Public arring . . . and further thoughts on RAW

[Sutton Warrior]

Well folks, I'm looking at some RAW v JPG pictures I took a few weeks ago, but have not had time to make any comparisons because of the computer problems around that time. The new computer is now working 'tickerty-boo'. But, befor I go any further, Westie asked me for my thoughts on the 22" screen, originaly this was a PM request, however, the experiance has been so elitening, perhaps its worth the airing publicaly?

 

I looked at a few screens, PC world is not the best place to view them, they use a splitter to drive 8 or 10 at one time, all requiring diferent settings, therefore the whole display was a compromise, but thats PC World for you. I had the assitants carting screens all around the shop to plug in to dedicated computers. Any how, cut a long story short(ish) . . . I plumped for the HPw2216, the decision was between it and a Samsung. Final choice was made with the head, the Samsung 'black rose' finish had the heart. HP have been at the leading edge of colour reproduction for many years, I spent considerable time on the web sorting through reviews, forum coments etc. That was Saturday night, after I had disrupted PC World for a couple of hours and puchased nothing!

 

The clinching fact was a review that made a piont to mention the CD that comes with the HP screen, and the fully dedicated configuration that can be achived using this set up disc. Not to mention the high score it recieved compared with the other units they were reviewing.

 

So, Sunday had PC World, again, disrupted to finaly decide between the two screens, the rest is history? Well not quite, a week went by befor the new computer arived, it took some time to get to grips with the HP set up disc, however, its don now, 'CJS preferd setup' > 'use as defalt'.

 

The big change, one has noticed is 'space', and I thought 17" was a big'un . . . ? The colour is more dynamic and subtle, plus much more detail. The extra avaliable space on a 22" wide monitor means I can put two pictures on screen side by side, as I have this evening for comparison, they would have been impossibly small on my 17" 'old ratio' monitor. If you are still using the old style square(er) type monitor, its a no brainer, if you do PS'ing and like to compare, 'befor and after'.

 

Having now finaly done this, with a couple of test shots, totaly un tampered with, the diferances between RAW and JPG can be seen just. I can see the advantages to both formats, the time factor is my concern. I dont want to have to apportion time to RAW reworking just for monitor viewing on every shot, however, the ability to take RAW/JPG, and view them on the 'windows viewer' as one used to with film proof sheets. Ignore the ordinay ones and pick out the shots that stand out that one likes for future RAW 'PS' treatment, the remainder, compress and save on the 500 gig external hard drive. The dulicated JPG shots will be simpler to re work, and save as memory and trophy pictures, album fashon, the JPG's not put in to folders or albums, can be deleted, there is a compresed RAW backup!

 

So thats my thoughts so far on RAW for the present. I'm sure there are other angles, which can be put forward

 

SW

[poledark]

But why all the "messing about" SW? I set my camera on auto, take a pic and maybe tweak the shadows a bit, then look at it on my Samsung 22" which installed itself

 

I have fiddled with the settings (there is a preview option) but always came back to the default.

 

I did tell you that you would be "blown away" by the image quality though, and when measured it is almost exactly double the viewing area of a 15" screen.

 

I have also put the same images,one RAW and one converted to JPG, side by side, but I can't see any difference. This is from an 8mpx camera.

 

And I have also ressurected a lot of the pics taken with my (now ancient) Olympus C3000 3.3mpx, and they look just as good!

 

Den

[Sutton Warrior]

But why all the "messing about" SW? I set my camera on auto, take a pic and maybe tweak the shadows a bit, then look at it on my Samsung 22" which installed itself

 

I have fiddled with the settings (there is a preview option) but always came back to the default.

 

I did tell you that you would be "blown away" by the image quality though, and when measured it is almost exactly double the viewing area of a 15" screen.

 

I have also put the same images,one RAW and one converted to JPG, side by side, but I can't see any difference. This is from an 8mpx camera.

 

And I have also ressurected a lot of the pics taken with my (now ancient) Olympus C3000 3.3mpx, and they look just as good!

 

Den

 

Thats good then aint it Den, we are both happy. My HP monitor installed its self, I chose to go the extra mile with the bespoke personalised configuration . . . personal preferance and all that.

 

SW

Edited January 29, 2009 by Sutton Warrior

[poledark]

Aha, I see now, "bespoke personalised configuration" is that the same as "it floats my boat" ?

 

 

Glad you are pleased with it all

 

 

Den

[Angly]

I shoot in RAW, batch process every photo to jpeg (with sharpening) for web viewing e-mailing and such like, and save both RAW and jpegs by date on a NAS drive, backed up to archival quality media (Taiyo Yuden DVD+R). As you say, critical shots, or shots for printing, can then be reworked from the RAW file as needed.

 

I'm a Nikonian, so I use Capture NX both to initially adjust the RAW file honouring camera settings, and to batch process into jpegs. If I want to do further work on the photo, I first open in Capture NX then work in Photoshop on the Tiff file. I find Capture far better than ACR at handling Nikon's colours.

[Sutton Warrior]

Aha, I see now, "bespoke personalised configuration" is that the same as "it floats my boat" ?

 

 

Glad you are pleased with it all

 

 

Den

 

Yes Den, I'm a fussy 'bleeder', back fires on me sometimes, I can get in over the head, depends on which head I'm wearing But you lot on here help, as you say 'hands on floats my boat'

 

SW

[Sutton Warrior]

I shoot in RAW, batch process every photo to jpeg (with sharpening) for web viewing e-mailing and such like, and save both RAW and jpegs by date on a NAS drive, backed up to archival quality media (Taiyo Yuden DVD+R). As you say, critical shots, or shots for printing, can then be reworked from the RAW file as needed.

 

I'm a Nikonian, so I use Capture NX both to initially adjust the RAW file honouring camera settings, and to batch process into jpegs. If I want to do further work on the photo, I first open in Capture NX then work in Photoshop on the Tiff file. I find Capture far better than ACR at handling Nikon's colours.

 

Had a look at 'Nikonian', lowest level 25 days trial . . . they want money to continue at silver level! I can be a tight old git, got my 'tight old git head on at present'.

 

Have the trial version of NX supplied with the D80, tried it for a few days. Superb presentation, be even better I suspect with the new computer and 22" monitor. But I found it a little overwhelming at the time, had my 'numpty head' on those days, and its not cheap to buy either.

 

SW

[Angly]

Had a look at 'Nikonian', lowest level 25 days trial . . . they want money to continue at silver level! I can be a tight old git, got my 'tight old git head on at present'.

 

Have the trial version of NX supplied with the D80, tried it for a few days. Superb presentation, be even better I suspect with the new computer and 22" monitor. But I found it a little overwhelming at the time, had my 'numpty head' on those days, and its not cheap to buy either.

 

SW

 

By Nikonian I just meant a Nikon user, not a member of that daft American site (although I was for a few months years ago).

 

I got my copy of Capture NX on eBay for £20. I only use it for the basics, anything complicated I do in Photoshop which I know better.

[Steve Randles]

Being a Canon man, I cant comment on the Nikon softwares. I use Photoshop - camera RAW to open my Photos straight into Photoshop for Processing. I could spend hours tweaking this 'n that in Camera RAW, but I still work on the adage of "less is more" and post process my shots very little. I still prefer to get shots right in camera, so I dont have to adjust exposure or crop in post processing. So I open the RAW in Adobe camera RAW, then open into Photoshop as a 16 bit file RGB 300ppi (saved preset) then I make any post processing from there in Photoshop which normally includes just adding a frame. Then I convert to 8 bit mode, save and I'm done..Post processing time..around 30 seconds...simples!

 

Dont overcomplicate RAW and it wont control you, its there to use if you have a shot that for whatever reason went slightly wrong for example a cloud covering the sun so your exposure on that important shot was wrong or similar cicumstances.

 

Steve...

[Angly]

...but I still work on the adage of "less is more" and post process my shots very little.

 

Steve...

 

Couldn't agree more Steve. When I first got into digital photography I was fiddling with every photo, often to end up making them look worse!