PDA

View Full Version : raw v jpeg experiment.


IanB
20th February 2016, 04:21 AM
got to be a fairly big enlargement to see any difference; that is if there is another pic close by for a comparison
Oly EM1 + 20mm pana lens

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1613/24509501394_29469fd44f_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/DkPASf)
P2180138 (https://flic.kr/p/DkPASf) by Ian Browne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/75510429@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1681/24772491529_fe4dfc1f06_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/DK4uEV)
P2180138 1 (https://flic.kr/p/DK4uEV) by Ian Browne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/75510429@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1680/24513331723_39ef48784c_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Dmaeup)
P2180138 1-2 (https://flic.kr/p/Dmaeup) by Ian Browne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/75510429@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1625/24772491719_7d0c3efd31_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/DK4uJc)
P2180121 (https://flic.kr/p/DK4uJc) by Ian Browne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/75510429@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1713/24772492379_71cb0d03dc_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/DK4uVz)
P2180121 1 (https://flic.kr/p/DK4uVz) by Ian Browne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/75510429@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1530/25046919071_a9a86f45f6_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Eaj1qg)
P2180121 1-2 (https://flic.kr/p/Eaj1qg) by Ian Browne (https://www.flickr.com/photos/75510429@N02/), on Flickr

and no, I will not be using jpeg only from now on, and raw + jpeg is too confusing so I will continue to use raw only. However I was rather surprised how well the jpg file edited up. Well post some of those pics later

photo_owl
20th February 2016, 05:34 AM
Don't understand what you are trying to say.

Jpeg uses the camera settings to convert the raw data
Raw, in this context, uses subsequently applied settings to convert the raw data with the option to use other converters as well as settings.

If you know the jpeg settings you wish to use, and have little or no stressing of the recorded data (or selective processsing), then arguably you shouldn't see any difference. Otoh you can always create a difference through settings, or the use of different raw converters.

The better the original exposure / capture the less likely that you will observe any q differences.

The more adjustments you wish to make the better off you will be working from the raw file.

Raw + Jpeg, where the Jpeg settings are for finished material, works very well when travelling and posting rushes to social media via instagram, twitter etc it's better than using basic Jpeg editors like OISHARE, LR for android etc but given how few ever adjust their camera Jpeg settings, let alone during shooting, most have a post processing habit, and should probably just shoot raw and run basic batch processing via Bridge (or whatever) for Jpeg output and go back to the raw files for hours, and hours, of fun later...

IanB
20th February 2016, 06:05 AM
just saying there is not the big difference as some say; as long as the light is about average. the difference between the raw-jpg file was mostly in the big blue sky. Ages since I have used jpg and I attend to do some more fiddling just for something different.

Question to the jpg uses; what setting do you use mostly? I just used natural because it seemed the natural one to use. I didn't even realize there were so many picture mode settings available :o.

Easier to add some "vivid" pp than to remove it IMO

Harold Gough
20th February 2016, 10:07 AM
I'm not sure what I am supposed the be seeing but there is a huge amount of noise in the second image.

Harold

pdk42
20th February 2016, 11:45 AM
Photo_owl has it exactly right. If the difference in processing (sharpening, NR, contrast etc) is the same in-camera as in post-processing on a computer from the raw, then there should be little difference (what differences there are will be subtle differences in processing between the camera and LightRoom etc).

However, try lifting shadows, or removing sharpening or changing NR or a myriad of other things and you'll find your in-camera jpegs don't do nearly so well.

If all you ever do is use the shots pretty much as the camera took them, then I guess jpegs will be just fine, but if you do a fair amount of post processing then raw really is significantly better.

Harold Gough
20th February 2016, 11:51 AM
If all you ever do is use the shots pretty much as the camera took them, then I guess jpegs will be just fine, but if you do a fair amount of post processing then raw really is significantly better.

Some of the more recent reviews of cameras have suggested that the (presumably finest quality) JPEGs are good enough to not require RAW to be used.

Harold

Graham_of_Rainham
20th February 2016, 12:13 PM
An important thing to keep in mind is jpg files are only 8-Bit. This can have a considerable effect if any post processing is done, such as levels, as blocking and banding in areas, such as plain sky's and shadows, can become noticeable.

Ian
20th February 2016, 12:33 PM
In camera JPEGs will always be a compromise compared to an image skilfully created from a RAW file. I see so many comparisons of RAW and JPEG results where the RAW contender is simply what Lightroom or Olympus Viewer, etc. produces by default. That completely overlooks the point of using RAW files. Default images like these from RAW are in the same category as camera JPEGs and often not as good because the camera manufacturer has usually worked harder on its algorithms to produce in-camera JPEGs.

Interestingly, Olympus Viewer appears to use the same algorithms as the respective Olympus camera models so default images from RAW files using Viewer look very similar to what the camera produces.

Nevertheless, a comparison of camera RAW with an in-camera JPEG only makes any sense if some work has been put into the RAW conversion so it is, by definition, rather subjective because one photographer's skill and perception will inevitably differ from another's . Indeed - I'm sure that if I started from scratch processing a RAW file on two different occasions without reference to the first attempt, I'm sure you would see differences between the two final end prodiucts!

In the end, a camera JPEG is convenient and in some cameras, notably Olympus and Fujifilm, pretty good, but if you want to extract not just the maximum quality from your image but also to endow that image with your interpretation, then RAW is by far the best starting point.

With regard to this thread, the problem is that because IanB hasn't (as far as I can see) explained how the results from the RAW examples have been produced, the exercise is rather meaningless - no offence intended1

Ian

Graham_of_Rainham
20th February 2016, 01:27 PM
I'd be interested to see a comparison done where a RAW file is converted to jpg using lots of different post processing software (all set to default, as if straight out the packet/download) That way some idea of how the various editors adjust the look of our files may be able to be seen.

The big problem would be that the image I use as an original may not be to the liking of others and as such the subjective assessment would likely be influenced.

If Ian has a "candidate" RAW file we could all download, I'm sure several of us could "play" and post the jpg back here for discussion. An agreed re-size, jpg quality, etc., would be needed, but that's not difficult.

I offer the PAGB standard of 1400x1050, sRGB as the output requirement.

Ian
20th February 2016, 02:06 PM
Sounds like a great idea - let me have a rummage in my image library...

Ian

pdk42
20th February 2016, 02:19 PM
I'd be interested to see a comparison done where a RAW file is converted to jpg using lots of different post processing software (all set to default, as if straight out the packet/download) That way some idea of how the various editors adjust the look of our files may be able to be seen.

The big problem would be that the image I use as an original may not be to the liking of others and as such the subjective assessment would likely be influenced.

If Ian has a "candidate" RAW file we could all download, I'm sure several of us could "play" and post the jpg back here for discussion. An agreed re-size, jpg quality, etc., would be needed, but that's not difficult.

I offer the PAGB standard of 1400x1050, sRGB as the output requirement.

I'd be up for that!

Ian
20th February 2016, 02:29 PM
Try this one - I chose this as it's quite high ISO and so needs some noise management and it's reasonably sharp and I am sure the tonality can be improved from the default view I see in Lightroom:

http://e-group.uk.net/files/forum/PB240320.ORF

Ian

Ian
20th February 2016, 02:37 PM
This was my original attempt in November 2013, including cropping:

http://e-group.uk.net/files/forum/PB240320a.jpg

Ian

Ian
20th February 2016, 02:46 PM
And the Lightroom default:

http://e-group.uk.net/files/forum/PB240320b.jpg

And the Olympus Viewer default:


http://e-group.uk.net/files/forum/PB240320_ovdefault.jpg

Ian

Graham_of_Rainham
20th February 2016, 03:04 PM
From Ian's original RAW file - Processed to jpg using Faststone Maxview 2.9
100% quality, 1400 x 1048 as the aspect conversion ratio is maintained
Being a simple viewer, there is no processing at all...

http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/500/PB240320.jpg (http://dpnow.com/galleries/showphoto.php/photo/33161)

Ian
20th February 2016, 03:06 PM
And 100% crops of the defaults:

Lightroom:
http://e-group.uk.net/files/forum/lr_crop.jpg

Olympus Viewer:
http://e-group.uk.net/files/forum/ov_crop.jpg

The LR rendition has more detail but it's noisier. The OV version is smoother but there is less detail.

Ian

Ian
20th February 2016, 03:16 PM
From Ian's original RAW file - Processed to jpg using Faststone Maxview 2.9
100% quality, 1400 x 1048 as the aspect conversion ratio is maintained
Being a simple viewer, there is no processing at all...


Ah, but there is processing - just not by you :)

Ian

Graham_of_Rainham
20th February 2016, 03:17 PM
Again using Faststone Maxview 2.9, just using Ian's RAW file and cropping to 933x700 in roughly the same place:
http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/500/PB240320_Cropped.jpg (http://dpnow.com/galleries/showphoto.php/photo/33162)

Graham_of_Rainham
20th February 2016, 03:22 PM
Ah, but there is processing - just not by you :)

Ian

Absolutely... It's whatever RAW to jpg conversion algorithm Faststone have chosen to use but, as you say, no additional adjustment by my hand... :cool:

Graham_of_Rainham
20th February 2016, 03:50 PM
This is the conversion using DxO Optics PRO 10 Elite - All processing turned off:

http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/500/PB240320_DxO.jpg (http://dpnow.com/galleries/showphoto.php/photo/33163)

Graham_of_Rainham
20th February 2016, 03:59 PM
This is the 100% crop from DxO Optics PRO 10 Elite

http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/500/PB240320_DxO1.jpg (http://dpnow.com/galleries/showphoto.php/photo/33164)

Ian
20th February 2016, 04:19 PM
Again using Faststone Maxview 2.9, just using Ian's RAW file and cropping to 933x700 in roughly the same place:
http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/500/PB240320_Cropped.jpg (http://dpnow.com/galleries/showphoto.php/photo/33162)

It's quite dark compared to the others - again this reflects the program and not RAW files in general. It's also low on noise grain but darker images can mask noise. It's not very detailed either. I would assume there is little optimisation of the output.

Ian

Ian
20th February 2016, 04:23 PM
Although it's more grainy I am liking the Lightroom version the best so far, with the Optics Pro version second.

Ian

Ian
20th February 2016, 04:35 PM
Here is my refined version processed in Lightroom:

http://e-group.uk.net/files/forum/lr_crop_tweaked_1.jpg

And a reminder of the original Lightroom default:

http://e-group.uk.net/files/forum/lr_crop.jpg

Ian

EDIT - that has come out looking over-sharpened compared with how it looks in the Lightroom edit view! So here it is with a little less sharpening and less noise reduction:

http://e-group.uk.net/files/forum/lr_crop_tweaked_2.jpg

IanB
20th February 2016, 09:35 PM
I'm not sure what I am supposed the be seeing but there is a huge amount of noise in the second image.

Harold
not noise as such; more like holes from the removed pixels imo
Just checked and I haven't done any sharpening or noise editing on these files

IanB
20th February 2016, 10:05 PM
thought this thread would warm the lounge up a bit :rolleyes:. RAW and JPG always stirs to emotions with photographers.

Tell me please. Oly cameras set to raw-jpg fine>natural: how much in camera processing is done to the 'natural' jpg file? The reason I ask is after the 1st comment was posted I had a look and the OTC raw and jpg seem very similar.

We also need to remember these pics were taken mainly with the sun over the shoulder; I certainly expect it to be a different story if the sun was more in the face.
I'm still 1/2 asleep; rough night so I will come back for another look later.

'sun over the shoulder'. I was asked by a tourist what was the best way to get reasonably good holiday snaps most of the time (no editing). And answer was have sun over the shoulder. That how it was taught 50 ++++ years ago. May have been in the Box Brownie manual :rolleyes:

Hit another salt lake yesterday PM . Not sure if that's *yes or *zzz to most.

PeterBirder
20th February 2016, 10:21 PM
not noise as such; more like holes from the removed pixels imo


Sorry that is not possible.

JPEG compression does not remove pixels, it codes the data that describes each pixel into a form which uses fewer data bits for transmission and storage. When you subsequently view or print from a JPEG software in your computer/printer de-compresses the data back to something like its original number of bits. Since the coding process uses complex statistical methods to achieve the data compression when it is subsequently re-constructed there will be some errors introduced (the greater the compression amount the more errors) and this appears as "noise" and other artefacts in the image. A 16 Mega pixel image when converted to JPEG and then back to a displayable/printable form always has 16 Mega pixels.

Regards.*chr

PeterBirder
21st February 2016, 12:03 AM
thought this thread would warm the lounge up a bit :rolleyes:. RAW and JPG always stirs to emotions with photographers.

Tell me please. Oly cameras set to raw-jpg fine>natural: how much in camera processing is done to the 'natural' jpg file? The reason I ask is after the 1st comment was posted I had a look and the OTC raw and jpg seem very similar.



No emotions are being stirred. Folks are trying to help you understand the differences between and possible benefits of using camera JPEGs or doing your own processing to produces JPEGS.

To answer your question. There is no such thing as a "natural jpg file". The raw data is not in a form that can be viewed or printed it has to be "developed". The camera processing "engine" is a raw converter and the final stage of that conversion is the production of a JPEG compressed file. There is no "processing" of the camera JPEG the processing is done before that stage using the settings you have made for ISO,White Ballance, Picture mode, Sharpness, Contrast, Saturation etc. on the camera.
If you use a raw file and process it using another raw processor at its default settings on your computer you will get very similar results. However by doing the processing yourself you have the opportunity to change those settings for example to deal with highlight/shadow problems or correcting a colour cast due to odd lighting etc and to "enhance" or modify the image to your liking. If you want to make subsequent versions from JPEGs every time you complete a change and then "Save As" you will re-compress the JPEG data and introduce some additional degredation.

Think of these analogies with film.

A raw file is the equivalent of an undeveloped negative. The data is there but you can't see it.

Raw conversion is the equivalent of both developing the negative and producing a positive but with film once you have done that you can't change much later. With film you can adjust the way you carry out the development ie. "push" the processing etc. but once done you can't go back.

With digital if you have a raw "negative" it is never itself modified in the conversion process, you can go back and develop new versions of the same shot or take advantage of new developments in processing software in the future.

Think of doing your own raw development as the equivalent of using a home darkroom for film. It's just more flexible and doesn't need messy chemicals, semi darkness and copious amounts of water.

Regards.*chr

griffljg
21st February 2016, 12:33 AM
Here are the results of the Capture One Pro 9 default:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-hFwMF_gLWJQ/VskErxvT2eI/AAAAAAADLgw/diQ6k3iSonw/s1024-Ic42/PB240320%2525205.jpg

and

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-1i35Rdu0CJg/VskEGXUX3jI/AAAAAAADLgw/jgCshwdBlTo/s800-Ic42/PB240320%2525204.jpg

meach
21st February 2016, 12:42 AM
just saying there is not the big difference as some say;

Sorry, but I see a huge difference between your first two shots so I can't agree with you. I also am having difficulty in understanding what you think you've proved.

IanB
21st February 2016, 07:13 AM
Sorry, but I see a huge difference between your first two shots so I can't agree with you. I also am having difficulty in understanding what you think you've proved.

I'm not trying to prove anything; just doing something different to how have done it for quite a few years

AND YES; there is a big difference; but how many are going to make an enlargement that big as those crops represent. from memory it's around 3:1/4:1 crop.

DerekW
21st February 2016, 12:29 PM
But those big crops are more beneficial for getting the effect of a 2000mm lens but printed at A4 or smaller. A good way of avoiding GAS

Graham_of_Rainham
21st February 2016, 02:13 PM
Picasa3 turns the RAW file into these jpgs

http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/500/PB240320-Picasa3.jpg (http://dpnow.com/galleries/showphoto.php/photo/33169)

http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/500/PB240320_Picasa3_Crop.jpg (http://dpnow.com/galleries/showphoto.php/photo/33170)

Graham_of_Rainham
22nd February 2016, 03:12 PM
Had time to play over the weekend...

This is a jpg straight from the camera:
http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/500/EM210053_OV3_websize.jpg (http://dpnow.com/galleries/showphoto.php/photo/33172)

These are crops from three different source files:
Left straight from Camera (as above)
Middle an OV3 jpg from RAW
Right the embedded jpg from the RAW file (essentially what you see on the rear screen)

http://dpnow.com/galleries/data/500/Camera_-_OV3_-_Embedded.jpg (http://dpnow.com/galleries/showphoto.php/photo/33171)

The jpg from OV3 is about twice the file size of the one straight from the camera.

OM USer
22nd February 2016, 04:07 PM
When someone refers to the "default" settings applied by processing RAW to JPEG in OV3, does this mean processing with all the settings that were specified in the camera, stored in the RAW image, and used by OV3; or does it mean looking at each setting in the OV3 RAW edit pane and setting it to 0/normal/none or whatever is appropriate and disregarding the camera setting?

I would hope that in camera processing and OV3 processing (using the settings saved in the RAW file) would produce identical results but I am not sure if the file compression is identical as the options do not have the same name and this may affect the final jpeg slightly and hence subsequent viewing. Is the first post trying to show that two such jpegs are not as close as I would like?

Graham_of_Rainham
22nd February 2016, 04:58 PM
When someone refers to the "default" settings applied by processing RAW to JPEG in OV3, does this mean processing with all the settings that were specified in the camera, stored in the RAW image, and used by OV3; or does it mean looking at each setting in the OV3 RAW edit pane and setting it to 0/normal/none or whatever is appropriate and disregarding the camera setting?

That is a very good question:

As I have all the camera settings to "Factory Default", except WB that is set to 6300K for me I then process the RAW file to what I want. On this ocasion for "comparison" I set all the OV3 settings to ZERO with WB "As Shot"

I would hope that in camera processing and OV3 processing (using the settings saved in the RAW file) would produce identical results but I am not sure if the file compression is identical as the options do not have the same name and this may affect the final jpeg slightly and hence subsequent viewing. Is the first post trying to show that two such jpegs are not as close as I would like?

I have concluded that the in camera jpg is significantly different to the OV3 produced jpg as file size is almost double from OV3 and as shown the Triptych there is a visible difference.

Ian
22nd February 2016, 05:49 PM
Olympus Viewer generally duplicates all the camera image quality options but also adds more adjustment flexibility.

OV does indeed recognise all the camera settings which are saved with the photo (RAW and JOEG) and so the 'default' settings will be determined by the camera.

This only applies to Olympus cameras though.

Lightroom can recognise basic camera settings like shutter speed and aperture, but it won't know the noise filter setting or precise white balance or any effects modes, etc., which OV will.

Ian

Ulfric M Douglas
22nd February 2016, 07:30 PM
Well this is a strange thread,
started with some Jpegs which cannot demonstrate at all the advantages of RAW processing.
There are even hints that some people think a default Jpeg from RAW through any processor is an image of the RAW file ... but there is no such thing as a visible RAW.

What does appear useful is identification of which processors are likely to cock up a photo and give orange faces or more noise or underexposure, so need to be watched for that.

Graham_of_Rainham
22nd February 2016, 10:31 PM
Well this is a strange thread,

It's the "Lounge"... The conversation goes, wherever someone takes it. ;)

What does appear useful is identification of which processors are likely to cock up a photo and give orange faces or more noise or underexposure, so need to be watched for that.

We could do with some other "editors" examples to see what they do ti Ian's file.

Anyone got a version of Capture One that will open the ORF raw file *???

PeterBirder
22nd February 2016, 10:53 PM
Anyone got a version of Capture One that will open the ORF raw file *???

Post #29 is a Capture One conversion.

OM USer
22nd February 2016, 11:08 PM
Processed from ORF with CyberLink PhotoDirector 4 into JPEG (and the jpeg then resized, cropped, and saved in low quality on OV3 for upload to the forum).

http://www.e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/PB240320b2.jpg

http://www.e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/PB240320b3.jpg

Harold Gough
23rd February 2016, 08:37 AM
After long hesitation, I have had a go at processing the image. The size seems limited by the site album system

Harold

http://e-group.uk.net/forum/picture.php?albumid=450&pictureid=2384

http://e-group.uk.net/forum/picture.php?albumid=450&pictureid=2383

meach
23rd February 2016, 01:06 PM
On1 Photo 10 default:

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/PB240320_smart_copyWeb.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/88486)

meach
23rd February 2016, 01:51 PM
Corel AfterShot Standard - I got a free trial, but don't think I'll be giving them any money!

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/AfterShotWeb.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/88487)

OlyPaul
25th February 2016, 10:35 AM
Capture One 8
http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/1979/PB2403201.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/88512)

The question is why pick this guy for a 100% crop as he is the least sharp and possibly out of focus person in the image.
http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/1979/PB240320_2.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/88514)
where as this guy is in focus and fairly sharp.
http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/1979/PB240320_1.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/88513)