Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Jul 31, 2014 6:17:21 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. Now I am very surprised at not being able to see the difference, which is actually very large, when closely examined. I am not "knocking" the original posters fine shot, but in jpeg the fine hairs are very soft and have a gentle blur to them. The raw version is much sharper, the hairs are defined with crisp edges. This the same effect as Trules shots comparison, maybe less dramatic. The contrast is higher between the dark hair and the surround, giving a crisp look to the whole shot. When comparing shots do not look at the whole shot, try to isolate a small area and base the comparisons purely on that area at first. Then compare the whole look and the differences jump out. I admit great experience at judging sharpness etc, dealing with many thousands of other peoples negatives for assessment for Developing and Printing, and assessing the final results.
|
|
truls
Lifetime Member
Posts: 568
|
Post by truls on Jul 31, 2014 8:16:52 GMT -5
So, daveh's first image is raw, second jpg. Yes, I see the difference now, but I had to study the images side by side, in two viewer windows close to each other to compare. I thought at first the second image was raw, as I could spot some noise. I'm not sure anymore. It could be bokeh from lens, not noise.
|
|
Doug T.
Lifetime Member
Pettin' The Gator
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by Doug T. on Jul 31, 2014 12:57:28 GMT -5
The last time I went RAW it got ugly. I was arrested
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Jul 31, 2014 16:54:15 GMT -5
So, daveh's first image is raw, second jpg. Yes, I see the difference now, but I had to study the images side by side, in two viewer windows close to each other to compare. I thought at first the second image was raw, as I could spot some noise. I'm not sure anymore. It could be bokeh from lens, not noise. No, the first is Jpeg and second raw, look at the hairs on the legs.....hope I am not wrong, otherwise the whole comments are useless! Stephen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2014 20:17:07 GMT -5
When I compare raw images from my Nikon D300 to Kodachromes I shot in the past it's no contest. The raw images have less noise, grain or whatever you want to call it.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jul 31, 2014 20:37:30 GMT -5
The last time I went RAW it got ugly. I was arrested That means no more skinny dipping you know. Mickey
|
|
truls
Lifetime Member
Posts: 568
|
Post by truls on Aug 1, 2014 3:37:49 GMT -5
So, daveh's first image is raw, second jpg. Yes, I see the difference now, but I had to study the images side by side, in two viewer windows close to each other to compare. I thought at first the second image was raw, as I could spot some noise. I'm not sure anymore. It could be bokeh from lens, not noise. No, the first is Jpeg and second raw, look at the hairs on the legs.....hope I am not wrong, otherwise the whole comments are useless! Stephen. Yes, you had it correct. The first file begins with "beej*", the second "beer*", aka jpg and raw. Lesson learned: It depends on camera settings, if jpg sharpening is disabled, the difference can be huge, if jpg are sharpened there is less difference. Wayne: I am not sure if Kodachrome vs raw is that bad, if compared when printing? It is difficult to scan Kodachrome with home scanners vs scanning from e.g. North Coast Photo in the states (also other high quality scanner labs).
|
|
|
Post by moltogordo on Feb 9, 2015 19:50:58 GMT -5
As a course of habit, I shoot RAW+ on my K10D. I boost the JPEG to max resolution. As I'm a slow and meticulous worker, I use my cameras only on manual, and meter for the highlights with a handheld Sekonic spotmeter. As a consequence, I hardly ever use the RAW file, because my JPEGS are almost always well exposed. I might only use a RAW file two or three times a year. But it's there if I need it. The fact that each frame is considered separately on a DSLR, and you can apply different ASA values and "development" techniques in your post-processing to each shot, it is entirely possible and eminently practical to use the Zone system or a modification of it with a DSLR. I did quite a bit of large format work in years past, so all of this was second nature to me. As I'm also a rabid printer, both black and white and as a Cibachrome specialist (I put myself through 2 degrees at university working as a darkroom rat). I learned quickly that unless a transparency is exposed correctly, you're going to have a lousy time of it making a good Ciba. So you make sure that there is detail in that highlight. Blown highlights are not possible to correct. This knowledge is directly applicable to the digital domain. Taking a photo with a DSLR is really just like exposing a transparency. My painting and large format background shaped the way I look at things through a viewfinder. I use an exposure meter and manual settings not because I'm a Luddite, but because I grew up with it, and this knowledge allowed me to make a very smooth transition to digital color. I also bracket, as well. I believe today's photographer can learn a lot from purchasing a good exposure meter. But that RAW file will continue to be taken along with the JPEG. No question about that!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 20:14:33 GMT -5
Whenever I'm shooting something other than a family photo I shoot Raw with my Nikon. Give you much more latitude.
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Feb 9, 2015 20:35:58 GMT -5
I hardly ever use RAW. I don't really 'get it', Yes I understand what its about, but perhaps its my eyes or my struggle with lightroom that makes it hardly worth while - in my case.
|
|
|
Post by moltogordo on Feb 9, 2015 21:15:27 GMT -5
RAW allows you to wreak some detail out of blown highlights or shadows that might not be evident in the JPEG. If your JPEG is good, you won't notice any difference. There should be no difference in actual resolution.
I work with GIMP, thus can only work with JPEGS. If I use a RAW file, it has to be converted to a JPEG before I can work with it. A good RAW converter is essential. I use Corel Aftershot Pro.
As I use Linux as an operating system, Photoshop is a no go for me.
|
|
|
Post by Peltigera on Feb 10, 2015 14:48:51 GMT -5
I have a current project photographing mediaeval church interiors - RAW is essential to this because a lot of exposure adjustment is required. Like Moltogordo, I use Linux and Gimp - for RAW I use UFRaw which links seemlessly into Gimp.
|
|
|
Post by barbarian on Mar 15, 2015 22:38:58 GMT -5
I do a lot of pseudo HDR from a single Raw file. And it works very well, because all the information is still in the file. So about 9 stops of latitude for that file.
And that makes it all work.
|
|
|
Post by moltogordo on Apr 4, 2015 22:31:07 GMT -5
I have the Pentax K10, Kx, and K3, as well as a Rebel Ti3. I shoot on RAW+ on every camera, and put the Jpg on maximum quality on the camera settings. They all have it. It makes a huge difference. Start with a top notch Jpeg you'll never need a RAW file. I have and use a RAW converter if I have to, but I have never found a high quality Jpeg to be an inferior vehicle. As a matter of fact, because I use a handheld meter and the manual settings on my camera, I seldom use the RAW files . . . my Jpegs are good enough for use with minimum manipulation. Here's another pet peeve and a constant source of both amusement and frustration to me. A computer screen can only resolve at most 1.5 mp of information. I find it interesting that people say they have a 24 mp camera, but shoot only RAW because they "want the most quality out of their DSLR." A properly processed Jpeg from a 6 mp camera and a properly processed Jpeg from a 24 mp camera will be indistiguishable on a computer screen. Think I'm full of it? There are two pictures below. One was made by a 4x5 camera, shot on a Linhof. The other was made by a sub-miniature camera (half-frame) which has less than 1/20th the negative area. Guess which one is which? Further, here are two shots, one made with a 24mp Pentax K3, the other with a 6mp K100. Guess which is which. Can't eh? Nobody can. Over 98% of pictures are currently displayed on computer screens which cannot resolve over 1.5 MP. And the net can only display Jpegs, not Raws. The only way you can tell a RAW file from a Jpg file is with an 11x14 enlargement and a magnifying glass. Yes, you CAN pull more information from a RAW file if you blow highlights or destroy shadow areas, but on a properly handled Jpeg from a high quality processor like GIMP you can't tell the difference. That being said, I keep my RAW files, for printing and reprocessing JPEGS pulling out highlights or shadow detail from bum exposures.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Apr 5, 2015 0:12:38 GMT -5
May I guess?
Top - Linhoff Second - Sub Mini Third - K3 Fourth - K100
Go ahead Embarrass me.
Mickey
But the avatar is the most impressive picture. Two people playing one violin - pizzicato.
|
|