Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile ABMann.net Previous Previous Next Next
Portrait of a Young Man as The Artist
Photography blogs
Neat article on RAW processing in Potochop.
I'm not 100% sure why you can't do this with a high quality JPEG, but I honestly have only ever shot in RAW with my Nikon.

I suspect the changes made in the tutorial to the color s with color balance and hue adjustments. But I'm not sure.
Either way, I think the article is a good illustration of enhancing existing qualities in a photo with a program rather than garishly changing something.

Digital Photography VS. Digital Art.

Current Mood: good good
Current Music: NPR - NPR: 09-20-2007 Food

7 comments or Leave a comment
fiendishx From: fiendishx Date: September 21st, 2007 04:56 pm (UTC) (Link)
That article doesn't really have anything to do with RAW. It's just a picture of a boat. All of the same changes could have been made to a JPEG.

Read this for a practical guide to the RAW vs JPEG debate:
abmann From: abmann Date: September 21st, 2007 05:08 pm (UTC) (Link)
Thus my skepticism. I've done similar edits on JPEGs.
alyska From: alyska Date: September 21st, 2007 05:35 pm (UTC) (Link)
the big advantage to RAW is that there's no compression whatsoever, and thus no quality loss in the image. most of the time, sure, you can get away with high quality jpgs, but if you're planning to make major enlargements, having those extra pixels really helps. (some for changing thigns like contrast and luminance in post production -- they're less noticable in a 16bit RAW file than in a high-quality jpg.)
abmann From: abmann Date: September 21st, 2007 05:56 pm (UTC) (Link)
In the article that fiendishx linked the fine detail is pretty obviously better in RAW. I don't suspect I'd be able to get the lovely prints I currently get were I not shooting in RAW.
fiendishx From: fiendishx Date: September 22nd, 2007 01:50 am (UTC) (Link)
The pictures he's showing are from BASIC jpeg mode. That's not even good, high, or fine mode. There are three jpeg quality settings above what he's showing you and the difference is already marginal. Also, the boxes are super zoomed in. Also, the raw pictures only look better because the raw processor applied more sharpening than the jpeg has (he says this). You can fix that. The only difference between shooting at the highest jpeg setting and raw would be that RAW stores color bits that you can't actually see. The 8 bits per color channel provided by jpeg allows for 16 million colors. RAW gives you 12 or 16 bits. To keep that in perspective, a good LCD display can show at most 8 bits per channel, and some can only show 6 bits per channel.

At 100% quality, you're not going to see a difference in level of details even if you zoom in.

What RAW gets you is increased dynamic color range outside of what is actually visible in the image to play with if you plan to really screw with the curves. It won't necessarily provide better looking pictures though.
abmann From: abmann Date: September 22nd, 2007 06:43 pm (UTC) (Link)
When you roll over the images he shows the same crop from a RAW file. The RAWs have better contrast and fine detail.
fiendishx From: fiendishx Date: September 23rd, 2007 02:29 am (UTC) (Link)
Yes, better compared to the lowest quality of JPEG that the camera produces, which is about at a quality scale of 5/10 instead of, say, 10/10 where those differences would disappear completely. You're also looking at a shot blown up to the equivalent of 40 inches wide and then complaining about tiny details when you stick your face right up in it. You may as well look at all of your photos through a jeweler's loupe.
7 comments or Leave a comment