01/25/2007 04:17:20 PM · #94
Originally posted by rswank:

Have you compared prints of each version?


Nope. :-P

I'm sure theres a difference there, just like theres a difference between getting a good photo lab to make a large print, or getting costco to do it for 1/10 the price...
01/25/2007 04:24:48 PM · #95
Originally posted by goc:

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

**__The chicks dig it when you shoot in RAW.__**




I tried to shoot in the RAW once but my model ran out of the room screaming :(
01/25/2007 04:36:06 PM · #96
Maybe part of the reason that I don't care too much for RAW is software: Pentax Photo Labs default RAW conversion is very similar to the in-body jpeg engine, and ACR drives me up the wall. I haven't really explored other options...any suggestions?
01/25/2007 04:37:42 PM · #97
Originally posted by option:

Maybe part of the reason that I don't care too much for RAW is software: Pentax Photo Labs default RAW conversion is very similar to the in-body jpeg engine, and ACR drives me up the wall. I haven't really explored other options...any suggestions?


Bibble.
01/25/2007 05:49:06 PM · #98
Originally posted by Megatherian:


I tried to shoot in the RAW once but my model ran out of the room screaming :(


SP?
01/25/2007 05:50:46 PM · #99
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by Megatherian:


I tried to shoot in the RAW once but my model ran out of the room screaming :(


SP?


"But Grandma, at DPChallenge they told me to shoot in the Raw! Grandma?"
01/25/2007 06:18:57 PM · #100
One of the biggest factors driving me to get a D200 was the ability to shoot RAW + JPEG (Fine) - the D70 limits the JPEG to the highest compression. JPEG is easier and faster to review & edit, so I can scan the JPEGS and if I find a shot that I want to print I edit the RAW, otherwise I just ignore it.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/19/2025 07:41:13 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 07/19/2025 07:41:13 PM EDT.