Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 31 Mar 2005 (Thursday) 10:19
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

A challange to all you jpeg shooters out there

 
timmyquest
Goldmember
4,172 posts
Joined Dec 2003
Location: Outside of Chicago
     
Mar 31, 2005 10:19 |  #1
bannedPermanent ban

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 (external link)

IMAGE NOT FOUND
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


parm 2
http://www.questphotos​.com/PSnotcheating/4mp​/parm2.JPG (external link)
IMAGE NOT FOUND
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


parm 3
http://www.questphotos​.com/PSnotcheating/4mp​/parm3.JPG (external link)
IMAGE NOT FOUND
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


parm 4
http://www.questphotos​.com/PSnotcheating/4mp​/parm4.JPG (external link)
IMAGE NOT FOUND
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


parm 5
http://www.questphotos​.com/PSnotcheating/4mp​/parm5.JPG (external link)
IMAGE NOT FOUND
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


Here is the Straight-out-of-the-camera RAW image
IMAGE NOT FOUND
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE


(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 (external link) 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)

IMAGE NOT FOUND
Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE



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.

Capturing life a fraction of a second at a time

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hellashot
Goldmember
4,617 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Sep 2004
Location: USA
     
Mar 31, 2005 10:32 |  #2
bannedPermanent ban

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.


5D, Drebel, EOS-3, K1000
lenses from 12mm-500mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dubsta
Member
219 posts
Joined Feb 2005
Location: Sydney, Canada
     
Mar 31, 2005 10:42 |  #3

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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PacAce
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
26,900 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Feb 2003
Location: Keystone State, USA
     
Mar 31, 2005 10:55 |  #4

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.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


...Leo

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PacAce
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
26,900 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Feb 2003
Location: Keystone State, USA
     
Mar 31, 2005 11:06 |  #5

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


...Leo

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dphotomania
Member
160 posts
Joined Jan 2005
Location: The BIG Apple!
     
Mar 31, 2005 11:09 |  #6

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


http://www.dphotogenic​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jfrancho
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,341 posts
Joined Feb 2005
     
Mar 31, 2005 11:30 |  #7

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



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PacAce
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
26,900 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Feb 2003
Location: Keystone State, USA
     
Mar 31, 2005 11:44 as a reply to  @ dphotomania's post |  #8

dphotomania wrote:
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:


...Leo

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PacAce
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
26,900 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Feb 2003
Location: Keystone State, USA
     
Mar 31, 2005 11:46 as a reply to  @ jfrancho's post |  #9

jfrancho wrote:
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.


...Leo

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
prime80
Goldmember
Avatar
2,394 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 83
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Harmony, FL
     
Mar 31, 2005 12:22 as a reply to  @ PacAce's post |  #10

PacAce wrote:
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.


John
R6, EF 100-400 L IS II, EF 24-70 L II, EF 85 f/1.8
Full Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timmyquest
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
4,172 posts
Joined Dec 2003
Location: Outside of Chicago
     
Mar 31, 2005 13:38 |  #11
bannedPermanent ban

Good stuff pac.


Capturing life a fraction of a second at a time

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
toddb
Senior Member
Avatar
792 posts
Joined Jul 2003
Location: Seattle Washington
     
Mar 31, 2005 14:11 |  #12

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

[IMAGE TOO SMALL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]


after
[IMAGE TOO SMALL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]

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 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.

10D, EF17-40L, EF50F1.4, EF28-135IS, 550EX [AlienBees 2xB800 and 1xB400 with large softbox and reversible umbrella] Sekonic L-358

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Chazs
Senior Member
515 posts
Joined Aug 2002
Location: NW Washington
     
Mar 31, 2005 21:14 |  #13

timmyquest wrote:
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.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timmyquest
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
4,172 posts
Joined Dec 2003
Location: Outside of Chicago
     
Mar 31, 2005 21:17 |  #14
bannedPermanent ban

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.


Capturing life a fraction of a second at a time

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mdm
Goldmember
Avatar
1,783 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2005
     
Mar 31, 2005 21:46 |  #15

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


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

6,436 views & 0 likes for this thread, 18 members have posted to it.
A challange to all you jpeg shooters out there
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is semonsters
1480 guests, 132 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.