Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: JPEGS or RAW  (Read 18716 times)
papa v2.0
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


« Reply #60 on: November 14, 2007, 06:14:55 AM »
ReplyReply

just my 2cents worth

one has to remember that the JEPG file comes from the RAW file generated by the camera

the camera give you the option to save  the RAW file


The following is typical of a digital processing pipeline

  Camera sensor data via a ADC to sensor raw
  Linearise
  Subtract dark current, flare
  De-mosaic

this can be CAMERA RAW that you get from a RAW convertor. EG DC RAW (Dave Coffin)
Or carry on

  Estimate scene adopted white ( illuminant estimation)
  white balance

this can be CAMERA RAW that you get from a RAW convertor. EG DC RAW (Dave Coffin)
Or carry on

  Transform to device independent  colour space - Device RGB via the camera matrix to
  CIEXYZ  colour space.

this can be CAMERA RAW that you get from a RAW convertor. EG DC RAW (Dave Coffin)
Or carry on

  This stage the image is scene referred

  The next stage is to convert from scene referred to standard output referred -
  this is either sRGB, Adobe RGB or ROMM RGB ( Pro Photo RGB)
  COLOUR RENDERING
  This colour rendering algorithm includes gamut mapping, appearance and preference
  and is usually  proprietary ie Nikon, Cannon etc

  The image now can be encoded to JEPG or TIFF.


What the main problem is in digital photography is that we dont have control over the colour rendering This belongs to the camera manufacturer or even Adobe in Adobe Camera Raw etc


Using the RAW file give you control over the early steps in the pipeline as opposed to the cameras choice but not the rendering algorithms.

so remember JEPG is only a compression method
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6904


WWW
« Reply #61 on: November 14, 2007, 07:29:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm entitled to my comments as much as you!!!!!!   the post was and still is about calibration as much as it is about slide film, and fine art.  Or was it Jpeg v Raw?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152671\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yeah of course you are, and I'm entitled to tell you whether I think you are mixing-up issues that have no necessary bearing on each other. But you have a point - this thread is kind of multi-pronged. All the more reason to keep separable issues separated.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6904


WWW
« Reply #62 on: November 14, 2007, 07:53:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
just my 2cents worth

one has to remember that the JEPG file comes from the RAW file generated by the camera

...........................

  The next stage is to convert from scene referred to standard output referred -
  this is either sRGB, Adobe RGB or ROMM RGB ( Pro Photo RGB)
  COLOUR RENDERING
  This colour rendering algorithm includes gamut mapping, appearance and preference
  and is usually  proprietary ie Nikon, Cannon etc

  The image now can be encoded to JEPG or TIFF.
What the main problem is in digital photography is that we dont have control over the colour rendering This belongs to the camera manufacturer or even Adobe in Adobe Camera Raw etc
Using the RAW file give you control over the early steps in the pipeline as opposed to the cameras choice but not the rendering algorithms.

so remember JEPG is only a compression method
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152678\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Very many digital cameras only allow access to jpeg files wherein the camera has made all the processing decisions (noise reduction, sharpening, WB, contrast, brightness) to produce a jpeg file which the camera maker thinks will be broadly satisfactory to a wide range of consumers. So while jpeg is a file format and a compression method, the main point at issue here of course is control over what goes on behind the scenes, and merits of using raw when offered and when feasible. I'm not sure about your definition of "rendering". Normally one uses this term to describe the process of converting the file from a scene-referred to an output-referred colour space. By this understanding, the rendering of a raw file is not done in the camera. It is done by the raw conversion software. Even so of course you are correct that there are mathematical processes occuring which we do not control; but we certainly do control the appearance of the raw file before it is rendered into a multi-channel output-referred space, and from my experience, that rendering is usually VERY faithful to what one expected having adjusted the image in the raw converter.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 583


« Reply #63 on: November 14, 2007, 08:15:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yeah of course you are, and I'm entitled to tell you whether I think you are mixing-up issues that have no necessary bearing on each other. But you have a point - this thread is kind of multi-pronged. All the more reason to keep separable issues separated.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152686\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In other words shut up and keep out of this thread?    Wayne
Logged
papa v2.0
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


« Reply #64 on: November 14, 2007, 08:16:15 AM »
ReplyReply

did I not define rendering

The next stage is to convert from scene referred to standard output referred -
  this is either sRGB, Adobe RGB or ROMM RGB ( Pro Photo RGB)
  COLOUR RENDERING
  This colour rendering algorithm includes gamut mapping, appearance and preference
  and is usually  proprietary ie Nikon, Cannon etc


Using the RAW file give you control over the early steps in the pipeline as opposed to the cameras choice but not the rendering algorithms. And yes they are good.
Logged
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #65 on: November 14, 2007, 08:23:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Another thing nobody has mentioned. Contrary to myth, RAW *does not* bypass all in camera processing unless somebody knows a RAW converter that turns off AA and all that other nonsense than Nikon/Canon use too much. With JPEG, it's a lot more limiting to chew through AA softness an other sensor limitations because those sensor aberations get locked into the file format and can't be filtered out. With RAW, you can far better isolate a proper sharpening technique or tonal adjustment that doesn't bang heads with JPEG artifacts or over zealous AA.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152617\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The optical low pass filter, which is what I'm assuming you mean by AA, is a filter between the lens and sensor, and:

a ) is not nonesense
b ) is not electronic, not part of the camera processing, and not turn on or offable

Did you mean NR or noise reduction? Yes, sometimes that is applied to the raw data and can sometimes be over-zealous. But long exposure NR, where the same shot is taken twice, once for the picture and then once dark, is very appropriate to do on the RAW data as it's more of a calibration process to increase the accuracy of the data you collected on your image.

RAW is both uncompressed (usually, and even if compressed, less so than the JPEG, and compression on RAW can work a lot better than compression on a processed image) and un-matrixed. The matrixing process for colour balance and colour space intermingles the data from the red, green and blue elements of the sensor, and this can make it hard to do some image corrections. Then of course, a non-linearity is added to the data to make it perceptually pleasing. You cannot correctly matrix on none-linear data, so again, it would be very hard to "undo" this to get back to the linear data to re-do or change the matrixing.

Some image processing and compositing works much nicer in linear light than in a gamma space, and these techniques are more commonly used in the motion picture effects industry. I for one, would like to see and be able to work with image data in Photoshop say, in linear light, but through an optional viewing LUT to give me a perceptually nice image to see, if needed.

Graeme
« Last Edit: November 14, 2007, 08:25:47 AM by Graeme Nattress » Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6904


WWW
« Reply #66 on: November 14, 2007, 08:37:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In other words shut up and keep out of this thread?    Wayne
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152695\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Do you call yourself *sniper* for a reason? Don't stuff words into my mouth. There are no *other words*. I said exactly what I meant.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #67 on: November 14, 2007, 08:37:34 AM »
ReplyReply

I'll give the sad snobs a good example of why I now shoot RAW + [the apparently only used by incompetents who know nothing] JPEGs.
I did stills for a film shoot a couple of years back -  all on RAW as RAW is much better than JPEG [and before picture styles]. But when it came to showing the producer all the images, there was a big problem. How the heck does he view them. He's 3hrs away, he's not a photographer, so he doesn't even know what a RAW file is let alone what to do with it. He's certainly not going to pony up for some RAW viewer. So I got him to download some 30 day trial software, Photshop Elements I think [as the cataloguing in it is pretty good/easy],  so he could view them and then sent him the RAW images, but he decided that he didn't want to learn how to use another programme, too busy and not really interested. And he had other people equally bereft of LR,C1, ACR, Bibble etc and asked for JPEGs.
Batch processing the files via Bridge into JPEGs isn't that difficult to implement, but it took several days to render all those images. Several days! And several days of not being able to use vital software for anything else on that machine. Not to mention the performance hit. What a waste of time compared to simply shooting RAW + JPEG and giving the client the JPEGs to select from. He was aware that they aren't the final product, so isn't concerned about the slight lack of dynamic range, not that he was technically savvy enough to know what that is.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6904


WWW
« Reply #68 on: November 14, 2007, 08:41:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In other words shut up and keep out of this thread?    Wayne
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152695\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh - and for clarity in case it needs clarifying - what I meant was by no means to stifle any discussion, but just to keep related matters related and unrelated matters unrelated in this discussion, because it is easy in a multi-pronged discussion to comingle things that don't deserve to be comingled. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed or that people don't have a right to discuss them.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6904


WWW
« Reply #69 on: November 14, 2007, 08:47:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
did I not define rendering

The next stage is to convert from scene referred to standard output referred -
  this is either sRGB, Adobe RGB or ROMM RGB ( Pro Photo RGB)
  COLOUR RENDERING
  This colour rendering algorithm includes gamut mapping, appearance and preference
  and is usually  proprietary ie Nikon, Cannon etc
Using the RAW file give you control over the early steps in the pipeline as opposed to the cameras choice but not the rendering algorithms. And yes they are good.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152696\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I wanted to make sure we understand the same thing by "rendering" because - I think different from what you say above - the colour rendering algorithm is lodged in the raw converter, not the camera, when working with raw files.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 583


« Reply #70 on: November 14, 2007, 08:59:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Do you call yourself *sniper* for a reason? Don't stuff words into my mouth. There are no *other words*. I said exactly what I meant.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152708\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm called sniper because thats was I was in the army.  It's called a nickname. Wayne
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #71 on: November 14, 2007, 09:00:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Referring to the images I attached previously:

If there is a way I could have "properly" captured it as an in-camera jpeg - I'd love to know . . . .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152489\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What's properly? What you think makes for a nice exposure, I may not like. Personally I like contrasty images. I see a lot of images these days that capture all the DR and have oodles of shadow detail, yet so often, I just don't like them as much as those where there are deeper blacks. The Colour JPEG setting I use produces quite contrasty shots, certainly not the best tonal range, but I like it from an aesthetic point of view. The old fashioned if it looks nice, it is nice approach.
Besides as I use RAW + JPEG there isn't even an issue if the JPEG is not up to a difficult scene. Not sure why there is so much frothing at the mouth, because some people think JPEG does a good job, when used appropriately.
The only time I do not shoot RAW is if the camera doesn't have RAW.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #72 on: November 14, 2007, 09:11:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My goodness, since when did anyone suggest using Camera Raw improves someone's soul? Furthermore, jjj, what could you possibly know about being a better person?

My dearest jpeg lover, CR won't give you a backbone or buy you manners, no matter how many hours you tinkle on the controls. What is sad are your cheap, stale and obnoxious girlie-rants. Go shoot a jpeg.

For the record (not that you care, of course), I shoot to please myself. If someone wishes to pay me tons of money for my boring but perfect creations then so be it. As for Leica, that's one brand I've never tried. I do have my favorite cameras but they tend to be project specific. My experience suggests that certain cameras out-perform others, depending on the subject. As for designer labels, don't blame me because I leave men drowning in a pool of their own drool whenever I walk by wearing a Versace.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152467\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah, now I get it, being pompous and patronising are what increasingly seem to be the accepted good manners on this forum. Along with not being able to correctly read/parse a post before replying in an ignorant + condescending manner. But you did get one thing spot on, you are a complete snob.

Also maybe anyone who comes on here pontificating about photography yet doesn't have a link to examples of their work should be assumed to be a troll. It's so easy to sneer from an anonymous platform.

By the way does your signature refer how you get work?
« Last Edit: November 14, 2007, 09:14:46 AM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #73 on: November 14, 2007, 09:40:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Speaking of pompous and patronising posts.
Quote
Give me a break. Most amatuer slide shooters had no clue what they were going to get other than noting that some slide films yield stronger saturation than others. If a green or yellow didn't render correctly, big deal. All that matters is that the saturation and faky micotrast detracted from other image problems. Even professional commercial guys stuck with EPP, EPN and EPD till the end, and those films had a color gamut that makes sRGB look like a lite-brite. Also note that slide films *only* record a semi accurate portrayal of the scene under the color temp they are engineered for. Anything other than high noon or flash with daylight balanced slide films = distortion and random number generators.
Funny how I had less problems with WB with film, when I shot outdoors before or after noon. The plus side to film is that when it's not technically perfect it can still look good. Digital needs to be technically better I feel before you start and when it's not right it usually looks horrid. Poor quality film can have a nice aesthetic, poor quality digital has a nasty look and that is where film is superior to digital in my eyes. Not that I've used film for some time now, as overall I prefer digital and I really loathe scanning film.
BTW, do the amateur shooters, you sneer at, know the difference between RAW convertors or even use RAW?

Quote
I'll note the same arguement I've had with my film zealots to this day, and what they don't want to admit is they prefer film because it *thinks* for them, and/or they want a random number generator. dSLR capture by contrast is inherently extremely linear and really does require some degree of PP to make it look aethestically pleasing.
Funny I liked using Kodachrome or Provia as they were nice and consistent. More so in one sense than using a camera which has a variable ISO and WB or even colour or B+W as an option. And I chose specific  films/developers/papers as they gave me a look I liked. Which is no different from PPing a RAW file to give me  a certain look. I don't ever recall a film thinking for me or even telling which type of film I should put in the camera. But maybe the film sneakily wiped my memory of it doing so!!  
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad