More on RAW / Poll

[ilya]

I hope no one minds ~

a) yet another post on Raw;
b) link to another forum, and
c) a POLL

This is probably a trifecta of bad manners :oops: but what the heck.

The below discussion caught my eye because its interesting, and provides another perspective on why or why not shoot raw. Personally, I do both, depending on the situation, but mostly Jpegs. I have PS CS which I found to be a bit noisy in raw conversion, but it does make it a lot easier to integrate Raw into the workflow. Before I had CS, I shot only Jpegs.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=202436&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=&fpart=all&vc=1

[defordphoto]

That's a great thread and I have a lot of respect for Noel. And in most cases I agree with him. I'll never forget what a longtime ChampCar shooter told me last year when I asked him if the guys shot RAW. He said, "If you have to shoot RAW, then you don't belong out here." Basically what he's saying is that of you can't get the shot right out the camera the first time, then you're not much of a photographer.

I shoot all my sports in JPEG for the speed and convenience. Both shooting and post-processing. However, when out shooting landscapes, portraits, etc., I shoot RAW just so I do have those after-shot options of recovery if the shot is blown. Rarely is the shot blown.

I think that as we shoot more and more RAW, we'll become lazy photographers and rely more on the post-processing in front of our PC's fixing photos rather shooting the scene right to begin with.

But, maybe that's okay too. I remember the first time I was in a darkroom. My thoughts were, "Wow! This is the other half of photography." There is so much you can do in a darkroom! Same applies to digital too.

I think by being raised on film I will always go for the proper shot out in the field instead of thinking of how I can correct/re-compose a photo later at the PC.

Anyway, in my opinion the two modes of shooting: RAW and JPEG both have their places and there is NO right or wrong method. And don't let anyone ever tell you so. If you hold a RAW or JPEG print side by side you will absolutely not be able to discern the difference. However, when enlarging to super-size prints, I think shooting RAW will shot its advantage as there's just more information there to use when enlarging ro 20x24 and above.

[ilya]

I shoot all my sports in RAW for the speed and convenience. Both shooting and post-processing. However, when out shooting landscapes, portraits, etc., I shoot RAW just so I do have those after-shot options of recovery if the shot is blown. Rarely is the shot blown.


You mean Jpeg for sports, right Jim?

Ilya

[defordphoto]

I shoot all my sports in RAW for the speed and convenience. Both shooting and post-processing. However, when out shooting landscapes, portraits, etc., I shoot RAW just so I do have those after-shot options of recovery if the shot is blown. Rarely is the shot blown.


You mean Jpeg for sports, right Jim?

Ilya

Yup. Fixed. Thanks.

[MarkH]

I shoot JPG for several reasons.

- Speed - The files save faster and fill the buffer slower. I can shoot a burst of 9 shots and in 5 seconds another burst of 9 shots the in 5 seconds a third burst of 9. RAW is definately slower.

- Storage - The JPGs are smaller, I can fit more on my memory cards, transfer more files per minute to my X's Drive. I can store more pics on my HDD and write more pics per DVD-R disk.

- Convenience - JPGs are less work to use.

I seldom discard pics due to white balance or exposure issues, so RAW wouldn't offer me much in this respect.

My discards are usually due to the camera focusing on the wrong place or motion blur or subject moving behind something or deciding that the composition sucked (yes most mistakes are made by me, not my 10D).

As for using RAW to get the best possible picture in technical term? That is not my aim. I am trying to improve my skills as a photographer, I don't think that being pedantic over minor technical details would do anything to improve my photography. Often I don't even sharpen my pics, it isn't necessary for prints and it isn't needed if I reduce the image to a third by a third for web publishing.

I don't want those that view my pics to enlarge them on their screens to check for critical sharpness, anyone that does that has missed the idea completely.

The proper way to view a picture on screen is to see the whole picture at once, don't zoom in so you have to scroll. If the image looks fine when sized to fit your screen, then it IS fine.
:roll:

[defordphoto]

Bravo, Mark! Well said!!

[CyberDyneSystems]

My 10d now has the "RAW Switch" soldered in the "ON" position! :D :D


I had shot a lot in jpeg before making the switch,. and well,. the difference is huge. Having 100% of my camera's color data in the file is a real treat and I find the results very noticeable.

I just don't see a reason to sacrfifice any of it's benifits. The only time I would, would be when speed is an issue. (the 10D does take roughly HALF the amount of time to flush a full buffer of jpegs as compared to RAW files,.)

[Tom W]

unfortunately, my S-400 doesn't have a RAW switch, so for now, I never use it. That will soon change, I hope!!

Then again, maybe it will prove unnecessary (based on Mark's great post).

[hawg]

I mostly shoot in jpeg but then again I am not a professional. However, I shoot in raw in instances where there is no room for error. :)

[Vegas Poboy]

Mark, congrats your statement was very well made. I agree JPEGS are great for high action shooting (sports) it sucks to convert & edit a 1gig card of a track meet or basketball game in RAW, I did my last one today and no more. I even did a birthday party in RAW and it just takes too much time to edit and convert.
As for portraits & landscapes I do enjoy shooting RAW for the colors and details but thats more of shooting 30- 60 shots. Great feature but it does not work for all applications. I wished Canon saved to TIFFS instead of JPEGS.

[msnow]

I do appreciate the buffer speed benefits of JPG for the pro shooters like Jim but I shoot RAW 100% of the time.

I was going to make a comparison between recordings in EP vs. SP on VCR tape but that wouldn't be accurate. As Jim points out, NO ONE can tell the difference between an image shot at the highest quality JPG or RAW. The real benefit comes in post processing. If you're going to tweak your images, and for me that's half the fun of it, then you need to shoot RAW for a multitude of reasons too numerous to waste time on now since it's been debated here and is available in the archives.

[Belmondo]

I shoot primarily in RAW, although I suspect that in certain situation such as Jim encounters at a race course, JPEG really is a more sensible approach. Unfortunately, I am not one of those individuals whose skill with a camera all but assures a keeper every time I push the button. I’ve found that a lot of otherwise marginal pictures (where my skills were clearly not equal to the task at hand) can be resurrected by adjusting basic settings of an uncorrected RAW image. This is much harder to do to any meaningful degree with JPEG.

To a certain extent, this gets into the discussion of photography as art. A RAW image gives me considerably more creative latitude with an image in post procession---at least much more so than a JPEG image that has been color corrected, sharpened, massaged, and otherwise manipulated in the camera before ever being recorded to the Compact Flash card. What I do with many images is certainly best described as ‘artistic license’ as opposed to a faithful, literal recording of an event. In that application, RAW simply works much better for me, and I concede that its utilization is to a large degree a ‘work-around’ for my shortcomings behind the camera.

Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Mea culpa.
:? :? :?

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Only RAW here.
It was a bit getting used to but at the moment I work much faster thanks to C1 DSLR.

I'm reall picky about quality and even my JPEG's are always somehow worked on for levels and curves.

It takes me MUCH longer to edited all JPEG's in PS than using C1 with RAW's.

The extra stops you get with RAW have saved some pictures I would have missed other wise and that's a shame offcourse if you have the option of shooting RAW.

I have to admit I love to print at big sizes (50x75 CM from the lab).

The option of storage is not really a problem today.
I use a 160GB Harddrive and store both RAW's and medium size JPEG's and a folder with TIFF's. After a year shooting I'm arround 60GB full knowing the market from HDD's running out of space will never be a problem.

The only real problem is I had to invest in a 1GB CF card prof. speed because 512MB was too little. Normally I carry a 30GB XsDrive II with me for downloading if the card is arround 75% full. I never miss an option this way, and be honest after 120 shots it's time to get something to drink or eat offcourse ;D.

JPEG's on the 10D look amazing and alot better than on any other camera I have seen/used, but the extra dynamic of RAW is something I would not want to miss.

BUT I have to admit, you have to change your workflow.

Greetings,
Frank

[toddb]

I started out in jpg when I first got my 10D in June of 2003. But after getting my work flow done with the raw images (lots of batching down in PS) I no longer find it such a pain to work with as I first did. I have to admit though, I am an amature so shooting RAW has been a life saver. I got the 10D so I can capture every moment of my daughter's life (she just turned two yesterday so I'm still pretty trigger happy). There have been lots of time where that perfect shot was saved by shooting in RAW.

I also admit that I have my set button set to the "change quality" setting and I'm not afraid to use it when not shooting my daughter.

I think the RAW convertions will get better (and I've seen them get better of the short time I've been using it), so 16 years down the road when I put some "baby shots" together for my daughter's graduation, I think I'll be glad I shot in RAW (don't you think). As TIFFS, they are huge! The loseless compression of the RAW is only about two to three size bigger of the Fine Jpeg setting which in my opinion very good.

[elm54]

I shoot Raw . Because I like to "tinker" . I'm still learning and can fix my Images. I do make mistakes, and can correct white balance and exposure more easily. It seemed the recomended process when I got here so I went with what I thought the more experienced were doing. And I've learned alot I wouldn't have with a point and shoot jpg camera. Man I can't believe what I've spent! As a Pro with thousands of images to process I imagine I would want dependable JPG speed and hope to get it right. I'm only imagining this :D
There seems to be alot of folks doing or going back to JPG fine here and the other forums.
Every time I spend for another piece of software, I wonder when or if I won't need it anymore :wink:

Eric

[IanD]

Having just started shooting RAW, I have to admit that I do see a difference between RAW and JPEG. Since the bulk of my shooting is wild life aka: Bambi et al I think that I will be using RAW more than JPEG. However, it does fall upon me to take shots of my mountain bike team and for that I will be using JPEG for the above stated reasons. The kids are not moving as fast as say a CART car but the downhillers can reach 50 MPH at some of the World Cup courses.
The goal of pushing the button is to capture an image that pleases the button pusher. (If the images are for ourselves and not taken for a paying customer) If said image is pleasing to others, then that is the cherry on top. The more folks like what I shoot, the more I want to shoot and that IMHO is what photography is all about.
Ian

[Pekka]

Well, Noel bases his image quality comments on PS CS converter and Canon converter. Speed and space should be non-issues. Write speeds between RAW and JPEG are virtually indentical on Canon SLR's, hard disks, DVD-r's and CF cards are getting cheaper by the minute.

Here's some of my reasons for using only RAW, all the time:

- Capture One
- 10D does not have dedicated WB sensor
- I want full control on WB - I want it to suit the content of the photo, not accepting the first choice Canon's chip gives me.
- I shoot mostly in low light, indoors, extremly varying lighting situations. There is simply no time to set up custom WB all the time. I'd rather concentrate on what is happening around me, not what is happening in my camera.
- lossy compression is lossy. How would you set camera's cF. 123 setting (if there was one): "Loose some image data as soon as you release shutter: ON / OFF"
- I get 12 bits per channel with RAW. This is significant visually proven advantage in post processing.
- I shoot RAW because I am not perfect and the camera is not perfect. I do not always know if I will need to print 1m wide or not at all when shooting. Sometimes I shoot before flash reloaded. Sometimes lights flicker and change color constantly. RAW acts as an insurance for all unknown parameters in shooting.
- I can choose file format after shooting (TIFF-8, TIFF-16, JPEG XX%)
- I can choose AdobeRGB or sRGB after shooting.
- I can set sharpening to minimum and then use tools I choose.

[msnow]

Yes, I think Pekka broke it down and nailed it. The one thing I think I might disagree on is speed. I've never tested it but it seems logical to me that the write speed to the card would be faster with JPEG vs. RAW because of the file size differences. That would be a factor if you were shooting fast (e.g. sports or action shots).

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Hi,

In JPEG the camera has to do the compression and the filtering, it could be faster to write something straight from the sensor, but I never tried this.
When I saw the increase in tweakability I deleted the JPEG option from memory :D.

Greetings,
Frank

[Pekka]

The 10D speed tables are in http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-6111

About 20KB/s speed differences in writing are not very significant, are they?

[jim monroe]

As a newcomer to digital photography I have learned much from this forum. One thing is that certain topics are hot topics and lately this business about raw has been one of them.
Because of the opinions expressed, especially by CDS as well as others, I started shooting some shots in Raw rather than large Jpeg. (As an aside the camera store where I purchased my 10D which is slanted towards consumers not pros or highly skilled amateurs said I would never need raw.) I am using the Canon software for conversion which I realize from this thread and other may not be a good idea but I've got to start somewhere. Looks like I should look into purchasing C1.
What I am about to ask is a lot, I know, but being a skeptic of sorts I always like to actually see what the differences are. Does anyone have a reference to some thread or site showing differences between what can be done with raw as compared to large jpeg? or does anyone have their own examples?
I know everyone has their own priorities based on what they are shooting, etc. but for me the main thing is quality over everything else and I and probably many other less experienced forum readers could benefit from some direct comparisons. I vaguely remember some shots of CDS of herons, I believe, where he accidentally did not use raw and said how much better they would be if shot in raw but again seeing a direct comparison would be great.
One final comment/question can the difference even be seen on a computer monitor or only in larger prints?

[MarkH]

The 10D speed tables are in http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-6111

About 20KB/s speed differences in writing are not very significant, are they?

AHEM

The speed difference is not about the amount of K/sec during the write to the card, it is more about the total number of sec to write to the card. Since the JPG size at ISO 100 is only about 2MB and the RAW+small JPG is about 6.5MB then if both write to the card at the same K/Sec then the time taken to write the RAW files would be about 3 times as long. RAW + Large Fine JPG could take up to 4 times as long to write as JPG.

As for whether the storage space matters: Well I have been known to go out for the day and return with 550 images, it is certainly easier to store JPGs than RAW. If money were no object I would buy a couple of 2GB cards and 4 L zooms and a 550EX and some primes. For many of us the storage space is an issue, though not the biggest consideration these days (Thanks to 120GB HDDs being really cheap and DVD writing is getting cheaper every day).

From experience I can say with absolute certainty that the shooting speed after the first 9 shots is DEFINATELY faster using JPG rather then RAW. Easy test for those that aren't convinced: Take a burst of 9, wait until the shots available counter returns to 9, take another burst of 9, wait for the counter to hit nine, take a 3rd burst of 9. Time that using JPG and again using RAW + smallest JPG and again Using RAW + Large Fine JPG. Using JPG I can take those 27 shots in under 30 seconds from first shot to the 27th shot.

Of course the first 9 shots you take can easily be buffered and speed is the same regardless of format, even the smallest JPG is no faster for 9 or less shots.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Jim,
This quite a challenge. :)
The difference can be seen on screen,. definately. But the primary differenbces are revealed to the user as they actually work on the files in an Image editing program. As Pekka says,. by working with a RAW file you get to do your editing with all 12bits of image data/color information. Wiht jpeg,. 4 bits of data is tossed out before you even get to look at the image. The moment you are able to experince tweeking a RAW file in either PS or C1,. then you will see the dramatic difference.

The best attempt I could imagine in an online environment to try and expose the advantageous of RAW Vs. Jpeg side by sode wuld be too extract a jpeg from a RAW file and take both images and tweek and then post the results.

Theere are few problems with this solution however.

1. The test will not illustrate the fluidity and ease with which the RAW file can be manipulated in the software.. you will only see end results.

2. The test will be "colored" by the one doing the test. If I do it my RAW file output will look better. Period. Because that is the workflow I have established. The jpeg will suffer. But someone wh prefers jpegs may very well end up with a better looking jpeg, like Noel did on the Rob Galbraith forum. Neither will actually establish which file has the best potential.

You mentioned my Herons,. although they were only little tiny reduced jpegs posted to the forum,. I believe they did illustrate the difference to a certain degree,. and in that case you can be assured that user file preference DID NOT color the end results! I was desperate to get the very best image I coud out of the jpeg files I shot of the Heron flight. Nor was established workflow a factor,. I had only just recently started working with RAW files,. and I had a much better working understanding of jpegs than RAW at the time. (I still have a lot to learn re: RAW workflow) But try as I might, the results simply could not compare to the RAW images I shot just a few minutes later

3. How do we display the results? By the time I am done with a RAW file I have a 20MB or more 16 bit .psd or .tif file. Where do we post such a beast?


The best test is to try it your self.

Download a trial of C1LE and go to work! :)
Do your own side by side after you have tweeked in C1 and gotten a little used to it.

(I recomned C1 for it's free trial .. asopposed to $600.00 on PSCS :) )

Bottom line,. if you yourself are not equally as impressed with the RAW results after giving it a good trial,. then thats that! In the end it really doesn't matter what side by side tests are offered. The only real test is whether you get anything out of it.

[CyberDyneSystems]

RE: Speed, jpeg Vs. RAW

You are both corect.

The Canon SLRs do write TO the buffer with equal speeds with both formats.

The reason that when shooting jpeg the buffer fills just as fast as when shooting RAW is that when shooting,. jpeg OR RAW,.. the capture is still RAW,. (ie: the CMOS data is the same) so as you shoot the memory required in the first buffer stage is equal. It's after this that timing and file size kicks in. If RAW selected the whole 6MB or so is written to the CF card (along with a jpeg) If jpeg is used the image is compressed and then written. In some cameras RAW files are actually FASTER because No time is taken to compress the file!!!! (but not the 10D)

When the resulting files are written to the CF card. I have found that the averadge time difference to "flush the buffer" of 9 images is roughly half for jpeg Vs. raw. (about 20 seconds Vs. 40 seconds) I am not at all sure why it is only half,. it should be a larger diference as the jpeg files a re smaller than half sized. (Perhaps applying the in-camera sharpening.. color saturation and white balance takes time?)

[eric1]

i usually shoot raw. i use C1. if your not that accomplished of a
photographer (like me), you'll find the exposure compensation a
shot saver. it's MUCH easier than fixing EC on a JPEG or TIFF in PS.

eric1

[gcogger]

Raw every time for me. My theory is that when I do take that once in a lifetime shot, it had damn well be in the highest possible quality :-) I always post-process anyway, so the extra inconvenience is small.

[msnow]

What' sort of surprising to me is that only 60% are shooting RAW at this point in the "poll". I would have expected much higher for this level of photographers.

[defordphoto]

What' sort of surprising to me is that only 60% are shooting RAW at this point in the "poll". I would have expected much higher for this level of photographers.

Even pros shoot JPEG too. As I keep saying they both have their places. I can't ever imagine ever shooting any one or the other 100% of the time. Ever.

That being said, we did a shoot at an indoor sporting event with metal-halide lighting. Yikes! Horrible green cast to everything. AWB worked sometimes, but not always. I am able to recover most of the photos, but it's pretty tough. I hadn't shot under MH lights before and had I shot RAW I would have had the option of easier conversion of this batch of photos as I could apply the same white balance to every photo in RAW conversion using BreezeBrowser. I can batch process the JPEGs, but it's going to be more difficult.

My mistake here was not setting a custom white balance and that will be the last time that happens. I'll be utilizing custom WB much, much more in the future. And shooting RAW under less than desireable conditions for easier corrections.

[ilya]

What' sort of surprising to me is that only 60% are shooting RAW at this point in the "poll". I would have expected much higher for this level of photographers.

I would read our newfound statistic as 90% of respondents use Raw relatively frequently, with some 60% using it almost exlusively. I don't think you can or should equate Raw with professionalism. Its also not a measure of manhood. The true measure of a pro, I think, is the ability to use the best tool for the particular job at hand, be it a lens or a file format.

best
ilya

[evilenglishman]

--

[CyberDyneSystems]

I read that too on Rob's forums... ???

I don't get any "noise" using PSCS to speak of?

I understand that C1 has it's advantages,. but quite frankly I think that PSCS is not even a Close second,. more like an alternative first string. Being more familiar with the photoshop interface I am finding I use PSCS a lot more foten than C1.

[ilya]

I don't know who those experts are, but I know from that quote that they don't know much about photoshop.
Photoshop's raw converter doesn't suck at all, it isn't noisy (that's their images) or colour inaccurate (probably set wrong white balance)
Mr Carboni's example images are dreadful, he has filtered those images far too much, its clear that he doesn't know how to use Photoshop either - I think it is best for him to shoot jpegs, or maybe he should go back to film. some people just dont (wont) get it.

No reason to get upset. Noel Carboni is a pro, and I have a high regard for his opinion.

I also noticed that my PS CS conversions come out "a bit" more noisy. And the colors were a little bit different. Sometimes hard to deal with. That's my experience. Maybe I have a "bad copy" :lol: Folks say Capture 1 is as good or better, I may give that a whirl.

But anyway, I do have tests to back up teh "bit noisy" bit. The first two full size images are just to show differences in color. I actually like the PS CS color in this example.

Then note the following 3 cropped images. The PS CS image is more noisy then the FVU and the Jpeg.


Original image shot in Raw, 1/60, F2.8, ISO 800, natural light, @200mm with a 70-200mm F2.8 IS.

FVU-Processed Image. Full size, untouched, processed using the default settings for FVU. Resized down in "stair-down" 200 pxl increments with no USM.
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2441745&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

PS CS-Processed Image. Full size, untouched, processed using my default settings for PS CS which are I believe what came out of the box: WB - As Shot, Exposure 0, Shadow 0, Brightness 50, Contrast 25, Saturation 0, Sharpness 25, Lum 0, Color noise 25 (the rest I don't even look at). Which is . Resized down in "stair-down" 200 pxl increments with no USM.

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2441741&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

FVU - crop:
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2441743&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1


PS CS crop:
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2441744&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

For reference, a Large jpeg that was "uncorked" from the raw file:
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2441740&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

This may or may not have the necessary scientific foundation for a proper test. Please do not flame the parameters or logic. This to me was good enough to say "its a bit noisy".

Do your own tests and form your own conclusions.

[msnow]

What' sort of surprising to me is that only 60% are shooting RAW at this point in the "poll". I would have expected much higher for this level of photographers.

I would read our newfound statistic as 90% of respondents use Raw relatively frequently, with some 60% using it almost exlusively. I don't think you can or should equate Raw with professionalism. Its also not a measure of manhood. The true measure of a pro, I think, is the ability to use the best tool for the particular job at hand, be it a lens or a file format.

best
ilya

You're absolutely correct about the poll, I misread it but you are INCORRECT about RAW not being a measure of manhood. The files are *bigger* and the word "RAW" just has a manly connotation to it...like *raw* meat. Just kidding. :D :D

[defordphoto]

Where's Tim Allen when you need him? :lol:

[defordphoto]

Ilya: Interesting results on your test. The CS shot is world's noisier than the FVU and JPEG. The JPEG and FVU shot are nearly identical. Thanks for posting those.

[PacAce]

Ilya: Interesting results on your test. The CS shot is world's noisier than the FVU and JPEG. The JPEG and FVU shot are nearly identical. Thanks for posting those.

Yes, very interesting, Ilya. When I first tried out RAW processing in CS, I thought there was something "different" about the converted images which I couldn't quite place my finger on. Maybe you just shed some light on that. I'm going to do my own tests to see for myself.

Ha! Maybe "Go Canon!" doesn't just apply to lenses, eh? :D

[ilya]

URrr, URrr, URrr

Canon's marketing, I tell ya. What about the BIG ED

But anyway, my raw files are bigger then your raw files.

[Tom W]

This thread has taken an interesting, and educational turn. I can't add anything of value, but I will be reading. Thanks, all!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Well .. that is interesting :?:

I will have to look at this closer. I've only been using the PSCS for a few weeks,. mostly I had ACR in 7.01 so I am interested to see the difference there.

In PSCS. if you don't go back a few tabs, there are settings, including sharpening etc.. that have "defaults"

ie: if you don't go back and tweek these settings,. they will NOT neccesarily be set to ZERO.. I wonder of the sharpening default in PSCS (25% I think??) is set to high by default?

In other words will they just be noisier all the time or is it a setting in the RAW utility thta we can tweek the noise out,. ??

Hmmm....

[andylim]

I use RAW only when I want the maximum possible quality from my camera, and that's when I make a special effort to go to a specific spot for photography. Having an Xs-Drive really helps me keep shooting without worrying if my next shot is going to fill up my card. :)

For non-critical applications, or for shots which I absolutely know I'll not enlarge beyond 8R, I use JPEG at the highest resolution and the lowest compression (max quality).

[ilya]

ie: if you don't go back and tweek these settings,. they will NOT neccesarily be set to ZERO.. I wonder of the sharpening default in PSCS (25% I think??) is set to high by default?

In other words will they just be noisier all the time or is it a setting in the RAW utility thta we can tweek the noise out,. ??
Hmmm....

Correct, the default for sharpening was 25; personally I always set it to zero. For this purpose I left that as is, knowing that the FVU default adds some sharpening, even if you were to set it to zero. Does anyone know what the "default" is for FVU equates to in PS sharpning terms? But in any case, when I set the CS sharpening to zero, I still get about the same amount of noise.

[evilenglishman]

--

[maderito]

What' sort of surprising to me is that only 60% are shooting RAW at this point in the "poll". I would have expected much higher for this level of photographers.

I would guess that there's significant bias in the poll. Only those interested in the issue are voting, and they're more likely to be shooting RAW. There are usually 100+ members logged into the Forum at any given time. Why is the total vote so low?

My point is that the percentage of RAW shooters is probably even lower. That said, it is significant that the voice of those converted to full-time RAW shooting is being heard, and they represents the majority. Do we have a silent minority out there :?

[defordphoto]

Silent minority? By far they are the silent majority. Typical on forums. 25% will vote 10% will post and 65% watch.

[maderito]

Silent minority? By far they are the silent majority. Typical on forums. 25% will vote 10% will post and 65% watch.
Jim - Thanks for getting that right - I did mean silent majority. BTW - I like your stats. They make more sense than your average scientific poll :shock:

[defordphoto]

Silent minority? By far they are the silent majority. Typical on forums. 25% will vote 10% will post and 65% watch.
Jim - Thanks for getting that right - I did mean silent majority. BTW - I like your stats. They make more sense than your average scientific poll :shock:

HAHA! :lol: Too funny!!

[rstobbe]

I do 100% RAW with my D30. If you are going to adjust levels/contrast later the tonal range of the output is richer when doing this adjustment in 12bit instead of 8bit per channel. If I want to have Jpegs, hey BreezeBrowser or FVU will give me the same result that the Camera would have given me when shooting Jpeg, so why should I go for one when I can have both :wink:

Well, except for speed ... but I am not a sports photographer.

ciao
-- Ruediger

[msnow]

Ilya: Interesting results on your test. The CS shot is world's noisier than the FVU and JPEG. The JPEG and FVU shot are nearly identical. Thanks for posting those.

I too am very interested in seeing the results from others. I attented a seminar a couple of months ago where the Canon representative told the group that he had a private conversation with Thomas Knoll (author of Photoshop) where Knoll confided in him that Adobe's camera RAW converter was "not as good" as Canon's "yet". Now, I have no way of knowing if this "conversation" really took place or not but the rep went on to say that most people inside Canon believe Knoll's next version (update to PSCS) will most likely exceed their own conversion application. He indicated that Knoll sort of rushed the PSCS RAW convertor for marketing reasons.

If the above is true, however, I would expect that the test results of those convertors using Canon's SDK (e.g. FVU and Breezebrowser) would have better results than PSCS. Having said that, I still use C1 because I "percieve" the results to be better than any of the above and I like the extra cptions and workflow.

[Vegas Poboy]

This is a very hot topic & so far I've learned alot even though I voted I shoot 90% of the time. It's hard to get a true count when people don't give there input but overall I think that alot of Canon owners have the DSLR camera but not the photography background. Meaning had money to spend and it make them looks good when they pull it out of the bag, so they are learning from our post & not inputing. In fact I know of a few who have the camera & treat it as a point & shoot & they have know clue of software editing or how to edit the RAW formats. It also may be a case of if they only own PS2 they can't afford extra software to edit the RAW format.

I did due some researching last night and found a script that is used in PSCS and it has changed my mind to shooting more RAW and I'm only using two software programs. ACDsee for quick browisng and emailing to private friends & PSCS, I tried Breezebrowser but was not comfortable with it.
Anyway go to Adobe forum http://share.studio.adobe.com/Default.asp or
http://www.russellbrown.com/body.html. Dr. Brown's Image Processor, I loaded it up and it works great, view the AVI file first but this is working for me. It will save time and give I feel most of us what we want out of our RAW files.
Let me what you think

[UK_Terry]

RAW 100% when useing 10D

JPG 90% RAW 10% when useing S45.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Vegas,..

I use the same tools 90% of the time,. ACDsee and then PS (originally 7.01 and ACR,. now CS)

I will try out that script,. that was a great link to Adobe's site,. I had not seen that page.

FYI. Two of the first three "scripts" listed were created by our man Roger Cavanagh! 8)

[CyberDyneSystems]

I just posted this in another thread which has turned into yet another RAW Vs. jpeg dissection... After posting it I felt it would fit here better than it did in the other thread :roll:

...So, I hope no minds the repetitiveness.

I have yet to shoot anything like a ruler,. or do any side by side tests...

I go strictly on what works for me while doing the photography I enjoy (mostly wildlife and the occasional theatrical event)

I'm pretty sure that in all the times I have championed shooting in RAW, or any peice of equipment or software,. I have allways done so from the point of view of what either does work for me,. or what I suspect may work for the individual style of the person asking advice...

I do not beleive that shooting a side by side comparison will reveal flaws in the jpeg,. rather it is in the ease of processing the RAW file to a more complete image than the processing the camera applies that will reveal the fundamental difference of the two file types.

It is a strange contradiciton that as every time Canon realeases a new less costly DSLR we get dozens of posts from individuals who ask "why are my pictures soft? why are they flat? where's the color saturation? where's the contrast...etc.."

......that we in unison respond,. "The DSLR is not like the point and shoots,. it doesn't do it all for you." "this is in fact an advantage,. the processing has been left to you to decide in you editing software"... etc

To offer up this principle to the proper use of the Canon DSLR and then backpedal on this argument when the perenial jpeg Vs. RAW question rears it's ever so ugly head is a contradiction.

If you like the way the camera processes the image,. then jpeg is indeed just as good as RAW,. in fact in that case, the jpeg benifits DO outweigh those of RAW.

But if you think you can do a better job of post processing than the camera can (like Canon itself recomends here: http://www.cps.canon-europe.com/articles/article.jsp?article.articleId=1240 )
Then RAW is by far the best choice.

So the only side by side I can offer is this.

Any shot I have taken that I am in any way proud of,. if I take the RAW file and do my own post processing work to create the final image,. that final image WILL be a much more pleasing photograph than the embedded jpeg,. on it's own or after post processing on the jpeg. The jpeg simply will not offer the same flexibility to create the final peice of artwork that the RAW fill will.

If anyone is interested,. this is a test I can easily post the results of,. but the problem is it won't alter any ones perceptions and the results really only matter to me! :mrgreen:

But they do mater to me a great deal,. :wink:

[imago57]

When I was shooting film (positive) in 35mm, 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 and 4x5 I always bracketed, because I know I am not perfect, neither is my camera or my lightmeter. So now I shoot RAW, for the same reason. It is a great tool when used properly, and since I never shoot sport I really don't have to be concerned about buffer and speed. :D Just my 2 cents

[PacAce]

Ilya: Interesting results on your test. The CS shot is world's noisier than the FVU and JPEG. The JPEG and FVU shot are nearly identical. Thanks for posting those.

Yes, very interesting, Ilya. When I first tried out RAW processing in CS, I thought there was something "different" about the converted images which I couldn't quite place my finger on. Maybe you just shed some light on that. I'm going to do my own tests to see for myself.

Ha! Maybe "Go Canon!" doesn't just apply to lenses, eh? :D

OK, folks, check this out. I got one of my RAW images that was shot at 1600 during the day when I forgot to reset it back down to 100 or 200. Here's a 100% crop of a small portion of it, converted using FVU as shot. As you can see, the noise is very evident.

http://www.tanseikai.com/junk/FVU.jpg


Now, here is another crop of the same area of one that was converted using PS CS, also converted as "camera default". The Color Noise Reduction was set to 0. As you can see, the noise level is comparable to FVU's.

http://www.tanseikai.com/junk/PSCS_0.jpg


However, CNR=0 is not the default value for PSCS (at least not one mine). The next one was converted, again with PSCS, but with Color Noise Reduction set to it's default value 25. If there's any noise, it's really hard to tell compared to the previous images.


http://www.tanseikai.com/junk/PSCS_25.jpg


And lastly, one that was converted with CNR set to 100. I can't tell the difference here between the 25 and the 100.

http://www.tanseikai.com/junk/PSCS_100.jpg

With the CNR set to 25 in PSCS, the color noise level on the image is a lot less than of that from FVU. However, I did notice that, in "Camera Default" mode, the contrast of the images are not as well defined as that of FVU but I guess that can be fixed in PS itself.

I guess I'm back to using PSCS for RAW conversion again. :)

[Guillermo Freige]

I'm shooting only in RAW since day one with my S50 (and RAW capability was one of the main reason for buying that camera), and of course also use RAW with the dRebel. Besides all the already said here (WB correction, 12-bit linear mapped in 16-bit nonlinear colordepth instead of 8-bit one, exp.compensation, lack of compression artifacs if saved as TIFF), one of the advantages of RAW is you can "improve" the camera just using different RAW converters. For example PS CS adds AdobeRGB and exp.compensation to my S50 RAW files (canon soft doesn't support them), and C1Rebel and PS CS add different noise reduction, exp.compensation and ICC profiles to the dRebel. You can check some of my comparisons between different converters in my faq. The 30min exposure time examples are pretty impressive.
The faq is in
http://gfreige.homelinux.org/faq/

[ilya]

Leo, can you post a small crop, say the ear or something that gets you up close. I was using CNR at 25 in my test, and even then it was still noisy. What are your exposure, shadow, brightness, contrast sat, sharpness and lum settings?

[PacAce]

Leo, can you post a small crop, say the ear or something that gets you up close. I was using CNR at 25 in my test, and even then it was still noisy. What are your exposure, shadow, brightness, contrast sat, sharpness and lum settings?

Ilya, that was the small, tight crop. I can't get any tighter than that without exceeding 100% and going into artificial zoom.

All my settings were set to whatever the default settings are when using "Camera Default". The only setting I changed was the CNR to show the effects at different settings. But here are the numbers anyway:

Adjust:
WB=As Shot
Temp=5050
Tint=+25

Exposure=0.00
Shadows=0
Brightness=50
Contrast=+25
Saturation=0

Detail:
Sharpness=25
Luminance Smoothing=0
Color Noise Reduction=25

And all Calibration settings are 0.

And here's the resized full frame of the test picture (with some levels, saturation and USM applied for presentation).

http://www.tanseikai.com/junk/Da%20Vinci%20Horse%20and%20Toddler.jpg

[ilya]

Leo,

That's a cute picture by the way, with the kid looking up at the horse like that.

On my screen, to my eye, your PS CS crop looked a bit noisier. It helps to get in more then 100% to see the diff. I'm not sure what you mean by artificial zoom? PS doesn't do any kind of interpolation to a cropped image, it is what it is, but closer.

In any case, the bottom line is that I'm trying to figure out if the PS CS noise factor is because something I'm doing wrong, and this can be corrected by playing around with settings, or that the upgrade itself is at fault - as compared to say C1 or BB. If anyone else has done comparisons from CS to C1 or BB, pls let me know what you found.

Thanks
Ilya

[PacAce]

Leo,

That's a cute picture by the way, with the kid looking up at the horse like that.

On my screen, to my eye, your PS CS crop looked a bit noisier. It helps to get in more then 100% to see the diff. I'm not sure what you mean by artificial zoom? PS doesn't do any kind of interpolation to a cropped image, it is what it is, but closer.

In any case, the bottom line is that I'm trying to figure out if the PS CS noise factor is because something I'm doing wrong, and this can be corrected by playing around with settings, or that the upgrade itself is at fault - as compared to say C1 or BB. If anyone else has done comparisons from CS to C1 or BB, pls let me know what you found.

Thanks
Ilya

Ilya, thanks for the compliment. I thought it was cute, too. That little kid just happened to walk into the picture and look at the horse like that as I was taking pictures of the horse. It's what I call serendipity. It doesn't happen often but when it does, it "makes" the picture, if you know what I mean.

Now, getting back to the crops, I guess what I was trying to say is that what you see there are crops of the actual pixels of the original, not resized crops.

I had 3 samples of the PSCS images, with CNR=0, CNR=25 and CNR=100. Which one were you referring to when you said that the PSCS image looked noisier than the FVU on your screen? Or were you referring to all of them?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Well,. all I can say,. is damn fine looking grain for 1600!!!!!! :)

[iwatkins]

Hi All,

I've been playing/using the PS CS RAW converter for a while now.

Do note that "Camera Default" as supplied isn't set up in the best way, IMHO. Also note that it is possible to "Set" the Camera Default settings.

I.e. set up some default settings you like and the "Set" them as the camera default. Next image in will use these new default settings.

Even so, I think I must deviate from the default settings for every one in three images I convert from RAW.

Another note, do as much work as you can possibly do within the RAW converter before bringing in to PS, it certainly helps with the quality of the end result.

Another note, don't just adjust exposure, saturation etc. but also use the luminance smoothing etc. settings to get the best result you can get to before importing.

Cheers

Ian (who is very happy with the PS CS RAW converter, *now* I've found my way about)

[PacAce]

Another note, do as much work as you can possibly do within the RAW converter before bringing in to PS, it certainly helps with the quality of the end result.

Another note, don't just adjust exposure, saturation etc. but also use the luminance smoothing etc. settings to get the best result you can get to before importing.

That's a very good suggestion, Ian. Ever since I started doing RAW conversions with PSCS, I have been using the sliders in the Adjust tab prior to conversion and then fine tuning, when necessary, in PS proper. However, I have yet to use the Luminance Smoothing control in the Details tab since I couldn't discern any changes in the preview window when I moved the slider. Can you tell me exactly what the Luminance Smoothing control does and when or how would I apply it?

Thanks.

[Tom W]

OK, I shot my first RAW today! My first impression is that those files are HUGE!

I've got a long way to go with processing, but I did play a little with the FVU. Since I have PS Elements, I don't believe that I have any other choice besides FVU. Anyway, I do like the ability to make adjustments on the semi-accurate monitor before I squeeze my pictures down into JPEGs. I'm especially interested in the ability to manipulate color temperature/white balance. If my S-400 is any indication, the camera will sometimes choose the wrong white balance in AWB mode.

[iwatkins]

However, I have yet to use the Luminance Smoothing control in the Details tab since I couldn't discern any changes in the preview window when I moved the slider. Can you tell me exactly what the Luminance Smoothing control does and when or how would I apply it?

Thanks.

Hi leo,

I don't know the real answer to be honest.

But basically, on that tab you have Sharpness, Luminance Smoothing (grayscale noise) and Color Noise Reduction (colour noise).

When you increase Sharpness (or take their 25 default) you are introducing noise in the process. You might not see the noise at "Fit in View" preview or even if you zoom into 100%. But if you zoom in to 400% you can usually see an increase in noise due to the increase in Sharpness (see some example screen shots below).

I tend to have the following settings as Camera Default:

Sharpness = 30
Luminance Smoothing = 30
Color Noise Reduction = 0

Increasing sharpness tends to increase the amount of Luminance Smoothing I need to bring the noise back under control. High ISO shots tend to need more Color Noise Reduction to bring that back under control.

Of course, it is a balancing act. The more you luminance smooth/color noise reduce the more detail you lose.

My workflow goes as so:

Load up the image. Once I've adjusted my exposure, brightnes etc. I move onto the detail tab. In here I'll zoom the image to 100% and centre on the most important part of the image. If 30 for Sharpness isn't enough I'll bump it up a bit more. Once happy with the sharpness, I'll then zoom in to 400% to check for noise. I'll then dial in Luminance Smoothing to taste and at the same time use the Color Noise Reduction for colour noise.

Zoom back out to "Fit To View" and once happy will then apply and bring in to PS proper. Once there it is usally just cropping/resizing etc.

Cheers

Ian


400% Screen Shot - Sharpening Only

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~iwatkins/Other/RAW_Without.jpg


400% Screen Shot - Sharpening and Luminance Smoothing

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~iwatkins/Other/RAW_With.jpg

[PacAce]

Thanks, Ian. That was very informative. I tried it out and it worked great. I was able to see exactly what you were talking about regarding the ISO noises (both the color noise and the non-color...sort of like a whitish, blotchy...noise).

Thanks again for the info.

[Joytek]

I couldn't imagine not doing so. Jpeg is only used when the image is finalized and about to be displayed on a monitor. For prints I use tiff.

Anyone using their d-slr just for jpegs is missing the point of having all that recording quality and all those post processing options (IMO).

w.

[Katie Piecrust]

Can't vote anymore it seems, but if I could I would have selected "90%-100% of the time I shoot Raw". I only shoot RAW these days. I used to shoot JPG as well, but all it took was one bad experience and a bit of home testing to decide RAW was the way to go for me. I do believe there is a place for both though. However I akin people who shoot only JPG to folks who like to run around in lightning storms, confident they'll never be struck. ;-)