1. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    6,171
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I noticed something weird myself. If I create a user preset for lens correction using a jpeg, it only works for jpegs. And if I create one using a raw file it only works with raw files... Ok, that's not a big deal. But I can't switch between the presets; only the last one created/used works.

    I did not try adding it as part of the default develop settings instead... I very seldom use lens corrections.
     
    Fraser Euan White likes this.
  2. gcgraphs

    gcgraphs

    Messages:
    313
    Name:
    GC
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Thanks, that explains it. Mine is set up for RAW.

    Cheers,

    GC
     
  3. Bluebird 65

    Bluebird 65

    Messages:
    11
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Thank you all, such informative answers.
     
    Fraser Euan White likes this.
  4. Bobsyeruncle

    Bobsyeruncle

    Messages:
    7,179
    Name:
    Robert
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    White balance can be edited on a jpeg.
     
  5. Nawty

    Nawty

    Messages:
    6,164
    Name:
    Ned
    Edit My Images:
    Yes

    Yes, but not as well because the jpg throws out most of the extraneous colour info when it sets the jpg. Not a problem with minor adjustments but if you need to make bigger adjustments raw is much better - ask any underwater photographer...
     
    droj and Bobsyeruncle like this.
  6. Kodiak Qc

    Kodiak Qc Suspended / Banned

    Messages:
    20,425
    Name:
    French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
    Edit My Images:
    Yes

    :agree:
     
  7. Kodiak Qc

    Kodiak Qc Suspended / Banned

    Messages:
    20,425
    Name:
    French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    A jpg has colour values as RAW data file has the necessary
    colour data from all three elements of the sencels. They may
    be read within a much larger band of temperature and tint sin-
    ce all the data is there… it is mostly lost in the conversion, li-
    miting the WB "tweakability"of an image vs a file.
     
    droj likes this.
  8. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    18,093
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    One thing that struck me a few years ago when changing from one raw processor to another was how much better the new software was and how much better the end results looked. I was then able to go back and reprocess raws which had been processed with the older software and get better results from the old shots... I couldn't have done that anywhere near as effectively if I'd not had the raws and had only had jpegs.
     
  9. ChrisJ_SLH

    ChrisJ_SLH

    Messages:
    1,046
    Name:
    Chris
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Adobe have a rather excellent PDF available explaining what goes on in RAW file and the differences between RAW and JPG. Well worth a read.
     
    Fraser Euan White likes this.
  10. droj

    droj

    Messages:
    2,762
    Name:
    Rog
    Edit My Images:
    No
    White balance is just one aspect, whilst of course a crucial one, that we might choose to alter. Further, we might want to be in maximum control of tones for the effect we want rather than relying on the in-camera formulas of jpg. All this is akin to the darkroom development stage of analogue work.

    It's uncontestable that a jpg degrades significantly if you push and pull it about, for reasons already and often mentioned.

    How serious are you about your digital photography?

    A jpg has its uses, but maximum control of the image requires a raw file.
     
    Fraser Euan White likes this.
  11. Fraser Euan White

    Fraser Euan White

    Messages:
    821
    Name:
    Fraser White
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Very true - some have to use Jpeg workflow for speed and don't have the choice.

    The manufacturers are getting significantly better at their jpeg's though. I am serious about my photography but just not very good :-(

    I am sure there are a good proportion of RAW shooters that still haven't callibrated their screens?
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  12. chuckles

    chuckles

    Messages:
    4,343
    Name:
    Barry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Surely there is never anything 'extraneous' about the data in an image file - it's for that reason I consider a RAW file to be superior to a JPG.

    In other words, "why did you throw stuff away when it could be used to produce a better result?"
     
  13. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic

    Messages:
    5,480
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    You can not turn off lens correction profiles for Fuji files in lightroom, they are on by default. but except for some scientific work why would you want to?
    However raw processors do not yet seem to have the ability to use LMO's even though they are incorporated in the Raw file.
     
  14. sk66

    sk66

    Messages:
    6,171
    Name:
    Steven
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    The generally accepted rule is that automatic software manipulation of an image doesn't always generate the best results. And this is true for lens corrections in LR/ACR as well. Personally I don't use it unless I need it, and then it's usually a manual adjustment.
     
  15. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic

    Messages:
    5,480
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I think Fuji are confident that their measured corrections are as good as can be achieved. I certainly have no problem with them, and would not wish to do them manually, as it would be difficult and time consuming to achieve equal results. I do not see even a hint of pincushion or barrel distortions at any settings, and vignetting and fringing are notable for their absence.
    Any loss of visual quality is impossible to distinguish. However I can not speak for recent cameras and lenses from other manufacturers recent as I have not tried them.

    But there is no doubt at all that it is the future of lens design to incorporate such easily corrected aberrations in firmware, while concentrating on less easily fixed ones, and ultimate sharpness in the construction.

    Of course the short back focus and greater vignetting and illumination problems of lenses and sensors designed for Mirrorless cameras, has increased the need for these firmware corrections. But even lenses designed for the more telecentric micro four thirds cameras tend to incorporate these corrections.
     
  16. SsSsSsSsSnake

    SsSsSsSsSnake

    Messages:
    8,519
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    the bayer fuji's aren't turned on automatically, guess you knew that but just in case ;)
     
  17. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic

    Messages:
    5,480
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I know nothing about the bayer Fuji's or the extent to which their LMO's might work, but I doubt they work at all in raw processors. Nor if you can turn off their lens profiles in in ACR.

    It seems apart from entry level X cameras only the GFX 50S has a bayer filter array. And that might be a limitation of the available sensors and the cost of producing an xtrans filter array inrelatively small numbers, not to mention the availability of Raw processors to handle it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  18. Suvv

    Suvv

    Messages:
    2,080
    Name:
    Kev
    Edit My Images:
    No
    It depends on what you call a raw data file. I consider the data which I download from my camera to be a raw file. The file which I download from my camera does not have colour data, it only has the luminance value for each photosite. The raw converter creates the 3 colour channels from the luminance data of a photosite and data from neighbouring photosites, as these have different coloured filters in an RGB array (Bayer) the converter can estimate what the RGB values are for each photosite.
    That is the reason I contend that a raw file is not an image file.
     
  19. Kodiak Qc

    Kodiak Qc Suspended / Banned

    Messages:
    20,425
    Name:
    French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
    Edit My Images:
    Yes

    I agree with this totally but if someone — like the OP — is asking
    "why RAW?" I will give answers that will make him/her understand
    immediately. Later I may complete with more technicalities.

    I have been teaching long enough to know that the better teacher is
    not the one who needs to show he knows but the one that can pass
    info at the level of the learner hoping it will not stop the quest for more.

    :cool:
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
    Phil V, Graham W, chuckles and 3 others like this.
  20. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic

    Messages:
    5,480
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I am not convinced that a beginner needs to be concerned about raw files at all. except perhaps to know that the exist.
    When they have got their head round the basics, and can produce images that they know could be improved in some way, and want to know how...
    That is probably the time to start to introduce the more complex concepts.

    It is a sort of need to know process, for most people.
    When they find that they need to know something, it is easier for them to learn about it.

    Although raw files are a basic concept, they are hardly a useful building block to start with.
     
  21. Suvv

    Suvv

    Messages:
    2,080
    Name:
    Kev
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I agree entirely :). When I first saw the thread I wondered if it would evolve, as many beginner threads do, and become complicated and controversial which just puts the beginner off ......... and then I got drawn in :banghead:.

    Time to let go and allow the OP to try and make sense of it all!
     
  22. Kodiak Qc

    Kodiak Qc Suspended / Banned

    Messages:
    20,425
    Name:
    French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I occasionally have classes of beginners that do not have the ambition
    to be passionate photographers… at first. With those, I will go jpg and
    concentrate on exposure, composition and story telling, etc. :whistle:

    Since 90% of my students are college attendants, engineers and such,
    from the very beginning they get the full tableau… a bit deeper at each
    session: shooting RAW, using proper converter etc.

    None will want to be intellectually under estimated :jawdrop:… and their am-
    bition is to develop and express their passion in a gratifying progression.
     
  23. Kodiak Qc

    Kodiak Qc Suspended / Banned

    Messages:
    20,425
    Name:
    French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
    Edit My Images:
    Yes

    …been there, done that too! :cool:
     
    Suvv likes this.
  24. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic

    Messages:
    5,480
    Name:
    Terry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    You are lucky to have Graduate level beginners with ambition and technical understanding .
    Unfortunately most beginners know nothing and understand even less.
     
    Fraser Euan White likes this.
  25. Kodiak Qc

    Kodiak Qc Suspended / Banned

    Messages:
    20,425
    Name:
    French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    That's why I group them. Most of the time it's kids or pets portraits
    holiday snaps and such. The jpg way is the better way for them.

    Many of them come with their phones! :runaway:
     
    Fraser Euan White likes this.
  26. Suvv

    Suvv

    Messages:
    2,080
    Name:
    Kev
    Edit My Images:
    No
    @Kodiak I am not a teacher although I do advise beginners. How much do you teach about composition and just looking / seeing?
    In my opinion it is extremely important but is not discussed that much on this forum.
     
  27. Kodiak Qc

    Kodiak Qc Suspended / Banned

    Messages:
    20,425
    Name:
    French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
    Edit My Images:
    Yes

    Just looking / seeing is the same as composition.
    The thing to learn is to capture in a tasteful way
    what caught your attention in the first place.

    A forum is a good place to refine technical know-
    ledge and skills but composition is part of the artis-
    tic intent and is subject to licence… that turns most
    of the time in sterile discussions and frustrations.

    All my students are very capable to apply by them-
    selves — even with phones — the basic principles
    and are eager to experiment… next thing you know,
    their gone into abstract art and have a good time! ;)
     
    Suvv likes this.
  28. ChrisJ_SLH

    ChrisJ_SLH

    Messages:
    1,046
    Name:
    Chris
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I would totally agree with this. RAW vs JPG shouldn't be the question, JPG vs TIFF etc would be a more valid question.

    I often use the analogy that the RAW file is the equivalent to a negative and the JPG is a print from that, (in reality a RAW is even less than a negative). Many of us older buggers have boxes of film prints and the corresponding negative strips, if we wanted another print from these 'back in the day' we would use the neg, not the print.

    Ultimately, the RAW is the master for the image, it isn't an image itself yet (ignoring the embedded jpg preview). I personally love being able to go back and and revisit old photos and producing alternative 'prints' from them. JPG is lossy, each subsequent edit and save of a JPG loses more information (image quality) and therefore I choose to archive RAW on the basis that storage is cheap and I can always revisit old shots and often improve them due to the ever improving processing in software such as Lightroom.

    Other people won't give a monkeys and will be perfectly happy just archiving their 'prints'. Horses for courses.
     
  29. Furtim

    Furtim

    Messages:
    1,539
    Name:
    David
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Of no value to the OP, but...

    Colour in a raw file is determined by the position of a reading most commonly in relation to the bayer filter pattern (but others exist), and yes the algorithm includes a mathematical convolution component to weight the reading based on the values of the neighbours.

    Colour in a jpeg file is determined by the position of the values within an individual 'pixel' - conventionally a number of bits to represent the red component, blue and green etc once the data has been unpacked through a series of discrete cosine transforms.

    Both rely on the the position of the bits in question to determine the colour. There is no magically coloured red, green or blue bits, they are just plain old 1s & 0s in a certain order in both cases, and they depend on that order in order for the decoding algorithm to determine the colours in the image.

    It's all semantics at the end of the day, but why people think that somehow a JPEG is more readable by the human eye than a raw file is beyond be. You have absolutely no chance of making sense of either without the help of software.
    Anyway, I hope the OP got his answer earlier in the thread
     
  30. newbie1

    newbie1

    Messages:
    1,025
    Name:
    Tim
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Getty event photographers are only shooting jpeg. Get it right first time in camera. Much faster workflow.
     
  31. ancient_mariner

    ancient_mariner

    Messages:
    9,294
    Name:
    Toni
    Edit My Images:
    No
    The essence of event photography is that the images are out as fast as practically possible: no-one minds if an image doesn't have the last drop of tonal goodness squeezed out or if the shadows at the edges of a football pitch are blocked up. You might expect sports and event photographers to use jpg then. But in a sitation where time is not of the essence or, heaven forbid, one is actually doing something creative as part of the image processing, then 'getting it right in camera' might make for an unpresentable jpg in order to generate the best possible raw file to process.
     
    newbie1 likes this.
  32. newbie1

    newbie1

    Messages:
    1,025
    Name:
    Tim
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Good point. I’ve been surprised just how good it is possible to get jpeg, and reduces those times when raw is necessary. I guess it’s a question of choosing the best tool for the job.
     
    ancient_mariner likes this.
  33. wave01

    wave01

    Messages:
    1,422
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Everyone to there own. I guess some will use jpg. Depends for me on what you shoot. Yes it’s quicker if you get it right on camera. Raw is for me a digital negative it’s got all the data. I use tif to save a raw file that has been processed. It’s an easy concept for me. My original raw is always intact and i can go back to it.
     
    newbie1 likes this.
  34. tijuana taxi

    tijuana taxi

    Messages:
    9,836
    Name:
    Rich
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Alternatively RAW, why not?

    Its there if you want it, much the same as video, not sure what there is to debate, do what suits you
     
  35. juggler

    juggler

    Messages:
    4,270
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I've found - with Olympus & Nikon, and without exhaustive testing - that using the settings in the camera calibration dropdown in lightroom gets very close to the manufacturer's jpgs with minimal effort. Yet a lot of folk seem to overlook this step; the often-repeated LR wisdom is to 'start from the top and work down'.
     
    PhilH04 and newbie1 like this.
  36. PhilH04

    PhilH04

    Messages:
    646
    Name:
    Phil
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Agree... Camera Calibration should be at the very top along with WB, but perhaps there is a reason...
     
    juggler likes this.
  37. droj

    droj

    Messages:
    2,762
    Name:
    Rog
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Ah - but what is right? Is 'right' merely a lack of mistakes? What about intent? Ultimately, there is no 'right'. There are options. Let's exploit them.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2018
    ancient_mariner likes this.
  38. wave01

    wave01

    Messages:
    1,422
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    right depends on what is right for you
     
  39. droj

    droj

    Messages:
    2,762
    Name:
    Rog
    Edit My Images:
    No
    What do you mean by 'right'?
     
  40. wave01

    wave01

    Messages:
    1,422
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I think right for me a correctly exposed shot. I can get more out of a a raw file than a jpg. well thats my take
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice