Raw Conversions - Opinions Please

L

LumixNoob

Messages
233
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
I've decided to take the plunge and started shooting raw+jpg. I'm still wondering if all the work is worth it though! Are the raw conversions any better or worse than the jpgs? I'll keep trying anyway, but I just wanted some opinions

I know the picture isn't very interesting :)

JPG:



Raw1:



Raw2:

 
From those photos I would say yes. In the RAW ones you can clearly see more definition and colour to the clouds

Baz
 
Thanks Baz, I didn't actually notice the clouds. I was thinking more about contrast and sharpening etc, but you're right.
 
•
You are doing the right thing… the wrong way!!!

The jpg is the best jpg your camera will do but to compare correctly
and fairly you should compare to a RAW that was developed to render
an optimized version as well.

The 2 RAW versions are not equally rendered and the jpg has another one!
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•
You are doing the right thing… the wrong way!!!

The jpg is the best jpg your camera will do but to compare correctly
and fairly you should compare to a RAW that was developed to render
an optimized version as well.

The 2 RAW versions are not equally rendered and the jpg has another one!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow Kodiak, do you mean compare the in camera jpeg to a raw file that hasn't been converted to a jpg?
 
LumixNoob said:
I'm not sure I follow Kodiak, do you mean compare the in camera jpeg to a raw file that hasn't been converted to a jpg?
Click to expand...
•
English is not my language… so forgive me.

I'll try again:
What I mean is that the two RAWs should be developed to
their respective optimized technical rendition and then com-
pared in two ways.
First as technical renditions, ignoring any artistic intent and
second with the same tonal values as the jpg which means
to adjust the exposure values only to the jpg.

I hope I did better this time!
 
Last edited:
Ah OK, I get what you mean now (I think). It's been a long day :)

I think I may be better just comparing the jpeg to one raw, simplifying the experiment. Edit the raw file to the best I can and then edit the jpeg to duplicate the results, then comapare the two.
 
Last edited:
The raw file contains much more pixel information than the jpg. In many instances you won't really notice this when processing a raw photo and comparing the result to a jpeg image, assuming you're changing the same sort of things, e.g. exposure, contrast, whites, blacks, etc by the same amount.

However, you alter a photograph to how YOU want it to look. Whether this looks like the jpg that comes out of the camera is beside the point. imho :)

I like the way you've done the first and your conversion is pleasing too.

Re changing from raw, despite what I say above, it is good practice to try and match the jpg from the raw as this exercise helps you in learning about processing. At the end of the day, it is how you want it to look. Raw files make this easier.
 
Thanks for the feedback Edward. My first few attempts have just been copying the camera jpeg and then more or less matching them, fixing the odd thing I didn't like. The few raw files I attempted 'from scratch' and not working to a jpeg as a guide were a bit horrible! I overdid almost everything, so the results above are toned down re-attempts.

Yeah lfc, I'm beginning to realize how much data a raw file contains. As I said above, I got a bit carried away with the first few attempts, changing everything just because I could.

Shooting raw has already saved me a load of shots too; I was messing with camera settings and left sharpening on full and ruined a whole load of jpegs.
 
LumixNoob said:
Edit the raw file to the best I can and then edit the jpeg to duplicate the results, then comapare the two.
Click to expand...
No! I mean develop the RAW to best technical rendition and
compare to camera output of jpg. The only thing that is "final"
is the jpg published from the RAW converter or the camera,
the RAW file is an ever editable "canvas".
 
I get you now. It was the 'which means
to adjust the exposure values only to the jpg' part that was throwing me.
 
The raw file conversions you posted up will only be as good as your raw processing. Are you applying lens profiles and removing CA etc? You using a grey card to take WB test shots? What adjustments are you making?

A bad raw conversion can be MUCH worse than a JPEG straight from camera is done badly. I'm not saying yours are BTW... just saying, shooting raw will avail you nothing if you don't handle the raw files well.

There's definitely more detail in the first raw image compared to the JPEG.

JPEG
b92E8E9.jpg


Raw
969N69F.jpg


Even after being compressed again, and after Imgur's awful colour profile problems... it's STILL obviously better.

[edit]

Having said that.... we've no idea how the JPEG was made. Was that straight off camera, or saved out as a JEPG? How much compression was used etc?
 
Last edited:
The jpeg was straight out of camera, large/fine.

I'm not sure about lens profiles, is there such a thing in Photoshop elements?

If I need to remove CA I edit the jpeg afterwards - I don't know how to do it in raw with PSE.
 
In fairness to the jpeg, it's way over sharpened. I was experimenting with the settings and this was one with sharpness turned way up.
 
You are processing these arent you? A straight conversion of a raw file will be flat.

Other than the process of actually taking the photo, the output of the raw file depends entirely on how its processed by you and your proficiency in doing so.
 
Last edited:
As above, those images posted don't leave much for you to do with the raw anyway. Here's just a quick example of mine via Lightroom (I probably have better ones but just to illustrate)


raw ex by Jim, on Flickr

You couldn't get that detail and richness from the jpeg without degrading the already processed file. It would be like cooking a meal twice :)

Or this;

raw ex 2 by Jim, on Flickr

(obviously these are low res screen grabs but you get the idea).
 
Last edited:
LumixNoob said:
Ah OK, I get what you mean now (I think). It's been a long day :)

I think I may be better just comparing the jpeg to one raw, simplifying the experiment. Edit the raw file to the best I can and then edit the jpeg to duplicate the results, then comapare the two.
Click to expand...
There's no point whatsoever editing a jpeg if you have a raw!

The two would require a different editing workflow as well, as you can't do anywhere near as much tweaking to the jpeg and you'd more than likely ruin it if you tired to replicate the raw process to the already processed and much, much smaller less detailed jpeg.
 
Last edited:
^ This is where I was getting confused with Kodiak's post. I thought he meant edit the raw to your liking and then edit the jpeg and try to replicate the raw just to compare the difference in quality.I realize there's no point editing the jpeg when you can do the raw. I thought he was suggesting it as an experiment to point out the differences/difference in quality.
 
LumixNoob said:
^ This is where I was getting confused with Kodiak's post. I thought he meant …
Click to expand...
•
Sorry buddy, I am having sometimes my difficulties with english!
 
•
…where did I make fail to translate my thoughts?
Can you point at it?
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•
English is not my language… so forgive me.

I'll try again:
What I mean is that the two RAWs should be developed to
their respective optimized technical rendition and then com-
pared in two ways.
First as technical renditions, ignoring any artistic intent and
second with the same tonal values as the jpg which means
to adjust the exposure values only to the jpg.

I hope I did better this time!
Click to expand...

It was just this part. I'm not sure it was a problem of translation, just a misunderstanding somehow. I thought you meant alter the jpeg to match the look of the finished raw file.
 
Last edited:
•
Thanks!
 
odd jim said:
You are processing these arent you? A straight conversion of a raw file will be flat.

Other than the process of actually taking the photo, the output of the raw file depends entirely on how its processed by you and your proficiency in doing so.
Click to expand...

This is the original raw and the processed one. The original just has the default sharpening of 25, everything else is SOOC. I underexposed it to keep some more colour in the sky and then boosted the shadows to bring out the foreground (+some colour, clarity etc) and then notched the exposure back up a bit.

Original:





Processed:

 
Last edited:
The processed raw is much better :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top