RAW Vs. JPEG

[AlexanderB]

This assertion requires further qualification. In a studio it's possible to control the lighting contrast. One could in fact learn to adjust the lighting contrast to take best advantage of a camera's JPEG processing software. That ability to control the lighting becomes far more difficult and/or impossible in natural light. Your assertion calls for proper exposure as an assumption. So let's do a for instance:

The photo I posted earlier was backlit. What would have been a proper exposure? The camera JPEG processing software clipped the red channel in that photo and it also clipped all three channels on the low end. So I didn't have a proper exposure. I needed to do what? Increase the exposure so the shadows wouldn't be blocked. Then I'd have a proper exposure right? Wait a minute! The highlights in the red channel were already clipped. If I increased the exposure so the shadows wouldn't block up then the highlights would clip even worse. How do I get a proper exposure then? Forced to rely on the software in the camera, all possible exposures of that scene would produce failure -- "properly exposed" wasn't an option for the sucky software in the camera. But that was a proper exposure for me as I processed the raw data.

Your assertion has to read: JPEG is ok for processing if an ideally lit scene is properly exposed (at least not clipped) in the first place and in-camera codec is good (which is not the case in some cameras, but now it's rare). I'll reluctantly let that go, but....

Joe

For a proper exposure I refer to an exposure that allows to gather as much light as possible for a given subject just to improve s/n ratio of the image. If you know your subject well you can program your camera not to clip channels, even in a difficult lighting. All modern cameras allow to alter default curve using in-camera settings such as contrast, saturation etc. But I'm not insisting one way is better than another. For a difficult editing in post processing, like panorama stitching, raw is indispensable.

 

[unpopular]

the in-camera settings are typically not nearly sufficient, except in very high-end gear like the Dx series. And still likely represent post-process adjustments, that is, after the gamma encoding has been executed. It makes much more sense to adjust gamma at the start of the RAW development pipeline, rather than after.

In a typical ETTR workflow, adjustments are made to essentially de-compensate to some extent initial gamma encoding....

 

[Garbz]

The question is how much more?

Look the maths is on your side in this argument. Practicality is NOT. Nearly all post processing attempt to somehow recover shadow detail from the contrasty images our camera manufacturers have decided we all should like. This is largely due to the fact that blown highlights look BAD. The idea to get a good image is to shoot to the right, i.e. make the image as bright as possible without blowing the highlights and then pick the correct colour in post. However due to the very contrasty nature of ... well nature, the vast majority of images end up either a) under exposed in an attempt to keep highlights from blowing, or b) properly exposed and requiring some level of highlight recovery due to a clipped channel. One of these sucks for JPEG and the other is impossible.

There is one and only one use for JPEGs, and that's when you're desperately low on disk space. You can make a JPEG at any time after the fact, but you can't recover the data once it's gone, something you may want to tell grandma when you accidentally over exposed her hair during your family portrait. You spend thousands on your camera, why cripple it?

 

[AlexanderB]

Damn it! Topics like these are always not fruitful. RAW vs JPEG is wrong question. I use both. Just sometimes tinkering with Nikon View NX (I'm the only one here using this for RAW? Everyone here seems to use Lightroom/Aperture) is not worth the effort for simple pictures or if jpeg is good enough for the purpose. If in doubt I just switch to RAW.

 

[Ysarex]

This assertion requires further qualification. In a studio it's possible to control the lighting contrast. One could in fact learn to adjust the lighting contrast to take best advantage of a camera's JPEG processing software. That ability to control the lighting becomes far more difficult and/or impossible in natural light. Your assertion calls for proper exposure as an assumption. So let's do a for instance:

The photo I posted earlier was backlit. What would have been a proper exposure? The camera JPEG processing software clipped the red channel in that photo and it also clipped all three channels on the low end. So I didn't have a proper exposure. I needed to do what? Increase the exposure so the shadows wouldn't be blocked. Then I'd have a proper exposure right? Wait a minute! The highlights in the red channel were already clipped. If I increased the exposure so the shadows wouldn't block up then the highlights would clip even worse. How do I get a proper exposure then? Forced to rely on the software in the camera, all possible exposures of that scene would produce failure -- "properly exposed" wasn't an option for the sucky software in the camera. But that was a proper exposure for me as I processed the raw data.

Your assertion has to read: JPEG is ok for processing if an ideally lit scene is properly exposed (at least not clipped) in the first place and in-camera codec is good (which is not the case in some cameras, but now it's rare). I'll reluctantly let that go, but....

Joe

For a proper exposure I refer to an exposure that allows to gather as much light as possible for a given subject just to improve s/n ratio of the image. If you know your subject well you can program your camera not to clip channels, even in a difficult lighting.

In principle yes, in practice not even in the ballpark. At this stage in the technology that option merits only a definitive NO.

All modern cameras allow to alter default curve using in-camera settings such as contrast, saturation etc. But I'm not insisting one way is better than another. For a difficult editing in post processing, like panorama stitching, raw is indispensable.

Those controls available on modern cameras can be graciously described as crude.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

Damn it! Topics like these are always not fruitful.

Sure they are. They provide useful information.

RAW vs JPEG is wrong question. I use both.

I pointed that out in my first post in this thread. The question should be: do you rely on automated software to process the raw capture data or do you manually do that processing using a raw converter. And I'm going to continue to maintain that the automated software in the camera does a mediocre job and, when faced with difficult lighting, it does a poor and usually unacceptable job. I can always do better than the automated software in the camera and I believe that better is just that -- better.

Just sometimes tinkering with Nikon View NX (I'm the only one here using this for RAW? Everyone here seems to use Lightroom/Aperture) is not worth the effort for simple pictures or if jpeg is good enough for the purpose. If in doubt I just switch to RAW.

Part of our difference here I suspect has to do with degree. You just used the description "good enough." I understand that and I find good enough acceptable in many aspects of my life. My wardrobe is good enough for me even though my wife prefers not to be seen with me in public. But when it comes to photography "good enough" is never good enough for me.

I'm only slightly familiar with View NX since I'm not a Nikon owner but I do encounter it via my students who have Nikons. I don't use LR or Aperture as I don't require their DAM capabilities. I have Canon's DPP (similar to View NX) but I also have and use Adobe ACR, Capture One, Photo Ninja and Raw Therapee. I switch between those converters in order to get the very best result. So I'm using 5 different raw converters although most of my work goes through Capture One and now Photo Ninja.

Because I teach about 25 college students each semester I'm very familiar with the capabilities of all the different cameras and their processing software and as noted the leading raw conversion software. I get everything in class from P&S cameras to one of my students this semester just purchasing a 5DmkIII. Which is to say my observations are founded on considerable hands-on experience.

Joe

 

[AlexanderB]

In principle yes, in practice not even in the ballpark. At this stage in the technology that option merits only a definitive NO.

Joe

Hi Joe, it's starting a bit deviating from topic, but this one is interesting to me. In my experience with working with images produced by digital cameras I see it with my own eyes: the best images are that ones have that gathered the most of the light possible for a given subject, with sensitivity set just a hair not clipping the sensor. Where I'm wrong? What is a proper way to exposure? May move to a new thread?

 

[unpopular]

There is no such thing as "proper exposure" or "ideal lighting". I wish that people would get this concept out of their heads. It's not something that is measurable.

 

[AlexanderB]

There is no such thing as "proper exposure" or "ideal lighting". I wish that people would get this concept out of their heads. It's not something that is measurable.

The signal/noise ratio is pretty measurable, and exposure directly affects it. The more signal/noise ration the more 'IQ' you can squeeze from your raw file. I definitely recommend this read Noise, Dynamic Range and Bit Depth in Digital SLRs

 

[unpopular]

^^ oh. trust me. I am *very* familiar with this, and spend a good amount of time thinking about it. But, I do agree. so is clip.

There are measurable qualities relating to exposure, but "proper" exposure isn't something that can be measured. It's a subjective quality. If you maximize signal, most people - perhaps inaccurately - will determine the photograph is "over exposed", even though clipping isn't present.

 

[Ysarex]

In principle yes, in practice not even in the ballpark. At this stage in the technology that option merits only a definitive NO.

Joe

Hi Joe, it's starting a bit deviating from topic, but this one is interesting to me. In my experience with working with images produced by digital cameras I see it with my own eyes: the best images are that ones have that gathered the most of the light possible for a given subject, with sensitivity set just a hair not clipping the sensor. Where I'm wrong? What is a proper way to exposure? May move to a new thread?

Absolutely -- I completely agree. Unpopular earlier mention ETTR. The goal in exposure should be to expose just as you say; a hair from not clipping the sensor. You are not wrong. But in light of the rest of this thread that's very interesting because that exposure practice all but guarantees clipped highlights in the camera JPEG if the subject is normal to high contrast. Putting it another way: I know I have a good exposure when the camera histogram indicates clipped highlights.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

^^ oh. trust me. I am *very* familiar with this, and spend a good amount of time thinking about it. But, I do agree. so is clip.

There are measurable qualities relating to exposure, but "proper" exposure isn't something that can be measured. It's a subjective quality. If you maximize signal, most people - perhaps inaccurately - will determine the photograph is "over exposed", even though clipping isn't present.

I understand what you're saying -- been here before. You maximize signal (which is measurable) and then you process the data for the photo you want and a photo that doesn't appear poorly exposed. By maximizing the signal (exposure) you get the best final result after processing.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

^^ oh. trust me. I am *very* familiar with this, and spend a good amount of time thinking about it. But, I do agree. so is clip.

There are measurable qualities relating to exposure, but "proper" exposure isn't something that can be measured. It's a subjective quality. If you maximize signal, most people - perhaps inaccurately - will determine the photograph is "over exposed", even though clipping isn't present.

I understand what you're saying -- been here before. You maximize signal (which is measurable) and then you process the data for the photo you want and a photo that doesn't appear poorly exposed. By maximizing the signal (exposure) you get the best final result after processing.

Joe

This is again the point I've been pounding on here. When you say most people will determine the photo is overexposed; I say, what photo? The camera JPEG? That's the point. But when we're done processing the raw capture it won't appear overexposed. It will be the best it can be.

Joe

 

[unpopular]

Yes, exactly. "over exposure" does exist, any region which is clipped is over exposed. but aside from that an image is either "too light" or "too dark", which is a subjective standpoint.

This came to me because when I was a know-it-all teenager I approached a grad student, and complained that his thesis was "under exposed". Naturally, he didn't appreciate a snot-nosed 17-year old undergrad with a few years' experience telling him his photos sucked, and defended it, stating that all the tonal range is present. It clicked then, that my problem with the photograph was not something technical, but one of personal preference - in fact, there were no plugged up shadows, but rather it was simply rendered darker than I would have preferred it.

 

[AlexanderB]

^^ oh. trust me. I am *very* familiar with this, and spend a good amount of time thinking about it. But, I do agree. so is clip.

There are measurable qualities relating to exposure, but "proper" exposure isn't something that can be measured. It's a subjective quality. If you maximize signal, most people - perhaps inaccurately - will determine the photograph is "over exposed", even though clipping isn't present.

I understand what you're saying -- been here before. You maximize signal (which is measurable) and then you process the data for the photo you want and a photo that doesn't appear poorly exposed. By maximizing the signal (exposure) you get the best final result after processing.

Joe

This is again the point I've been pounding on here. When you say most people will determine the photo is overexposed; I say, what photo? The camera JPEG? That's the point. But when we're done processing the raw capture it won't appear overexposed. It will be the best it can be.

Joe

Thanks God, we came to some consensus and understanding here.