RAW - worth it? (...again) - page 2 - RAW Shooting and Processing - CHDK Forum  

RAW - worth it? (...again)

  • 21 Replies
  • 6845 Views
Re: RAW - worth it? (...again)
« Reply #10 on: 18 / December / 2015, 19:16:30 »
Advertisements
An example (left: DNG straight out of the camera, right: edited DNG).
JPEG - dark shadows are actually rendered grayscale and they lack any detail (yeah it's good for file size savings because we really can't see those details in final product, but very bad for editing)
It would be very interesting to see how Canon did with the JPG of this same shot!  Can you post it as well?
Ported :   A1200    SD940   G10    Powershot N    G16

*

Offline Marg

  • *
  • 15
  • SX510-HS
Re: RAW - worth it? (...again)
« Reply #11 on: 18 / December / 2015, 19:24:28 »
Well, JPEG essentialy looks the same as unedited DNG. (EDIT: Actually, if you compare it to my previous post, it's obvious that DNG retains much more color, whereas JPEG is obviously washed out and bland looking. In reality the scene was very vibrant, though not as much as an edited version - it's an artistic intrepretation, not a match to how it really was)

I'd like to mention that these "straight into the sun" photos look very dull/washed out as Canon JPEGs and that recovering it is pretty much impossible because it all kind of leans to the grayscale side of things, especially in the shadows.

Canon JPEG / edited DNG
« Last Edit: 18 / December / 2015, 19:33:15 by Marg »

*

Offline Marg

  • *
  • 15
  • SX510-HS
Re: RAW - worth it? (...again)
« Reply #12 on: 18 / December / 2015, 19:26:35 »
--accidental double post, sorry
« Last Edit: 18 / December / 2015, 19:28:46 by Marg »

Re: RAW - worth it? (...again)
« Reply #13 on: 18 / December / 2015, 19:37:02 »
Well, JPEG essentialy looks the same as unedited DNG.
Hmmm .. not to my eyes.  The JPEG fixes the flare in the lower right hand corner and the vignetting in the other corners so it's obviously an improvment over the unedited DNG.

Here's the real test then.  Can you post process the Canon JPEG to look like your post processed DNG?  How close can you get?
Ported :   A1200    SD940   G10    Powershot N    G16


*

Offline Marg

  • *
  • 15
  • SX510-HS
Re: RAW - worth it? (...again)
« Reply #14 on: 18 / December / 2015, 20:00:14 »
Well, JPEG essentialy looks the same as unedited DNG.
Hmmm .. not to my eyes.  The JPEG fixes the flare in the lower right hand corner and the vignetting in the other corners so it's obviously an improvment over the unedited DNG.

Here's the real test then.  Can you post process the Canon JPEG to look like your post processed DNG?  How close can you get?

Ok this is interesting, and I've been doing it many times to demonstrate to myself that editing JPEGs is indeed not the same as editing DNGs, i.e. you get lots of nastiness. I'll try and we'll see what we'll get for this one.

Here it is:

edited JPEG / edited DNG


If you look at the bottom of the edited JPEG, it's kind of obvious that what are now raised shadows have a weird hue to them (purplish?) and that they lack color. In general, the area where I raised the shadows seem much more natural with edited DNG. Also I have to add that I had to tweak things much more with JPEG, while with DNG it's a much smoother process.

EDIT: Also I can see some "fakeness" going on with JPEG, like the colors are too homogenous and kind of un-smooth.

I have some other examples where I can show very vividly the extent of difference. I'll do my best to edit some other photo and show it here. I spent lots of time editing JPEG vs DNGs and know that the gain of using DNG can be substantial, especially when bringing up underexposed areas.
« Last Edit: 18 / December / 2015, 20:03:17 by Marg »

Re: RAW - worth it? (...again)
« Reply #15 on: 18 / December / 2015, 20:08:36 »
Ok this is interesting, and I've been doing it many times to demonstrate to myself that editing JPEGs is indeed not the same as editing DNGs, i.e. you get lots of nastiness. I'll try and we'll see what we'll get for this one.
It's a bit hard to see a lot with the embedded images here.  A full image download from a file sharing site would of course be better.

However,  even I can see how much better the DNG version is when you look at the reflected sunlight on the water.

Nice job!
Ported :   A1200    SD940   G10    Powershot N    G16

*

Offline Marg

  • *
  • 15
  • SX510-HS
Re: RAW - worth it? (...again)
« Reply #16 on: 18 / December / 2015, 20:24:16 »
Here is it in higher resolution:

edited DNG


edited JPG


I must say I could have probably done a better job editing JPG, but I think that the limitations of Canon JPEG get quite obvious without being pixel perfect. This is more like a proof of concept thing.

*

Offline Marg

  • *
  • 15
  • SX510-HS
Re: RAW - worth it? (...again)
« Reply #17 on: 18 / December / 2015, 20:31:22 »
Another example (a similar scene in fact) which I've named
"Where have the colors gone?" :) heh

Here are the links for larger pictures, so you can see clearly what's going on.
original JPG



edited DNG

(there is full and nice color to everything - boosting shadows doesn't seem like something too bad, there is both detail and color to shadows in fact.)

edited JPG

(you can see that boosted shadows areas are in fact all purple tinted with practially no color other than that.. ok there's some green. but most of it is kind of pale/purple. boosting vibrance/saturation will bring out nasty casts)

It obvious that I'm exposing to the right and bringing up the shadows in post. It's what I often do when I don't feel like taking HDR sequence (which I find tedious for post processing). The Canon JPEG is all weird when pushed to such an extreme.

DNG editing - piece of cake, everything looks nice and smooth
JPG editing - do something a bit more extreme and all kind of weird stuff start showing up which you try hard to fix (e.g. you need radial/graduated filters for boosted shadows because they act differently than the rest of the picture)

So my conclusion is this: Canon JPG - fine for minor edits, but if you want to alter the dynamic range (remap tones) than it's no good, you need RAW for that, otherwise you encounter some very bad artifacts and pure lack of information in shadow areas.

EDIT: I was quite intentional here to show what are the limitations of JPG are. It's more about tech stuff rather that art and what looks better. In fact I like unedited JPG, but here I tried to demonstrate what would happen if I were to alter that look by somewhat extreme amount.
« Last Edit: 18 / December / 2015, 20:47:30 by Marg »


Re: RAW - worth it? (...again)
« Reply #18 on: 18 / December / 2015, 20:48:10 »
Another example (a similar scene in fact) which I've named "Where have the colors gone?" :) heh
Really nice example.  Thanks for posting that!
Ported :   A1200    SD940   G10    Powershot N    G16

*

Offline Marg

  • *
  • 15
  • SX510-HS
Re: RAW - worth it? (...again)
« Reply #19 on: 18 / December / 2015, 20:56:06 »
Another example (a similar scene in fact) which I've named "Where have the colors gone?" :) heh
Really nice example.  Thanks for posting that!

Well, I'm an experienced CHDK-fiddler :D

Just to finish this up: I think people often try do demonstrate RAW/JPG differences in some situations where minor adjustments are enough and it gets real hard to see if there is any substantial difference or is it all imagined. But for example, if you do some kind of HDRish photos of night-timelapses where you do some substantial editing, then (even if you did it only once) you know for sure that RAW beats the hell out of JPEG and that it's funny to have "discussions" on it :)
But to use it for everyday photos is a kind of nonsense. It's to be used the same way RAW is used on DSLRs, when it's needed and knowing exactly why you need it. Otherwise it just wastes your memory and time.
(I know it because I used to do it all wrong! :D I filled my hard drive with a bunch of mediocre DNGs and realized that I'm doing a big mistake by shooting all RAW. Now I know when it's to be used.)
« Last Edit: 18 / December / 2015, 20:59:23 by Marg »

 

Related Topics