raw files vs. high pixel count jpg images

Discussion in 'Photoshop' started by Barry, Apr 7, 2011.

  1. Barry

    Kele Guest

    Your web site?
     
    Kele, Apr 14, 2011
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Barry

    Helmut Guest

    Yes thank you, I have one.

    HH
     
    Helmut, Apr 14, 2011
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Almost, but not quite. If you recover shadows in an 8 bit JPEG file, you
    will end up with noise in those shadows. You can filter noise using special
    filters like NoiseNinja, but that is always at the expense of some detail.
    Clearing up shadows in a 14 bits RAW file gives less noise and offers
    easier noise control.

    If you have slightly blown out highlights, you can usually recover these
    perfectly in a RAW converter. However, if you first convert the RAW file to
    JPEG, the blown out highlights are beyond recovery.
     
    Johan W. Elzenga, Apr 14, 2011
    #23
  4. Barry

    Savageduck Guest

    Hence the purpose of the "recovery" slider in ACR.

    Effective RAW Noise correction in the current edition of ACR is also a
    vast improvement over that found in legacy editions of CS.

    Also, with your ACR RAW open conversion there is the option of wider
    gamut selection than sRGB, as well as opening as a "Smart Object". All
    of which give you greater flexibility over working directly with JPEG
    files.

    Having said all that there are those who are going to be perfectly
    satisfied with the instant gratification of image as produced by the
    camera, and see RAW as an unnecessary time waster. I for one prefer to
    immerse myself in producing my final images from RAW.
     
    Savageduck, Apr 14, 2011
    #24
  5. Barry

    Joel Guest

    Hey STUPID! if my dick is small then you can swallow it whole or just suck
    it.

    You are just too stupid for my to enjoy.
     
    Joel, Apr 15, 2011
    #25
  6. You are perfectly correct, of course. I've found that some of the
    automation tools in CS4 open DNG without an adjustment dialog. I was
    happily surprised that the default conversion was reasonable. I just
    wanted a quick way to convert a huge number of files to JPG with what
    was at-hand.
     
    John J Stafford, Apr 15, 2011
    #26
  7. BTW, CS 5.5 will have a new noise adjustment control for the DNG step.
    It is good to see that they are exploiting the max-bit depth (14,
    correct?) at that step.
     
    John J Stafford, Apr 15, 2011
    #27
  8. Joel, you wrote, "When you are good with graphic retouching program then
    you may not need RAW Converter." I can only guess that you mean that one
    need not shoot in RAW, to which I simply disagree, but it's my personal
    preference to shoot RAW/ DNG version.)
     
    John J Stafford, Apr 15, 2011
    #28
  9. Barry

    Helmut Guest

    --------------------
    There have been many alterations (not all of them improvements) to how
    we process digital images since Silicon Graphics perfected the use of
    digital technology to create a digital image file.

    There seems to be a group of people now, who see noise as a detrimental
    thing. In their search for a noise free image, several issues outside
    the image parameters are known to effect "grain" or "digital noise" and
    "image noise" and are overlooked. I assume because the reason and
    technology behind some of it is buried deep in our past.

    In the days when... Using textured paper to make prints with could often
    cancel out grain to the visual part of our brain. Talking about removing
    grain from deep shadows by adopting 14 bit RAW capture and software that
    basically smooths out digital or image noise seems to be a popular topic
    around here. Quite contradictory to the one that prevailed when Sigma
    produced their radical DSLR.

    It is only when a printer seeking extreme attenuation in a photo resorts
    to using ultra high gloss paper to get it that grain, noise and colour
    noise are even noticeable to any great extent.

    I recall much condemnation of Sigma DSLRs for what some claimed to be
    "Plastic looking" results. Removing noise from an image is creating just
    that, plastic looking results. Noise is texture. Canvas has a texture as
    does much of the photo paper used in the world today yet Johan (for one)
    is seeking to remove entirely any texture from an image, only to have it
    replaced by a different texture (that of paper) during print making.

    Any notion you can create "life like" pictures with a camera is about as
    absurd as the idea you can produce "true to life" colours with an inkjet
    printer. It is simply impossible to produce a facsimile of a 3D object
    (real life) using 2D technology.

    So why then, bother trying to copy the impossible? I long ago adopted
    photography as an art form. Capable of producing art that resembles life
    but certainly not copy it.

    With photography being so far distant (more so than video) from "life
    like" I'd have thought it blindingly obvious to use the medium as an art
    form not a reproduction medium would exploit its full potential.

    Noise in shadows? Why not, I say. If you don't like seeing noise in a
    digital image, simply don't print it on gloss paper. Use instead
    "Pearl", "silk" or "Lustre" which in the first place was designed to
    conceal the grain of black and white photography.

    HH
     
    Helmut, Apr 16, 2011
    #29
  10. Nobody says it's forbidden to have noise in the shadows of your image. If
    you like noise because you feel that noise is the same as texture, be my
    guest. There is no noise police that will come to arrest you. But the
    reality is that most people don't like to see noise in their images, and
    that is their prerogative. Who are you to say that these people cannot use
    gloss paper? Perhaps some of these people do prefer gloss paper...

    If you use a 14 bits RAW file when opening up the shadows, you at least
    *can* (to a certain extend) avoid noise if you want to. You don't *have
    to*, but you *can*. If you use an 8 bits JPEG image you cannot. That's all.
    Besides that, the issue of blown highlight also still stands. You cannot
    recover blown highlights in an 8 bits JPEG file. What's gone, is gone
    forever. If you start from a 14 bits RAW file on the other hand, you often
    *can* recover blown highlights.

    The choice is yours. Nobody forces you to shoot in RAW, least of all me.
     
    Johan W. Elzenga, Apr 16, 2011
    #30
  11. I have to ask why you in particular would use digital media at all.
     
    John J Stafford, Apr 16, 2011
    #31
  12. Barry

    Helmut Guest

    I have to ask why you use also use digital medial.

    Your answer is probably the same as mine.

    HH
     
    Helmut, Apr 17, 2011
    #32
  13. Barry

    Joel Guest

    As I said you are too stupid for me to waste my time.
     
    Joel, Apr 17, 2011
    #33
  14. Can you explain why noise can be avoided in a 14-bit RAW file and not in
    an 8-bit JPEG?

    I can see how processing is simplified, but not the full distinction.
    Maybe I'm just being a bit thick!

    Ta.

    Mike
    --
    Michael J Davis

    http://www.fluidr.com/photos/watchman/

    <><
    "I never have taken a picture I've intended.
    They're always better or worse."
    Diane Arbus
    <><
     
    Michael J Davis, Apr 18, 2011
    #34
  15. It's not easy to explain in a few sentences. It's due to the fact that a
    camera captures light in a linear way. That means that half the bits are
    used for the first stop of light, half of the remaining bits for the second
    stop, etcetera. In an 8 bits file, you no longer have any latitude in the
    lowest stops. In a 14 bits file you do have some 'room to move'. Google on
    'exposure to the right' to read more about linear capture and what it means
    for a gamma corrected image.
     
    Johan W. Elzenga, Apr 18, 2011
    #35
  16. Yes, thanks, I *was* being a bit think - that puts it nicely!
    Ok, I'm familiar with that, but will double check.

    Thanks

    Mike
    (...off to recheck his workflow...!)
    --
    Michael J Davis

    http://www.fluidr.com/photos/watchman/

    <><
    All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.
    - Richard Avedon - 1984
    <><
     
    Michael J Davis, Apr 19, 2011
    #36
  17. Barry

    Helmut Guest

    The "room to move" can be greater in an 8 bit file using layers masks
    than any 14 bit file manipulated carried out any other way with Adobe
    software. For all (any?) practical purpose, it is software that either
    removes or conceals noise in shadows before printing.

    Create a true unsharp mask (as opposed to what Photoshop calls its
    sharpening routine) and noise can be concealed, even eliminated in some
    cases by using several layers as true unsharp masks without loss of detail.

    Before ever digital images were even thought of for photography, I used
    to specialise in making real unsharp masks. These were mostly used to
    sharpen slightly out of focus 'Cibachrome" images and flatten the
    contrast to make them printable without blown highlights.

    I used to use them (very successfully) to reduce noise and sharpen
    prints larger than was considered largest practical size. Maybe now I'm
    close to retirement, I might start a site explaining these techniques
    that are relatively easy to convert to digital routines.

    If you intend to rely entirely on what can be achieved using functions
    programmed into Adobe software then yes, perhaps Johan is right. 14 bit
    images can marginally reduce noise without sacrificing detail but the
    effect would not be noticeable in small prints like a wedding
    photographer would sell. Textured (lustre, Pearl etc) surface paper
    would be just as effective in comparison to using high bit count RAW files.

    It might be also timely to mention that which RAW developer you use can
    have a remarkable effect on noise. Take for example Nikon digital
    images. Programs like Bibble 5.2 and Capture NX 2.2 excel in maintaining
    shadow detail whilst specifically addressing the issue of noise in shadows.

    Achieving the same noise reduction (Nikon files) using Adobe Camera Raw
    results in loss of detail that cannot be recovered without bringing back
    the noise. I've no idea how other camera makes behave.

    Using Bibble for shadow noise control may require a licensed version of
    Noise Ninja although there is a very basic version as part of the
    software. Capture NX addresses noise in much the same way it works in
    importing the file for editing. Before any other manipulation is done.
    Pity it only works on Nikon files.

    HH
     
    Helmut, Apr 25, 2011
    #37
  18. This used to be true for Canon images as well, but the latest version of
    Camera RAW (version 6 that comes with CS5) is improved dramatically in this
    respect. I'm sure it is also improved with Nikon images.
    You are absolutely right about RAW converters and that only confirms what
    I'm saying. It's much better (not only from the point of noise in the
    shadows) to work from a 12 or 14 bits RAW file than from an 8 bits JPEG
    file.
     
    Johan W. Elzenga, Apr 25, 2011
    #38
  19. That would be a book I'd buy. I use contrast masks for 8x10" negatives,
    but I am not as good at it as I wish to be. To have the two techniques
    explained (compared and contrasted) by an expert would be fantastic.

    I'm retiring in a few weeks, too.
     
    John Stafford, Apr 26, 2011
    #39
  20. Sorry Helmut, I don't seem to have thanked you for this. It is much
    appreciated. Thanks!

    Mike
     
    Michael J Davis, May 3, 2011
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.