D810 - jpegs fine - SOOC - post your comparisons if you think that it is a debate worth having

BillN_33

BillN_33

Messages
12,664
Edit My Images
No
Need to try something different rather than taking RAWs all the time and processing them in LR and PS

These are jpegs fine from my D810
images cropped to 1440 x 1080 from 3680 x 2456 ...... then reduced to 950 x 950 and 250k
f8 - 1/1000th sec - ISO 640 - 0EV - Nikon 600mm f4

all in camera setting set to 0 ------------

as I said no adjustments

This is a young Tit - came out of the nest in the last 10 days, they bred in a nest box on one of the barn walls - we have a light variety in the garden ........ so the bird is naturally light, (I have an image of one of the parents)

what do you think as far as any adjustment are concerned - (Nikon normally have +3 for in camera sharpening) - I think that this is at least needed - but they do look a little softer on here than on my Apple

jpg_1.jpg


jpg_2.jpg


jpg_3.jpg
 
Last edited:
They do look soft ... I find that images are quite different on a good screen, e.g. my iPad Retina screen.
The biggest thing that jumps out at me is the consistently off WB ... just using Auto WB in ACR makes them much better but of course doesn't make them sharper.
 
gramps said:
They do look soft ... I find that images are quite different on a good screen, e.g. my iPad Retina screen.
The biggest thing that jumps out at me is the consistently off WB ... just using Auto WB in ACR makes them much better but of course doesn't make them sharper.
Click to expand...

Thanks Roger - I used auto WB in camera

do you also think that there is a slight halo around the bird - particularly the last image
 
BillN_33 said:
Thanks Roger - I used auto WB in camera

do you also think that there is a slight halo around the bird - particularly the last image
Click to expand...

Nothing I would be concerned about Bill, compression to size and the bird being against a lighter background I would guess at causing a slight 'line' rather than halo.
 
I tend to like either the "neutral" or the "standard" profile with a bit of sharpening (~4). While both profiles might have a setting at zero (i.e. saturation) "zero" won't actually be the same appearance... it's worth experimenting with.
I do see a bit of a ring in all of the images... my guess is it's either CA, or automatic correction for CA.
 
this is what I get - again SOOC - RAW v jpeg

The RAW and the fine jpegs start at different pixel sizes -
the jpeg OOC image 3680 x 2456 - the OOC RAW started at 7360 x 4912 - both were then cropped to the same "size" and then reduced to 1000 x 1000 for posting on here and both are just over 200KB

ISO 2000 - so noise in the bird and bg - but that considered the image is reasonably sharp
certainly more noise in the RAW image, (what do Nikon do with the jpeg in camera re NR? - for this I have also left Nikon default settings at +4 sharpening for jpeg Standard)
more colour in the jpeg

(my point would be - this is what we start with - what can be done in camera to improve it, if anything?)

also for web posting at 200kb - how much difference is there, any?

any comments

jpeg - ISO 2000 - D810
jpg_nutty.jpg



RAW - ISO 2000 - D810
RAW_nutty.jpg
 
Last edited:
If you are getting smaller jpegs it's not set to record "Large" (sounds like it's set to small... "fine" is a separate setting).

The jpeg obviously looks better. I think both could be improved a bit (i.e. the jpeg won't be "limiting" in this case), the raw more-so obviously... The real question is, can you develop the raw to be better than the jpeg, and is it worth the effort?

IMHO, 80-90% of the editing done to raw files is just to get them to jpeg levels. And 80% of what most think they benefit from raw files they really don't. It really is just the rare(?) case where you need to push an image hard (color/exposure) that raw files are really beneficial.
 
sk66 said:
If you are getting smaller jpegs it's not set to record "Large" (sounds like it's set to small... "fine" is a separate setting).

The jpeg obviously looks better. I think both could be improved a bit (i.e. the jpeg won't be "limiting" in this case), the raw more-so obviously... The real question is, can you develop the raw to be better than the jpeg, and is it worth the effort?

IMHO, 80-90% of the editing done to raw files is just to get them to jpeg levels. And 80% of what most think they benefit from raw files they really don't. It really is just the rare(?) case where you need to push an image hard (color/exposure) that raw files are really beneficial.
Click to expand...

Thanks Steven - I'll change the size

but the points you make are what I am trying to discuss and develop - i.e.how worthwhile is it to take and keep RAW files .......... maybe take both and then only keep the RAWs for your "exceptional" shots, (keeping the jpegs for all keepers), so that one day when your pp skills are good enough to beat the jpeg you can reprocess them, but every time I do this exercise and compare after limited processing I find that most of the times my RAW conversion is maybe not as good, (as you suggest), as a slightly tweaked jpeg
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
Thanks Steven - I'll change the size

but the points you make are what I am trying to discuss and develop - i.e.how worthwhile is it to take and keep RAW files .......... maybe take both and then only keep the RAWs for your "exceptional" shots, (keeping the jpegs for all keepers), so that one day when your pp skills are good enough to beat the jpeg you can reprocess them, but every time I do this exercise and compare after limited processing I find that most of the times my RAW conversion is maybe not as good, (as you suggest), as a slightly tweaked jpeg
Click to expand...



I do not have a D810, I use a D7100 and D750 for my birding, I gave up on raw for birds a long time ago as I find a tweaked jpeg works better for me, if its a rare bird im after I shoot both raw an jpeg, but the truth is for me that the jpeg is always good enough with a little tweaking, then again im crap at editing. the results I get I am happy with and at the end of the day that is all that matters.
 
I record both to separate cards... I normally download/use the raw files just because, but IMHO it's not usually of notable benefit. Plus it certainly has it's negatives, especially if you're not getting equal results (I'm struggling w/ the D5).

(I set up develop presets based on camera/ISO so that LR does the majority of edits automatically on import)
 
Last edited:
I should note/clarify... *if* I'm trying to do the highest quality work (i.e. studio/fine art) then I think raw is the right choice. But I'm also willing to spend a lot more time on such images in post....
 
This is a great idea for a thread Bill, I'm willing to contribute to it as soon as I get some time out shooting.

It's a comparison I've really wanted to try recently, as I took some photos at the local semi-pro footy team, all shot in raw.

Next time I went, I shot all jpeg fine and was happy with the results at home.

I still think that I'll shoot in raw for birds along with jpeg, until I feel confident that the jpeg is doing a good enough job.
 
Have you tried http://www.fookes.com/easy-thumbnails which is a great utility for shrinking JPEGs.

I've used it for years for all kind of things including batch reduction etc.

Can be used to resize or to reduce the file size while keeping the same image size - or any combination thereof.

Produces the best (I think) results.
.
 
Just dropped on this thread.To me these look great as they are and would be happy if I had taken them whatever the file format.

Gaz
 
a couple more - taken just now - I have not chosen the best or the worst as I only took two shots of the Jay

taken at DX crop mode - SOOC

D810 + Nikon 600mm + 1,7TC (= 1000mm) - 1/1600th sec - f6.7 - ISO 2000 ..... shooting distance 10 mtres

full images - no adjustments/no cropping - just reduced to 1000 x 1000 and 400KB for posting on here

Jpeg is jpeg fine and small file size (3.7MB) and RAW is normal NEF with a file size of 19.48MB

Jpeg in camera setting normal which has +3 for sharpening

no manual adjustments in LR or PS

JPEG

1764_jpeg.jpg





RAW

1764_NEF.jpg





to show detail and noise ...... to get one you need the other, in most cases
JPEG NOISE - top RH corner - obviously very big crop and maybe you would never go that far - came from a small file so crop was 575 x 446

jpeg_noise.jpg


NEF (RAW) NOISE, came from a bigger file so crop was 1151 x 892

NEF_noise.jpg




conclusion, for me - the jpeg is very good and I will now process them both to see how they compare

the situation does change the smaller the bird is and the distance you shoot from, then in my experience the RAW starts to "win" more over the jpeg......... but I have yet to test that

(PS - anything over ISO 400 I always see a need to selectively reduce bg noise with any RAW image)
 
Last edited:
The NR on the OOC jpegs is the equivalent of 75 on the LR scale, (that's 75% along the scale), which is quite something

I will look if you can change the default in camera settings for NR
 
sk66 said:
It's the "High ISO NR" setting, only affects jpegs.
Click to expand...

Yep that's the "normal" setting - there are higher settings

I think that it is best to turn it off for birds and apply any NR manually
 
Last edited:
On my monitor they seem to need a saturation boost of around 20-25% and the histogram altered to 10/245
 
I took some shots out in the garden this morning for comparison.

This is an in camera jpeg (standard profile on the D810) :-

DSC_5433.jpg


And this one is one that I've edited :-

DSC_5433-Edit.jpg




I'm pretty sure that the one I've edited looks a lot better. But, of course, it's taken a while to edit.

What do you reckon, Bill?
 
wezza13 said:
I'm pretty sure that the one I've edited looks a lot better. But, of course, it's taken a while to edit.
Click to expand...
At this size I don't see much to differentiate them... Your choice of black point is a bit lighter and a touch more "fill," but I couldn't say it is "better" or more accurate to reality.
And how much tweaking would the jpeg require to get the same result? Could you get the same result out of the jpeg easier/quicker? I'm thinking you could.
 
wezza13 said:
I took some shots out in the garden this morning for comparison.

This is an in camera jpeg (standard profile on the D810) :-

View attachment 65680


And this one is one that I've edited :-

View attachment 65681




I'm pretty sure that the one I've edited looks a lot better. But, of course, it's taken a while to edit.

What do you reckon, Bill?
Click to expand...

Can you post the ISO and an idea of the crop

both look very similar to me as Steven said

so one is an OOC jpeg, (what quality, what size, what in camera setting for NR and sharpening)

and the other is the same image pad in LR?

did not take a RAW to compare?

( I have had two sets of sink taps to fit this afternoon - and am cursing the design or last plumber!!)
 
Last edited:
The only thing I can say about this and any RAW vs. JPEG debate is that JPEGs are derived from RAW. So if a JPEG image is somehow "better" than the same RAW image it just means that your camera knows how to process the images better than you or your RAW image processing software. No ifs, no buts! There is no disputing it, it is a scientific fact.

RAW images need to be processed, Lightroom/Adobe Camera Raw/DPP/etc. does a fair job of putting an image onto your display but it doesn't stop there.

This isn't to say that JPEG hasn't got its place, it is 110% more convenient than RAW and has other benefits, however image quality is not one of them!


I know a guy who swears by FLAC audio compression, "MP3 is the work of the devil" he shouts, yet he shoots in JPEG. Doesn't make sense to me...when it comes down to image quality, MP3 = JPEG, FLAC = RAW.
 
SLRUser said:
The only thing I can say about this and any RAW vs. JPEG debate is that JPEGs are derived from RAW. So if a JPEG image is somehow "better" than the same RAW image it just means that your camera knows how to process the images better than you or your RAW image processing software. No ifs, no buts! There is no disputing it, it is a scientific fact.

RAW images need to be processed, Lightroom/Adobe Camera Raw/DPP/etc. does a fair job of putting an image onto your display but it doesn't stop there.

This isn't to say that JPEG hasn't got its place, it is 110% more convenient than RAW and has other benefits, however image quality is not one of them!


I know a guy who swears by FLAC audio compression, "MP3 is the work of the devil" he shouts, yet he shoots in JPEG. Doesn't make sense to me...when it comes down to image quality, MP3 = JPEG, FLAC = RAW.
Click to expand...

Totally agree but we're not debating whether raw is better than jpeg, as we know it is.

Just, is it really worth keeping all the raw files on our PC's when the jpegs are sufficient enough? And keeping those raw files for the exceptional shots?
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
Can you post the ISO and an idea of the crop

both look very similar to me as Steven said

so one is an OOC jpeg, (what quality, what size, what in camera setting for NR and sharpening)

and the other is the same image pad in LR?

did not take a RAW to compare?

( I have had two sets of sink taps to fit this afternoon - and am cursing the design or last plumber!!)
Click to expand...


All three were uncropped. I'll have to crop them all to 100% maybe on the bird's head.

The jpeg was OOC as Fine and Large. Camera setting was on standard which was sharpening 3 and clarity +1. All others set to 0.

High iso NR is set to normal.
 
SLRUser said:
Doesn't make sense to me...when it comes down to image quality, MP3 = JPEG, FLAC = RAW.
Click to expand...
Have you ever spent any real time comparing your results editing from raw to your results using jpegs? Raw results *can be* better than jpeg in some cases, but there is nothing saying they *will be.*
 
sk66 said:
Have you ever spent any real time comparing your results editing from raw to your results using jpegs? Raw results *can be* better than jpeg in some cases, but there is nothing saying they *will be.*
Click to expand...

Did you read my entire post or just the last line? JPEG is derived from RAW, that fact alone is end of conversation however I will rephrase...There is no reason whatsoever, other than a person's inability to process RAW files, that a JPEG image could ever be "better" than a RAW file. Period. The RAW file contains everything, and more necessary to reproduce the JPEG image or an improved version of it.

If people want to use JPEG, fine, but please don't compare a processed RAW file (i.e. a camera's JPEG) to an unprocessed RAW file...
 
SLRUser said:
Did you read my entire post or just the last line? JPEG is derived from RAW, that fact alone is end of conversation however I will rephrase...There is no reason whatsoever, other than a person's inability to process RAW files, that a JPEG image could ever be "better" than a RAW file. Period. The RAW file contains everything, and more necessary to reproduce the JPEG image or an improved version of it.

If people want to use JPEG, fine, but please don't compare a processed RAW file (i.e. a camera's JPEG) to an unprocessed RAW file...
Click to expand...
Jeeze, you really just are not tracking the whole conversation/point...
and no one mentioned comparing an unprocessed raw file in this discussion... that's just dumb.
 
sk66 said:
Jeeze, you really just are not tracking the whole conversation/point...
and no one mentioned comparing an unprocessed raw file in this discussion... that's just dumb.
Click to expand...

Post number 7, blatantly compares SOOC RAW vs. JPEG.

My point still stands, either learn how to process RAW files or stick to shooting in JPEG. You stated that raw results "can be better", they can only be but better unless you haven't processed the raw image properly.
 
SLRUser said:
Post number 7, blatantly compares SOOC RAW vs. JPEG.

My point still stands, either learn how to process RAW files or stick to shooting in JPEG. You stated that raw results "can be better", they can only be but better unless you haven't processed the raw image properly.
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed the point of the thread ........ but you are obviously an expert in processing RAW images so this thread is not really for you
 
I have shot almost exclusively in JPEGs for years now and, frankly, for me the debate is redundant.

IMHO Raw files are good when you expect to do a lot of editing because then the 12 or 14 bits of a RAW image can reduce or eliminate the possibility of "banding" which can occur if you shoot JPEGs with their 8 bits.

Usually also people seem to forget, or not realise, that although JPEGs are described as "lossy" meaning that some of the RAW data is thrown away, JPEGs employ redundancy meaning that a lot of the data which is thrown away is, well, redundant meaning not needed.

An example of this is areas which are uniform so need maybe only a few bits of data rather than the full data recorded on RAW files.

The other argument for RAW is that it can "save the highlights" when overexposed.

The obvious answer to that is "Don't over expose"!

Virtually all modern DSLR cameras, AFAIK, can show histograms and "blinkies" on the back so it's really easy to cut the exposure back to prevent highlights burning out.

And some of the more advanced cameras like the Nikon D750 which is virtually iso-invariant means that RAW is becoming less and less important.

In fact so good is that aspect of the D750 that if I was not already heavily invested in Canon and its lenses I would seriously consider changing.

But at the end of the day in this debate the ultimate test is simple; when looking at a finished picture can you tell if it was shot in RAW or JPEG; if you can't then no further debate is necessary.
.
 
petersmart said:
Usually also people seem to forget, or not realise, that although JPEGs are described as "lossy" meaning that some of the RAW data is thrown away, JPEGs employ redundancy meaning that a lot of the data which is thrown away is, well, redundant meaning not needed.

An example of this is areas which are uniform so need maybe only a few bits of data rather than the full data recorded on RAW files.

The other argument for RAW is that it can "save the highlights" when overexposed.
Click to expand...
I don't think raw data is "discarded" in a jpeg... it is "rounded" to 8bit accuracy (which *is* a loss). I have had people post the unedited raw (in jpeg) and their recovery declaring how great raw was... only to be able to recover the jpeg just as well. The biggest times jpegs fail is with large WB corrections and "pushing" exposure. Banding is the other issue with moderate/heavy color edits (not that you *won't* ever get banding from a raw file).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top