DSLRUsers.com

This one is MKII of yesterday's sunset, but this one is the RAW image, I have only recently started to use raw + JPG format for all shots, and I can notice a definite colour improvement in the raw image over the JPG. I don't know if I'm imagining things or not. Some Nikon people swear that JPG is fine for everything, but I'm happy to keep using raw. Only drawback as I see it is the increased processing time and power needed in PS. Max

Just for comparison, here is yesterday's photo again, in JPG mode.

Max - I always shoot RAW and I have to say you have captured a beautiful sunset.

But I do have a cheeky question, how come the cloud formation is virtually identical in both shots

Edit: I see!!! They are the same photo - sometimes I am stupid

nice shots....

i like the first one better as it has better contrast imho.... very relaxing..

i'm with you... raw all the way....

cheers

The RAW image certainly looks richer to me. I didn't realise it would make such a difference to the colour from a jpeg.

Is it much hassel to go RAW?

ozimax, much more punch !

Raw all the way, once you go RAW there's no going back.
You have a lot more Post Processing capabilities as well.

Mic.

Spooky wrote:The RAW image certainly looks richer to me. I didn't realise it would make such a difference to the colour from a jpeg.

Is it much hassel to go RAW?

Hey Spooky, no hassle, just takes up more room on your CF card. I certainly think the richness of the colour is worth losing a bit of space.

Love the first one. Even when you crop the first down to a similar shot as the second the richness is not there. And that is what draws me to it, it is so rich, no RICH.

I've also switched over to shooting RAW, mainly for that one photo I may take that is the best keeper, want it in the best possible format

Cheers
Brett

sirhc55 wrote:Max - I always shoot RAW and I have to say you have captured a beautiful sunset.

But I do have a cheeky question, how come the cloud formation is virtually identical in both shots

Edit: I see!!! They are the same photo - sometimes I am stupid

No comment on that one Chris!

Max

Nice shot, the first one looks better to me

I've always used RAW but primarily so I have latitude in exposure (in case I stuff up) and also so I could later determine how I wanted the image processed (which bits to sharpen which bits to blur etc) , I never thought there'd be a difference in color like that!

No differences in the settings used in camera? cos I assume with jpegs what-ever the camera settings are set are applied to the image, whereas you can choose later with the RAW?

Wow, this really surpised me...

Cheers,
Mudder

Max:
beautiful image!!

p.s. why do these pics look different though...like check out the sun and the rays..lil different...or am i drunk?

I'm a big fan of RAW. I prefer the first one too as the colours are a lot warmer.

Is one cropped or something. When viewed closely, it appears that these are not the same image. The colors don't look so different to me as the one looks brighter. I get this often when I take pictures of the same scene, the camera exposes one slightly more than the other making the darker one rich with colors.

i agree with dooda
these are different pics i think ?!

The RAW file contains 12 bits of data.

When converted to a JPEG file, which is only 8 bits, some data is irretrievably lost.

That's why (IMHO) it's better to shoot in RAW, do any PP work to complete your image, then convert to JPEG (if necessary) for showing, emailing or printing.

Yes folks, upon recollection you are correct, the photos are slightly different in that I took about 30 shots over a period of about 2-3 minutes and the clouds of course change shape very quickly, in a matter of seconds. And yes, one is cropped. I'm not even sure how close the two photos are, time wise, most probably 30 secs or so. They were taken from on top of the same fence post!

I still believe that the RAW image has deeper colour than the JPEG even with a cursory glance, which is the theme of this post. Maybe I should post two identical shots of the same photo? In fact, I think I will!

Max

Reviving this thread.

I'd like to see identical photos on here of a Raw version and Jpeg because I've had identical results to your test showings because of different spot meterings darkening the pic on two different jpegs of the exact same scene right after eachother. The glow of the sunlight inevitably goes brighter and dark oranges turn to light oranges and yellows the brighter the image becomes. Reds can completely disappear.

I agree that the raw image has the deeper color, but check your exif info and make sure that they were exposed the same, it makes all the difference as to whether or not the Raw gave you better colors or the exposure did (or perhaps the lesser amount of light creeping out from the cloud with the same exposure time). Posting two of the identical pic is the only way to do this test accurately. Sorry for reviving this like this but I'm really curious.

Shooting in RAW gives you a lot more control and information in the histogram and use SAVING AS in 16bit and 300dpi set in the Raw window in Photoshop CS, so if you want to you can return TO THE RAW IMAGE and reprocess FOR A DIFFERENT LOOK. You can convert your image from 16bit, after retouching and any other changers you make, to 8bit then save as a jpg file, this should improve quality

good luck

Big Pix

Here are two identical shots, one the raw image and the other the jpg image. I'm not sure if this is what is needed for this discussion, but here goes. Both files resized and optimised but otherwise untouched:

Max

RAW


JPG

The only difference I can notice is that the top section of the cloud formation is lighter in the RAW compared to the JPEG. This is something that I've come across while working with JPEG is that the image looks great in Nikon Capture Editor and Photoshop but view it in IE and it looks terribly dark.

Something I'm also confused about is how the hell does this work? You're showing a side by side comparison of JPEG vs RAW, but you've converted the RAW to JPEG. The only way to do a side by side comparison is in front of your PC

Or try a lossless fileformat and one that doesn't scale down the colorspace from 12/16bit to 8bit, and that is still viewable from IE over the net. Either that or host the pictures in JPEG and TIFF (16bit) on a webserver and put the URLs in here.

Btw going slightly OT, when I load the JPEG version up in Nikon Capture Editor I can see all of the houses. But when I view it in IE I see nothing back black and a few undefined bits of grey. Amazing what viewing in IE is like compared to NCE or PS.

Just did a test then with all 3 programs open viewing the same pic.

IE -> Darkest (no definition in the lower section of the image - no houses) PS -> Light (some definition in the lower section of the image - houses visibile, but hard to distinguish what they are)
NCE -> Lightest (definition in the lower section - houses visible, can be distinguished).

Now does anybody else have that sort of difference between IE, PS and NCE?

The raw image is lighter. The jpeg seems to be warmer, orangy, the Raw is yellowishy. Obviously more detail in the less exposed areas. That's a pretty good test.

kipper wrote:... Just did a test then with all 3 programs open viewing the same pic.

IE -> Darkest (no definition in the lower section of the image - no houses) PS -> Light (some definition in the lower section of the image - houses visibile, but hard to distinguish what they are)
NCE -> Lightest (definition in the lower section - houses visible, can be distinguished).

Now does anybody else have that sort of difference between IE, PS and NCE?

G'day,
I tried using PSCS to open my raw NEFs but went back to Nikon Capture for initial conversion to TIFFS for PP using PSCS afterwards, as I thought the TIFFS were more vibrant when using NC... I just thought it was due to me stuffing up and not using PSCS settings correctly though...

Yep, I'm not sure what it all proves, the process for my recent 30x20 inch surf poster print was as follows:

Open raw file in PSCS, convert to PSD file, 8 bit, RGB Adobe colour
Resize to 180 pixels per inch (the local printer works at 180 or 360)
Add 3% (gaussian) noise
Add different layers including black background, title and copyright notice
Did not flatten image
Save as uncompressed TIF file (360mb)
Burned to CD

Max

Thanks for the info Max, I find that very useful. My bro just recently told me about saving in PSD (photoshop format right?) I wished that he had told me earlier, I've been saving in JPEG and getting massive artefacts. I find that you can't save in Jpeg more than twice without losing huge amounts of quality.

ozimax wrote:Here are two identical shots, one the raw image and the other the jpg image.
I'm not sure if this is what is needed for this discussion, but here goes.
Both files resized and optimised but otherwise untouched:
Max

Max, one question.
What do you mean when you say "optimised" and otherwise untouched?

Greolt

By "optimised" I mean utilising the "save for web" option under file menu,
where Photoshop saves the file as a web friendly file so it won't take all week long to up/down load.

Max

Just came back to this thread and the first thing I noticed was the marked difference in the ability to make out details in the darker areas like the trees and houses in the foreground...

Wonder if the settings in camera are causing that as they're applied directly to the image when using JPEG???

Don't know about that one Andrew, no idea. I'm still tossing up whether or not to stay with raw or go back to JPG for my surfing pics.

One thing I do notice is that with raw, (and it's strictly not on this topic) I cannot take more than a few continous shots (3 I think before the camera has to stop and process) whereas with jpg I can keep clicking away for ever - it's a big point when you're taking surfing photos.

Max