Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Jpeg+raw?

  1. #11
    Shark
    Join Date
    10/03/2007
    Location
    San Antonio, TX for now...
    Posts
    2,867
    Quote Originally Posted by cam View Post
    Call me crazy but the reason I'm drawn to the *art* of photography is to get the photo right inside the camera *without* having to mess around with post-processing. Don't get me wrong, I've logged my share of PhotoShop and that's a lot of fun, too.

    Plus, if you're archiving (not to mention external back up) your precious photo-diary, plan on increasing your file storage 5x or 6x for RAW.
    Mind if we see some of your work then that you got "right" in the camera...

    As far as composition, lighting and artifacts are concerned, I completely agree with you - get it right in the camera, however, when it comes to white balance, what takes 20 seconds in post can take a long long time to get right (if you do get it right) underwater and you never truly know if you even got it right until after you are out of the water...

    I attached two pictures, the second one was the JPG out of the camera, the first was the RAW file with the only thing changed was the white balance and contrast... The only way to get that clean of a picture would have been to take a lot of time using a white balance sheet... Closeup stuff is quite easy to get correct color in the camera without messing with white balance too much, but anything more than a few feet away and good luck... IMG_2561.JPGIMG_2561a.JPG

    just my opinion though... feel free to take pictures however you see fit...
    -cody / on vacation from vacation...
    PADI MSDT Instructor, US Coast Guard Captain - Master Near Coastal

  2. #12
    Dominus Diabolus Urinatoris ST-Forum Mod DevilDiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    08/29/2007
    Location
    Corinth, Texas
    Posts
    4,140
    Images
    21
    Cody,

    I like your examples, this would definitely work for some photos, especially if you did not have time to set up or experiment with settings for a opportunity or even if you preferred to shoot on the fly and work out any color issues later in processing as a batch. I do not believe that it would be the best processing option for all photos though, that is a pretty drastic change vs. the origional file.


    Taken at about 25-30fsw, natural light, no strobe, sunny/mid-afternoon, 2ft seas
    (Wide-angle lenses are a huge help with natural light photos)

    Original file JPEG - out of camera / resized for upload
    Image00002.jpg
    ISO 200
    Shutter 1/100
    Aperture F/9


    Final file JPEG - Cropped, Levels (removed a little green), Resized for upload
    Image00001.jpg

    The Levels adjustment does not change the original allot but brings out a little color (or takes out in this example) and still keeps a natural look IMO. This is the last of three shots, first two were unacceptable due to faster shutter speeds not allowing enough natural light and larger stops causing too much of a lite blue washed out background color.

    The white balance control can do a good job as well but it depends on the photo. I have never really liked the "one click" auto short cut options, the results always seem overdone to me.

    I never use the cameras custom white balance option either. There are so many factors involved you would have to take a white balance sample for almost every shot where lighting or depth had changed. Custom White Balance would really only apply for natural light shots (where a filter would be a better option) and not strobe photography where white balance for the subject would be strobe and distance related and shutter speeds for background (does not effect strobe unless very fast).
    Last edited by DevilDiver; 07-15-2010 at 13:45.
    DevilDiver

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by mitsuguy View Post
    You might as well shoot in RAW if you are going to use that much filespace...

    Here are some example file sizes for a reasonable picture at full quality from my S90

    All files except the RAW file were exported from Photoshop with default settings

    Canon RAW: 9.7 MB
    TIFF: 57.1 MB
    PNG 24: 13.23 MB
    Photoshop RAW: 57.1 MB
    JPG (Very High Quality): 3.39 MB
    JPG (High Quality): 1.83 MB
    the JPG that came out of the camera: 2.06 MB
    It is not as much about file space as it is about standard images. Plus most RAW files are 12bit or 14bit because of the way they avoid storing RGB so comparing it to a 24bit PNG isn't exactly fair.

  4. #14
    Shark
    Join Date
    10/03/2007
    Location
    San Antonio, TX for now...
    Posts
    2,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Straegen View Post
    It is not as much about file space as it is about standard images. Plus most RAW files are 12bit or 14bit because of the way they avoid storing RGB so comparing it to a 24bit PNG isn't exactly fair.
    I'm not sure what we would really gain by that though...

    regardless of how its done, what I am looking for in a image format is quality vs file size... I want to be able to edit photos in their most detailed format, so, RAW, TIFF, PNG or BMP would all be acceptable, and RAW happens to be the smallest of the group and the highest quality as well - it is exactly the image the sensor sees... Of course, there are times when PNG works great, for example text documents saved as image files are great - much less distortion than a similar JPG... but JPG is just a great file format for after the photo has been edited and is final...
    -cody / on vacation from vacation...
    PADI MSDT Instructor, US Coast Guard Captain - Master Near Coastal

  5. #15
    Grouper
    Join Date
    08/07/2007
    Location
    Dixie/Plains New Orleans/Wichita
    Posts
    453
    I really often find that I can fiddle with my jpegs and get closer to what my mental image of the, uh, image, actually was than when I use the RAW. I don't know, several well known underwater photogs just shoot the jpeg file only. I have been shooting in RAW plus jpeg both with my S90 and my previous Canon using the hack software.

    It seems the RAW is most useful in increasing or extending dynamic range somewhat and perhaps a little more color adjustment range. But, the problem with me is admittedly, with several different software packages to learn (arggghhh), and being an old time film guy, I try to get it close from the git-go rather than depend on software.

    A fellow I met recently who I had spoken with on the boards told me, and he is right, you have to be able to see the picture and I understand exactly what he meant (I think) in that a technically marvelous image might still simply suck if it has no content or context and for me I have to agree, the photographer's vision and interpretation of that vision is more important than manipulating electrons or digital data files. If you/me/he/she can do that in jpeg, why not?

    In the two example photos by Mitsu, not an argument, a sincere question, does that RAW image really look like the scene did to your eyes that day and time? To me, and since I was not there cannot really say, it just looks artificially corrected, the water color seems off. I know that our brain is a very effective color correction device with capability far beyond any software package but I see the same color cast my camera sees, just my brain filters the colors when I know my wife's fins are yellow or the guy's wetsuit has a red stripe etc. This is the thing that confounds me, thus I ask, what is correct, what I see or what a gray card says is correct?

    Not saying this is a good photo, but, from my best recollection now only a few days old, this is the true color that I saw, with my eyes, and recorded in my memory neurons, the color may not be correct according to some program or calibration card but it is very, very, close to what I saw:



    Another, not saying again this is a good photo but it too is a jpeg and it is to the best of my recollection also very, very close to the actual scene as I recall it in my mind's eye:



    Anyways, bad, good, horrid, whatever, I try to get it right from the camera, just as I did when I used film, maybe I am just to lazy or perhaps mentally challenged to learn the software sufficiently well to do better, could be, don't know.

    N
    Last edited by Nemrod; 07-22-2010 at 14:07.
    Swim down, swim around, swim back up.


  6. #16
    Dominus Diabolus Urinatoris ST-Forum Mod DevilDiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    08/29/2007
    Location
    Corinth, Texas
    Posts
    4,140
    Images
    21
    Great pics N! Really like the first with the forced perspective of the arm with the Brittle Star and Arrow Crab. The Tarpon is fantastic, what a great opportunity to see that.

    A RAW image will (almost) never look right out of the camera and will need to be processed. I totally agree with the dynamic range (and tones- more tones available with the complete information in RAW) statement.

    The point of my original post (rant) really was not a comparison of what was better RAW vs. JPEG as a format but is RAW really better with the smaller sensors (and software) used by compact cameras at this time. With a DSLR the answer is a solid yes but will you really get the result and benefit that you believe with a advanced compact camera? I still believe (at this time) that the differences are not as much as people think when compared overall and at pixel level. Will this change? Of course, but even the leaders right now are not quite there. Just a few years ago RAW in a compact camera was unheard of.....and who knows, the JPEG compression technology has come a long way as well.
    DevilDiver

  7. #17
    Grouper
    Join Date
    03/13/2008
    Location
    RAF Lakenheath, UK
    Posts
    535
    Images
    1
    I shot RAW and RAW+JPEG with my Nikon D90 for awhile, but I'm far too lazy to convert and post process all the time. Now just shoot straight JPG and do very little post processing. I'm no pro photog though, so YMMV.

  8. #18
    Shark
    Join Date
    10/03/2007
    Location
    San Antonio, TX for now...
    Posts
    2,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Nemrod View Post
    In the two example photos by Mitsu, not an argument, a sincere question, does that RAW image really look like the scene did to your eyes that day and time? To me, and since I was not there cannot really say, it just looks artificially corrected, the water color seems off. I know that our brain is a very effective color correction device with capability far beyond any software package but I see the same color cast my camera sees, just my brain filters the colors when I know my wife's fins are yellow or the guy's wetsuit has a red stripe etc. This is the thing that confounds me, thus I ask, what is correct, what I see or what a gray card says is correct?
    I see more similar to the color corrected picture... the problem is, the camera is horrible at setting its white balance when you are out of the strobes range... everything in that picture is outside of the strobes range, so the camera guesses - it looks for something white to guess white balance, but alas, nothing white, so it picks a color it thinks will get the closest color to white...

    What it comes down to, is, do you want a picture of exactly what you see, or do you want a picture of everything with their correct colors? Open up any magazine, and you will see color correction that gives you correct color instead of what it would really look like if you were there - how do I know - I've got pictures of co-workers in magazines and I was there on the dive when they were taken, and it is not the same... Obviously, the picture I posted is quite dramatic - was just trying to show the difference between true color and what the camera thought was true color... If we want to get picky about it, if we really wanted what we see in our eyes, we wouldn't use strobes or color correcting filters either though...
    -cody / on vacation from vacation...
    PADI MSDT Instructor, US Coast Guard Captain - Master Near Coastal

  9. #19
    Grouper
    Join Date
    08/07/2007
    Location
    Dixie/Plains New Orleans/Wichita
    Posts
    453
    I see that your examples (Mitsu) were exaggerated, thanks for the explanation. I see what you are saying and your point, thanks.

    I don't know what correct color is, what I see is not the washed out blue I see on so many examples of beginner photos and yet it is not the fully corrected shots I see so often (but not always) published, like I said, the brain is a highly effective color correcting system in and of itself, but that said, I try to produce true color insitu vs actual color and it is a fine line to walk what with two strobes blasting away. I turn them way down and set my flash exposure often a full 2 stops under in order to attempt to prevent completely overpowering ambient "ambience" if I may say that.

    Anyways, I was not being critical, just asking, it seems we can all have a differing idea on what is "correct" and that is part of the fun and part of the art, trying to walk that diffuse line.

    N
    Swim down, swim around, swim back up.


  10. #20
    Shark
    Join Date
    10/03/2007
    Location
    San Antonio, TX for now...
    Posts
    2,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Nemrod View Post
    Anyways, I was not being critical, just asking, it seems we can all have a differing idea on what is "correct" and that is part of the fun and part of the art, trying to walk that diffuse line.

    N
    Yup, definitely agree... especially about the part where what we all see and interpret underwater... You get used to seeing something above water, so that when you take it underwater, the color is just weird...
    -cody / on vacation from vacation...
    PADI MSDT Instructor, US Coast Guard Captain - Master Near Coastal

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Shooting RAW?
    By johng723 in forum Underwater Photography
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-10-2008, 16:46
  2. Cannon software to add funcionality (RAW, etc)
    By terrillja in forum Underwater Photography
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-07-2008, 02:00
  3. The wonderful and missunderstood world of JPEG
    By Puffer Fish in forum UW Photo 101
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 01-27-2008, 01:39
  4. RAW image viewer
    By Scubakraut in forum UW Photo 101
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-16-2008, 00:03
  5. New Camera with RAW Mode
    By BSea in forum Underwater Photography
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 01-15-2008, 23:39

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •