...and this is why I shoot in raw

************

I'll let someone else bother with all that for now, lol. I can say though, that when I look at these two examples side by side, raw wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

Jpeg and raw have the same total range, it is the larger gamut between brightest and darkest tones that raw exceeds jpeg with. JPEG compression also effects very high adn low tones more than midtones

---

But when you get down into the darker tones, the 8-bit jpg no longer has enough levels within the stop to provide any details - the choice has been made, those details are gone and they cannot be recovered in PP. Also, in camera jpgs have that nice ‘contrasty’ image that sells cameras. This contrast comes at the expense of the dynamic range.

When you post adjust the exposure on a jpg, all you are doing is changing the brightness - same as if you used the brightness adjustment on your monitor. When you adjust exposure with RAW, you are changing the RAW conversion process.

Terry

I'm not going to deny that Raw is certainly the more flexible format. But Jpeg still has it's place as well.

An 8-bit Jpeg contains has a dynamic range of 1:255. A 12 bit raw has a d.r. of 1:4095. But the human eye can only detect about 200 tonal variations, so the dynamic range of both exceeds that of normal visual acuity.

And whichever dynamic range you use, the dispersal of pixels is the same: the histogram doesn't change simply because you have more steps between black and white. Each stop contains the exact same amount of information.

The difference then, between Raw and Jpeg is editibility. Many of Photoshop's edits are destructive, and Raw gives you a much greater ability to lose information before the eye detects it. Also, having more steps in each stop gives greater control over the information distributed there. And since Raw records the exposure, but doesn't lock it in, you can achieve better effects with tone-mapping a single exposure. Lastly, because Raw is a proprietary format, you can get a bit better color reproduction by using a Raw editor that knows how to use the proprietary color information (ie, one supplied by the same manufacturer as the camera).

The main advantage of shooting Jpeg is a much smaller file size, which equates to a faster transfer time, and greater fps shooting rate. Many of Raw's advantages (white balance, exposure control, etc,,,) can be overcome by the skill of the photographer. There is still a trade-off, but in some instances it's worth it.

- Joe U.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Medley

I'm not going to deny that Raw is certainly the more flexible format. But Jpeg still has it's place as well.

An 8-bit Jpeg contains has a dynamic range of 1:255. A 12 bit raw has a d.r. of 1:4095. But the human eye can only detect about 200 tonal variations, so the dynamic range of both exceeds that of normal visual acuity.

And whichever dynamic range you use, the dispersal of pixels is the same: the histogram doesn't change simply because you have more steps between black and white. Each stop contains the exact same amount of information.

The difference then, between Raw and Jpeg is editibility. Many of Photoshop's edits are destructive, and Raw gives you a much greater ability to lose information before the eye detects it. Also, having more steps in each stop gives greater control over the information distributed there. And since Raw records the exposure, but doesn't lock it in, you can achieve better effects with tone-mapping a single exposure. Lastly, because Raw is a proprietary format, you can get a bit better color reproduction by using a Raw editor that knows how to use the proprietary color information (ie, one supplied by the same manufacturer as the camera).

The main advantage of shooting Jpeg is a much smaller file size, which equates to a faster transfer time, and greater fps shooting rate. Many of Raw's advantages (white balance, exposure control, etc,,,) can be overcome by the skill of the photographer. There is still a trade-off, but in some instances it's worth it.

- Joe U.

---

"And whichever dynamic range you use, the dispersal of pixels is the same: the histogram doesn't change simply because you have more steps between black and white. Each stop contains the exact same amount of information."

More steps between black and white IS more information - it's the detail. Actual, that's all the image information there is in any RGB file.

Higher dynamic range means having more steps within the stops at the black and/or white ends. If you have an area of an image that is all black and increase the dynamic range enough, there will be areas that aren't black - detail. If you could increase the dynamic range enough, there probably would be NO black areas in the image.

Terry

Terry is describing the contrast detail, what Joe and I were talking about was simply the tonal detail. But, you have a point Terry. I suppose it was at least applicable to the original posters image.

My Olympus E-30 offers the BEST dynamic range of any camera I laid my hands on. That is why all of the above issues for me are "SOLVED".

The DPreview.com review of the Olympus E-30 said, "The JPEG quality is superb, with excellent dynamic range and a slightly more subtle approach to color and contrast than we're used to from Olympus, giving results that look great 'out of the can' but respond well to post processing too. The tone curve manages to avoid clipping highlights even at ISO 100 (which as our tests show is not the optimum setting - ISO 200 gives you a stop more range), and highlight range stays consistently high throughout the higher sensitivity range."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

Terry is describing the contrast detail, what Joe and I were talking about was simply the tonal detail. But, you have a point Terry. I suppose it was at least applicable to the original posters image.

---

I guess I don't understand. The only information in an RGB file is the shades or steps between black and white for each of the three colors, correct? There is no intensity component. Or (to simplify it) in an 8-bit B&W image, all you have to work with is 256 shades of gray (including black and white). Isn't this the tonal range/detail? - Terry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

Jpeg and raw have the same total range, it is the larger gamut between brightest and darkest tones that raw exceeds jpeg with. JPEG compression also effects very high adn low tones more than midtones

---

Incorrect, RAW on my camera has 12 bits per color! As JPEG is 8 bit per color, by JPEG specifications. So a 12 bit RAW file has 2^4 more range (that is 4 F stops) then any JPEG image to start with, and some of the newer camera's are using 14 bits per color RAW images files that is a total of 6 F stop more range than JPEG files can handle. JPEG is also lossly so you lose tonal range and detail and it's cumulative each time the file is opened and saved even it no editing is done (open and close has no effect on the file).

With the extra stops you can capture more contrasty without washing out the highs or loss in the shadows. Using JPEG you have 256 shades of gray with 12 bits you have 4096 shades of gray which you can save to a 16 bit TIFF file :)

>>this is why I shoot in raw
I love the pics but am surprised to see that they didn't mind you being naked at that restaurant...

A black detail is black so long as its not 0 black, if its 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 black, its detail, whether or not there is contrast near or around it, it is detail, if only tonal detail. When a piece of an image is solid black, below 0, thats black without detail. Theres also white, and white without detail.

Freygr - check what I just said. 0 is still 0, 0 is 0 in raw, the same as it is in jpeg, 255 white is 255 white, its white without detail, tonal detail. The kind of detail you are talking about is contrast detail. I am aware of the distinction between 8-bit compressed jpeg, and 12 and 14 bit raws.

No it doesn't have more stops of tonal range, if it did everything would look gray. It can pull shadow detail better, and with the extra shades can spread it wider, but it does not have 'more stops', not even remotely. Crush a shadow in jpeg, its crushed in raw. (I'm talking 0 crushed, not 1-10 crushed)

Terry - I see exactly what you mean, but we are talking about different things. You are talking about contrast detail, I am talking purely of tonal detail. Lets say theres a sky in an image, pure blue sky - even though there is no contrast (or very little), its still detail because it is not solid black or white. It doesn't need a shift in its gradations to be considered detail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

A black detail is black so long as its not 0 black, if its 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 black, its detail, whether or not there is contrast near or around it, it is detail, if only tonal detail. When a piece of an image is solid black, below 0, thats black without detail. Theres also white, and white without detail.

Freygr - check what I just said. 0 is still 0, 0 is 0 in raw, the same as it is in jpeg, 255 white is 255 white, its white without detail, tonal detail. The kind of detail you are talking about is contrast detail. I am aware of the distinction between 8-bit compressed jpeg, and 12 and 14 bit raws.

No it doesn't have more stops of tonal range, if it did everything would look gray. It can pull shadow detail better, and with the extra shades can spread it wider, but it does not have 'more stops', not even remotely. Crush a shadow in jpeg, its crushed in raw. (I'm talking 0 crushed, not 1-10 crushed)

Terry - I see exactly what you mean, but we are talking about different things. You are talking about contrast detail, I am talking purely of tonal detail. Lets say theres a sky in an image, pure blue sky - even though there is no contrast (or very little), its still detail because it is not solid black or white. It doesn't need a shift in its gradations to be considered detail.

---

In 12 bit RAW white is 2^12 = 4096 during the conversion to jpg white becomes 256 due to the fact JPG is 8 bit per color. Using an editor restricted to 8 bit color depth or a video driver (display) which is 8 bit color depth you can't see any color depth difference. You can see the difference on a high end printer printing large sized output.

I don't mean to derail this thread, but in the original photos, the item that's burning/flaming is that the "onion volcano"?? I honestly just heard about that thing 2 days ago. =)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

A black detail is black so long as its not 0 black, if its 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 black, its detail, whether or not there is contrast near or around it, it is detail, if only tonal detail. When a piece of an image is solid black, below 0, thats black without detail. Theres also white, and white without detail.

Freygr - check what I just said. 0 is still 0, 0 is 0 in raw, the same as it is in jpeg, 255 white is 255 white, its white without detail, tonal detail. The kind of detail you are talking about is contrast detail. I am aware of the distinction between 8-bit compressed jpeg, and 12 and 14 bit raws.

No it doesn't have more stops of tonal range, if it did everything would look gray. It can pull shadow detail better, and with the extra shades can spread it wider, but it does not have 'more stops', not even remotely. Crush a shadow in jpeg, its crushed in raw. (I'm talking 0 crushed, not 1-10 crushed)

Terry - I see exactly what you mean, but we are talking about different things. You are talking about contrast detail, I am talking purely of tonal detail. Lets say theres a sky in an image, pure blue sky - even though there is no contrast (or very little), its still detail because it is not solid black or white. It doesn't need a shift in its gradations to be considered detail.

---

I've been trying to find some definitions od 'tonal' and 'contrast detail' without much luck. Could you define each? - Terry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

I agree Tom. This forum sometimes just isn't very kind to the JPEG, no respect at all!

---

1) You lose color
2) fine details

Why you ask, the JPG compression is lossy merging colors which are close in color, removing fine detail and colors the eye can't see. These effects are cumulative each time the file is saved. After a few times a person can see the changes (open and save) and after many saves any one with good eye sight can see the loss of quality and JPG artifacts.

I have no problems using JPG, but for editing I always use the RAW image file if I have one, otherwise I open the original JPG and save to a non-lossy file format like TIF, BMP, or one of the many other image file formats which are non-lossy for editing.

Note: I shoot RAW with basic JPG, as the storage is so cheap now days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by groovehouse

I don't mean to derail this thread, but in the original photos, the item that's burning/flaming is that the "onion volcano"?? I honestly just heard about that thing 2 days ago. =)

---

That's exactly what it is :)

Nice demonstration on jpeg vs raw, but have a stupid question on how to shoot raw recently bought a Panasonic DMC FZ100 camera and its my first camera that I am able to shoot in raw, Ok how do I do this, set the camera to ISO??? or how???


Thanks

I am amazed what can be done by using the Raw format never tried it as a beginner

so will give it a try

do i need extra software to work with Raw files?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zapper

Nice demonstration on jpeg vs raw, but have a stupid question on how to shoot raw recently bought a Panasonic DMC FZ100 camera and its my first camera that I am able to shoot in raw, Ok how do I do this, set the camera to ISO??? or how???


Thanks

---

See if you have a File setting for TIFF, or RAW. The TIFF format can save in either 8 or 16 bit color depth. TIFF is non-lossy format.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zapper

Nice demonstration on jpeg vs raw, but have a stupid question on how to shoot raw recently bought a Panasonic DMC FZ100 camera and its my first camera that I am able to shoot in raw, Ok how do I do this, set the camera to ISO??? or how???


Thanks

---

Select it in the Menu under Quality. See pg 134 of the Mamual. - Terry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldClicker

I've been trying to find some definitions od 'tonal' and 'contrast detail' without much luck. Could you define each? - Terry

---

If something in an image is not solid pitch black or hot paper white, it is detail. It is some form of detail from a scene captured. Contrast detail is the detail in the relationship between pixels.

So "tonal detail" would be examining a single pixel and noticing wether or not it is pitch white/black.

Contrast detail would be examining two pixels and seeing if they differ.

At the core, anyway.

On the latter, the Raw is better, particularly if your intention is to raise the lo tones to a much higher tonal range. But on the former, the difference between raw and jpeg is non-existent. (Jpeg doesn't compress anything to solid black or white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

If something in an image is not solid pitch black or hot paper white, it is detail. It is some form of detail from a scene captured. Contrast detail is the detail in the relationship between pixels.

So "tonal detail" would be examining a single pixel and noticing wether or not it is pitch white/black.

Contrast detail would be examining two pixels and seeing if they differ.

At the core, anyway.

On the latter, the Raw is better, particularly if your intention is to raise the lo tones to a much higher tonal range. But on the former, the difference between raw and jpeg is non-existent. (Jpeg doesn't compress anything to solid black or white.

---

So 'tonal' is either black or white. No grays. Then 'contrast detail' is what is meant by 'dynamic range' - the intensity range where significant detail can be distiguished (usually 8 or more levels within one stop). - Terry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldClicker

Select it in the Menu under Quality. See pg 134 of the Mamual. - Terry

---

Thanks Terry have it now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

...But on the former, the difference between raw and jpeg is non-existent. (Jpeg doesn't compress anything to solid black or white.

---

Yes it does (I think - jumping into the middle of the conversation..)

If the contrast in the scene is excessive then the conversion to JPG will cut off the extremes and make them black or white. The data is still there in the RAW file but it's not used. The RAW edit programs read it and bring it back into the range where there is visible detail.

Check out the Highlight Recovery and Black clipping options in Lightroom.

I've often taken a blank, burnt out piece of sunlit cloud with no detail in the JPG and just brought detail back in RAW. The bigger the sensor the better it works. My little S95 point-and-shoot is much more limited than my D300

Terry - no, It is not tonal detail if its solid black or white, only if it is a value.

Tonal detail refers to range, contrast detail refers to the texture of the tone, the edges and such.

At least that was how I intended it.

Franglais - My A700 does not clip black or white if you select dynamic range optimizer in standard or advanced modes, I assumed all cameras have this feature, do they not?