My fancy new camera has 2 media slots, one for a CF card and one for a
SD card. Among other options, it also has the ability to record the
same sensor capture to both media with different settings. Although I
have shot RAW almost exclusively for years, I wanted to compare RAW
and JPG on the new camera. To do this I shot a bunch of stuff today
recording a "standard" style JPG to one media, and simultaneous RAW to
the other. These are not separate shutter activations; they are
literally the same exposure recorded to different places.

Now, I suppose that this isn't "fair" because I did process the Raw
image in Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop, while the JPG was just resized
from the file that came out of the camera. On the other hand, the real
question is, do I want to save time and storage and rely on the
off-the-camera processing of the JPG "picture style", or continue to
do my own processing with RAW. While I suppose that I could have
fooled around with the JPG in PS too, I figure that there isn't much
point to that since the manipulation of a RAW-based file carrying
14-bits of data per channel (in my case) should produce better results
than manipulating an 8-bit/channel file with lossy compression that
will degrade with every "save". The question to be answered is; will
the difference in quality be worth the file-size and time of RAW
processing, or should I just shoot JPG and not worry about it.

In case anyone wonders, this is an Oenothera speciosa (showy
primrose).

JD
Canon 1D-mkIII
EXIF Data Included
e-mail: blissful-wind(at)usa.net

Additional images at;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john-pa/

Nice Pictures......I know with Raw you can fill up a memory card in a
heartbeat........
Most pros shoot raw......
They must have lots of memory or many cards.....
I usually just shoot jpeg, and know that I need to try some raw images....
The new camera I want to purchase does the same that your Canon does....
Raw/vs..Jpeg......interesting.......
Another set of confusing new details to learn.......
that camera I want is a Pentaz KD20 14 meg.pix. large view screen and live
action on the view screen..........not wait to see........
jloomis
John - Pa. wrote in message
...
My fancy new camera has 2 media slots, one for a CF card and one for a
SD card. Among other options, it also has the ability to record the
same sensor capture to both media with different settings. Although I
have shot RAW almost exclusively for years, I wanted to compare RAW
and JPG on the new camera. To do this I shot a bunch of stuff today
recording a "standard" style JPG to one media, and simultaneous RAW to
the other. These are not separate shutter activations; they are
literally the same exposure recorded to different places.

Now, I suppose that this isn't "fair" because I did process the Raw
image in Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop, while the JPG was just resized
from the file that came out of the camera. On the other hand, the real
question is, do I want to save time and storage and rely on the
off-the-camera processing of the JPG "picture style", or continue to
do my own processing with RAW. While I suppose that I could have
fooled around with the JPG in PS too, I figure that there isn't much
point to that since the manipulation of a RAW-based file carrying
14-bits of data per channel (in my case) should produce better results
than manipulating an 8-bit/channel file with lossy compression that
will degrade with every "save". The question to be answered is; will
the difference in quality be worth the file-size and time of RAW
processing, or should I just shoot JPG and not worry about it.

In case anyone wonders, this is an Oenothera speciosa (showy
primrose).

JD
Canon 1D-mkIII
EXIF Data Included
e-mail: blissful-wind(at)usa.net

Additional images at;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john-pa/

On Sat, 31 May 2008 21:21:53 -0400, John - Pa. wrote:

My fancy new camera has 2 media slots, one for a CF card and one for a
SD card. Among other options, it also has the ability to record the
same sensor capture to both media with different settings. Although I
have shot RAW almost exclusively for years, I wanted to compare RAW
and JPG on the new camera. To do this I shot a bunch of stuff today
recording a "standard" style JPG to one media, and simultaneous RAW to
the other. These are not separate shutter activations; they are
literally the same exposure recorded to different places.

Now, I suppose that this isn't "fair" because I did process the Raw
image in Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop, while the JPG was just resized
from the file that came out of the camera. On the other hand, the real
question is, do I want to save time and storage and rely on the
off-the-camera processing of the JPG "picture style", or continue to
do my own processing with RAW. While I suppose that I could have
fooled around with the JPG in PS too, I figure that there isn't much
point to that since the manipulation of a RAW-based file carrying
14-bits of data per channel (in my case) should produce better results
than manipulating an 8-bit/channel file with lossy compression that
will degrade with every "save". The question to be answered is; will
the difference in quality be worth the file-size and time of RAW
processing, or should I just shoot JPG and not worry about it.

In case anyone wonders, this is an Oenothera speciosa (showy
primrose).

JD
Canon 1D-mkIII
EXIF Data Included
e-mail: blissful-wind(at)usa.net

Additional images at;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john-pa/


The answer is -- I don't know. The picture converted from raw I like
better, it's a little darker. If you adjust the brightness and
contrast to be the same, do you see one being preferable to the other?
I have played with raw a bit, it's good if there is a problematic
shot, greater brightness range than the in camera conversion can
handle. There is the option to do a lot of corrective editing before
the conversion to jpg. I used a program called Raw Shooter Essentials
for what little playing I did.

John - Pa. wrote in message
...
My fancy new camera has 2 media slots, one for a CF card and one for a
SD card. Among other options, it also has the ability to record the
same sensor capture to both media with different settings. Although I
have shot RAW almost exclusively for years, I wanted to compare RAW
and JPG on the new camera. To do this I shot a bunch of stuff today
recording a "standard" style JPG to one media, and simultaneous RAW to
the other. These are not separate shutter activations; they are
literally the same exposure recorded to different places.

Now, I suppose that this isn't "fair" because I did process the Raw
image in Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop, while the JPG was just resized
from the file that came out of the camera. On the other hand, the real
question is, do I want to save time and storage and rely on the
off-the-camera processing of the JPG "picture style", or continue to
do my own processing with RAW. While I suppose that I could have
fooled around with the JPG in PS too, I figure that there isn't much
point to that since the manipulation of a RAW-based file carrying
14-bits of data per channel (in my case) should produce better results
than manipulating an 8-bit/channel file with lossy compression that
will degrade with every "save". The question to be answered is; will
the difference in quality be worth the file-size and time of RAW
processing, or should I just shoot JPG and not worry about it.

In case anyone wonders, this is an Oenothera speciosa (showy
primrose).

JD
Canon 1D-mkIII
EXIF Data Included
e-mail: blissful-wind(at)usa.net

Additional images at;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john-pa/

1D Mk III, hmmm, I don't like you very much
I think you answered your own question when you said you worked the RAW
image in LR an PS and discussed the loss in compression with the jpg. I
know even the jog of a 1D MkIII is going to be a very nice image to work
with, but you've already lost about half your data. I started shooting RAW
for two reasons, tweaking exposure/WB was easier if I didn't nail it on
capture, and the fact I had my entire lossless image available for any
cropping, enlarging or other work later. Now, with the duo media
capabilities of the MkIII, I know people that shoot Raw on the CF and jpg on
the SD and then only touch the RAW files for any work that needs to be done
later. Of course they also pretty much nail the shot every time so post
processing is pretty minimal for them.

Congrats on the MkIII, I'm looking forward to seeing more shots from it.

Rob

Well, John; the "RAW" with your post processing is certainly more favourable
to my eye. Now, if I had the flower in front of me and could see the actual
colour then I could make a much more critical observation. Personal I prefer
the "RAW". :-)

Dave

John - Pa. wrote in message
...
My fancy new camera has 2 media slots, one for a CF card and one for a
SD card. Among other options, it also has the ability to record the
same sensor capture to both media with different settings. Although I
have shot RAW almost exclusively for years, I wanted to compare RAW
and JPG on the new camera. To do this I shot a bunch of stuff today
recording a "standard" style JPG to one media, and simultaneous RAW to
the other. These are not separate shutter activations; they are
literally the same exposure recorded to different places.

Now, I suppose that this isn't "fair" because I did process the Raw
image in Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop, while the JPG was just resized
from the file that came out of the camera. On the other hand, the real
question is, do I want to save time and storage and rely on the
off-the-camera processing of the JPG "picture style", or continue to
do my own processing with RAW. While I suppose that I could have
fooled around with the JPG in PS too, I figure that there isn't much
point to that since the manipulation of a RAW-based file carrying
14-bits of data per channel (in my case) should produce better results
than manipulating an 8-bit/channel file with lossy compression that
will degrade with every "save". The question to be answered is; will
the difference in quality be worth the file-size and time of RAW
processing, or should I just shoot JPG and not worry about it.

In case anyone wonders, this is an Oenothera speciosa (showy
primrose).

JD
Canon 1D-mkIII
EXIF Data Included
e-mail: blissful-wind(at)usa.net

Additional images at;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john-pa/

John - Pa. wrote:
[...]
While I suppose that I could have
fooled around with the JPG in PS too, I figure that there isn't much
point to that since the manipulation of a RAW-based file carrying
14-bits of data per channel (in my case) should produce better results
than manipulating an 8-bit/channel file with lossy compression that
will degrade with every "save". The question to be answered is; will
the difference in quality be worth the file-size and time of RAW
processing, or should I just shoot JPG and not worry about it.
[...]

I did a quick gamma change of the PG image with PMView (a simple
viewer/processor ported from OS/2). Result attached. Took about 30
seconds, inlcluding program start-up.

BTW, there will not be increased loss at every save of a JPG. The viewer
converts the JPG to a bitmap for display, and converts it back to JPG
when Saving. If the initial compression was different than the one used
by the image processor, there will be loss of information. If the
compression is the same, there will be none.

OTOH, there will be differences in image file size after processing,
because image processing changes the image information. But that's true
regardless of the image format used. All image processing entails some
loss of original information. You cannot recover the original image by
reversing the processing. (You should never work on the original file.
Keep an archive folder for originals, and copy images to a Work folder
for processing. It's odd, but this common sense procedure has tpo be
taught to most people when they start in digital photography.)

NB that unless you are printing very large images on a very high end
printer, there will be no visible differences in final image quality.
There will be aesthetic differences, because of the wider range of
processing available on RAW images, but aesthetic judgments and
preferences are personal. They aren't built into image processors. ;-)

Since you have the capability to record both RAW and JPG, I suggest you
use it, but work on RAW images only when you think the image is worth
the extra time and effort.

HTH

--
wolf k.

I have a Canon 350D and it will also record both formats at the same
time and this is usually how I shoot. The jpg's are used for anything
that will be viewed only on a monitor and the raw is used for anything
I want to print.

Digital storage is getting cheaper everyday so there's no reason not
to record in the larger format. Saying you'll shoot this type of
subject in jpg and this subject in raw really isn't a good idea, IMO.
You never know when that great keeper shot will happen and fiddling
around with one more camera setting may cause you to miss a great
opportunity.






On Sat, 31 May 2008 21:21:53 -0400, John - Pa. wrote:

My fancy new camera has 2 media slots, one for a CF card and one for a
SD card. Among other options, it also has the ability to record the
same sensor capture to both media with different settings. Although I
have shot RAW almost exclusively for years, I wanted to compare RAW
and JPG on the new camera. To do this I shot a bunch of stuff today
recording a "standard" style JPG to one media, and simultaneous RAW to
the other. These are not separate shutter activations; they are
literally the same exposure recorded to different places.

Now, I suppose that this isn't "fair" because I did process the Raw
image in Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop, while the JPG was just resized
from the file that came out of the camera. On the other hand, the real
question is, do I want to save time and storage and rely on the
off-the-camera processing of the JPG "picture style", or continue to
do my own processing with RAW. While I suppose that I could have
fooled around with the JPG in PS too, I figure that there isn't much
point to that since the manipulation of a RAW-based file carrying
14-bits of data per channel (in my case) should produce better results
than manipulating an 8-bit/channel file with lossy compression that
will degrade with every "save". The question to be answered is; will
the difference in quality be worth the file-size and time of RAW
processing, or should I just shoot JPG and not worry about it.

In case anyone wonders, this is an Oenothera speciosa (showy
primrose).

JD
Canon 1D-mkIII
EXIF Data Included
e-mail: blissful-wind(at)usa.net

Additional images at;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john-pa/
Macros shot with a Canon 100mm f/2.8
Telephotos shot with a Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6

BH

Hi John,

Not trying to sound overly critical but it appears to me you've conducted
an experiment where you had a foregone conclusion and you proved it.

Of the two photos below the flower in the 'jpeg' appears to be the
correct color and just about correct exposure. It is a bit bright, so I
supsect you metered on some larger part of the area than just the flower.
You should get the proper metering if you spot meter on the flower or if
your camera is a bit 'hot' simply adjust the exposre by -1/3 EV. This
issue is independent of the jpeg vs raw debate.

The other thing it appears you adjusted is the color cast. It seems in
the raw version you added a purple/blue color cast. Is this more like
the original flower? If so you could bracket your white-balance,
although I have a hard time imagining your camera got it wrong in this
senario. Your camera could run a bit to the orange side so you could
adjust for 1-2 additional levels of blue if you find you need to make
this adjustment in PS every time. Otherwise if this is an astethic
choice it has no provative merit in the jpeg vs raw discussion either.

Raw does have genuine advantages in the adjustment space, but in these
photos it was probably not needed. I think sometimes people are now
getting into 'adjustment for adjustment' sake. This is less about
photography and more about artistic vision and computer supported
photomanipulation.

To me the key advantage of raw is one that most people fail to notice.
Raw gives you a very slight increase in recorded dynamic range. This
could be crtical if the histogram in your photo spans the edges of your
sensor's range. You could determine this ahead of time by spot metering
the brightest object in the photo and spot metering the darkest area of
the photo. If the differeince is more than 8-10 stops I'd absolutely
shoot in raw every time. Btw even in raw if the DR is much higher than
this you probably will lose detail.

On the other hand, jpeg has some key unsung advantages. For some reason
I hear this 'rule of thumb' that photogs have about 'editing' and losing
information all the time now. Let me be the first to point out that
losing information can be a good thing. The whole benefit and success
of jpeg and reason it is a widely used standard is that it "loses
information." In this case it mostly loses information that 'blind'
formats would thoughtlessly store. This is an advantage. Its the same
reason why mp3 has revolutionized music listening.

Perceptually, editing your jpegs does not lose significant information if
you keep the quality setting high. You can edit your jpegs dozens of
times, always working from the edit (who does this?) and not damage your
work of art. In fact, if you are editing your photo 10-20 times always
working from an editited intermediate saved as a jpeg, I'm guessing your
doing so much photomanipulation that the original photo is next to
irrelevant at that point. But this is a substantially uncommon
workflow. Do you always drive on the left just in case your city is
overrun by the English? You may be missing out on important benefits of
the right lane.

Every time you click the shutter your camera ccd throws away enourmous
dynammic range that the human eye easily notices. Does this make the
ccd lossy and useless? I highly doubt it.

I shoot 90% JPEG and RAW when I need a boost in dynamic range or edit-
flexability.

Btw, the photos you attached are both jpegs.

John


John - Pa. wrote in :

My fancy new camera has 2 media slots, one for a CF card and one for a
SD card. Among other options, it also has the ability to record the
same sensor capture to both media with different settings. Although I
have shot RAW almost exclusively for years, I wanted to compare RAW
and JPG on the new camera. To do this I shot a bunch of stuff today
recording a "standard" style JPG to one media, and simultaneous RAW to
the other. These are not separate shutter activations; they are
literally the same exposure recorded to different places.

Now, I suppose that this isn't "fair" because I did process the Raw
image in Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop, while the JPG was just resized
from the file that came out of the camera. On the other hand, the real
question is, do I want to save time and storage and rely on the
off-the-camera processing of the JPG "picture style", or continue to
do my own processing with RAW. While I suppose that I could have
fooled around with the JPG in PS too, I figure that there isn't much
point to that since the manipulation of a RAW-based file carrying
14-bits of data per channel (in my case) should produce better results
than manipulating an 8-bit/channel file with lossy compression that
will degrade with every "save". The question to be answered is; will
the difference in quality be worth the file-size and time of RAW
processing, or should I just shoot JPG and not worry about it.

In case anyone wonders, this is an Oenothera speciosa (showy
primrose).

JD
Canon 1D-mkIII
EXIF Data Included
e-mail: blissful-wind(at)usa.net

Additional images at;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john-pa/

begin 644 20083045-JPG.jpg

Attachment decoded: 20083045-JPG.jpg
`
end

begin 644 20083045-Raw.jpg

Attachment decoded: 20083045-Raw.jpg
`
end