Ivar Dahl-Larsen
Well-Known Member
bridge again. But this time, one example from raw and one from jpeg. I'd like to see some viewpoints please!
From raw
From jpeg.
From raw
From jpeg.
Critique Welcomed It's that
- Thread starter Ivar Dahl-Larsen
- Start date
Ivar Dahl-Larsen
Well-Known Member
and here is two more in daylight.
from raw.
and from jpeg
and the two latter ones I have done nothing with. Nothing. My conclusion, well with Fuji, most cases jpeg is absolutely fine as long as you know what you are doing in the decisive moment. In night time photography I tend to ensure myself of the result by using both. Any comments on that?
from raw.
and from jpeg
and the two latter ones I have done nothing with. Nothing. My conclusion, well with Fuji, most cases jpeg is absolutely fine as long as you know what you are doing in the decisive moment. In night time photography I tend to ensure myself of the result by using both. Any comments on that?
Pete Askew
Admin
A little bit more information might be useful here, Ivar. I'm not especially familiar with the various 'modes' in Fuji cameras but I believe there are several process algorithm variants to choose from in the JPEG outputs are there not? These will obviously have an impact on the look of the image 'out of the camera'. And I assume you have used some process to get the raw file into JPEG format to upload it here, so it is hard to draw many conclusions I think.
Certainly in the second capture the colours appear more natural in the second although there seem to be a couple of blown highlights here and there (I'm just being clinical here not critical you understand!). These would probably be recoverable (if you were so inclined) from the raw file but not from the JPEG and you could of course process the raw file to give a similar colour rendering.
In the first image there is clear pattern noise in the raw file (as one might expect given the extreme conditions), high contrast and some blown highlights. While the moon is rendered better in the JPEG version, I find there appears to be some loss of fine detail and the blown reflection in the water is larger in area. I guess noise reduction etc has taken its toll. Again, the raw file could probably be processed to achieve better control of the highlights while retaining a bit more detail and the pattern noise could be suppressed where it intrudes.
I rarely record in anything other than raw mode even if I only apply minimal processing once in an editor. If you are using Lightroom or Capture One (and others I'm sure) once can apply some default 'development' during import such that one can simply then export as JPEGs later. The advantage though is that they are then not 'baked-in' and if you wish (or need to), you can the alter /change these to suit later.
I assume this was the sort of dialogue you were hoping to start. If not, just ignore me!
Certainly in the second capture the colours appear more natural in the second although there seem to be a couple of blown highlights here and there (I'm just being clinical here not critical you understand!). These would probably be recoverable (if you were so inclined) from the raw file but not from the JPEG and you could of course process the raw file to give a similar colour rendering.
In the first image there is clear pattern noise in the raw file (as one might expect given the extreme conditions), high contrast and some blown highlights. While the moon is rendered better in the JPEG version, I find there appears to be some loss of fine detail and the blown reflection in the water is larger in area. I guess noise reduction etc has taken its toll. Again, the raw file could probably be processed to achieve better control of the highlights while retaining a bit more detail and the pattern noise could be suppressed where it intrudes.
I rarely record in anything other than raw mode even if I only apply minimal processing once in an editor. If you are using Lightroom or Capture One (and others I'm sure) once can apply some default 'development' during import such that one can simply then export as JPEGs later. The advantage though is that they are then not 'baked-in' and if you wish (or need to), you can the alter /change these to suit later.
I assume this was the sort of dialogue you were hoping to start. If not, just ignore me!
Ivar Dahl-Larsen
Well-Known Member
Absolutely an answer I can relate to even though my head and brain are spinning to such an answer. Must be the viking blood rushing to the upper part that seldom get activated
Well frankly, the 2 first ones of the bridge are both edited in photoshop from being opened in raw. Both of them, basically with the same parameters for the both of them. I did not pay so much attention to blown highlights as highlights are also blown in reality in such a picture. The jpeg one has been set to classic chrome as I choose it hence its likeness to ordinary slidefilms. So both were opened as mentioned in the raw converter and transported to photoshop after the parameters in raw were set and done. My main idea was to see if there was a significant difference from raw as to jpeg! My experience under all circumstances except under quite dark conditions, is that jpeg is of no less quality than raw.
When it comes to the two of the girls, I did nothing but let them go through the raw converter, which I always use even on a jpeg one, to see if there is a signifant difference! On my monitor as well as yours it seems, that the latter is more neutral and more lifelike which I prefer. So thank you for your answer, which has been quite interesting. Now as we both have seen the two as they are, I shall complete them in my normal procedures, as well as try to take care of blown highlights, just to see which comes out the best with less editing. My experience here as going through the DNG raw converter, is that blown highlights in jpeg can still become or turned acceptable and just as good as the raw one. Bottom line, as I see it and shall show, is; that if you do your things right when triggering the shutter, as in experience for many years with slidefilm, a jpeg from the likes of Fuji is just as forgiven as a raw! Actually a Pentax behaves as well. And finally I think, anyone would prefer to have a camera where everything is being done in the camera whereas editing at a later stage is not needed, - unless one is utterly proper
All sport photography in Rio I take it, were jpegs straight out of the cameras! Again thanks for taking the time Pete and for your interest in the subject! Much appreciated!
Well frankly, the 2 first ones of the bridge are both edited in photoshop from being opened in raw. Both of them, basically with the same parameters for the both of them. I did not pay so much attention to blown highlights as highlights are also blown in reality in such a picture. The jpeg one has been set to classic chrome as I choose it hence its likeness to ordinary slidefilms. So both were opened as mentioned in the raw converter and transported to photoshop after the parameters in raw were set and done. My main idea was to see if there was a significant difference from raw as to jpeg! My experience under all circumstances except under quite dark conditions, is that jpeg is of no less quality than raw.
When it comes to the two of the girls, I did nothing but let them go through the raw converter, which I always use even on a jpeg one, to see if there is a signifant difference! On my monitor as well as yours it seems, that the latter is more neutral and more lifelike which I prefer. So thank you for your answer, which has been quite interesting. Now as we both have seen the two as they are, I shall complete them in my normal procedures, as well as try to take care of blown highlights, just to see which comes out the best with less editing. My experience here as going through the DNG raw converter, is that blown highlights in jpeg can still become or turned acceptable and just as good as the raw one. Bottom line, as I see it and shall show, is; that if you do your things right when triggering the shutter, as in experience for many years with slidefilm, a jpeg from the likes of Fuji is just as forgiven as a raw! Actually a Pentax behaves as well. And finally I think, anyone would prefer to have a camera where everything is being done in the camera whereas editing at a later stage is not needed, - unless one is utterly proper
All sport photography in Rio I take it, were jpegs straight out of the cameras! Again thanks for taking the time Pete and for your interest in the subject! Much appreciated!
