A challange to all you jpeg shooters out there

[timmyquest]

In a non-photography board, i recently got into a debate over using photoshop to edit images...to make a long story short i found another RAW debate can be stemed from this.

These are all directly out of the camera. The only changes made were a resize and then the image was converted to sRGB color profile to view properly on the internet.

These were taken with my 1D, i shot all jpeg parameters, all the shots are identical settings-lighting etc.

Parm 1
http://www.questphotos.com/PSnotcheating/4mp/parm1.JPG
http://www.questphotos.com/psnotcheating/parm1.jpg

parm 2
http://www.questphotos.com/PSnotcheating/4mp/parm2.JPG
http://www.questphotos.com/psnotcheating/parm2.jpg

parm 3
http://www.questphotos.com/PSnotcheating/4mp/parm3.JPG
http://www.questphotos.com/psnotcheating/parm3.jpg

parm 4
http://www.questphotos.com/PSnotcheating/4mp/parm4.JPG
http://www.questphotos.com/psnotcheating/parm4.jpg

parm 5
http://www.questphotos.com/PSnotcheating/4mp/parm5.JPG
http://www.questphotos.com/psnotcheating/parm5.jpg

Here is the Straight-out-of-the-camera RAW image
http://www.questphotos.com/psnotcheating/raw-cam.jpg

(forgive the condesending tone, this is a copy and paste from that other thread...i'm sure you guys know most of this information)

And now i took that raw image and corrected everything as i felt it needed to be corrected.

First step was to adjust the white balance, i made the whites white.

Second step was apply a little sharpening to the image. Although my camera uses a CCD sensor, which tend to be fairly sharp, the images out of a DSLR do not maximize a lenses ability to produce a sharp image. The same image taken on film is sharper by nature then the same image out of a digital SLR. (FWIW images out of a CMOS sensor seem to be a little less sharp, but they seem to sharpen nicer then those out of the older CCD sensors...)

Third step was to adjust the contrast. I did this simply by adjusting the levels. This brings up the Histogram which represents the color spectrum and brightness found in the photo. Unless i'm trying something "outside of the box" i adjust this so that the histogram colors the entire specturm. This is what an "ideal" histogram would look like, i've never seen a DSLR produce an image with these charictoristics.

Fourth step is to add a little color. You can use "saturation" or "selective color". I spent $20 on a program called "Velvia Vision" (velvia is a film produced by fuji that is known for it's beautiful vibrant colors...). It is a program that works in a similer mannor that PS does when you adjust saturation, but it tends to do it in a more pleasing fashion, it also has a few other features that i rarely use such as giving the image a warm tone. More info can be found at http://www.fredmiranda.com under "plugins"

I then resized and converted profile (as well as switched it out of 16 bit mode, which only further ehances your ability to more accuratly adjust the color)

http://www.questphotos.com/psnotcheating/raw-me.jpg


My challange to you is to take the 4mp image of whichever parameter you feel, and make an image that looks as natural, or more natural, as the edited RAW image i presented. The 4mp version can be downloaded via the link above the image.

[Hellashot]

I definately think that last image is best. The background wall on the right is very yellowish in the JPG versions. And the clarity of the empty part of the bottle is noticeably better too.

[Dubsta]

RAW is the best option....learn it and use it!

[PacAce]

Actually, for something as simple and easy to correct as this "Windex" photo, RAW doesn't provide much advantage over JPEG. Where RAW would outshine JPEG would be if one were to do some extensive editing of the image or if he wanted to blow up the image to print huge prints or posters where JPEG would really suffer due to the compression artifacts. :)

Here's an edited version of Parm1.

BTW, the only adjustments I made to the image was to increase the output black point to 12 and set the gray point using Levels and then applied three USM steps, 1st to pre-sharpen before resizing, the 2nd to increase local contrast and the 3rd to sharpen after resizing.

[PacAce]

But Timmy still has a valid point about RAW vs JPEG. If you're not going to do any processing of the image and want to use it straight from the camera, then JPEG is the way to go. But, as he has demonstrated, the image might leave a lot to be desired as far as image quality is concerned. If you're going to shot JPEG and post process the image so that the image will be a little better, then why not keep the door open for more processing options by shooting RAW instead of JPEG. The only reason I can think of in this case not to shoot RAW is one having too small a CF card to hold all the RAW files. If so, then It might be time to get a bigger card anyway. :D

[dphotomania]

PacAce, I think if you up the blue contrast by a few degree and darken a few degree, the blue will look closer to his image. The blue is still a bit light. Also the red is too red. Too bad I dont have PS on my work machine.... Or else I can play w/ it.

I do like your picture better. :D

[jfrancho]

I think a better challenge would be to get it like the last shot straight out of the camera.

[PacAce]

PacAce, I think if you up the blue contrast by a few degree and darken a few degree, the blue will look closer to his image. The blue is still a bit light. Also the red is too red. Too bad I dont have PS on my work machine.... Or else I can play w/ it.

I do like your picture better. :D
Thanks for the feedback but since I don't have the original item in front of me, I couldn't adjust the colors to get them as accurate as possible (note that I didn't adjust the colors at all except for the gray point). At any rate, the point of my exercise was to show that JPEG files can be edited for satisfactory results. But you can only do so much with it compared to RAW.

BTW, I'm a RAW shooter through and through and darn proud of it. :mrgreen:

[PacAce]

I think a better challenge would be to get it like the last shot straight out of the camera.
Yes, I agree 100%. That would really show what one can do with the camera shooting JPEG with no post processing.

[prime80]

Yes, I agree 100%. That would really show what one can do with the camera shooting JPEG with no post processing.

Parm 3 with a proper WB would probably be pretty close.

[timmyquest]

Good stuff pac.

[toddb]

I find raw much easier to make adjustments once you learn how to use it and they seem more consitant as well. My EF28-135ES lens is kind of low contrast combined with using a 550EX flash bounce with OmniBouce causes my images to be somewhat flat and color off slightly so being able to make a raw template and apply to all images saves allot of time. Then I can simply batch automate the raw images as they are (since I beleive that the raw format is best compression I can get and let the computer crunch away).

Here is a real raw conversion I bet you can't do with jpeg. My flash wasn't done recycling when I shot.
Before
http://www.toddburke.net/forumpost/Why_Raw_Before.jpg

after
http://www.toddburke.net/forumpost/Why_Raw_After.jpg

Extream, but shows just how much you can recover, even highlight recover is really pretty amazing as long as all three color channels are not at 255. Alot of times I'll push the exposure (making it look to bright) then bring down the brightness and pump up the shadow slighter and wow, what an improvement. When working with 12bits of info and in linear gama, I believe that gives you a leg up on processing in jpeg. Of course I do suck and totally use RAW as a crutch, but I think the converter will get better over time. I also like to do allot of post processing so it makes sense for me.

I don't know if you saw Jemook's Homeless Boy (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=64803) post but he used only raw conversions to get the effect. Now the Raw image on my 10D is like 6MP or something and the sidecar file for adjustments is pretty minimal...just think what size tiff that would be or a layered photoshp file. It might be bigger up front, but I feel in the long run, raw is better storage space long term.

[Chazs]

My challange to you is to take the 4mp image of whichever parameter you feel, and make an image that looks as natural, or more natural, as the edited RAW image i presented. The 4mp version can be downloaded via the link above the image.

Well I tried. I took the Param 1 shot and played with it. It still is a little yellow compared to Timmy's crips white RAW, but I don't think it's too horribly bad.

[timmyquest]

Not bad at all.

Perhaps a larger point here is time spent doing this. It was the click of a button for me...total of maybe 90 seconds to get the image.

[mdm]

Oh well, I tried. I have much to learn but it's fun.

[prime80]

Here's my shot at parm 3

http://www.jdwarner.com/parm3sm.jpg

Took about 15 secs. (levels, color balance, sharpen)

[Steven M. Anthony]

Perhapse and even larger point here is that there IS NO absolute answer to the "RAW VS. JPEG" debate. Different circumstances favor different formats for different people. I always use RAW, for example, when I'm shooting something I consider as part of my art. When I shoot a family function--with photos destined to 4X6 quick prints from my PictureMate and straight into a photo albun--I shoot jpeg (so I can just pop the card into the printer and my wife doesn't complain about never seeing the pictures...).

While there are well-documented examples of what RAW does better than jpeb and what jpeg does better than RAW, the VALUE of those circumstances and advantages differs from person to person.

[KennyG]

I'll make a comment on the above. All of the JPG images show artifacting to some degree, particularly in the red band and its white text. This is a problem you can not cure as it is a result of the in-camera processing. The post-processing of the JPG images, without exception, has made it worse.

Simply put, RAW is what I use 100% of the time because there are better engines out there to do the conversions than the one in the camera. If JPG is 'good enough' for you then fine, use it, but don't claim it is as good as RAW, it isn't.

[Steven M. Anthony]

If JPG is 'good enough' for you then fine, use it, but don't claim it is as good as RAW, it isn't.

There are many ways to define "good" and "better." As far as image integrity and robustness go, RAW is tops. But as a format allowing one-step printing, for example, jpeg is better than raw.

[Chazs]

Perhaps a larger point here is time spent doing this. It was the click of a button for me...total of maybe 90 seconds to get the image.

Bingo! It's fun to have a challenge, but I probably spent over 10 minutes on it. Too much for a bottle of windex. :) I shoot RAW all the time now; three years ago it was maybe 1 out of every 20, and going back to tweek those old photos I can do so much more with the few raw ones, and almost nothing with the jpeggers. :(

[solveg@aol.com]

I'm trying to figure out how to say this without being rude, but what's the point of color correcting something to a screen? I suppose it could be because of all the images being used on the web? But if you're going to press, the real work happens in the retouching and in color correcting after it's CMYK. Unless you have that product in front of you, it's real easy to say that you just pressed a couple buttons and it looks good. What would happen is that an art director would say that the bottle needed to be more transparent and not marred, that the shelves in the background needed more detail, and that the conversion process messed up all the colors. You need to have a pindot in the whites, and they need to lie below a certain level, and you can't have too much total print density.

When you hit auto levels, you blow out your whites and crush your shadows, and someone has to jump through hoops to try and get it to look normal again.

I feel badly for coming off so strongly here, but I can't tell you how many art directors and production people I've heard say that the stuff they're getting from photographers is unprintable. They* think the photography is just bad until the color house suggests they see if there's an original. The ad agencies don't like to do that...they usually just pay for the trade shop to fix it, so the photographer never knows that it's a problem.

Of course, if this is for web use, then forgive my tirade...it's not just this image, but many others, also. If you're going to press, you have to have less contrast in your images. It's sad but true. You can't blow out your whites, or lose detail on either shadow or highlight range. I understand that it's really beneficial for a photographer to automate as much as he can, but be careful.

[timmyquest]

i read your post twice solveg, and i'm sorry...but i dont understand your point here, how it applies to this thread.

I'm rather dense...

[Chazs]

I'm trying to figure out how to say this without being rude, ........... But if you're going to press, ..............the art director would say ..........art directors and production people .............ad agencies don't like to do that............... If you're going to press ................

I'm sorry, but this is quite rude. I'm never going to press, I don't have an art director, and I don't want a pedestal to stand on. I just like to take photos and make them look as good as I can on my monitor and printer. Excuse me for having a fun hobby without having the headache of friggen art directors or press morons. But I digress to you your level. I'm done.

[Steven M. Anthony]

I didn't find solveg's comment rude. I think it's very clear and to the point. And they have a good point in that viewing images over the internet on computer monitors is anything but a precise viewing experience. What looks color corrected on my screen might look horrible on yours. In a perfect world, everyone's monitor would be perfectly calibrated and everyone would post images in the sRGB color space. But we all know THAT'S never going to happen.

How it applies to the thread: the whole point of the thread was to show how much better RAW files were than jpegs at being "fixed" in terms of color (at least until people started posting adjustments to the jpegs that looked as good as the ones you made to the RAW image file). So solveg's point is that it's hard to tell what does better when different systems are used to manipulate the image and they are then shown over the internet.

[PhotosGuy]

Simply put, RAW is what I use 100% of the time because there are better engines out there to do the conversions than the one in the camera. If JPG is 'good enough' for you then fine, use it, but don't claim it is as good as RAW, it isn't. :D Kenny, I've used you as an example of someone who shoots jpgs since you need the smaller files, don't have the time to process them before sending them out, & your editors want jpegs. Sorry... ;)

... what's the point of color correcting something to a screen? The point is to color correct something to a calibrated screen before going to print or the web, whether it's CMYK or RGB, so the results will be "standard" & consistent. Something that the people producing, "stuff... is unprintable" don't know how to do.
As Steven said, "In a perfect world, everyone's monitor would be perfectly calibrated and everyone would post images in the sRGB color space. But we all know THAT'S never going to happen." Pros should know better if they want to stay in business.
;)

[PacAce]

...So solveg's point is that it's hard to tell what does better when different systems are used to manipulate the image and they are then shown over the internet.]
If that's really the case, since they do have to start out with an image anyway, wouldn't you think those people doing the "correction for print" want to start out with something that is in TIFF format than something that's in JPEG? TIFF images without JPEG artifacts can only come from RAW files, no?

[malla1962]

i am no expert on ps so this is the best i can do from param4.

[flowe]

A latecomer, derived from parm4:

http://homepage.hispeed.ch/flowe/digifoto/img/potn_the_works_ed.jpg

It's taken a long time, due to lack of experience...
But I'm very thankful for the chance to compare.

[Steven M. Anthony]

If that's really the case, since they do have to start out with an image anyway, wouldn't you think those people doing the "correction for print" want to start out with something that is in TIFF format than something that's in JPEG? TIFF images without JPEG artifacts can only come from RAW files, no?

Sure. I was just making the point that having everyone doing the comparisons here, on this web forum, doesn't make a whole lot of sense, as who knows how well everyone's monitor is. I know my home LCD monitor isn't calibrated very well (must attend to that some day... but then, I don't use that system to print)). So if I made the test photo look realistic on that monitor, it likely wouldn't look so to anyone else.

I don't know if tiffs have to start from raw format. I see the logic behind the notion. But then, I guess the same logic holds for a jpeg. I DO know that my Sony 707 has a tif mode, but no raw mode.

[solveg@aol.com]

I am so* sorry about my previous post. I wrote it, thought it didn't come off with the right tone and thought I backed out of the screen without posting it. So I didn't realize it had actually posted, and really didn't mean to rain on anyone's parade.

I had decided not to post it because I realized it was off tangent from the whole raw vs jpg debate to some extent. Prepress people love Raw and have real trouble with jpg stuff. Sometimes the compression artifacts don't even show up until you convert to CMYK.

Once again, my apologies. This thread was just making me think of color correction in general.

[CyberDyneSystems]

No harm done,. and no need for apologies,.

I for one would be very interested to see how our post processing techniques should differ for prepress work,. and what we can learn from that ;)

[Chazs]

I am so* sorry about my previous post. I wrote it, thought it didn't come off with the right tone and thought I backed out of the screen without posting it. So I didn't realize it had actually posted, and really didn't mean to rain on anyone's parade.

I had decided not to post it because I realized it was off tangent from the whole raw vs jpg debate to some extent. Prepress people love Raw and have real trouble with jpg stuff. Sometimes the compression artifacts don't even show up until you convert to CMYK.

Once again, my apologies. This thread was just making me think of color correction in general.

Ditto here. I guess I was a little cranky from a long week at work.

[drisley]

Timmyq, what software did you use for the initial Raw conversion?

[flowe]

There is a long hurdle race for a JPEG image:

1. With more Mpx, the compression elements get smaller
2. Degree of chromatic aberration etc.
3. Camera firmware: strategy and options for jpeg quality
4. preset in-camera sharpening, option for low
5. Geometric editing:
- (barrel, pincushion, perspective, rotation, cropping, resampling)
- Quality is infringed by any in-camera sharpening
- Software quality – some take it easy
- Recompression to jpeg after geometric editing
6. Strategy and quality of sharpening

To me, the simplistic issue "RAW vs. JPEG" appears as futile.
Depending on circumstances and workflow, both remain valid strategies.
flowe