RAW versus jpgs

pathfinder · January 29, 2004

I told Fish earlier today that I have come down with the RAW virus - not a software virus that can damage your computer - but speaking metaphorically - that I am quite impressed with the quality available with RAW files with the Canon D10 or 300D Rebel sensor. To wit I am going to post links to the full sized raw and jpg files for comparisons. One file is a jpeg directly from the original RAW file converted by Photoshop CS and the other is a file that has been manipulated by photoshop with the USM filter prior to saving. I do not have a jpg directly from the camera to compare to a RAW file as that was not in my plan when I shot these frames today. I do have jpgs previously shot near these locations. I might also add that these RAW files were shot at ISO 400 I believe - Where did the exif display in Smugmug go anyway Baldy?

The first is the jpg that came out of the Photoshop RAW converter http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/2196052-O.jpg

The next is the jpg that I saved from Photoshop after the USM filter
http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/2196058-O.jpg

The next is a barn that I know Fish has seen before - but this was shot today - an is direct from the CS RAW converter
http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/2196048-O.jpg

Next is the same frame after some manipulation in PS and saving as a jpg at level 10 - where all my jpgs are usually saved.
http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/2196049-O.jpg

My final image is to demonstrate one of the nice features of RAW - it is an exposure of the inside of a bridge that was properly exposed for the inside of the bridge and as a result the outside snow scene at the end of the bridge is woefully overexposed by at least 3 stops - maybe more - so what I did is use the RAW converter to make the first jpg with the interior of the bridge properly exposed and saved it as bridge #1.jpg
I then used the RAW converter to make a new jpg optimized as much as possible for the sunlit snow at the end of the bridge and saved this image as bridge#2. Theses two images should overlay each other perfectly as they were from the same RAW file - but with dramatically different lighting adjustments - bridge#2 was black except for the open end of the bridge. I then used the clone tool to copy the end of the bridge opening of bridge#2 into the corresponding area on bridge#1 and got the following frame - AND it certainly does not look three stops overexposed to me anymore. Comment?

Pathfinder

fish · January 29, 2004

Very cool, pathfinder. Thanks for taking the time to do this.

Noisy interior of the bridge in the first couple of shots...why do you think?

So...what did you do to the RAW that you couldn't have done to a large jpeg? I'm still struggling with this. Did you manipulate the RAW image then save as jpeg in CS? Maybe that's the difference. In PE2, I can't work on RAW images (I think).

Fortunately, we don't have any snow around here to mess with

pathfinder · January 29, 2004

fish wrote:

Very cool, pathfinder. Thanks for taking the time to do this.

Noisy interior of the bridge in the first couple of shots...why do you think?

So...what did you do to the RAW that you couldn't have done to a large jpeg? I'm still struggling with this. Did you manipulate the RAW image then save as jpeg in CS? Maybe that's the difference. In PE2, I can't work on RAW images (I think).

Fortunately, we don't have any snow around here to mess with

I noticed the noise inside the bridge pictures also - This is present in the RAW file and the jpg as well. I just checked the EXIF data and these were exposed at ISO 100. I think the noise we are seeing is due to underexposure of the sensor - the shaded area must be at least 2 or 3 stops below the programmed exposure - think how dark this might be with film.

I have taken the jpg direct from the RAW file and processed it with digital GEM - and reduced the noise in the interior of the bridge substantially - here is the file

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/2198913-O.jpg

I also did this for the processed jpg and the result is this

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/2198912-O.jpg

I think that even with GEM reducing the noise - the direct raw file to jpg is quieter than the processed jpg. How much of this noise would show in a print I am not sure as these original size images are about 36 inches long on my monitors - and a print would probably be less than 20 inches on a side. Kind of like the argument about noise in the Sony 828 camera - visible on a monitor at 12 inches viewing, but not visible when printed on paper and looked at in that manner.

The significance of RAW files is that they allow adjusting for color balance and exposure adjustments in 16 bit steps rather than 8 bit steps which prevents color banding and posterization in the images. Then they are exported to PS and require very little processing in Photshop itself except for cropping and things like that.
What ever happened to the box to display EXIF data on Smugmug?

pathfinder · January 29, 2004

pathfinder wrote:

I noticed the noise inside the bridge pictures also - This is present in the RAW file and the jpg as well. I just checked the EXIF data and these were exposed at ISO 100. I think the noise we are seeing is due to underexposure of the sensor - the shaded area must be at least 2 or 3 stops below the programmed exposure - think how dark this might be with film.

I have taken the jpg direct from the RAW file and processed it with digital GEM - and reduced the noise in the interior of the bridge substantially - here is the file

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/2198913-O.jpg

I also did this for the processed jpg and the result is this

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/2198912-O.jpg

I think that even with GEM reducing the noise - the direct raw file to jpg is quieter than the processed jpg. How much of this noise would show in a print I am not sure as these original size images are about 36 inches long on my monitors - and a print would probably be less than 20 inches on a side. Kind of like the argument about noise in the Sony 828 camera - visible on a monitor at 12 inches viewing, but not visible when printed on paper and looked at in that manner.

The significance of RAW files is that they allow adjusting for color balance and exposure adjustments in 16 bit steps rather than 8 bit steps which prevents color banding and posterization in the images. Then they are exported to PS and require very little processing in Photshop itself except for cropping and things like that.
What ever happened to the box to display EXIF data on Smugmug?

In regard to PE2 and RAW - your 10D came with software from CANON that has a RAW converter in it - so once you have converted to jpgs you can load them into PE2. There are other converters also - BreezeBrowser comes to mind. But the Canon software you already have......

fish · January 30, 2004

pathfinder wrote:

In regard to PE2 and RAW - your 10D came with software from CANON that has a RAW converter in it - so once you have converted to jpgs you can load them into PE2. There are other converters also - BreezeBrowser comes to mind. But the Canon software you already have......

Right. Have to convert to jpeg before working on it. I'm starting to get it.

36" long? How do you figure? My large jpegs are 11.378 x 17.067 inches.

pathfinder · January 30, 2004

fish wrote:

Right. Have to convert to jpeg before working on it. I'm starting to get it.

36" long? How do you figure? My large jpegs are 11.378 x 17.067 inches

I am not sure for the difference - my monitor is 1280 by 1024 Sharp 18" LCD - and the image at 100% in PS is 2.5 time as long as my monitor is horizontally = 15 +15 +6 = ~36 inches....that would be at 72 pixels per inch ----72pix/inchx36inches =2592 Does that sound about right? Of course if printed at 200 pixels /inch then the image is about 12 inches across - but can easily be rezzed up to 18 inches withoutsignificant quality loss - I think...

pathfinder · January 30, 2004

Fish Memory
Fish - Go to the www.dpreview.com website - they have just announced a new solid state memory format and it is named after you!! I didn't realize how you stature had grown in photography!! ---- ""The cards will be smaller than Secure Digital (SD) cards, and initially be available in 1GB format with capacity increasing over time. From the URL of the web site it may be called "Fish Memory" (13:30 GMT)""

Also if you really want to see a camera to lust after - check out the announcement from Canon about the 1D Mark ll - WHoooHooo!@! 8 Mpixels with the speed of the previous 1D. --""Canon today announced the impressively specified EOS-1D Mark II which features a new 8.2 megapixel CMOS sensor, it can shoot at just over eight frames per second and has a 40 frame JPEG image buffer (20 frames in RAW mode). This means that shooting at full resolution at full speed the camera is buffering 69 megapixels per second (or 100 MB/sec). Other changes include the addition of a USB port, an SD slot, the removal of the external white balance sensor as well as some subtle body styling changes"" I have got to start putting my change in a piggy bank right now soon!!.......

Th price of the 1D may now come down and be more affordable - and we have yet to hear from Canon about their response to the very good specs of the Nikon D70.

Pathfinder

patch29 · January 30, 2004

pathfinder wrote:

"Fish Memory" (13:30 GMT)""

I read that, not sure what to make of it.

pathfinder wrote:

The price of the 1D may now come down and be more affordable - and we have yet to hear from Canon about their response to the very good specs of the Nikon D70.

We have a thread about both cameras in this forum. I hope to get my hands on a 1DmkII when they are available. I have a link back to Canon's official press release with links to the large camera photos and a sales brochure, containing the most info I have read on the camera yet. I also want to see Canon's new pro RAW convertor.

If you go to http://www.canoneos.com/ you will see that the 1D has been discontinued and moved to the archive section. So no deals on 1D's they had already come down a lot from their original price.

pathfinder · January 30, 2004

patch29 wrote:

I read that, not sure what to make of it.

We have a thread about both cameras in this forum. I hope to get my hands on a 1DmkII when they are available. I have a link back to Canon's official press release with links to the large camera photos and a sales brochure, containing the most info I have read on the camera yet. I also want to see Canon's new pro RAW convertor.

If you go to http://www.canoneos.com/ you will see that the 1D has been discontinued and moved to the archive section. So no deals on 1D's they had already come down a lot from their original price.

Sorry Patch I missed your thread about the 1D Markll here on dgrin. I just got all excited when I saw the specifications - I am sorry to hear the 1D has been discontinued - well - I'll just have to start saving my nickels and dimes I guess.

wxwax · January 30, 2004

The bargains on 1D may be found among used cameras... say eBay (at yer own risk) or if you know someone looking to upgrade.

fish · January 30, 2004

I've got my 10D and it's sticking with me for a LONG time to come.

I can't hear you "lalalalalalala".

wxwax · January 30, 2004

8 frames per second.

8 megapixels.

Dual memory slots.

50 ISO - 3200 ISO

Digic II

Startup within .5 of a second.

patch29 · January 30, 2004

20 RAW/40 JPG Buffer
45 point area AF
ETTL-II
40ms/55ms shutter release lag time
New Raw Convetor Software
Extended WB control
More accurate WB
up to 10x magnification on review
2x from 1D pixels on LCD for sharpness

wxwax · January 30, 2004

$4500

:cry :cry :cry

patch29 · January 30, 2004

wxwax wrote:

$4500

:cry :cry :cry

Come on buy two and let me use one.

RGB histograms provide full color information.
2 new RISC microprocessors and a new AF algorithm for faster and even more accurate predictive AF
new, rugged shutter is tested to 200,000 cycles
highly effective noise reduction, particularly on longer exposures

RAW versus jpgs

Comments