Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 83

Thread: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

  1. #21
    JBW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    10,047
    Real Name
    Brian

    Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowman View Post
    I normally shoot RAW but there are times when I want to try specific filters/effects that are only captured in jpeg format. I just prefer to remember to set back to RAW when I finish.
    me too.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    amsterdam, netherlands
    Posts
    2,240
    Real Name
    George

    Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by JBW View Post
    one that comes to mind is auto mask. The following quote comes from capture 1

    "Does Capture One for Sony support TIFF/JPG file editing?
    Yes, you can edit and organize TIFF/JPG files in both Express and Pro versions. But itís not really reasonable since RAW files contain more information and Capture One tools are designed primarily to work with RAW."

    Apparently it doesn't work as well with JPEG or TIFF.
    There the repeat,repeat,repeat..... again. It's not a matter of more information, but more tonal depth. Just try it.
    It works exactly the same as Gimp or other software used for images not being RAW.

    George

  3. #23
    JBW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    10,047
    Real Name
    Brian

    Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by george013 View Post
    There the repeat,repeat,repeat..... again. It's not a matter of more information, but more tonal depth. Just try it.
    It works exactly the same as Gimp or other software used for images not being RAW.

    George
    George I think you are missing the point. Capture 1 Sony Pro is built to process Sony RAW. Neither 'basic characteristics' nor 'lens correction' work with JPG or TIFF. The other tools don't work as well. As for working exactly like Gimp... I wouldn't know.

  4. #24
    DanK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    4,200
    Real Name
    Dan

    Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

    And you know, your statement
    less information is retained in the jpeg
    is so repeating,repeating,repeating.....
    Try to use other words and explain what you want to say, or think to say.
    What he wrote is clear and has been discussed many, many times on this site. No need to rewrite it, IMHO.

    I am not familiar with those software packages. All of the software I use has the same tools available regardless of the input file format. The issue is that some won't work as well with a jpeg.

    BTW, as far as I know, "raw" is not an acronym, so there is no reason to put it in caps. It just means "raw," as in "not yet processed." E.g., from Wikipedia:

    Raw files are named so because they are not yet processed and therefore are not ready to be printed or edited with a bitmap graphics editor.

  5. #25
    JBW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    10,047
    Real Name
    Brian

    Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by DanK View Post
    What he wrote is clear and has been discussed many, many times on this site. No need to rewrite it, IMHO.

    I am not familiar with those software packages. All of the software I use has the same tools available regardless of the input file format. The issue is that some won't work as well with a jpeg.

    BTW, as far as I know, "raw" is not an acronym, so there is no reason to put it in caps. It just means "raw," as in "not yet processed." E.g., from Wikipedia:
    I shoot and process with Sony products. They use RAW not raw. Who am I to argue.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    northern Virginia suburb of Washington, DC
    Posts
    19,064

    Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by george013 View Post
    In the RAW-converter you start with 14 bit, when using a jpg you start with an already compressed file of 8 bit. That 14 bit is important when editing.
    If 8-bit is good enough for editing photos that end up on the covers of international magazines, it's probably good enough for me.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    amsterdam, netherlands
    Posts
    2,240
    Real Name
    George

    Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Buckley View Post
    If 8-bit is good enough for editing photos that end up on the covers of international magazines, it's probably good enough for me.
    I'm just pointing out the differences. If somebody ends up on the covers of international magazines, he/she will know what he/she is doing, be it jpg or raw. Nobody will care.

    The impact of to much pp on a low bit value is described here http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...terization.htm

    George

  8. #28
    DanK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    4,200
    Real Name
    Dan

    Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by JBW View Post
    I shoot and process with Sony products. They use RAW not raw. Who am I to argue.
    Apparently most manufacturers do this. Ditto, one tutorial on this site. Some speculate it is because names of most other formats (JPEG, TIFF, PNG, WMF, etc.) are acronyms and are therefore capitalized. If so, it would be like rule-bound errors in kids' speech, like "two sheeps are standing there." Or, closer to home, although one never hears this, "I taked 40 photos today." Adobe doesn't do this; they call their software Adobe Camera Raw, not RAW, and they use lower-case in text, e.g. this from https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/k...-cameras.html:

    Adobe is often able to provide preliminary support for raw files from new camera models not listed above.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    northern Virginia suburb of Washington, DC
    Posts
    19,064

    Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

    Nikon also uses the term RAW rather than raw.

  10. #30
    tao2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Vanuatu
    Posts
    684
    Real Name
    Robert (ah prefer Boab) Smith

    Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

    I needed a house shot for the blog. Found this one taken with my Fujifilm. I had forgotten how limiting JPEG is. I missed all of the tools in Capture 1. Not sure if this means that I have become too dependent upon pp for my photography.


    Hi Brian,


    Going right back tae the first post.There's no exif, there's no info on the camera ? Fujifilm? DSLR, compact? How old's the JPEG? All these things are required before anyone can comment on the photo. Was any PP done on the original? Ah don't think there's any way ye can compare it with a raw image (aye, it's not an acronym - the software guys only use capitals tae make raw appear more important than it is). raw v jpeg? - They're not comparable, despite what the relevant fanboys say.

    JPEG is not limiting...it's a choice...as is raw.

  11. #31
    Stagecoach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Suva, Fiji
    Posts
    6,152
    Real Name
    Grahame

    Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by tao2 View Post
    Going right back tae the first post.There's no exif, there's no info on the camera ? Fujifilm? DSLR, compact? How old's the JPEG? All these things are required before anyone can comment on the photo.
    Quote Originally Posted by JBW View Post
    I'm not happy with the sky and roof.
    Boab

    But we see numerous posts here every day where there is no Exif, no camera type info, no date the image was shot e.t.c but many of us are able to make constructive and helpful comments regarding the image?

    It's also very easy to download a posted image to 'experiment' to confirm if certain comments that are to be made are possible/advantageous whilst in the knowledge that there would be even greater scope with the original, whether Jpeg or RAW than the downsized Jpeg posted.
    Last edited by Stagecoach; 17th June 2017 at 02:22 AM.

  12. #32
    JBW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    10,047
    Real Name
    Brian

    Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by tao2 View Post
    Hi Brian,


    Going right back tae the first post.There's no exif, there's no info on the camera ? Fujifilm? DSLR, compact? How old's the JPEG? All these things are required before anyone can comment on the photo. Was any PP done on the original? Ah don't think there's any way ye can compare it with a raw image (aye, it's not an acronym - the software guys only use capitals tae make raw appear more important than it is). raw v jpeg? - They're not comparable, despite what the relevant fanboys say.

    JPEG is not limiting...it's a choice...as is raw.
    Going right back to the first post:

    "I needed a house shot for the blog. Found this one taken with my Fujifilm. I had forgotten how limiting JPEG is. I missed all of the tools in Capture 1. Not sure if this means that I have become too dependent upon pp for my photography."

    I was questioning whether or not I had become too dependent upon post processing for my shots to look good. The thread took on a life of it's own and wandered into this swamp.

    You are both right and wrong. Any and every choice is limiting. I chose Sony Pro Capture 1. It is designed to work best with RAW. If i want the best product I must shoot in RAW.

    If my choice is JPEG I would need to use a different program. Perhaps Gimp perhaps not.

    To choose is to put limits upon your actions.

    Mike puts out a lot of technical information with his shots. I have yet to notice very much technical data with Daisy Mae's. It doesn't seem to stop people from making informed comments to either person.
    Brian

  13. #33
    Black Pearl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Whitburn, Sunderland
    Posts
    2,397
    Real Name
    Robin

    Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by george013 View Post
    There the repeat,repeat,repeat..... again. It's not a matter of more information, but more tonal depth. Just try it.
    It works exactly the same as Gimp or other software used for images not being RAW.

    George
    So there is more information - excellent - glad you agree.

  14. #34

    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    amsterdam, netherlands
    Posts
    2,240
    Real Name
    George

    Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Pearl View Post
    So there is more information - excellent - glad you agree.
    The information is the analogue value created by the sensor. You can make a A/D conversion based on any exponent of 2, that value doesn't change. And if you look at it as a percentage in the digital values, that doesn't change either. X percent will be x percent, be it in a digital range of 8 or 16 or whatever else.

    The main advantage of a higher bit depth is with (much) editing. A smoother change in colors in the final result. See the link to a tutorial here I gave before.

    George

  15. #35

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North West of England
    Posts
    6,696
    Real Name
    John

    Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

    I am certainly no expert and I only shoot RAW but I have always assumed that a well exposed JPG will give as good an image as RAW. It might be slightly different because of the in camera processing that takes place and this varies slightly from manufacturer to manufacturer. RAW comes into it own where the camera in JPG mode can't cope with the image you are trying to capture - usually in terms of dynamic range. Because of the in camera raw to jpg conversion some image compression takes place resulting in a loss of flexibility for these images. Having said that, as I understand it, modern JPG image are improving in this particular respect but a lossless RAW/TIFF/PSD file still gives you a better opportunity to make something of a difficult subject - if you need to. So getting back to your original Q Brian, IMHO dependency is not an issue. PP is a tool in itself to allow you to reproduce what you have seen or foreseen and you use what is appropriate (or to hand) - if and when you need it..
    Last edited by John 2; 17th June 2017 at 09:43 AM.

  16. #36

    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    amsterdam, netherlands
    Posts
    2,240
    Real Name
    George

    Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

    I can hear people shouting: there's that imbecile again!!!

    A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

    THAT RGB RASTER IMAGE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FILE, IN MEMORY.


    In first place created by a raw-converter based on the raw-file and the chosen settings. It can be saved to disk and opened again. All editing is done on that file. As long there's no need for a fall back on the raw data, there's no difference between raw, jpg,tiff etc.

    Brian, even lens corrections are done on this file. But there're several conditions for that. First of all lens correction must be available, second the used lens must be know, being in the exif of the jpg and third the lens must be in the database of the program.

    George

  17. #37
    Administrator Manfred M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    13,620
    Real Name
    Manfred Mueller

    Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

    Brian - a lot of the image I post here are edited jpegs. They definitely can't be pushed as hard as with raw data and the photographer needs to be skilled enough to create images that don't need the pushing. This means I can get images ready to be posted more quickly by skipping the raw conversion step.

    I used to say that I wasn't good enough to shoot just jpegs, but now that I am more skilled, I can get away with it.

    The problem with the shot you posted has nothing to do with raw or jpeg, but rather the time of day you decided to shoot. Had you waited until (the very short) "golden hour", we likely would not be having this discussion.

  18. #38
    JBW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    10,047
    Real Name
    Brian

    Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver View Post
    Brian - a lot of the image I post here are edited jpegs. They definitely can't be pushed as hard as with raw data and the photographer needs to be skilled enough to create images that don't need the pushing. This means I can get images ready to be posted more quickly by skipping the raw conversion step.

    I used to say that I wasn't good enough to shoot just jpegs, but now that I am more skilled, I can get away with it.

    The problem with the shot you posted has nothing to do with raw or jpeg, but rather the time of day you decided to shoot. Had you waited until (the very short) "golden hour", we likely would not be having this discussion.
    which takes us back to my original question: am I relying too much on pp to correct improper technique.

  19. #39

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North West of England
    Posts
    6,696
    Real Name
    John

    Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

    I think only you can answer that Brian. For a fairly straightforward non-contrasty subject , most modern cameras will produce the desired result in jpg. Particularly so if you are paying attention to your histogram and all you may need is some basic PP (cropping, sharpening, noise reduction etc.). But some of your macro shots are made under challenging conditions. For instance, deep BG shadow/brightly lit subject or made in a hurry before the subject takes flight i.e. you don't have time to get it just right. In those circumstances, you will need more in the way of PP and PP techniques. That's not dependence. That's just using the tools at your disposal to fit the challenge thrown up by the image. RAW data gives you more latitude in this respect.

  20. #40
    xpatUSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,398
    Real Name
    Ted

    Re: A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by george013 View Post
    I can hear people shouting: there's that imbecile again!!!

    A house shot in JPEG. I had forgotten how much you can do in RAW

    THAT RGB RASTER IMAGE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FILE, IN MEMORY.


    In first place created by a raw-converter based on the raw-file and the chosen settings. It can be saved to disk and opened again. All editing is done on that file. As long there's no need for a fall back on the raw data, there's no difference between raw, jpg,tiff etc.

    Brian, even lens corrections are done on this file. But there're several conditions for that. First of all lens correction must be available, second the used lens must be know, being in the exif of the jpg and third the lens must be in the database of the program.

    George
    The diagram still has errors! Can we assume that it will never be corrected?

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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