Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: spidermike on November 08, 2007, 02:07:05 pm
-
I made a comment on a thread in the 'user critique' board related to the amount of time people can spend processing photos. This reminded me of an article on Kend Rockwell's website where he explains why he never shoots RAW.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm)
His view is (in brief) that instead of spending hours in front of a RAW editor he would rather take jpeg, let the camera do the work and take more photos. As a professional photographer he does not have time to process hundreds of photos.
Blansky's view (on that same 'user critique' thread) consdiders jpegs are not good enough, and using jpegs instead of RAW is a reflectoion on their level of commitment. I apologise to Blansky now for removing his comments from their original context, but I think he represents a significant number of digital photographers on this issue.
Having recently started in digital photography, I have no commitments either way, but Ken Rockwell's views do make sense to me.
Using jpeg instead of RAW is no indicator of commitment but instead shows a different approach. Why do we shoot RAW? The only reason is to increase your options on post-shoot processing. You can rescue borderline pictures that are 'not quite right'. Shooting jpegs does not mean a drop in standards - just a recognition that if you don't get it right in camera then you lose the shot.
And this got me thinking.
For those dedicated RAW shooters:
- how much of your processing requires the processing to be done in RAW? If the picture is pretty good, minor tweak can be done in jpeg to good effect
- Hand on heart - how much of your post-processing is to create 'an effect' and how much is to genuinely get closer to the original scene you photographed?
- is the satisfaction you get from looking at your picture due purely to the result? Or is there pride because you know how much work you put into it?
- if you took identical pictures with JPEG and RAW, and printed it at 18"x24", could a third party really tellyou which was which?
I will finish by saying that I realise RAW has a place. Some people love turning an average day-time scene into one of a burning sunset or crating fantasy montages. These would be hard to do in jpeg to the same effect. But I am someone who takes photos to record what I actually see - wonderful effects are (not yet) part of my hobby. What would RAW really give to me?
-
I would rather not throw away any of the limited dynamic range my camera can capture by using a compressing format.
My raws become tiffs and only jpegs if they need to be printed somewhere that doesn't deal with tiffs.
-
Ken Rockwell should be drawn and quartered...
The ONLY reason to use JPEG is if seconds matter from the standpoint of news or other extremely time sensitive needs. Otherwise, a photographer who wants the optimal output from their efforts would be better served to develop an efficient and productive raw workflow...which apparently is something Ken doesn't know. I could teach him...but I think his mind is made up. Just don't let him think for you.
-
- Hand on heart - how much of your post-processing is to create 'an effect' and how much is to genuinely get closer to the original scene you photographed?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151350\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is interesting that you make a discrepancy between photographs which are and 'effect' and use the phrase - 'genuinely get closer to the original scene you photographed.' I actually don't see that there is any need to differentiate between the two at all. An image is an image...and to create the best one possible you need the most information available to give you the ability to do both. ... I shoot RAW
Julie
-
I made a comment on a thread in the 'user critique' board related to the amount of time people can spend processing photos. This reminded me of an article on Kend Rockwell's website where he explains why he never shoots RAW.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm)
Hand on heart - how much of your post-processing is to create 'an effect' and how much is to genuinely get closer to the original scene you photographed?
I[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151350\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As I stated on the other thread, using the Ansel Adams quote, " if the negative is the score and the print is the symphony" then Mr Rockwell doesn't get many symphonies.
Now to be quite truthful I haven't seen much of Rockwells work so I really don't know how "good" he really is. I have heard that he shoots hundreds of images at a time, and whether he could cut the number considerably by spend more time composing and nailing a shot, I don't know.
Also as for your line "genuinely get closer to the originally scene" you presume that getting closer to the original scene is the object of the exercise. Some people may look at a scene and look at the possibilities and not the reality.
Michael
-
I made a comment on a thread in the 'user critique' board related to the amount of time people can spend processing photos. This reminded me of an article on Kend Rockwell's website where he explains why he never shoots RAW.
And if he didn't focus, he could shoot even faster.
Its baloney.
His view is (in brief) that instead of spending hours in front of a RAW editor he would rather take jpeg, let the camera do the work and take more photos. As a professional photographer he does not have time to process hundreds of photos.
Well IF he's so busy shooting, he could easily afford to pay someone to do this right? Or he's just OK with a baked rendering of whatever he shoots, doesn't care how much data he tosses by using JPEG and doesn't have any desire to control the situation given what Raw provides, especially with modern tools like Lightroom. How old is this piece? I suspect its more to draw controversy and attention.
Blansky's view (on that same 'user critique' thread) consdiders jpegs are not good enough, and using jpegs instead of RAW is a reflectoion on their level of commitment. I apologise to Blansky now for removing his comments from their original context, but I think he represents a significant number of digital photographers on this issue.
In camera JPEGs can be lovely. Or not. Point is, you can't put that toothpaste back into the tube. Its about control.
Having recently started in digital photography, I have no commitments either way, but Ken Rockwell's views do make sense to me.
Shoot more JPEG+Raw, then play with what you can do with Raw data and get back to us.
This is a far more valuable read about rendering than what you'll hear from Rockwell IMHO:
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/p...renderprint.pdf (http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf)
Please take the time to read it, let us know what you think.
-
Post processing doesn't need to take hours, software like Lightroom can automate a lot of workflow, while your doing something else.
It's about quality, if you truly want the best your camera can produce go with RAW, if you can live with second best shoot jpeg. Wayne
-
I recently heard this analogy describing the difference:
jpeg: shooting a polaroid - all processing done for you, exposure, whitebalance, etc. limited amount of information stored - no possibility of using future advances in photo processing software.
raw: shooting a negative - you get to choose your processor, be it relatively automated, or manual. full control of exposure, whitebalance, etc. information stored is *exactly* what the camera sensor recorded - future software advances will probably result in improved image quality in the future.
-John
-
Rockwell may have been talking about 2003-2004 RAW, certainly not what RAW has become.
Really no one with experience would take Rockwell's stance.
-
Back in film days, some folks took their film to the corner drugstore for developing and printing, while the rest of us spent time in darkrooms doing it all ourselves. It's the same as the difference between jpeg and Raw as far as I can see.
So Ken R is happy as a drugstore shooter. So be it.
-
Ken Rockwell should be drawn and quartered...
The ONLY reason to use JPEG is if seconds matter from the standpoint of news or other extremely time sensitive needs. Otherwise, a photographer who wants the optimal output from their efforts would be better served to develop an efficient and productive raw workflow...which apparently is something Ken doesn't know. I could teach him...but I think his mind is made up. Just don't let him think for you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151356\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OK, I second that!
Erik
-
Hi!
The idea with RAW is that you keep all information. You can use standard settings or try to extract maximum information from your images. With JPEG yo make decisons before taking the picture with RAW afterwards.
You don't need to care about white balance, sharpening, noise reduction and so on. You decide all after the fact. With good software like Lightroom you don't even see a difference between JPEG, TIFF and RAW, except that RAW is a bit slower.
Best regards
Erik
I made a comment on a thread in the 'user critique' board related to the amount of time people can spend processing photos. This reminded me of an article on Kend Rockwell's website where he explains why he never shoots RAW.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm)
His view is (in brief) that instead of spending hours in front of a RAW editor he would rather take jpeg, let the camera do the work and take more photos. As a professional photographer he does not have time to process hundreds of photos.
Blansky's view (on that same 'user critique' thread) consdiders jpegs are not good enough, and using jpegs instead of RAW is a reflectoion on their level of commitment. I apologise to Blansky now for removing his comments from their original context, but I think he represents a significant number of digital photographers on this issue.
Having recently started in digital photography, I have no commitments either way, but Ken Rockwell's views do make sense to me.
Using jpeg instead of RAW is no indicator of commitment but instead shows a different approach. Why do we shoot RAW? The only reason is to increase your options on post-shoot processing. You can rescue borderline pictures that are 'not quite right'. Shooting jpegs does not mean a drop in standards - just a recognition that if you don't get it right in camera then you lose the shot.
And this got me thinking.
For those dedicated RAW shooters:
- how much of your processing requires the processing to be done in RAW? If the picture is pretty good, minor tweak can be done in jpeg to good effect
- Hand on heart - how much of your post-processing is to create 'an effect' and how much is to genuinely get closer to the original scene you photographed?
- is the satisfaction you get from looking at your picture due purely to the result? Or is there pride because you know how much work you put into it?
- if you took identical pictures with JPEG and RAW, and printed it at 18"x24", could a third party really tellyou which was which?
I will finish by saying that I realise RAW has a place. Some people love turning an average day-time scene into one of a burning sunset or crating fantasy montages. These would be hard to do in jpeg to the same effect. But I am someone who takes photos to record what I actually see - wonderful effects are (not yet) part of my hobby. What would RAW really give to me?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151350\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I recently heard this analogy describing the difference:
jpeg: shooting a polaroid - all processing done for you, exposure, whitebalance, etc. limited amount of information stored - no possibility of using future advances in photo processing software.
raw: shooting a negative - you get to choose your processor, be it relatively automated, or manual. full control of exposure, whitebalance, etc. information stored is *exactly* what the camera sensor recorded - future software advances will probably result in improved image quality in the future.
-John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151385\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, shooting RAW is more akin to having access to the latent image before the film is developed into a negative. To carry the analogy along, you could, for example, try several different B&W developers or with color, several different cross development chemistries!
- Tom
-
I recently heard this analogy describing the difference:
jpeg: shooting a polaroid - all processing done for you, exposure, whitebalance, etc. limited amount of information stored - no possibility of using future advances in photo processing software.
raw: shooting a negative - you get to choose your processor, be it relatively automated, or manual. full control of exposure, whitebalance, etc. information stored is *exactly* what the camera sensor recorded - future software advances will probably result in improved image quality in the future.
-John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151385\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would concur with possible one addition ... shooting raw is as though you also get to make your own film and developer as well. Much of what film captured (funny I use past tense for that now )was baked into the film - especially color film, whereas with RAW you aren't limited by that.
(To go one step farther than Tom)
-
I'm still relatively new to Raw processing but I don't see anything wrong with shooting both JPEG and Raw. If the shot settings are right on and I am going to post a photo online, e-mail it or print a small 4x6 I can use the JPEG with no processing. However, I also have the option of working with the Raw file if I choose to in situations where I need more control or want the highest quality I can squeeze out of my camera. Contrary to what some people argue, I find that I can process a Raw file much faster than a JPEG if I need to make color and exposure changes.
-
I'm still relatively new to Raw processing but I don't see anything wrong with shooting both JPEG and Raw.
Here's a problem. The JPEG is processed in camera using quite complex, proprietary conversions. Unless you use the manufacturers Raw converter, and this isn't a guarantee, its often very difficult or impossible to produce a Raw conversion that matches the JPEG. This may, may be an issue. For example, you shoot Raw+JPEG and provide JEPGs for clients to pick from and intend to process the Raws from there. Getting the two to match is not easy. However, if you process the Raw's and in a product like Lightroom, export JPEGs from these instructions, the two match exactly. Its for this reason I stopped shooting Raw+JPEG (and to free up space on my cards).
-
Shooting JPEG is like shooting with an automatic camera - with no choice of focus, aperture, shutter speed or ISO. Shooting RAW is like shooting manual - you get to choose how the tones you've captured generate the final look.
With tools like Lightroom and Aperture that deal with RAW files natively, I see no need to shoot RAW+JPEG as generating a JPEG is very easy and quick.
Graeme
-
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm)
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/p...renderprint.pdf (http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf)
I’ve been reading both articles very carefully, and in essence I do not see the great contradiction. Karl Lang’s article is very educated, and therefore much more balanced, so that he doesn’t per se exclude Ken Rockwell’s or Jay Maisel’s point of view, even though his own conclusion may be different.
My 2 ct. Peter
--
-
The only useful thing Mr. Rockwell said in the referenced article is this:
WHICH SHOULD YOU SHOOT?
If you have to ask then just shoot JPG.
If you don't know the difference, it won't matter.
But to compare Karl's article with Ken's article is a REAL stretch...and does a disservice to Karl's article.
-
The only useful thing Mr. Rockwell said in the referenced article is this:
WHICH SHOULD YOU SHOOT?
If you have to ask then just shoot JPG.
If you don't know the difference, it won't matter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151956\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Fair point, Schewe.
Everyone on the 'RAW' side seems to talk about control. And I fully accept that.
But my thinking was more fundamental than that - can the output of a JPEG picture be just as good as the output of a RAW picture.
Suppose you set your custom settings accurately and know from experience exactly what you are doing with your camera and how those settings will respond under certain lighting conditions. Then if the final JPEG picture is damned good, does processing the RAW equivalent make a better picture or does it allow you to make it different.
Could you, as an experienced picture-processor make a print ftom a jpeg original and convince everyone it was a RAW original with the final print?
If the answer is 'yes' my presumption would be that people shoot RAW just in case the picture needs more 'rescue' than JPEG allows.
-
There's a HUGE difference between "good enough" and great...yes, one can certainly produce a good print from a JPEG...and yes, one could prolly produce a better print from the same image shot in raw. If you know what you are doing with the raw...which apparently Mr. Rockwell doesn't. But if you DON'T know what you are doing with raw captures and you are not capable of producing better images from raw, then the odds are you won't be seeing any difference anyway.
So, the question is, do you want "good enough" or great? Personally, I go for great (I'll leave "good enough" to the likes of Mr. Rockwell).
-
I can take the bus to work, but I'd much rather drive my own car.
-
And all but the very best jpegs show compression artifacts....
RAW is what, to me, digital photography is about. I don't want the camera deciding the processing for me, there and then, when I press the shutter release. I want control, and I crave that control.
Graeme
-
Everyone on the 'RAW' side seems to talk about control. And I fully accept that.
But my thinking was more fundamental than that - can the output of a JPEG picture be just as good as the output of a RAW picture.
Sort of like the saying "even a blind squirrel will find an acorn once in a while".
A jpeg can be OK sometimes, decent sometimes, and every once in a while may approach being perfect ... nothing you can do with the RAW file would exceed it.
But that will be the result of luck as much as anything ... while you can do some things to make it happen more often, you don't have enough control to make it happen every time or even most of the time. Net result is most of the time you get something less, and quite often get something far less.
-
Don't forget that with in-camera JPEGs, you're usually throwing away about stop of DR compared to RAW, and you're limiting yourself to the narrow color gamut of sRGB or possibly the somewhat wider Adobe RGB if you have a higher-end camera. But with RAW, you have access to 100% of the DR of the sensor, and can choose the color space you convert to, so you can use much more of the camera's color gamut. On top of that, with RAW you have complete control over white balance (color casts are harder to fix with JPEG) and can customize the color processing so you get more accurate color from RAW than you will from JPEG.
The ONLY advantage of shooting JPEG is that the camera buffer clears faster, which can be an issue when shooting in very fast-paced situations. But those are not very common, and are getting less so as cameras get faster.
-
And camera JPEGs ain't 8/bit/channel...JPEG compression tries to preserve the luminance data while compressing the heck out of the color data and you end up with more like 7.5 bits of real data even with the best JPEG compressors...
-
Shooting JPEG is like shooting with an automatic camera - with no choice of focus, aperture, shutter speed or ISO. Shooting RAW is like shooting manual - you get to choose how the tones you've captured generate the final look.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151767\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually not true anymore, with Picture Styles you can get very nice files straight out of Camera and with colours that even ACR struggles to get right. And you can customise them too. So I shoot both. I have Jpegs for when I need images quickly and RAW for when I have more time to tweak. And even then I still sometimes use the JPEg via PS/LR.
I should point out I only do that with a 5D. I use just RAW with cameras that do not have customisable picture styles or equivalent.
And all but the very best jpegs show compression artifacts....
Never seen any compression artifacts when using camera JPEGs and why would you not use the best setting anyway? If you were the type to use a high compression, then you aren't going to even know what RAW is, let alone be able to use ACR to it's best advantage.
RAW is what, to me, digital photography is about. I don't want the camera deciding the processing for me, there and then, when I press the shutter release. I want control, and I crave that control.
Control freak alert!!
-
JPEG usually sub-samples the chroma.....
Graeme
-
Actually not true anymore, with Picture Styles you can get very nice files straight out of Camera and with colours than ACR struggles to get right.
What does get right mean? If you can't produce a color rendering in a Raw converter, OK, you may have an issue here. So you're saying using Picture Styles and a JPEG in camera processing, you are able to produce a rendering thats impossible in a Raw converter?
-
What does get right mean? If you can't produce a color rendering in a Raw converter, OK, you may have an issue here. So you're saying using Picture Styles and a JPEG in camera processing, you are able to produce a rendering thats impossible in a Raw converter?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152163\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
ACR has known issues with some colours. For some reason I've shot alot of flames of late. ACR is not too good with flames, whereas the JPEGs look much nicer - not just a single shade of orange. Annoyingly I didn't shoot RAW +JPEG for a lot of those shots [there is the small JPEG preview though].
A friend put a RAW file through C1 and it looked much better than via ACR.
-
ACR has known issues with some colours. For some reason I've shot alot of flames of late. ACR is not too good with flames, whereas the JPEGs look much nicer - not just a single shade of orange. Annoyingly I didn't shoot RAW +JPEG for a lot of those shots [there is the small JPEG preview though].
A friend put a RAW file through C1 and it looked much better than via ACR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152171\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And you've calibrated your camera using say the fors script?
-
There's a HUGE difference between "good enough" and great...Personally, I go for great.
Here, here! Why drive a Mazda when you can just as easily drive a Mercedes?
Inevitably, the art and, to some degree, the business of photography incorporates taste, style, and substance. I guess in fairness, to each his own.
I've never heard of Mr. Rockwell and I'm not compelled to check out his love of jpegs. I've seen enough printed jpegs to know where my quality standards lie. When I see the words "pro" and "jpeg" used in the same sentence, I tend to chuckle. But, hey, I'm from the old school. With artists like Patrice Elmi on the rise, it seems there's room for everyone. I think an open mind is a good thing.
-
Something not mentioned so far is that many (even good) cameras have somewhat wonky WB, not to mention sharpening programs and noise reduction programs that overdo it. If you shoot .jpg, you're buying that white balance and that level of sharpening and noise reduction. The Leica M8 forum, for example, has frequent discussions of weird behavior of the M8's WB -- people will put a camera on a tripod using auto WB, shoot four successive shots, and get four different WB readings when the light didn't change at all. Picking white balance is sort of an art, on the part of both the camera and the photographer, but ultimately, you have to rely on your eye, not the camera, to get it precisely right. If it's baked in the cake -- well, it's somebody else's cake, and that guy never stood looking at the scene you shot.
Another thing not mentioned is that whatever you shoot, you're almost certainly going to run it through some kind of processing program, if only to choose which photos to print. I know, there are cameras that will download directly to printers, but few here routinely do that. If you're going to run even your .jpgs through some editing program, why not shoot RAW? You could do a couple easy batch edits, tweak some white balances, rescue a few shots that would be terrible in .jpg...and spend fifteen minutes doing that instead of three minutes with .jpgs. If your photos aren't worth the extra few minutes, then maybe .jpg is okay.
JC
-
Fair point, Schewe.
Everyone on the 'RAW' side seems to talk about control. And I fully accept that.
But my thinking was more fundamental than that - can the output of a JPEG picture be just as good as the output of a RAW picture.
Suppose you set your custom settings accurately and know from experience exactly what you are doing with your camera and how those settings will respond under certain lighting conditions. Then if the final JPEG picture is damned good, does processing the RAW equivalent make a better picture or does it allow you to make it different.
Could you, as an experienced picture-processor make a print ftom a jpeg original and convince everyone it was a RAW original with the final print?
If the answer is 'yes' my presumption would be that people shoot RAW just in case the picture needs more 'rescue' than JPEG allows.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151964\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I was recently asked to include a shot from another photographer ina wedding album. He has shot in camera jpegs and I shoot raw. When I viewed his image at 100% it was significantly softer than my raw conversions before any sharpening. Now it also had lower resolution, but the sharpness point remains. There were areas where detail that would have been available from a good raw capture was lost. This may be because he uses Nikon equipment and I use Canon (sorry, don't believe that) or possibly that he has a less sharp lens, but the degradation looked to me to be at least in part a result of the rendering of the data.
In fairness, I plaued with it and made a nice 8 by 6 print, but I wouldn't have wanted to do a 15 by 10.
Mike
-
ACR has known issues with some colours. For some reason I've shot alot of flames of late. ACR is not too good with flames, ................
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152171\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I 'm flabbergasted. What "known issues"? Can you point to learned discussions conclusively demonstrating these "known issues"? I process over 200 images per month in CR 4.1 (and CR 3.7 before that) and I've yet to come accross colours that CR can't handle perfectly well. Of course ya gotta know how to use the application - should I take that for granted?
-
Actually not true anymore, with Picture Styles you can get very nice files straight out of Camera and with colours that even ACR struggles to get right. ...........[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152159\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
CR doesn't "struggle to get colours right". That is in the hands of the user. As you most likely know, raw files are typically somewhat flat and low in contrast when you open them in CR with all settings except WB at zero and both curves linear. That's the raw, raw material. From there on, it's in your hands to craft the tones you want, and between the Basic Tabe, the Curves Tab and the HSL Tab there is tons of control and adjustment capability to handle just about anything you can throw at it.
-
I'm more than a bit suprised there are people defending in-camera jpegs here! The argument only makes sense if you, uh, your camera:
- Calculates a perfect exposure of an subject, actually impossible unless the resultant image has very limited dynamic range
- Captures the perfect White balance for that image (whatever *that* might be)
- Built-in software is "perfected" to the point that optimal noise reduction / sharpening / jpeg compression is being applied, knowing of course that *any* further advances in this area would be moot.
What I *do* know is that current versions of LR, ACR and PS are better tools than before, giving me the opportunity to improve the presented quality of images shot several years ago - something simply impossible if I turned that decision (and frankly, responsibilty) to some engineer's best guess . . .
-
I 'm flabbergasted. What "known issues"? Can you point to learned discussions conclusively demonstrating these "known issues"?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152277\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark, it's a known issue that people who don't have a clue how to use Camera Raw or Lightroom like to blame Camera Raw's and Lightroom's inability to "match' what users think their color should look like based upon a glance at the back of the LCD after shooting...obviously Camera Raw's color is terrible because it don't match the default rendering of the camera jpg...jeeesh, pay attention dooode!
-
Hi!
Ideally I think that a Macbeth Color Checker, properly exposed under controlled lighting and correct white balance, should look like a Macbeth Color Checker on a calibrated monitor. Should it not?
BTW, I'm not complaining.
Best regards
Erik
Mark, it's a known issue that people who don't have a clue how to use Camera Raw or Lightroom like to blame Camera Raw's and Lightroom's inability to "match' what users think their color should look like based upon a glance at the back of the LCD after shooting...obviously Camera Raw's color is terrible because it don't match the default rendering of the camera jpg...jeeesh, pay attention dooode!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hi!
It seems that some printers can reproduce colors that are outside sRGB which is normally used for JPEG. Even if you use Adobe RGB taht would apply. To keep all information that the camera can see you need to use RAW or 48 bits TIFF with a very large gamut RGB.
Best regards
Erik
I was recently asked to include a shot from another photographer ina wedding album. He has shot in camera jpegs and I shoot raw. When I viewed his image at 100% it was significantly softer than my raw conversions before any sharpening. Now it also had lower resolution, but the sharpness point remains. There were areas where detail that would have been available from a good raw capture was lost. This may be because he uses Nikon equipment and I use Canon (sorry, don't believe that) or possibly that he has a less sharp lens, but the degradation looked to me to be at least in part a result of the rendering of the data.
In fairness, I plaued with it and made a nice 8 by 6 print, but I wouldn't have wanted to do a 15 by 10.
Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152263\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Ideally I think that a Macbeth Color Checker, properly exposed under controlled lighting and correct white balance, should look like a Macbeth Color Checker on a calibrated monitor. Should it not?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152307\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
By default? Why would you think that?
How is Camera Raw supposed to magically know how YOUR camera's sensor reacts to light relative to the other many thousands of same make/model cameras out there? Then, how is Camera Raw supposed to know how YOU like your image colors reproduced (unless you tell it by adjusting the "default").
And what about age and variations between CC cards? Do you keep your's in a light tight case? Have you read yours with a spectro to know how it compares to others? Is your card new or been sitting around for 5 years?
Raw is raw, as uninterpreted, as in unrendered, as in what YOU make of it...if Camera Raw can't render the colors in your images correctly (to YOUR tastes), then you ain't doing something right.
-
Mark, it's a known issue that people who don't have a clue how to use Camera Raw or Lightroom like to blame Camera Raw's and Lightroom's inability to "match' what users think their color should look like based upon a glance at the back of the LCD after shooting...obviously Camera Raw's color is terrible because it don't match the default rendering of the camera jpg...jeeesh, pay attention dooode!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In that case why doesn't Lightroom have the ability to "ajust" the preset auto feature in any way, the "one click" auto is just that, one click and tough luck!.
One would assume some ajustment to the auto feature for quick proofing would be included so pro's can set it up to suit their calibration etc. Wayne
-
I 'm flabbergasted. What "known issues"? Can you point to learned discussions conclusively demonstrating these "known issues"? I process over 200 images per month in CR 4.1 (and CR 3.7 before that) and I've yet to come accross colours that CR can't handle perfectly well. Of course ya gotta know how to use the application - should I take that for granted?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=152277\")
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17064]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=17064[/url]
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Esxg (http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Esxg)
came up in the first few Google results
To fix [calibrate] ACR
http://www.fors.net/chromoholics/ (http://www.fors.net/chromoholics/)
http://www.rags-int-inc.com/PhotoTechStuff/ColorCalibration/ (http://www.rags-int-inc.com/PhotoTechStuff/ColorCalibration/) - Fors Script Updated
Bruce Fraser outlined the idea that became the scripts above. And as far as I am aware the late Bruce Fraser was very, very learned in this area.
Andrew - BTW to calibrate ACR using the Fors script, buying a colour checker in the UK costs a ridiculous $140!
-
Mark, it's a known issue that people who don't have a clue how to use Camera Raw or Lightroom like to blame Camera Raw's and Lightroom's inability to "match' what users think their color should look like based upon a glance at the back of the LCD after shooting...obviously Camera Raw's color is terrible because it don't match the default rendering of the camera jpg...jeeesh, pay attention dooode!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When you have quite finished being so patronising, did it ever occur to you that some people compare the image to the scene being shot.
And like some films render scenes more pleasing to the eye, sometimes the JPEG colour rendering is 'better'. Which is not the same as best quality.
As for the rest of the snobbish remarks regarding JPEGs. If the JPEG is more than good enough for one's needs. Why waste expensive time faffing with the RAW file.
I shoot both and use whichever file is most appropriate at the time. Later on if I add an image to my print portfolio, then I'll go to the RAW file, if say I used the JPEG initially. Best of both worlds.
I'm more than a bit suprised there are people defending in-camera jpegs here! The argument only makes sense if you, uh, your camera:
- Calculates a perfect exposure of an subject, actually impossible unless the resultant image has very limited dynamic range
- Captures the perfect White balance for that image (whatever *that* might be)
Ever heard of slide film. You had to get it right in camera, no safety net of LR/ACR/PS afterwards? I don't rely on the camera to calculate perfect exposure/WB, I decide exposure. Maybe you'd spend less time in post in you relied less on the camera.
The argument makes perfect sense if JPEGs are good enough for the job. And if you shoot both.....what's the problem?
-
As for the rest of the snobbish remarks regarding JPEGs
When it comes to quality, I'm a total snob, which is why I chuckle when I meet a photographer who shoots JPEG. I can't help my reaction and nor can I ever settle for less than RAW. Even my eBay photos are shot in RAW. No wonder eBayers complain that I'm using stock photography when I never do. I love writing back to say my used equipment actually looks that good.
Camera Raw gives me total control and, yes, when it comes to tweaking the best from every image, I'm a control freak. I began my digital experience shooting and printing JPEG. That lasted two years and I will never go back, regardless of the time I spend in CR. Because none of the time I spend in CR can compare to the hours I spent in darkrooms with chemicals that were killing my skin and lungs. I find what little time I do spend in CR to be highly rewarding and exhilarating. Once you learn Camera Raw, I think processing is amazingly fast.
However, if an artist can obtain a reputable gallery show with images captured on a cell phone, I say to each his own.
-
In that case why doesn't Lightroom have the ability to "ajust" the preset auto feature in any way, the "one click" auto is just that, one click and tough luck!.
One would assume some ajustment to the auto feature for quick proofing would be included so pro's can set it up to suit their calibration etc. Wayne
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152328\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The degree of convenience built-in to automated features is a completely separate issue from what is being discussed here - whether the application has "known issues" handling certain colours.
-
Andrew - BTW to calibrate ACR using the Fors script, buying a colour checker in the UK costs a ridiculous $140!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152354\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And your camera cost how much? The script is free. The target, even at that price is an invaluable tool every shooter should have.
-
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=17064 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17064)
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Esxg (http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Esxg)
came up in the first few Google results
To fix [calibrate] ACR
http://www.fors.net/chromoholics/ (http://www.fors.net/chromoholics/)
http://www.rags-int-inc.com/PhotoTechStuff/ColorCalibration/ (http://www.rags-int-inc.com/PhotoTechStuff/ColorCalibration/) - Fors Script Updated
Bruce Fraser outlined the idea that became the scripts above. And as far as I am aware the late Bruce Fraser was very, very learned in this area.
Andrew - BTW to calibrate ACR using the Fors script, buying a colour checker in the UK costs a ridiculous $140!
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=152354\")
These references are not relevant to the question being discussed here. Calibrating ACR to suit the specifics of your camera's sensor is a different matter from whether Camera Raw, in competent hands, has the capability of rendering colours *properly*, or as you want them to be rendered.
And by the way, I have heard very knowledgeable views that the Fors script may not necessarily deliver better results than simply using the canned profile Thomas developed for the camera model and adjusting the images according to how you want them to appear.
With the amount of raw processing I'm doing routinely, I fully support the jist of Jeff's view that there's damn little this application can't handle if you know how to use it. And this comment doesn't only apply to Camera Raw - so it isn't a brand thing - it's a generic technical issue. There are other good raw processors on the market as well - as amply demo'd at Andrew Rodney's "Iron Chef" Panel at Photo Plus Expo in New York City late last month. I had the pleasure of being on that panel (you can download my presentation from [a href=\"http://www.markdsegal.com/PPE%20Presentation_Oct%2019%202007.pdf]PPE Presentation[/url] - best do a "Save Target As..") and witnessing real-time creation of very difficult images in four raw converters handled by representatives of their developers. The photographers (world-class renowned people - Dennis Reggie and Vincent LeForet - couldn't help remarking over again how impressed they were with the capability of these applications to render their images as they intended them to be rendered. Raw processing has come a very long way in a very short period of time, and there is much, much more to come.
I have nothing against the jpeg format - used as it was meant to be used. It was developed by the Joint Photographic Experts Group to be a standard format for presenting and exchanging images over the internet and other devices where highly condensed data still producing a useable and consistent result is necessary. It was never meant for high quality image processing. It can produce very useable images in a jiffy, which is a godsend to certain classes of photography where very great speed in the obtaining and delivery of results is absolutely essential - for example some news photography, sports photography, etc. This is not a format for fine art photography period. The fact that it can under certain conditions produce acceptable results for this purpose too does not establish a general case for its comparability with raw processing - in competent hands.
-
And your camera cost how much? The script is free. The target, even at that price is an invaluable tool every shooter should have.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152399\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's still a stupid price for a piece of card with some ink on it. Even if the ink is accurate. Though apparently it doesn't last that long, apparently you need to replace it every 1-2 years! Extracting the urine or what! And it's double the price here that it is in the States. Sadly we don't get paid double what you get in the States.
Even if Adobe seem to think otherwise.
-
It's still a stupid price for a piece of card with some ink on it. Even if the ink is accurate. Though apparently it doesn't last that long, apparently you need to replace it every 1-2 years! Extracting the urine or what! And it's double the price here that it is in the States. Sadly we don't get paid double what you get in the States.
Even if Adobe seem to think otherwise.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152423\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Based on a number of inaccuracies above, I think its pointless to discuss or attempt to educate you on these matters (ink?). Point of fact, the targets are all hand made, and they last a very long time assuming you are smart enough to care for them.
-
Added to which, UK pricing is not usually a representative international value of a product, although it may be the most relevant one to jjj in his circumstances. I wonder if he could do much better ordering it from B&H and paying shippng and taxes. It's very light.
-
These references are not relevant to the question being discussed here. Calibrating ACR to suit the specifics of your camera's sensor is a different matter from whether Camera Raw, in competent hands, has the capability of rendering colours *properly*, or as you want them to be rendered.
But if you have to calibrate ACR before you can get ACR to work, it's not that perfect a tool is it? And the difficulties some people have had with ACR and Oranges/Reds would not have been mentioned if it was not a problem for some. Also if you use Nikon/Canon/Olympus/Leaf..etc, you may have greater or lesser issues with ACR.
BTW I really like ACR and find it faster/better to use than LR when doing batches of images. And even though I regard myself as being fast/competent with ACR, it still takes more a little more time than a nicely exposed JPEG, so if I need an image quickly....and generally if one needs an image quickly, the last few drops one can get from RAW won't be missed.
The first time I ever used digital professionally was for a CD ROM and rather than shoot on film [this was a few years back], scan in and process and downsize, I used a Camcorder with a stills facility. The pitures weren't exactly ideal for A3 mag spreads but absolutely perfect for the job in hand, that allied to being able to use a LCD screen I could use for framing when shooting in awkward spots and auto white balancing, made a less than exciting job a whole lot easier.
I simply use the best tool for the job. Sometimes ACR is a great power tool and sometimes a JPEG is the perfect hammer, when you want to err, nail something quickly.
.....[JPEGs] can produce very useable images in a jiffy, which is a godsend to certain classes of photography where very great speed in the obtaining and delivery of results is absolutely essential - for example some news photography, sports photography, etc. This is not a format for fine art photography period. The fact that it can under certain conditions produce acceptable results for this purpose too does not establish a general case for its comparability with raw processing - in competent hands.
And a competent reader would have noticed I shoot RAW + JPEG and I don't advocate the use of JPEGs for ultimate quality. To repeat myself, I use RAW when time permits and I may on occasion use JPEG when time doesn't or if the JPEG is more than good enough.
As for the 'not suitable for fine art period.' What snobbish + ignorant nonsense. Shows how little you know about art. Art photography can very often be very poor when it comes to technical quality.
Fine art is not exclusively high quality, maximum dynamic range, no grain..etc. It can often be snapshot camera in quality. http://www.thedailynice.com/site.html (http://www.thedailynice.com/site.html) is the site of a photographer who has been exhibited [ever heard of the Tate?] and lectures in photography. Personally I'm not a fan of his work and he eschews technical matters as he doesn't think they are that important. And still he is seen as a fine art photographer.
Plenty of images/exhibitions at the Photographer's gallery in London are of the quality that would be sneered at here by the pixel peepers. I'm pretty sure a Jurgen Teller exhibition I saw a while back was snapshot quality images.
http://www.designboom.com/portrait/teller.html (http://www.designboom.com/portrait/teller.html)
Some of the most popular images in my A3 print portfolio were taken on an ancient Ixus II a 2.1MP compact with no RAW option. And I once used a really rubbish watch camera to document a dance night. I also seem to recall a Paul MacCartney album used the same watch for the album cover and artwork a short while later. If you are creative, you can exploit the 'flaws' to make something interesting/appealing. I used my S60 to do film stills for a shoot once instead of my DSLR, I could shoot during takes [near silent in action] and the poorer quality, which I exaggerated was perfect for the subsequent artwork/stills.
To quote Anton Corbijn " The idea of perfection is a bit boring and I like the idea of imperfection in a way. And the way I work imperfection is built in" He certainly never worries about getting the maximum shadow detail. Still uses film too I think.
http://www.corbijn.co.uk/frameset_works.htm (http://www.corbijn.co.uk/frameset_works.htm)
As for this sad comment from mistybreeze "When it comes to quality, I'm a total snob, which is why I chuckle when I meet a photographer who shoots JPEG. I can't help my reaction and nor can I ever settle for less than RAW. " Do you also think wearing certain labels make you a better person too? You sound just like the talentless muppets I've come across who wouldn't use anything less than a Leica, as "nothing else was good enough". Didn't make their pictures any less boring.
-
Based on a number of inaccuracies above, I think its pointless to discuss or attempt to educate you on these matters (ink?). Point of fact, the targets are all hand made, and they last a very long time assuming you are smart enough to care for them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152439\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
According to one website selling them, you need to replace them quite often, which I assumed to be bollocks BTW. But it makes it seem even more of a rip off, which is why I mentioned it. And yes I am well aware they are quite high quality. But the cost of them in relation to other items is still very steep. I think it's a useful product, but rather overpriced. You may think it's a bargain, but you won't make me think otherwise.
BTW, being patronising only makes me think less of you. If you think my flippant description of the chart as a bit of card with ink on was meant to be a literal + detailed analysis of its chemical makeup, you are a little naive.
MarkDS - Thanks for the suggestion, but the only time I bought stuff from the US [B+H] I had to pay VAT that was not even applicable to the product I bought. So once I pay that and the more expensive fee for paying that charge [not a joke] it can work out quite punitive. Plus companies don't always charge by the weight as they make a lot of money from postage.
Though I do have to say that as I ordered product on the Sunday, to get it by the Wednesday was very good service.
I would shop in the US more if websites allowed it. Usually Brits are barred from buying products at US prices.
-
As for this sad comment from mistybreeze "When it comes to quality, I'm a total snob, which is why I chuckle when I meet a photographer who shoots JPEG. I can't help my reaction and nor can I ever settle for less than RAW. " Do you also think wearing certain labels make you a better person too? You sound just like the talentless muppets I've come across who wouldn't use anything less than a Leica, as "nothing else was good enough". Didn't make their pictures any less boring.
My goodness, since when did anyone suggest using Camera Raw improves someone's soul? Furthermore, jjj, what could you possibly know about being a better person?
My dearest jpeg lover, CR won't give you a backbone or buy you manners, no matter how many hours you tinkle on the controls. What is sad are your cheap, stale and obnoxious girlie-rants. Go shoot a jpeg.
For the record (not that you care, of course), I shoot to please myself. If someone wishes to pay me tons of money for my boring but perfect creations then so be it. As for Leica, that's one brand I've never tried. I do have my favorite cameras but they tend to be project specific. My experience suggests that certain cameras out-perform others, depending on the subject. As for designer labels, don't blame me because I leave men drowning in a pool of their own drool whenever I walk by wearing a Versace.
-
But if you have to calibrate ACR before you can get ACR to work, it's not that perfect a tool is it?
The tool that's imprefect is your camera. IF it responded exactly as Thomas Knoll's unit he used to build the profiles in CR, there would be no need to use the calibrate tab (which IS there to tweak the differences, without the need of a target).
Of you can simply build a user default rendering for your flames, without resorting to a target if you so desire.
There's no universal issue with red's oranges here. YOUR camera or your rendering style may require a different set of rendering settings to produce the color appearance YOU desire. After all, Raw is Grayscale data. Its your job to render the image as you hope it to appear:
http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Di...ment_basics.pdf (http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Digital_photography_color_management_basics.pdf)
-
But if you have to calibrate ACR before you can get ACR to work, it's not that perfect a tool is it? And the difficulties some people have had with ACR and Oranges/Reds would not have been mentioned if it was not a problem for some. Also if you use Nikon/Canon/Olympus/Leaf..etc, you may have greater or lesser issues with ACR.
BTW I really like ACR and find it faster/better to use than LR when doing batches of images. And even though I regard myself as being fast/competent with ACR, it still takes more a little more time than a nicely exposed JPEG, so if I need an image quickly....and generally if one needs an image quickly, the last few drops one can get from RAW won't be missed.
The first time I ever used digital professionally was for a CD ROM and rather than shoot on film [this was a few years back], scan in and process and downsize, I used a Camcorder with a stills facility. The pitures weren't exactly ideal for A3 mag spreads but absolutely perfect for the job in hand, that allied to being able to use a LCD screen I could use for framing when shooting in awkward spots and auto white balancing, made a less than exciting job a whole lot easier.
I simply use the best tool for the job. Sometimes ACR is a great power tool and sometimes a JPEG is the perfect hammer, when you want to err, nail something quickly.
And a competent reader would have noticed I shoot RAW + JPEG and I don't advocate the use of JPEGs for ultimate quality. To repeat myself, I use RAW when time permits and I may on occasion use JPEG when time doesn't or if the JPEG is more than good enough.
As for the 'not suitable for fine art period.' What snobbish + ignorant nonsense. Shows how little you know about art. Art photography can very often be very poor when it comes to technical quality.
Fine art is not exclusively high quality, maximum dynamic range, no grain..etc. It can often be snapshot camera in quality. http://www.thedailynice.com/site.html (http://www.thedailynice.com/site.html) is the site of a photographer who has been exhibited [ever heard of the Tate?] and lectures in photography. Personally I'm not a fan of his work and he eschews technical matters as he doesn't think they are that important. And still he is seen as a fine art photographer.
Plenty of images/exhibitions at the Photographer's gallery in London are of the quality that would be sneered at here by the pixel peepers. I'm pretty sure a Jurgen Teller exhibition I saw a while back was snapshot quality images.
http://www.designboom.com/portrait/teller.html (http://www.designboom.com/portrait/teller.html)
Some of the most popular images in my A3 print portfolio were taken on an ancient Ixus II a 2.1MP compact with no RAW option. And I once used a really rubbish watch camera to document a dance night. I also seem to recall a Paul MacCartney album used the same watch for the album cover and artwork a short while later. If you are creative, you can exploit the 'flaws' to make something interesting/appealing. I used my S60 to do film stills for a shoot once instead of my DSLR, I could shoot during takes [near silent in action] and the poorer quality, which I exaggerated was perfect for the subsequent artwork/stills.
To quote Anton Corbijn " The idea of perfection is a bit boring and I like the idea of imperfection in a way. And the way I work imperfection is built in" He certainly never worries about getting the maximum shadow detail. Still uses film too I think.
http://www.corbijn.co.uk/frameset_works.htm (http://www.corbijn.co.uk/frameset_works.htm)
As for this sad comment from mistybreeze "When it comes to quality, I'm a total snob, which is why I chuckle when I meet a photographer who shoots JPEG. I can't help my reaction and nor can I ever settle for less than RAW. " Do you also think wearing certain labels make you a better person too? You sound just like the talentless muppets I've come across who wouldn't use anything less than a Leica, as "nothing else was good enough". Didn't make their pictures any less boring.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152456\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
JJ - there's something you are missing here: you do NOT NEED to calibrate ACR to use it *properly*. Calibration is a feature provided so that IF YOU MANAGE to produce a better profile for your specific camera than Thomas Knoll produced for your camera model, loading that profile will add convenience to your workflow. But you can still get perfectly satisfactory quality from CR without loading a custom profile - it may just mean an additional tweak or two.
We are agreed to use the best tool for the needs of the job.
When I talk about "fine art photographs", I'm not talking ignorant or snobbish nonsense. I have a very specific genre in mind about what defines a fine-art photograph, which does not exclude other kinds of photographs from being art. However I shouldn't blame you for not understanding that distinction since I didn't detail it. But I can blame you for using aggressive personalized language to describe a point of view that you may be able to relate to if that distinction were clear enough to you - get it? Well, if you don't, I'll let you ponder it for a while, and if you think you still want a more detailed explanation, it's your for the asking.
-
[/quote]
Ever heard of slide film. You had to get it right in camera, no safety net of LR/ACR/PS afterwards? I don't rely on the camera to calculate perfect exposure/WB, I decide exposure. Maybe you'd spend less time in post in you relied less on the camera.
The argument makes perfect sense if JPEGs are good enough for the job. And if you shoot both.....what's the problem?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
Referring to the images I attached previously:
If there is a way I could have "properly" captured it as an in-camera jpeg - I'd love to know . . . .
-
I don't rely on the camera to calculate perfect exposure/WB, I decide exposure
Give me a break. Most amatuer slide shooters had no clue what they were going to get other than noting that some slide films yield stronger saturation than others. If a green or yellow didn't render correctly, big deal. All that matters is that the saturation and faky micotrast detracted from other image problems. Even professional commercial guys stuck with EPP, EPN and EPD till the end, and those films had a color gamut that makes sRGB look like a lite-brite. Also note that slide films *only* record a semi accurate portrayal of the scene under the color temp they are engineered for. Anything other than high noon or flash with daylight balanced slide films = distortion and random number generators.
Back to Mr. Rockwell for a second, I've noticed that the only work on his site of any note are his older DisneyChrome Velvia shots. He doesn't have anything of note taken with dSLR. Given the garish tonality of most landscape Velvia scans you could fit most of the data into a .GIF and not suffer much.
I'll note the same arguement I've had with my film zealots to this day, and what they don't want to admit is they prefer film because it *thinks* for them, and/or they want a random number generator. dSLR capture by contrast is inherently extremely linear and really does require some degree of PP to make it look aethestically pleasing. Canon/Nikon and Olympus are really good at incorporating these curves into their camera parameters, so I'm wondering if the problem really isn't just the conversion to JPEG that causes all the image problems.
Initially I wasn't too sold on RAW because the tools were clunky, but now that converters and workflows are better implemented I don't bother with JPEG unless I'm positive that RAW won't deliver a quantitative return. As soon as you run into an issue you can't fix with a JPEG your habits quickly turn to sticking with RAW though.
Another thing nobody has mentioned. Contrary to myth, RAW *does not* bypass all in camera processing unless somebody knows a RAW converter that turns off AA and all that other nonsense than Nikon/Canon use too much. With JPEG, it's a lot more limiting to chew through AA softness an other sensor limitations because those sensor aberations get locked into the file format and can't be filtered out. With RAW, you can far better isolate a proper sharpening technique or tonal adjustment that doesn't bang heads with JPEG artifacts or over zealous AA.
-
Back to Mr. Rockwell for a second, I've noticed that the only work on his site of any note are his older DisneyChrome Velvia shots. He doesn't have anything of note taken with dSLR. Given the garish tonality of most landscape Velvia scans you could fit most of the data into a .GIF and not suffer much.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152617\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rockwell recently put up a number of photos taken within the last month from the Eastern Sierra/Yosemite area. Taken with a, I think, 5D. Several of them are, IMO quite nice.
Rockwell takes a lot of crap but the truth is that his site is much more accessable to the everyday hobbist with a camera than many.
-
The degree of convenience built-in to automated features is a completely separate issue from what is being discussed here - whether the application has "known issues" handling certain colours.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152396\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm entitled to my comments as much as you!!!!!! the post was and still is about calibration as much as it is about slide film, and fine art. Or was it Jpeg v Raw?
-
just my 2cents worth
one has to remember that the JEPG file comes from the RAW file generated by the camera
the camera give you the option to save the RAW file
The following is typical of a digital processing pipeline
Camera sensor data via a ADC to sensor raw
Linearise
Subtract dark current, flare
De-mosaic
• this can be CAMERA RAW that you get from a RAW convertor. EG DC RAW (Dave Coffin)
Or carry on
Estimate scene adopted white ( illuminant estimation)
white balance
• this can be CAMERA RAW that you get from a RAW convertor. EG DC RAW (Dave Coffin)
Or carry on
Transform to device independent colour space - Device RGB via the camera matrix to
CIEXYZ colour space.
• this can be CAMERA RAW that you get from a RAW convertor. EG DC RAW (Dave Coffin)
Or carry on
This stage the image is scene referred
The next stage is to convert from scene referred to standard output referred -
this is either sRGB, Adobe RGB or ROMM RGB ( Pro Photo RGB)
COLOUR RENDERING
This colour rendering algorithm includes gamut mapping, appearance and preference
and is usually proprietary ie Nikon, Cannon etc
The image now can be encoded to JEPG or TIFF.
What the main problem is in digital photography is that we dont have control over the colour rendering This belongs to the camera manufacturer or even Adobe in Adobe Camera Raw etc
Using the RAW file give you control over the early steps in the pipeline as opposed to the cameras choice but not the rendering algorithms.
so remember JEPG is only a compression method
-
I'm entitled to my comments as much as you!!!!!! the post was and still is about calibration as much as it is about slide film, and fine art. Or was it Jpeg v Raw?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152671\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah of course you are, and I'm entitled to tell you whether I think you are mixing-up issues that have no necessary bearing on each other. But you have a point - this thread is kind of multi-pronged. All the more reason to keep separable issues separated.
-
just my 2cents worth
one has to remember that the JEPG file comes from the RAW file generated by the camera
...........................
The next stage is to convert from scene referred to standard output referred -
this is either sRGB, Adobe RGB or ROMM RGB ( Pro Photo RGB)
COLOUR RENDERING
This colour rendering algorithm includes gamut mapping, appearance and preference
and is usually proprietary ie Nikon, Cannon etc
The image now can be encoded to JEPG or TIFF.
What the main problem is in digital photography is that we dont have control over the colour rendering This belongs to the camera manufacturer or even Adobe in Adobe Camera Raw etc
Using the RAW file give you control over the early steps in the pipeline as opposed to the cameras choice but not the rendering algorithms.
so remember JEPG is only a compression method
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152678\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Very many digital cameras only allow access to jpeg files wherein the camera has made all the processing decisions (noise reduction, sharpening, WB, contrast, brightness) to produce a jpeg file which the camera maker thinks will be broadly satisfactory to a wide range of consumers. So while jpeg is a file format and a compression method, the main point at issue here of course is control over what goes on behind the scenes, and merits of using raw when offered and when feasible. I'm not sure about your definition of "rendering". Normally one uses this term to describe the process of converting the file from a scene-referred to an output-referred colour space. By this understanding, the rendering of a raw file is not done in the camera. It is done by the raw conversion software. Even so of course you are correct that there are mathematical processes occuring which we do not control; but we certainly do control the appearance of the raw file before it is rendered into a multi-channel output-referred space, and from my experience, that rendering is usually VERY faithful to what one expected having adjusted the image in the raw converter.
-
Yeah of course you are, and I'm entitled to tell you whether I think you are mixing-up issues that have no necessary bearing on each other. But you have a point - this thread is kind of multi-pronged. All the more reason to keep separable issues separated.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152686\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In other words shut up and keep out of this thread? Wayne
-
did I not define rendering
The next stage is to convert from scene referred to standard output referred -
this is either sRGB, Adobe RGB or ROMM RGB ( Pro Photo RGB)
COLOUR RENDERING
This colour rendering algorithm includes gamut mapping, appearance and preference
and is usually proprietary ie Nikon, Cannon etc
Using the RAW file give you control over the early steps in the pipeline as opposed to the cameras choice but not the rendering algorithms. And yes they are good.
-
Another thing nobody has mentioned. Contrary to myth, RAW *does not* bypass all in camera processing unless somebody knows a RAW converter that turns off AA and all that other nonsense than Nikon/Canon use too much. With JPEG, it's a lot more limiting to chew through AA softness an other sensor limitations because those sensor aberations get locked into the file format and can't be filtered out. With RAW, you can far better isolate a proper sharpening technique or tonal adjustment that doesn't bang heads with JPEG artifacts or over zealous AA.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152617\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The optical low pass filter, which is what I'm assuming you mean by AA, is a filter between the lens and sensor, and:
a ) is not nonesense
b ) is not electronic, not part of the camera processing, and not turn on or offable
Did you mean NR or noise reduction? Yes, sometimes that is applied to the raw data and can sometimes be over-zealous. But long exposure NR, where the same shot is taken twice, once for the picture and then once dark, is very appropriate to do on the RAW data as it's more of a calibration process to increase the accuracy of the data you collected on your image.
RAW is both uncompressed (usually, and even if compressed, less so than the JPEG, and compression on RAW can work a lot better than compression on a processed image) and un-matrixed. The matrixing process for colour balance and colour space intermingles the data from the red, green and blue elements of the sensor, and this can make it hard to do some image corrections. Then of course, a non-linearity is added to the data to make it perceptually pleasing. You cannot correctly matrix on none-linear data, so again, it would be very hard to "undo" this to get back to the linear data to re-do or change the matrixing.
Some image processing and compositing works much nicer in linear light than in a gamma space, and these techniques are more commonly used in the motion picture effects industry. I for one, would like to see and be able to work with image data in Photoshop say, in linear light, but through an optional viewing LUT to give me a perceptually nice image to see, if needed.
Graeme
-
In other words shut up and keep out of this thread? Wayne
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152695\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do you call yourself *sniper* for a reason? Don't stuff words into my mouth. There are no *other words*. I said exactly what I meant.
-
I'll give the sad snobs a good example of why I now shoot RAW + [the apparently only used by incompetents who know nothing] JPEGs.
I did stills for a film shoot a couple of years back - all on RAW as RAW is much better than JPEG [and before picture styles]. But when it came to showing the producer all the images, there was a big problem. How the heck does he view them. He's 3hrs away, he's not a photographer, so he doesn't even know what a RAW file is let alone what to do with it. He's certainly not going to pony up for some RAW viewer. So I got him to download some 30 day trial software, Photshop Elements I think [as the cataloguing in it is pretty good/easy], so he could view them and then sent him the RAW images, but he decided that he didn't want to learn how to use another programme, too busy and not really interested. And he had other people equally bereft of LR,C1, ACR, Bibble etc and asked for JPEGs.
Batch processing the files via Bridge into JPEGs isn't that difficult to implement, but it took several days to render all those images. Several days! And several days of not being able to use vital software for anything else on that machine. Not to mention the performance hit. What a waste of time compared to simply shooting RAW + JPEG and giving the client the JPEGs to select from. He was aware that they aren't the final product, so isn't concerned about the slight lack of dynamic range, not that he was technically savvy enough to know what that is.
-
In other words shut up and keep out of this thread? Wayne
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152695\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh - and for clarity in case it needs clarifying - what I meant was by no means to stifle any discussion, but just to keep related matters related and unrelated matters unrelated in this discussion, because it is easy in a multi-pronged discussion to comingle things that don't deserve to be comingled. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed or that people don't have a right to discuss them.
-
did I not define rendering
The next stage is to convert from scene referred to standard output referred -
this is either sRGB, Adobe RGB or ROMM RGB ( Pro Photo RGB)
COLOUR RENDERING
This colour rendering algorithm includes gamut mapping, appearance and preference
and is usually proprietary ie Nikon, Cannon etc
Using the RAW file give you control over the early steps in the pipeline as opposed to the cameras choice but not the rendering algorithms. And yes they are good.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152696\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I wanted to make sure we understand the same thing by "rendering" because - I think different from what you say above - the colour rendering algorithm is lodged in the raw converter, not the camera, when working with raw files.
-
Do you call yourself *sniper* for a reason? Don't stuff words into my mouth. There are no *other words*. I said exactly what I meant.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152708\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm called sniper because thats was I was in the army. It's called a nickname. Wayne
-
Referring to the images I attached previously:
If there is a way I could have "properly" captured it as an in-camera jpeg - I'd love to know . . . .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152489\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What's properly? What you think makes for a nice exposure, I may not like. Personally I like contrasty images. I see a lot of images these days that capture all the DR and have oodles of shadow detail, yet so often, I just don't like them as much as those where there are deeper blacks. The Colour JPEG setting I use produces quite contrasty shots, certainly not the best tonal range, but I like it from an aesthetic point of view. The old fashioned if it looks nice, it is nice approach.
Besides as I use RAW + JPEG there isn't even an issue if the JPEG is not up to a difficult scene. Not sure why there is so much frothing at the mouth, because some people think JPEG does a good job, when used appropriately.
The only time I do not shoot RAW is if the camera doesn't have RAW.
-
My goodness, since when did anyone suggest using Camera Raw improves someone's soul? Furthermore, jjj, what could you possibly know about being a better person?
My dearest jpeg lover, CR won't give you a backbone or buy you manners, no matter how many hours you tinkle on the controls. What is sad are your cheap, stale and obnoxious girlie-rants. Go shoot a jpeg.
For the record (not that you care, of course), I shoot to please myself. If someone wishes to pay me tons of money for my boring but perfect creations then so be it. As for Leica, that's one brand I've never tried. I do have my favorite cameras but they tend to be project specific. My experience suggests that certain cameras out-perform others, depending on the subject. As for designer labels, don't blame me because I leave men drowning in a pool of their own drool whenever I walk by wearing a Versace.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152467\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah, now I get it, being pompous and patronising are what increasingly seem to be the accepted good manners on this forum. Along with not being able to correctly read/parse a post before replying in an ignorant + condescending manner. But you did get one thing spot on, you are a complete snob.
Also maybe anyone who comes on here pontificating about photography yet doesn't have a link to examples of their work should be assumed to be a troll. It's so easy to sneer from an anonymous platform.
By the way does your signature refer how you get work?
-
Speaking of pompous and patronising posts.
Give me a break. Most amatuer slide shooters had no clue what they were going to get other than noting that some slide films yield stronger saturation than others. If a green or yellow didn't render correctly, big deal. All that matters is that the saturation and faky micotrast detracted from other image problems. Even professional commercial guys stuck with EPP, EPN and EPD till the end, and those films had a color gamut that makes sRGB look like a lite-brite. Also note that slide films *only* record a semi accurate portrayal of the scene under the color temp they are engineered for. Anything other than high noon or flash with daylight balanced slide films = distortion and random number generators.
Funny how I had less problems with WB with film, when I shot outdoors before or after noon. The plus side to film is that when it's not technically perfect it can still look good. Digital needs to be technically better I feel before you start and when it's not right it usually looks horrid. Poor quality film can have a nice aesthetic, poor quality digital has a nasty look and that is where film is superior to digital in my eyes. Not that I've used film for some time now, as overall I prefer digital and I really loathe scanning film.
BTW, do the amateur shooters, you sneer at, know the difference between RAW convertors or even use RAW?
I'll note the same arguement I've had with my film zealots to this day, and what they don't want to admit is they prefer film because it *thinks* for them, and/or they want a random number generator. dSLR capture by contrast is inherently extremely linear and really does require some degree of PP to make it look aethestically pleasing.
Funny I liked using Kodachrome or Provia as they were nice and consistent. More so in one sense than using a camera which has a variable ISO and WB or even colour or B+W as an option. And I chose specific films/developers/papers as they gave me a look I liked. Which is no different from PPing a RAW file to give me a certain look. I don't ever recall a film thinking for me or even telling which type of film I should put in the camera. But maybe the film sneakily wiped my memory of it doing so!!