truls
Lifetime Member
Posts: 568
|
Post by truls on Jul 29, 2014 13:36:19 GMT -5
I was not aware of the difference between jpg and raw filles, until I discovered it myself. Part of this I never striving for maximal technical quality. The change came after comparing high quality jpeg vs raw from the camera. This small test clearly show there is a big difference. For me having a slightly cheap camera with small censor, it is of greatest importance. Camera: Olympus epm1 micro 4/3 Lens: Standard Olympus zoom lens 14-42 (kit lens) Aperture: f.11 Focal length: 25mm (50mm on 35 film) Autofocus: Yes Manual exposure 1/250 f.11 ISO 200 Here a simple test image to show the difference: 100% crop from highest quality jpg from camera: 100% crop from the raw file: The raw image shows much better overall detail, quality and sharpness/clarity. Now, how to edit raw data files? Without photoshop I have chosen to use the software enclosed on the cd that came with the camera, it is called Olympus Viewer 2. It is no photoshop but gives the possibility to edit most settings in a raw image most users want, and more important it supports the camera profile.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jul 29, 2014 14:42:42 GMT -5
Finding out for oneself is always the best way to discover things. Photoshop Elements has most of the features that are on Photoshop itself - and is much cheaper too. GIMP also is pretty well featured and is free. Google it to download the latest version. There are also quick conversion programmes - like Raw Extractor (again free) - if you just want a quick and easy conversion - www.safefolder.net if that is still the correct address. No time to add more, badminton calls. Dave
|
|
hansz
Lifetime Member
Hans
Posts: 697
|
Post by hansz on Jul 29, 2014 14:48:43 GMT -5
JPG will always be inferior to RAW, as it implies reduction with loss. (As you saw). With digital, I always use RAW, and Photoshop to convert to TIFF (lossless). With the Photoshop Tools one can do a lot with RAW you cannot do with other formats, like adjusting exposure (which, of course, we never need to do, us being real photographers:-).
With the TIFF files you do whatever you want to get the satisfying picture.
Use your Olympus software to fiddle with the RAW files and use Gimp, or whatever, for the finishing touch.
Hans
P.S. Just installed Lightroom 5.3 which is easier for the picture oriented people.. P.P.S. This not an advertisement for free software..
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jul 29, 2014 18:13:11 GMT -5
Actually that is not completely right. Using Bridge any picture file can be imported by using "Open in Camera Raw". Most of the facilities for RAW are able to be used on JPGs or other formats. Some commands, such as White Balance are more limited (as shot, auto and custom only) but others are there in full (although they might not produce as good an end result as with a RAW file).
I don't save as a TIFF as a general rule. The changes made to the RAW files are kept as a sidecar attached to each file so the next import of that RAW file will automatically have those changes incorporated. If I ever need the highest quality I can go back to the RAW. Occasionally I save a "heavily doctored" file as a TIFF or PSD, but in general the JPG format is good enough.
|
|
SidW
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by SidW on Jul 29, 2014 18:20:46 GMT -5
Well done Truls. Remember, there's a difference between adjusting camera settings, and editing the picture. Your Olympus Viewer should let you adjust the original camera settings of the raw version (white balance is easy, exposure or ISO adjustments might cause some extra noise, and you can't rescue what's not there, it's generally better to get it right in the first place), and probably convert raw to Tiff, as Hans suggests. Editing is roughly what we used to do in the darkroom - crop, enlarge, colour balance, colour saturation. The Tiff version is what I archive, without any sharpening. Then I make new versions from it for printing a certain size, or posting to the web, or giving away etc, including jpg conversion as necessary, and with appropriate sharpening for the occasion (e.g. less for screen viewing, more for printing). For Photoshop to do both jobs (as Hans describes) will depend on the version, (my humble 7 won't do raw adjustment). And download new versions of your Olympus Viewer as available.
|
|
SidW
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by SidW on Jul 29, 2014 18:24:15 GMT -5
Remember that each time you open and save a jpg file, you do a new compression with even more loss.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jul 29, 2014 19:06:53 GMT -5
The reason for me in keeping the master as the RAW + sidecar is that there is access to the original as taken whatever has been done to it in processing. While a TIFF is lossless it has had changes applied that can not be "unapplied". A TIFF file tends to be as big as the original RAW file, quite often even larger.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jul 29, 2014 19:41:42 GMT -5
OK I am a RAW convert. You have convinced me.
Now to my Owner's Manual to see what I am letting myself in for.
Deep breath.
Mickey See ya - eventually.
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Jul 29, 2014 23:21:52 GMT -5
A couple of points, it is very easy to get a raw file to look sharper and punchier than a jpeg on an Olympus M4/3.....
Why? Because the settings for image quality on the jpegs is vague and missleading. Olympus make it far too easy to miss set the jpeg extras like sharpness, contrast and other image quality settings.
Yes, the RAW file will be the reference best the camera can deliver, but the difference on the test shots suggest the jpeg camera settings are a bit off the resident normal settings.
In my own experience the jpegs are excellent from the Olympus. But a friend who had one was very unhappy with his results. They were O.K. but lacked punch and clarity.
I asked him to re-check the settings for normal photography, and he said he had never altered them.
I realised what had happened on going through the settings one by one, sharpness was at soft, file quality set to economy, and several other alterations.
It turned out he had indeed re-set these by accident as he toured the complex menus. Add in his inexperience and the quality of the shots was dreary.
Olympus have a curious factory reset to defaults, it preserves some of the altered settings, which is desirable when your an experience user, but throws a woobly with others
There are several "plans" which preserve the settings deliberately to the taste of the user, but there is no master re-set.
I found this out in the first week of having one, and the only way to be sure everything was OK for jpegs was to go through all settings one by one. It was a bit of a struggle to find rime or reason for some of the settings available in the menus. Even after setting sharpness to nominal etc., you find it over ridden by picture quality settings to gain more contrast in the shadows.
So do not condemn the jpeg instantly on an Olympus, it may just be poor settings by complete accident..........
Nothing said above applies to RAW, it delivers as taken, and I use The Gimp, with RAW add on with very good results.
But with the camera set to nominal settings plus extra sharpness only the difference between raw is minimal, so if you see a sharpness loss with the jpeg it is likely the setting is at soft etc.
The jpeg problem does turn up on other makes, but I deeply suspect the wild over complexity of the Olympus menu system causes issues with quality.
This is not a rant against Olympus, just fair comment. I have good consistant output now from Jpeg, but I also use RAW heavily now.
|
|
truls
Lifetime Member
Posts: 568
|
Post by truls on Jul 30, 2014 8:00:41 GMT -5
daveh: I may have to consider Photoshop elements. Raw extractor, it is unclear how the jpg's are manipulated during conversion, but the software is a good idea. Wether saving as TIFF or raw with a supplement file is may be a quastion about teste, of how one is working and so on, I will try both to get my own experience. Stephen: I have adjusted my jpg settings in camera, there were no sharpeing choice, only level of adjusment og jpg detail, I chose the finest detail, resullting in 6,4MB file (increase 1,5MB from previous setting). Mickey: Glad I have saved you from eternal darkness. I have also taken into my heart all comments above, thanks!
|
|
truls
Lifetime Member
Posts: 568
|
Post by truls on Jul 30, 2014 8:11:32 GMT -5
I did a new small test today, walking up the hill to make a landscape image for the test. Everything same as previous test, except adjusting in camera setting for best jpg quality. Also I have compared the kit lens vs Canon FD 35/2.8. Of course a tripod is used, and I use the self timer to avoid shake. The raw files are converted in Olympus Viewer 2 and images are assembled in Gimp. So theres may be a small loss during the conversion. The kit lens at 35mm (70mm on film) because of comparison Canon 35mm, which becomes a 70mm on my camera. All images @f.11. Todays test image: 100% crop: Upper left image: Olympus 14-42 jpg from camera Upper right image: Olympus 14-42 raw converted jpg Lower left image: Canon 35/2.8 jpg from camera Lower right image: Canon 35/2.8 raw converted jpg In my case and with my camera, raw images are clearly better. Also the Canon lens performs very well against the kit lens, it should not be any surprise.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jul 30, 2014 8:38:46 GMT -5
Many cameras let you take both RAW and JPG at the same time. With the Canon 7D I do that but normally have the JPG set to fewer pixels, and medium quality. The result is really good enough for many purposes and better than some cameras produce on their "best" setting. I have everything set pretty much neutral for the in camera JPGs finding that gives the best compromise for most shots.
Truls, there is quite a noticeable difference between your shots. The difference is much less noticeable from the Canon and I'm sure the same applies to the Pentax K-x and Panasonic FZ200 also. Perhaps as Stephen says it's a case of checking the JPG settings.
|
|
k38
Lifetime Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by k38 on Jul 30, 2014 11:09:42 GMT -5
I always have shot RAW as it seemed odd to spend money on a camera and not get the best out of it. I use a Canon 6D these days and Apple Aperture for my photo program. Apple has announced that it will stop development on Aperture which is a bummer. I will probably switch to Light Room.
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Jul 30, 2014 13:52:44 GMT -5
Truls, there is most definitely a sharpness setting option, see Page 46 on the PDF manual (English version). Perhaps it is set too low, which is in effect soft, which would explain the massive difference your getting with the Jpeg verses the RAW output.
Page 47 covers the recording of a Jpeg with RAW at the same time, there is no need to take a view twice on the Olympus.
Page 85 covers noise reduction and when it functions, it can get left on when not required and lower the sharpness. It only works on Jpegs, not RAW files.
Page 86 reminds that although the image size is adjustable, each level has several compressions. Does not apply to Raw, but does to Jpegs.
Page 46 covers gradation and has a separate degree of setting amount button as well. This affects Jpegs not RAW.
All refers to the PM-1, I have a PM-1 and also a PL-1 which similar options on a slightly different menu system.
I am very deeply surprised that there is such a massive difference in your shots between RAW and the highest Jpeg settings, which leads me to question the settings accidentally reducing Jpeg quality.
I will do some shots myself to compare and try to duplicate the difference.
At the worse, just use the Raw files!!
Stephen.
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Jul 30, 2014 14:10:22 GMT -5
I have noted you used manual settings, so differences in the Auto methods does not apply, but is the image stabilisation off when on used on the tripod?. This is vital, as leaving it on definitely reduces fine detail.
The left image of the houses does seem to have a soft quality like image stabilisation struggling to work. The loss of detail seems a bit horizontal in effect, perhaps indicating the IS is still on. It would in theory affect the Raw file as well, but the in camera Jpeg processing may aggravate the issue.
Sorry this all sounds complex, it is no reflection on you, the Olympus PM-1 caught me out at first, it is too darn complex for it's own good!.......once away from pure Auto Exposure work.
|
|