RAW vs JPEG - Freedom Or Limiting

[greybeard61 33]

I sometimes use Nikon NX studio as the front end of my processing chain. Yesterday I imported a jpeg by accident into NX and was surprised to find that most of the controls I usually use were grayed out because the file was not RAW.

 

[TJMcG140 23]

I sometimes use Nikon NX studio as the front end of my processing chain. Yesterday I imported a jpeg by accident into NX and was surprised to find that most of the controls I usually use were grayed out because the file was not RAW.

I was just notified of an update to Studio and downloaded it. It takes forever to load and process an image, and is essentially useless to me. I never used it that much anyway, but now I see no reason to even keep it.

 

[AlanKlein109 25]

Can the eye really determine that the colors are limited in a jpeg? Aren't millions of colors enough compared to a 10, 12 or more bit image instead of the 8 for a jpeg??

 

[smoke665]

Can the eye really determine that the colors are limited in a jpeg? Aren't millions of colors enough compared to a 10, 12 or more bit image instead of the 8 for a jpeg??

I've read that the human eye is capable of distinguishing about 15 stops with a mere glance and adaptable to between 20-30 stops in changing lighting. Supposedly there are women who can distinguish up to 100 million individual colors. I cant personally verify this, but I have watched DW agonizing over dozens of paint samples

 

[TJMcG140 23]

Can the eye really determine that the colors are limited in a jpeg? Aren't millions of colors enough compared to a 10, 12 or more bit image instead of the 8 for a jpeg??

It's mostly about smooth gradations, not the sheer numbers of colors and tones. More colors means smoother transitions.

 

[Ysarex113 107]

Can the eye really determine that the colors are limited in a jpeg? Aren't millions of colors enough compared to a 10, 12 or more bit image instead of the 8 for a jpeg??

JPEGs are thoroughly adequate. They were designed to be print sufficient and at 8 bits they are. The work done by the Joint Photographic Experts Group is frankly brilliant and the JPEG standard is a technological triumph. And to answer your first question, no the eye can not determine that the colors are limited in a JPEG.

Funny thing about human vision, it's self correcting whether you like it or not. I had a delightful experience a couple years ago when I had a cataract removed from my left eye. The new lens they put in my left eye gave it 20/20 vision -- no longer needed corrective glasses. About a week into my recovery I was seeing pretty well and I removed the eye patch they gave me. I then removed the left lens from my eye glasses and when I put them on I got double vision. My two eyes were seeing everything two different sizes. It was bad enough that I was struggling to get around. But I knew what to expect and what to do. I went for a walk in the neighborhood. As I walked my brain went to work reconciling the two different size images. After about 30 minutes it was doing pretty good. After an hour the problem had nearly been solved. When I got home after an hour and a half walk the problem was gone -- human vision is self correcting and that includes for color.

So we are able to discriminate very subtle color differences when we can see them side by side. But our ability to remember a color is less than abysmal. Test your ability to discriminate colors here: Free Online Color Challenge and Hue Test; X-Rite and test your ability to remember colors here: Color Game — How Well Can You Remember Colors?

What this means is that the colors in a photo have to be pretty seriously off for the average person to see a problem. That's why most people are happy with auto WB. It's never right but it's usually close enough and human self correcting vision picks up the difference. We don't normally look at a JPEG alongside a 16 bit TIFF of the same image and try to spot the color differences. And if we're only looking at the JPEG by itself then we're not in color discrimination mode we're in color memory mode -- less than abysmal.

 

[v1photos]

I'll say I've saved mostly RAW for years, but the older I've become, the more I think the simplicity of going to JPEG offers advantages. Here's another view for switching to JPEG, any comments to agree or dispute? "Limitations" boost photographic creativity – here's why I ditched RAWs and zooms, and embraced JPEGs and prime lenses

RAW gives you more flexibility when adjusting exposure, color, and dynamic range later, which can save difficult shots. JPEG is faster and simpler, but it locks in the camera’s processing, leaving less room to recover details if something is off.

 

[smoke665]

@Ysarex when I had cataract surgery they did one eye at a time, I didn't opt for corrective lenses, so no problem there, but I did notice the difference in white. When I closed the unfixed eye, whites were a brilliant white, when I'd close the corrected eye, whites were a dingy yellow. With both eyes open whites were white but not as bright white. Weird how the brain tries to correct things.

 

[AlanKlein109 25]

It's mostly about smooth gradations, not the sheer numbers of colors and tones. More colors means smoother transitions.

So, can people distinguish JPEG print colors? Realistically, does it matter? Do you really see graduation with jpegs? I haven't noticed myself. Sure, if you use too high a compression on a blue sky, you get banding. But that's not a failure of gradations but of compression algorithms. Compress with a better setting to avoid banding.

 

[AlanKlein109 25]

JPEGs are thoroughly adequate. They were designed to be print sufficient and at 8 bits they are. The work done by the Joint Photographic Experts Group is frankly brilliant and the JPEG standard is a technological triumph. And to answer your first question, no the eye can not determine that the colors are limited in a JPEG.

Funny thing about human vision, it's self correcting whether you like it or not. I had a delightful experience a couple years ago when I had a cataract removed from my left eye. The new lens they put in my left eye gave it 20/20 vision -- no longer needed corrective glasses. About a week into my recovery I was seeing pretty well and I removed the eye patch they gave me. I then removed the left lens from my eye glasses and when I put them on I got double vision. My two eyes were seeing everything two different sizes. It was bad enough that I was struggling to get around. But I knew what to expect and what to do. I went for a walk in the neighborhood. As I walked my brain went to work reconciling the two different size images. After about 30 minutes it was doing pretty good. After an hour the problem had nearly been solved. When I got home after an hour and a half walk the problem was gone -- human vision is self correcting and that includes for color.

So we are able to discriminate very subtle color differences when we can see them side by side. But our ability to remember a color is less than abysmal. Test your ability to discriminate colors here: Free Online Color Challenge and Hue Test; X-Rite and test your ability to remember colors here: Color Game — How Well Can You Remember Colors?

What this means is that the colors in a photo have to be pretty seriously off for the average person to see a problem. That's why most people are happy with auto WB. It's never right but it's usually close enough and human self correcting vision picks up the difference. We don't normally look at a JPEG alongside a 16 bit TIFF of the same image and try to spot the color differences. And if we're only looking at the JPEG by itself then we're not in color discrimination mode we're in color memory mode -- less than abysmal.

I agree. Unless you compare two together, you can;t tell. One color we're very attuned to is flesh. When that's off, we notice. Most other colors in nature are harder to distinguish.

Regarding your issue with two images reminds me of when I switched my P&S digital to 16x9 format to match its 16:9 movie format. I was combining both stills and short video shots to make vacation videos/slide shows. I wanted to eliminate the black borders on the right and left with still shots so they filled the screen as videos do. I found that I was able to adjust composition control in about thirty minutes of shooting. My brain automatically adjusted for the change in format from 4:3 to 16:9. Rules of thirds, balance, etc work in our brains in whatever format the camera is set for.

 

[smoke665]

So, can people distinguish JPEG print colors?

Partly it depends on the viewing distance. Consider that the halftones on a billboard range from 10-25 lines per inch, resulting in a dot size of few millimeters. The new digital display billboards have a pixel size of around 16mm.

 

[AlanKlein109 25]

Partly it depends on the viewing distance. Consider that the halftones on a billboard range from 10-25 lines per inch, resulting in a dot size of few millimeters. The new digital display billboards have a pixel size of around 16mm.

I'm referring to colors in pictures where the pixel size, halftone or dot is smaller than the eye can determine.

 

[Ysarex113 107]

@Ysarex when I had cataract surgery they did one eye at a time, I didn't opt for corrective lenses, so no problem there, but I did notice the difference in white. When I closed the unfixed eye, whites were a brilliant white, when I'd close the corrected eye, whites were a dingy yellow. With both eyes open whites were white but not as bright white. Weird how the brain tries to correct things.

I likewise experienced a big color difference. I went to work measuring the difference as much as I could. My right eye (no cataract) sees a little warm from neutral. Lay a ruler flat on the table and with 6 in the middle as neutral my right eye sees say two inches warm. But my new-lens left eye sees 8 inches blue leaving me now with both eyes open seeing around 3 to 4 inches blue. And yes it's fascinating and instructive to recognize how much our brain is interpreting the two signals from both eyes.

 

[Ysarex113 107]

So, can people distinguish JPEG print colors? Realistically, does it matter? Do you really see graduation with jpegs? I haven't noticed myself. Sure, if you use too high a compression on a blue sky, you get banding. But that's not a failure of gradations but of compression algorithms. Compress with a better setting to avoid banding.

A fine quality camera JPEG will show no evident gradation problems and will print very well with no visible problems. When we see banding in JPEGs someone has created that after the camera made a good JPEG.

 

[smoke665]

I'm referring to colors in pictures where the pixel size, halftone or dot is smaller than the eye can determine.

I understand that but father away the less obvious are the breaks in a gradient.