Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Jul 30, 2014 14:16:39 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..... Absolutely agree, but I found the Olympus PM-1 Jpegs so good I did not always bother with RAW, saving space on the cards, and hard drive, but now that cards are bigger and cheaper, I use the "Raw+Jpeg" setting far more... and most of the time they match, especially on Sharpness, the issue Trules has. Stephen
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Jul 30, 2014 14:27:42 GMT -5
Checking on the first photo the EXIF file show the manual settings were used, and all other settings at normal, no sharpening applied. It does not appear to bother to record whether the IS was on or off, or it's mode of direction. Stephen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2014 14:57:07 GMT -5
When we go on once-in-a-lifetime trips I usually shoot everything raw with my D300. I have the Nikon NX2 program for doing the initial raw processing. Usually I post process with NX2 then save a tiff copy and do additional work in Photoshop CS5. If it's just family snapshots I normally shoot JPG
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jul 30, 2014 14:58:07 GMT -5
One is from the RAW file, the other from the JPG (Pentax K-x with Pentax-F 100mm 2.8 macro). I've just put both through Photoshop without trying to compare one with the other, except that I did use "Match Color" to try to even them out. These are cropped. The camera has onboard anti-shake. ISO 400 f18 1/125 with ring flash.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jul 30, 2014 15:26:02 GMT -5
Just a point on memory: it's cheap now!
When I first got the Pentax *ist DS memory was expensive: too expensive to go on a holiday and shoot everything in RAW. Now it's dirt cheap. A fast 64gb SD card cost £25 a couple of months ago - 64mb cost that (and more) just a few years back.
Hard drives are cheap too. It's not too long ago that it was £1 per mb, then £1 per gb. Now 3tb costs less than £100.
Even shooting, and saving, all photos in RAW it is significantly cheaper now per photo - cheaper than shooting and saving JPGs of just a few years ago and considerably cheaper than using film.
One reason for shooting JPGs is that they don't fill the camera buffer so quickly. Sports photographers, I expect, would always shoot JPGs for their action shots.
|
|
truls
Lifetime Member
Posts: 568
|
Post by truls on Jul 30, 2014 15:59:38 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!! 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. Stephen. Thanks for the references (big thanks!). I have double checked all settings you mentioned, none of them could modify images badly. No IS, sharpening 0, noise reduction on Auto, and so on. I suspect now the Olympus Viewer having modified images when saving them as jpg. Or, I could have a bad copy of the camera, as I remember my previous e-pm1 was very sharp as is. You have inspired me to dig in the manual, it seems necessary to explore all those various settings. One must also have in mind that images are highly blown up, normal enlargements should not display any difference, unless a big poster is made.
|
|
truls
Lifetime Member
Posts: 568
|
Post by truls on Jul 30, 2014 16:06:15 GMT -5
One is from the RAW file, the other from the JPG (Pentax K-x with Pentax-F 100mm 2.8 macro). I've just put both through Photoshop without trying to compare one with the other, except that I did use "Match Color" to try to even them out. These are cropped. The camera has onboard anti-shake. ISO 400 f18 1/125 with ring flash. The bees looks spectacular! I cannot spot the difference between jpg or raw. Another point of view when deciding on raw or jpg is usage. I assume e.g. photo journalists or landscape photographers prefer raw due to latitude in correcting afterwards. Images for web could do with normal jpg.
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Jul 30, 2014 16:19:01 GMT -5
Well it looks like it is the Jpeg processing that is responsible for the differences, it was just as I got my head around the various settings, and whether they were active in each availble mode, I found the Jpegs were close to the Raw quality. raw is definitely better, but not always in sharpness.
But It all depends on the final use, printed at photo quality on 8x10 a Raw file from the PM-I is unbeatable, what still niggles a bit is I know a full frame Kodachrome would be even better, I did quite a bit with Cibachrome, and Digital just does not approach it even full frame,....as yet.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jul 30, 2014 16:47:03 GMT -5
Stephen, it is, of course, possible to print out from digital using analogue as the final part of the equation. The equipment to do so is, I presume, too expensive for the average amateur. I do get 6x4 photos printed this way at a local camera shop and the results are better than those printed digitally.
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Jul 30, 2014 17:35:53 GMT -5
I am talking about a Canon home standard Inkjet on photo settings, it is difficult to beat the quality even with Laser at 8x10. 6x4 are better from inkjet than traditional film and paper on the best quality photo settings, with decent photo paper of course. A scanned Kodachrome at whatever resolution plus laser printing will not rival a direct Cibachrome, which out resolves digital by about 80% to 100% comfortably. (Given a decent enlarger and lens, mine are Nikon and Wray, on an MPP).
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Jul 30, 2014 18:16:07 GMT -5
I am talking about a Canon home standard Inkjet on photo settings, it is difficult to beat the quality even with Laser at 8x10. 6x4 are better from inkjet than traditional film and paper on the best quality photo settings, with decent photo paper of course. A scanned Kodachrome at whatever resolution plus laser printing will not rival a direct Cibachrome, which out resolves digital by about 80% to 100% comfortably. (Given a decent enlarger and lens, mine are Nikon and Wray, on an MPP). Out of interest can you still get Cibachrome? I was a big fan of it in the 70's. I got my first kit in 1975
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jul 30, 2014 19:05:49 GMT -5
Then compare that to a home standard photo enlarging technique. Cibachrome was basically a professional process which serious amateurs came to use. It was far superior to the standard shop enlargements from slide film. Who these days is going to go out and buy all that is necessary to produce a quality Cibachrome enlargement? That Nikon lens costs more than the canon printer. Then there is everything else to buy. The one thing that can't be bought is the ability to get a good result. I would warrant that everyone on this forum would get better results on a Canon inkjet unless already skilled in using Cibachrome.
Mind you, It stopped being Cibachrome some time ago, becoming Ilfochrome. However, as far as I know, that stopped being produced a year or so ago.
Assuming that an inkjet gives better quality at 6x4 and that analogue enlarging gives better quality at 10x8, at what point does the crossover occur and why?
I started to write this ages ago, got sidetracked and came back to it - so I've only just seen your post, Phil. The answer is a fairly certain no.
I used it when it first came out, I tried Agfachrome-Speed also.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jul 30, 2014 19:36:09 GMT -5
...and here is the box of the first Agfachrome-Speed I bought. In spite of its claim, good results were not that simple.
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Jul 31, 2014 4:07:41 GMT -5
Cibachrome was very simple. Dial in the filtration recommended for your film, do a standard strip exposure test and you were off. -/+ a degree solutions tolerance. Dodging and shading was no problem and didnt cause colour issues. Easy as printing B&W. I never got a bad un.
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Jul 31, 2014 6:04:27 GMT -5
Cibachrome has long gone, it had the advantage of no grain in the sensitive layer worth worrying about, and the colours are stable dyes. A Kodachrome printed on Ciba had no visible grain structure at 8x10 or next size up. Never tried the Agfa system. The enlarger, an MPP, was S/hand at £25 in the 1970's, the EL nikon was S/hand, cannot remember the price, but under £50, and the Wray was in a sale at £1.00, enlargers need not be expensive. Ciba was expensive per shot, so only the very best slides got printed.
|
|