First Serious(?) Attempt with RAW

[cdifoto]

I love the idea of being able to correct white balance boo-boos with RAW. What I don't like is my inability to find that nice balance between noise suppression and sharpness. I always thought the XT and DIGIC II already did an excellent job with JPEGs...which I cannot seem to match, let alone surpass.

I've tried Raw Shooter Essentials (the free version) time and time again with random shots and just can't seem to find the right touch. This one, I used DPP even though I hate its interface. This was shot at ISO200. I still think it should be cleaner. My JPEGs seem to be. Actual pic on top, 100% crop on bottom. Actual pic has the 20% 60 0 USM applied as I usually do, and the crop has no adjustments except the white balance that I slid a little to the warm side to make it look sunnier than it was.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/kyle/2006-02-23_007.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/kyle/2006-02-23_007crop.jpg

[cwphoto]

CDI,

Can you do RAW + JPEG at the same time in camera? That would be interesting reading to see the differences between in-camera and post.

[timmciglobal]

I find banding FAR less aparent in jpeg vs raw converts. It's rather annoying since I've yet to ever master my expsure on my 20D. Far too inconsistent exposure (sometimes under sometimes over).

Tim

[cwphoto]

Interesting comments Tim.

CDI, have you tried ZoomBrowser EX? It's suppossed to mimic in-camera processing as far as I'm aware.

[aparmley]

I'll add that I took a run at RAW - currently I shoot jpeg for 2 big reasons.

1 - with RAW I find myself spending way too much time tweaking this and that and everything else trying to find a routine I like - I lost like a couple weeks - kinda of hard to admit that but I did. . . I mean I would play with all the sliders in differnet combos and I learned something - It didnt matter how long I spent at it, my RAW images never looked better than the jpegs.

2 - I can't find a way that beats the jpegs.

Maybe I'll buy a book one day but until it really matters to shoot RAW - if it ever will - I'll just "get by" with jpegs.

[cdifoto]

Andy, I'm glad I'm not alone in the fight with RAW. And that's exactly what I feel it is. A fight to get even remotely close. That shot I posted here is the closest I've ever gotten, and it looks far too noisy. I even used DPP for it instead of RSE. RSE is much worse...yet some people swear by it. I just like the interface and easy copy/paste of settings.

Christian I didn't try RAW+JPEG. I guess I could have a go at that to see if I can match it up. I didn't bother so far because I pretty much know what a JPEG should look like when I try to convert it from RAW. I'll give it a go though.
-----------------------------------------------
I really only ever want to use RAW in tough lighting conditions...I want to be able to shoot JPEG primarily, and then confidently switch over to RAW if I need to. JPEG white balance is harder to fix and that's my ONLY drawing card to go with RAW at all. Supposedly you can fix your exposures and such and get a little more DR but I already get pretty close to spot on exposures so that's not a huge benefit. It's white balance only.

[jwhite]

I primarily shoot in RAW when I'm indoors to correct white balance issues and for exposure compensation. I usually add a touch of saturation as well. For noise correction I generally rely on NeatImage to do that. I don't like RawShooters ability to reduce noise. It is also nice to set different settings and then tab between them all in RawShooter to see which one is best. Of course like someone mentioned previously, you can spend all your time doing this. Outdoor shots to me are a little easier in nailing the white balance and exposure.

[24Peter]

I already spend enough time editing my .jpegs. Can't imagine how much time I'd waste in front of the computer if I shot RAW. (As opposed to spending time reading this wonderful forum of course. :rolleyes: )

[cdifoto]

I already spend enough time editing my .jpegs. Can't imagine how much time I'd waste in front of the computer if I shot RAW. (As opposed to spending time reading this wonderful forum of course. :rolleyes: )

I'm the opposite (and it shows). I spend very little time on my JPEGs...but I want to keep it that way with the RAW. I only want to shoot RAW when I think I'll have trouble nailing white balance. I want to confidently set the camera on RAW and shoot away, knowing I can just adjust white balance then convert and work as usual.

It sucks not being able to do that though. I'm good on the white balance adjustments...but I can't seem to get the JPEGs to look the same at the point of conversion.

[cdifoto]

Ok I tried RAW+JPEG and used both ImageBrowser and RSE to convert these shots. They're of a boring ol' tree but it was the most willing subject that I could find on a quick whim.

I'm linking directly to the full size images on my server instead of giving you embedded images and trying to crop sections out. If you look at the bokeh you can see less noise in the in-cam JPEG than the other two. I didn't adjust any of them...they're just straight conversions. Maybe that's why but it drives me insane trying to find THE settings to use.

In-Cam Capture (http://www.cdi-ink.com/images/2006-02-24-incam.jpg)

ImageBrowser Conversion (http://www.cdi-ink.com/images/2006-02-24-imagebrowser.jpg)

RawShooter Essentials Conversion (http://www.cdi-ink.com/images/2006-02-24-rse.jpg)


Also take note that the ImageBrowser created a 6.22MB JPEG (:eek: :eek:), RSE created a 4.39MB JPEG (:eek:), and the in-camera JPEG was a mere 3.43MB (:cool:).

Apologies for such huge files. If I get un-lazy I might put up some crops.

[aparmley]

To my eyes the Imagebrowser conversion and the in-camera jpeg are identical - I can not tell a difference at all. everything, hue, contrast, saturation, all look identical to me.

The RSE conversion looks the worst in my opinion - the image as a whole is much brighter with the highlights a little on the blown side and the color is dull.

I think the image browser conversion tool may be the way to go here.

You've sparked my interest in RAW again Don, thanks alot, I'll send a bouncer over to hit you in the back of the head, I'll just head over to onebouncerplace.com and hire one. :D hahaha mwahhahahaha I crack myself up.

[D70FAN]

I'm not trying to be an intruder here, but my experience with free RAW software has been disappointing. Since I've started using NC4 I get much better results, with less adjusting. Of course it did cost $99 but is well matched to the camera and worth $99 (also frequently updated for free).

As another alternative, have you tried Phase One Capture One? They offer a 15 day trial, and it might be worth a shot. I haven't tried it, but it would have been my next effort if NC4 didn't work.

[aparmley]

I'm not trying to be an intruder here, but my experience with free RAW software has been disappointing. Since I've started using NC4 I get much better results, with less adjusting. Of course it did cost $99 but is well matched to the camera and worth $99 (also frequently updated for free).

As another alternative, have you tried Phase One Capture One? They offer a 15 day trial, and it might be worth a shot. I haven't tried it, but it would have been my next effort if NC4 didn't work.

********* . . . 2319! 2319! Intruder Alert! Intruder alert! . . . ***********

I'm heading to the clean room to be shaved, washed, and medicated!

:D

I'll play around with the CS2 Raw converter. I'll try the trial version of caputre one. . . I'm not to excited about paying for a RAW converter when I'm still very satisfied with in cam jpegs.

[cdifoto]

To my eyes the Imagebrowser conversion and the in-camera jpeg are identical - I can not tell a difference at all. everything, hue, contrast, saturation, all look identical to me.

The RSE conversion looks the worst in my opinion - the image as a whole is much brighter with the highlights a little on the blown side and the color is dull.

I think the image browser conversion tool may be the way to go here.

You've sparked my interest in RAW again Don, thanks alot, I'll send a bouncer over to hit you in the back of the head, I'll just head over to onebouncerplace.com and hire one. :D hahaha mwahhahahaha I crack myself up.

Yeah I noticed the blowout in RSE too. I had mentioned it in my original text of that post but when I started to get long-winded I started over and left that bit of info out. I'm thinking that if the exposure algorithm was poorly written like that...what's to say the noise reduction one wasn't also poorly written? Could be the reasons for the overall difficulties I've been having. It's a shame because I like the RSE interface.

I might use ImageBrowser to convert but my gawd the files are huge! I guess it's a small price to pay for better quality than the RSE versions. I can see a bit of extra noise but it's not enough to frustrate or worry me. I really don't like the interface though.

[cdifoto]

I'm not trying to be an intruder here, but my experience with free RAW software has been disappointing. Since I've started using NC4 I get much better results, with less adjusting. Of course it did cost $99 but is well matched to the camera and worth $99 (also frequently updated for free).

As another alternative, have you tried Phase One Capture One? They offer a 15 day trial, and it might be worth a shot. I haven't tried it, but it would have been my next effort if NC4 didn't work.


I'm gonna echo Andy without quoting him. I'm not keen on paying for RAW conversion...especially without a way to test and see if it's worth the money or not. I may try that Phase One though with the free trial.

[erichlund]

Another from the dark side. ;) I also use NC4.4 and get good results.

Here's a thought. Take a jpg and a raw of the same (well controlled) scene. Now, in the raw software, set the raw up just like the jpg settings to see if it matches the jpg. By that, I mean the same color settings, the same sharpening, the same white balance, etc. Of course, you should have all this written down from doing the test, just in case the converter doesn't have an easy way to know the as shot settings.

Frankly, the raw should look better, since it contains more data (I'm assuming, and you know the rule about assuming). If you cannot equal or better using the same settings, then I'd say the raw editor isn't worth much. However, if using the same settings gets you close, at least it's a starting point that should simplify the task of bringing out the best in the image.

[D70FAN]

********* . . . 2319! 2319! Intruder Alert! Intruder alert! . . . ***********

I'm heading to the clean room to be shaved, washed, and medicated!

:D

I'll play around with the CS2 Raw converter. I'll try the trial version of caputre one. . . I'm not to excited about paying for a RAW converter when I'm still very satisfied with in cam jpegs.

De-Niking powder seems to work well. I don't know about the shaved and washed part but the medicating sounds like fun... Oh, you mean like an iodine wash.;)

I just downloaded Capture One, and first try says... looser. User interface does not look real intuitive, and it likes to link to photoshop (I hate it when it does that). I will give it a real run after a beer. Always seems to make more sense then.:)

[cwphoto]

I really don't like the interface though.

Echoed thoughts here, I find DPP much better for workflow, even though it has slightly different algorithms to Zoom/Image.

Zoom/Image is just too slow when you're trying to wade through 500 images from a wedding!

[arigato]

To me the first 2 look identical, while the 3rd appears just appears as if it was exposed.

As for DPP, I noticed something that freaked me out a few weeks ago. I had a 150 pics or so which were all taken in raw and I had just finished tweaking them. I then converted all the photos to jpegs and saw a huge amount of noise as if I over sharpened them. Whats intersting is that this effect only occured when I re-opened those jpegs in DPP and not in any other program such as photoshop elements. Has anyone else noticed this?

[aparmley]

To me the first 2 look identical, while the 3rd appears just appears as if it was exposed.

As for DPP, I noticed something that freaked me out a few weeks ago. I had a 150 pics or so which were all taken in raw and I had just finished tweaking them. I then converted all the photos to jpegs and saw a huge amount of noise as if I over sharpened them. Whats intersting is that this effect only occured when I re-opened those jpegs in DPP and not in any other program such as photoshop elements. Has anyone else noticed this?

I did notice tonight that if I opened a raw image in canons DPP that it was horribly underexposed and when I brought the image up to what the window's image and fax viewer shows and what CS2's RAW image viewer shows, expsure wise, the noise was so freaking horrible I closed the software and then went to lunch. haha!

[Bluedog]

You guys made me take a bunch of practice jpeg shots this afternoon. Although the PP'ing is quicker than RAW+TIFF+JPEG _ I still prefer RAW.

I've got the Canon DPP app., of course but find myself using RSPremium mostly. Its still a new program and they are continually working on fixing any bugs that arise.

I gave CS2 a try but for $299 it just wasn't over appealing to make the purchase plus I didn't like the Image Browser.

[aparmley]

. . .
I gave CS2 a try but for $299 . . .

:eek:

Where did you find it for that price?

[cdifoto]

$299 for CS2 is cheap dude...

[aparmley]

Don are you talking to me or to Toney? I know thats cheap its $350 cheaper than what it costs!

[cdifoto]

Don are you talking to me or to Toney? I know thats cheap its $350 cheaper than what it costs!

lol I was talking to Toney. I got the vibe from his post that he thought $299 was expensive...

[aparmley]

lol I was talking to Toney.

LOL ok I was like, "oh no he dent-it" [ghetto style] :D

[Bluedog]

LOL _ all you need is one the 20D Photoshop Elements 2 serial #'s and Adobe will let you have it for that.

I still might get it sooner or later just not now ... :rolleyes:

[cdifoto]

LOL _ all you need is one the 20D Photoshop Elements 2 serial #'s and Adobe will let you have it for that.

I still might get it sooner or later just not now ... :rolleyes:

Ahh ok I thought you were talking about a fresh copy, not an upgrade.

[Bluedog]

Its not really an upgrade _ I guess. Far as I could tell is was the full meal deal.

[aparmley]

LOL _ all you need is one the 20D Photoshop Elements 2 serial #'s and Adobe will let you have it for that. . .

Its a cool deal if the serial number hasn't already been registered for that promotional deal. If it has already been used, they still let you have it, but then they come to your house and toss a flaming bag of dog poo on your door step, I've seen it a thousand times. :D

[cwphoto]

but then they come to your house and toss a flaming bag of dog poo on your door step, I've seen it a thousand times. :D

So that's who it was, I'm gonna get those Bastards!:mad: :p

[cdifoto]

Its a cool deal if the serial number hasn't already been registered for that promotional deal. If it has already been used, they still let you have it, but then they come to your house and toss a flaming bag of dog poo on your door step, I've seen it a thousand times. :D


And why is that (bold), are you the poo slinger? :eek: :p

[24Peter]

Yet another thread gone the way of dog poo. Parm - snap out of it! What are people gonna think?!? :o :D (Just kidding = knock yourselves out!):p

Back to the serial number deal, I have PS Elements 2.0 (hate it, don't use it, returned ver. 3 for a refund b/c it sucked even worse) but have thought about trying CS2. I don't understand the 20D connection. Can't anyone upgrade from Elements to CS2 for a reduced price?

[Bluedog]

I don't understand the 20D connection. Can't anyone upgrade from Elements to CS2 for a reduced price?

Pete _ the deal is that the PSE 2 disc that comes with the purchase of a 20D has a unique serial number linked with the Canon purchase so they continually offer CS2 at the $299. The retail copy won't work:

http://store.adobe.com/store/products/master.jhtml?id=catCanon

[aparmley]

Yet another thread gone the way of dog poo. Parm - snap out of it! What are people gonna think?!? :o :D (Just kidding = knock yourselves out!):p

Back to the serial number deal, I have PS Elements 2.0 (hate it, don't use it, returned ver. 3 for a refund b/c it sucked even worse) but have thought about trying CS2. I don't understand the 20D connection. Can't anyone upgrade from Elements to CS2 for a reduced price?

You're right, I over stepped the bounds!

[JKO]

Hi,

I have similar problems and have now went back to jpeg only and concentrate on learing to take better photos at the spot instead.

I often find my self dragging the sliders back and forth forever (RSE) trying to decide what looks better, never can decide on how the image should look like.

But when shooting jpeg and if the image needs editing you will loose quality as you save jpeg -> jpeg. I guess it's hardly visible as long as using original jpeg as starting point.

I might start shooting JPEG+RAW in order to just archive the raw as "negative" in case I some day learn how to work with raw.

Have fun, raw or not.