Encouragement to shoot raw

[ERREGEO]

Time ago I was reluctant to shoot raw, thought the processing was tortuous and time consuming, and not every shot deserved the effort.
To encourage those who are as I was, I bring a photo as rendered by the camera in jpeg and the raw file of the same shot after some tweaks.
It is a portion of cloudy sky from a spot near My home
The jpeg pic, as you can see is, to say the least, boring. It is a flat pic, with no contrast, showing no texture and tonalities. It seems to have no better destiny than the trash can.
The processed image, gains in texture and contrast. It is still not the great shot, but at least is viewable.
If raw processing could do this in such a poor pic, imagine the wonders you can get with better pics.
Processing raw requires some training but it's worth the effort and is very funny.
JPEG file:

Processed RAW file:

 

[cgw]

Some would make fun of you for discovering the obvious. You've moved to a new level--a good thing! Keep experimenting and growing.

 

[cgw]

OK, here's a shot I took while waiting for my barber today. Processed in RAW and converted to JPEG after post-processing with the old Nik Collection Silver Efex 2 plug-in(Free BTW). Far from great but more striking than the JPEG version:

 

[cgw]

1) You don't have to be sarcastic. If You did not like my post You could simply ignore it.
2) I posted in the beginners forum. Some people who are beginning don't even know what a raw is, and it is for those that my post is intended.
3) Bravo! for your pic, but this is not a competition.
4) I did not know this place is only for top level photographers

Lo siento. I think you misunderstood me. Simply happy you found out what RAW processing can do. I never bothered either for a long time with RAW and played with JPEGs. Only meant to encourage you!

 

[ERREGEO]

Lo siento. I think you misunderstood me. Simply happy you found out what RAW processing can do. I never bothered either for a long time with RAW and played with JPEGs. Only meant to encourage you!

Sorry, if I took it the wrong way because the " some would make fun of me" parte.
I Think it is better to delete allá this thread. Do You know how to do this?
Regards

 

[smoke665]

did not know this place is only for top level photographers.
Regards

This is and always has been a place for all experience levels. It's a valuable resource for anyone wanting to learn. That said, like any social media there will be good comments, and bad comments. I don't believe @cgw was being harsh or sarcastic. We were all beginners at one time, I started the journey over 50 years ago, but I still remember the excitement I felt when I developed my first print, and saw that image appear as if by magic. So don't take offense if you get comments on your enthusiasm, we're just remembering a time of our own exuberance.

As to raw vs JPEG, there are those SOOC proponents that believe any editing post is sacrilege, but a JPEG is edited.....It's edited by the algorithms of the manufacture, which are not necessarily capable of producing the best image but rather an average.

 

[terri]

I Think it is better to delete allá this thread. Do You know how to do this?

No need to delete the thread, since it actually has good information and there was an apology after what appears to be a misunderstanding.

By all means, keep posting your processes of discovery - you can help other beginners! Thanks!

 

[ERREGEO]

This is and always has been a place for all experience levels. It's a valuable resource for anyone wanting to learn. That said, like any social media there will be good comments, and bad comments. I don't believe @cgw was being harsh or sarcastic. We were all beginners at one time, I started the journey over 50 years ago, but I still remember the excitement I felt when I developed my first print, and saw that image appear as if by magic. So don't take offense if you get comments on your enthusiasm, we're just remembering a time of our own exuberance.

As to raw vs JPEG, there are those SOOC proponents that believe any editing post is sacrilege, but a JPEG is edited.....It's edited by the algorithms of the manufacture, which are not necessarily capable of producing the best image but rather an average.

You are right, JPEGs are already edited when the camera saves them. As the "sacrilege" we have just to think in the times of film photography. You could do many things by chemical ways, contrast, brightness, color rendition and the so. What I dont like to do is to remove elements to the pic other than ctopping.
Regard

 

[smoke665]

You could do many things by chemical ways, contrast, brightness, color rendition and the so. What I dont like to do is to remove elements to the pic other than ctopping.
Regard

Editing film involved more than just chemical adjustments. I spent many hours in a darkroom hunched over an enlarger dodging and burning prints, exposing multiple negatives, etc., only to throw them away after development, because you can't see what the result will be till then. People seem to forget that we were doing much of the same editing in the film days as we now do digital, except now it's easier to edit in real time.

 

[Don Fischer]

Time ago I was reluctant to shoot raw, thought the processing was tortuous and time consuming, and not every shot deserved the effort.
To encourage those who are as I was, I bring a photo as rendered by the camera in jpeg and the raw file of the same shot after some tweaks.
It is a portion of cloudy sky from a spot near My home
The jpeg pic, as you can see is, to say the least, boring. It is a flat pic, with no contrast, showing no texture and tonalities. It seems to have no better destiny than the trash can.
The processed image, gains in texture and contrast. It is still not the great shot, but at least is viewable.
If raw processing could do this in such a poor pic, imagine the wonders you can get with better pics.
Processing raw requires some training but it's worth the effort and is very funny.
JPEG file:
View attachment 267965
Processed RAW file:View attachment 267966

So wwhich version did you actually see with your eye's?

 

[ERREGEO]

So wwhich version did you actually see with your eye's?

Good question, probably something in between, I can't recall.

 

[wfooshee]

I have never actually shot JPG only, and while the "workload" for working with RAW files seems daunting, all of the same editing capabilities exist for JPEG, you just won't have the range of data in the image file to work from. You can even load a JPG file into Adobe's Camera Raw, and do anything there that you'd do with a RAW file, at least within the range of the data stored in the image.
I was shooting an event for a friend one evening years ago, basically dirt drags for four-wheel offroaders. The first image, presented here as exposed, was a failure, the flash didn't fire, and as a JPG it would have been deleted. The second image is what I got from it since it was a RAW file. All of that information was still in there!

 

[ERREGEO]

Wow what a difference!
If shot in jpeg only, one would be temptedd todiscard the pic.
Regards

 

[Ysarex]

I have never actually shot JPG only, and while the "workload" for working with RAW files seems daunting, all of the same editing capabilities exist for JPEG, you just won't have the range of data in the image file to work from. You can even load a JPG file into Adobe's Camera Raw, and do anything there that you'd do with a RAW file, at least within the range of the data stored in the image.

Yes you can edit a JPEG and there's a lot you can do to improve a JPEG however you do not have all the same editing capabilities that are available working with raw files. That's not the case.

Load a JPEG into Adobe Camera Raw and increase the color temp value by 450 degrees K. You can't and it does matter.
You can't alter the input profile used to create a JPEG.
You can't alter the demosaicing algorithm used to create the JPEG.
You can't alter the lens distortion corrections used to create the JPEG.
You can't undo processes poorly applied when the JPEG was created.

You presented an impressive example of how access to a raw file can salvage a failed exposure. Consider that, working with most modern cameras, given access to a raw file and a good exposure for the camera JPEG I can always create from the raw file a final image with superior technical IQ than the JPEG created by the camera. There's a reason for this:

The software embedded in the camera processor that creates the camera JPEG is compromised. Over the years the engineers have worked very hard to minimize that compromise and to their credit they've done well, but ultimately they remain stuck between the classic rock and hard place. Every camera holds a gun to their head with the threat that at any time the user may press down the shutter release and hold it down. The expectation then is the camera will take a burst of photos very quickly. The camera's embedded JPEG processor has to keep up. To do that the engineers cut corners in the JPEG processing and it shows in that final image. They have no choice.

No camera manufacturer has yet attempted to offer a model camera advertised as; "get better quality SOOC JPEGs if you don't need to shoot X frames per second."

Here's an example. The OP has a Nikon D3500. I went to DPReview and the sample photos for the D3500 and selected an image that offered a low-light challenge: Nikon D3500 sample gallery ISO was raised to 2800.

The camera JPEG processing is pretty awful. I processed the raw file using DXO PL-6. Here's a link to that processed image at full res: d3500-raw.jpg

Below is a 100% crop comparing the two. I'm not using highly refined processing skills that took me years to learn. I'm just using better software. The D3500 isn't a poor camera it's typical. I can show you the same from my Z7. Could Nikon put better software into their cameras? Of course they can but that will come at a price they can't afford. The D3500 is rated at an impressive 5 frames per second continuous shooting. They'll have to give up.

Fuji has tried to address this problem recently and I'm not sure they're having much success. Here's a recent question that popped up at DPReview: X-H2: Question about clarity setting: Fujifilm X System / SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review about the new X-H2 slowing down when the JPEG clarity setting is used. Fuji added a couple JPEG features to their newest cameras and then put warning notices in the manual that using those features will slow the processor down. Users aren't seeing the notices in the manual they just think their cameras aren't working -- rock and a hard place.

 

[wfooshee]

Thanks for that detail. I've not actually used Camera Raw for JPG very much, but a fellow shooter here at home pointed out that it's possible, and I've played with it. Obviously not enough to find all of the limitations, and what limitations I found I just assumed were because the information simply wasn't there in the file.