Advice for someone new to RAW shooting

[bcachot]

I'm new to shooting RAW, but quite experienced with post processing and photography in general. Recently started experimenting with RAW in order to bypass JPEG artifacts in my work. I can see that the RAW format, once processed in Photoshop is superior to JPEG in every aspect bar one - Sharpness but more specifically detail. I have tried every sharpening technique that I can get my hands on to try and match the detail that comes out of my camera in a default sharpened jpeg, but I can't even get close to the jpeg. To be sure, the raw file is minus the JPEG artifacts, I can pull more info from the highlights and shadows, etc but the image clarity is as if I shot with half as many megapixels. Is this an accepted tradeoff of shooting RAW, because if it is, I haven’t read about it anywhere. I always knew that a RAW file was less sharp due to the absence of camera processing, but I thought that could all be regained later in software. So I'm not entirely sure if A) I'm using the wrong software / workflow  the camera makers can implement processing in hardware which 'knows' how the camera works and can produce output that exceeds anything obtainable with generic external software.

BTW I’m using the adobe camera raw plugin in CS2. I’ve tried using the ‘sharpness’ slider in ACR (seems a bit strange to have only one slider controlling sharpness) as well as traditional unsharp masking with various radii and strengths, Nik, dslr fractal sharpen. Is there anything I’m missing? Would canon's RC be likely to be any better?

I’ve included a 4 way comparison. Note A) The clarity of the word ‘Yalumba’,  the clear delineation of the sub-pixel hairline hexagon around the soy sauce logo, C) the increase in noise in the sharpened raw images (no NR reduction used). The camera in this example is a Canon G5 (my 5D body is in for repairs). So I haven’t had a chance to do this on a top notch camera.

Any feedback greatly appreciated

http://www.worldofpaintings.com/_temp/raw_vs_jpeg+01a.jpg

[ARD]

I'm new to shooting RAW, but quite experienced with post processing and photography in general. Recently started experimenting with RAW in order to bypass JPEG artifacts in my work. I can see that the RAW format, once processed in Photoshop is superior to JPEG in every aspect bar one - Sharpness but more specifically detail. I have tried every sharpening technique that I can get my hands on to try and match the detail that comes out of my camera in a default sharpened jpeg, but I can't even get close to the jpeg. To be sure, the raw file is minus the JPEG artifacts, I can pull more info from the highlights and shadows, etc but the image clarity is as if I shot with half as many megapixels. Is this an accepted tradeoff of shooting RAW, because if it is, I haven’t read about it anywhere. I always knew that a RAW file was less sharp due to the absence of camera processing, but I thought that could all be regained later in software. So I'm not entirely sure if A) I'm using the wrong software / workflow  the camera makers can implement processing in hardware which 'knows' how the camera works and can produce output that exceeds anything obtainable with generic external software.

BTW I’m using the adobe camera raw plugin in CS2. I’ve tried using the ‘sharpness’ slider in ACR (seems a bit strange to have only one slider controlling sharpness) as well as traditional unsharp masking with various radii and strengths, Nik, dslr fractal sharpen. Is there anything I’m missing? Would canon's RC be likely to be any better?

I’ve included a 4 way comparison. Note A) The clarity of the word ‘Yalumba’,  the clear delineation of the sub-pixel hairline hexagon around the soy sauce logo, C) the increase in noise in the sharpened raw images (no NR reduction used). The camera in this example is a Canon G5 (my 5D body is in for repairs). So I haven’t had a chance to do this on a top notch camera.

Any feedback greatly appreciated

http://www.worldofpaintings.com/_temp/raw_vs_jpeg+01a.jpg
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Try [a href=\"http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.asp]http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.asp[/url]

It is free and might get better sharpness

With raw you have to do sharpening at raw stage. Images will look softer until you sharpen them slightly

[ARD]

Try http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.asp

It is free and might get better sharpness

With raw you have to do sharpening at raw stage. Images will look softer until you sharpen them slightly
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80515\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just looked at your comparrison, the raw file is out of focus and no amount of sharpening would get that back

[DavidJ]

I am not familiar with the latest ACR ( I still have CS) I find that either RSP/E or Cann's DPP will produce very sharp images from RAW files . The latest version of DPP (2.2) is good (as you have Canon cameras you can update for free). I am also very pleased with the colour quality it produces from my 5D and old 10D files  - better IMO than RSP/E even with colour engine.  Alternatively have a look at the Beta 4 version of lightroom its RAW converter appears to have absorbed some of the features of RSP.

It also looks to me that the RAW file you used for comparison is out of focus.

David

[bcachot]

Thanks for the tips, guys. after my first raw test i looked at raw image and thought 'shyte, out of focus' so i re-shot. same deal.

I downloaded Rawshooter and WOW, what a difference. The raw output with zero detail or sharpening adjustments is almost good enough to use as is. It has all the detail of canon jpeg minus halo's and jpeg artifacts. After some really quick processing with neatimage and usm and I was beating the jpeg.

Here's the comparison:

http://www.worldofpaintings.com/_temp/acr_vs_rse_vs_jpg.jpg

[thompsonkirk]

It looks like you haven't delved into the best sharpening options.  Try googling Bruce Fraser's old Creative Pro article on sharpening, or take a look at his new sharpening book.  You'll get much better results if you do a little bit of "capture sharpening" early in your RAW workflow, before final "output sharpening."  Bruce et al.'s PhotoKit Sharpener (reviewed by Michael) combines some high-pass & USM sharpening at both stages, so you really get 4 kinds of sharpening that each add a little but don't produce the strong artifacts that you get from any one method by itself.  If you use the PK Sharpener artfully & moderately (cutting down a bit on sharpening layer opacity), you can get results that suffer no digital crunchiness & look a lot like the 'natural' sharpness of really good lenses in darkroom prints.

[bcachot]

It looks like you haven't delved into the best sharpening options.  Try googling Bruce Fraser's old Creative Pro article on sharpening, or take a look at his new sharpening book.  You'll get much better results if you do a little bit of "capture sharpening" early in your RAW workflow, before final "output sharpening."  Bruce et al.'s PhotoKit Sharpener (reviewed by Michael) combines some high-pass & USM sharpening at both stages, so you really get 4 kinds of sharpening that each add a little but don't produce the strong artifacts that you get from any one method by itself.  If you use the PK Sharpener artfully & moderately (cutting down a bit on sharpening layer opacity), you can get results that suffer no digital crunchiness & look a lot like the 'natural' sharpness of really good lenses in darkroom prints.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80598\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Tried a lot of different sharpening approaches over the years, dSLR fractal sharpen is probably my favorite for fine detail, but it's usually a multi-step process for me. With the new raw workflow will obviously have pre and post issues to consider like you said. Thanks for tips, will check out photokit.