Jump to content

  •  

  • Photo

    RAW test #1


    • Please log in to reply
    10 replies to this topic

    #1 geek-accountant

    geek-accountant

      HSS Advanced

    • Donating Member
    • 871 posts
    • LocationAtlanta Area

    Posted 31 July 2011 - 10:47 AM

    I am working on a few articles on my site about shooting RAW and thought I would post something here about what may be the first of those post. The question has come up before about how camera settings impact RAW. Specifically does shooting in B&W make any difference at all when shooting RAW? In my opinion, it makes no difference at all. Of course there are settings that make a difference (ISO, shutter speed, etc), but things like color space, sharpening, Hue and even B&W make no difference. One question I still have is White Balance, while I think it shouldn't make any difference, I am not sure, but that is a test for another day.

    Below are two images taken a couple of minutes apart. All settings where the same except one was shot with the B&W setting and the other was shot using the sRGB color space and these are straight from the camera, you can even see the dang dust on my sensor. They were re-sized for easy viewing. Can you tell which is which?


    Image #1
    Posted Image


    Image #2
    Posted Image
    • 0
    unRAID server 18.5TB
    WSS-2011 5TB internal + 4x3TB RAID 5 Mediasonic USB 3.0 external storage
    Hyper-V server running 10 VM's(AMD 6 core with 16gig of ram - Raid 5 & Raid 0, plus USB 3 Mediasonic 4 drive enclosure)
    pfSense & Untangle (aka, SUPER ROUTER) running as seperate machines
    Broadcast server - broadcast the jpeg2RAW podcast - AMD 8 core 4Ghz, 8gig DDR3 1600, RAID 0
    [url="""]The jpeg2RAW podcast site[/url]

    #2 JediTim

    JediTim

      HSS Advanced

    • Members
    • 504 posts
    • LocationLong Island, New York

    Posted 31 July 2011 - 08:09 PM

    #2 would look to have a little more data in the clouds...they look close enough though.
    • 0

    #3 geek-accountant

    geek-accountant

      HSS Advanced

    • Donating Member
    • 871 posts
    • LocationAtlanta Area

    Posted 31 July 2011 - 08:40 PM

    I think that is just due to either the slight passage of time, the fact they are not laid out side by side or the output to jpeg caused something. If you looked at the RAW images in Lightroom and flipped between them going back and forth, I think you would see the only difference was the moving clouds, people and a tree or two. Otherwise the look identical to me.
    I do agree that for what ever reason there does seem to be a very slight difference on here, but I am wondering if it is one of the visual effects with how the images are laid out.

    Try this, right click on each image and then chose open in new tab. Now switch between those tabs that only have the image on it and see if you see the same difference.
    • 0
    unRAID server 18.5TB
    WSS-2011 5TB internal + 4x3TB RAID 5 Mediasonic USB 3.0 external storage
    Hyper-V server running 10 VM's(AMD 6 core with 16gig of ram - Raid 5 & Raid 0, plus USB 3 Mediasonic 4 drive enclosure)
    pfSense & Untangle (aka, SUPER ROUTER) running as seperate machines
    Broadcast server - broadcast the jpeg2RAW podcast - AMD 8 core 4Ghz, 8gig DDR3 1600, RAID 0
    [url="""]The jpeg2RAW podcast site[/url]

    #4 JediTim

    JediTim

      HSS Advanced

    • Members
    • 504 posts
    • LocationLong Island, New York

    Posted 01 August 2011 - 05:18 AM

    I think that is just due to either the slight passage of time, the fact they are not laid out side by side or the output to jpeg caused something. If you looked at the RAW images in Lightroom and flipped between them going back and forth, I think you would see the only difference was the moving clouds, people and a tree or two. Otherwise the look identical to me.
    I do agree that for what ever reason there does seem to be a very slight difference on here, but I am wondering if it is one of the visual effects with how the images are laid out.

    Try this, right click on each image and then chose open in new tab. Now switch between those tabs that only have the image on it and see if you see the same difference.


    In looking at the photos side by side there isn't much of a difference, if any. I have switched over to RAW shooting pretty much completely and with using Lightroom and convert each file over to DNG on import...the process has been seemless.
    • 0

    #5 ikon

    ikon

      HSS Elite Master

    • Donating Member
    • 13,764 posts

    Posted 03 August 2011 - 11:07 AM

    I have switched over to RAW shooting pretty much completely and with using Lightroom and convert each file over to DNG on import...the process has been seemless.

    I've been shooting raw+jpg for a number of years now. The jpg is so I have a quick & dirty image to send off or give to someone while in the field, without having to process the raw. I'm still not converting to DNG. While I like the idea, I'm not convinced that every nuance of the shot is retained by DNG. I'm not saying it isn't; I'm just not sure that it is.
    • 0

    If at first you don't succeed, do it like your mother told you.


    #6 axoid

    axoid

      HSS Pro

    • Members
    • 199 posts
    • LocationColumbus Ohio

    Posted 03 August 2011 - 12:56 PM

    I like shooting raw or raw+jpg when I'm working at a leisurely pace, but when I shoot motor racing I only use jpg. The raw images fill the buffer too fast when continuous shooting.

    If I have my camera set to ~6mp and a class 10 SD card I can crank off photos for around 15 seconds before the files fill the buffer. At 12mp it's around 8 seconds to fill the buffer.
    • 0

    Bill Rockhold
    HP EX490(E5700 CPU & 2Gb) w/ 5 drive SATA enclosure, WHS v.1
    DIY Build (E5800 CPU & 4Gb), WHS 2011 w/Drive Pool.
    Acer Icona W700 tablet, HP DV7 laptop, DIY Desktop (AMD 965 Black & 8gb)


    #7 ikon

    ikon

      HSS Elite Master

    • Donating Member
    • 13,764 posts

    Posted 03 August 2011 - 02:39 PM

    I like shooting raw or raw+jpg when I'm working at a leisurely pace, but when I shoot motor racing I only use jpg. The raw images fill the buffer too fast when continuous shooting.

    If I have my camera set to ~6mp and a class 10 SD card I can crank off photos for around 15 seconds before the files fill the buffer. At 12mp it's around 8 seconds to fill the buffer.

    sounds like you need a EOS-1D :)
    • 0

    If at first you don't succeed, do it like your mother told you.


    #8 JediTim

    JediTim

      HSS Advanced

    • Members
    • 504 posts
    • LocationLong Island, New York

    Posted 03 August 2011 - 02:47 PM

    sounds like you need a EOS-1D :)


    I agree...need a camera with a better buffer. I don't have that issue...I rarely shoot off that many photos in a row.

    I can't be certain that Adobe DNG retains everything but from what I have read it does and I have been pleased.
    • 0

    #9 axoid

    axoid

      HSS Pro

    • Members
    • 199 posts
    • LocationColumbus Ohio

    Posted 03 August 2011 - 03:13 PM

    sounds like you need a EOS-1D :)

    Which is 5 times the price of my D90. And the wrong make. :P
    • 0

    Bill Rockhold
    HP EX490(E5700 CPU & 2Gb) w/ 5 drive SATA enclosure, WHS v.1
    DIY Build (E5800 CPU & 4Gb), WHS 2011 w/Drive Pool.
    Acer Icona W700 tablet, HP DV7 laptop, DIY Desktop (AMD 965 Black & 8gb)


    #10 ikon

    ikon

      HSS Elite Master

    • Donating Member
    • 13,764 posts

    Posted 03 August 2011 - 03:19 PM

    Which is 5 times the price of my D90. And the wrong make. :P


    /me substitutes a D3S for the EOS-1D :D
    • 0

    If at first you don't succeed, do it like your mother told you.


    #11 geek-accountant

    geek-accountant

      HSS Advanced

    • Donating Member
    • 871 posts
    • LocationAtlanta Area

    Posted 03 August 2011 - 06:32 PM

    I am a big proponent of RAW, but like you mention axoid, there are still times when jpeg is a necessity. I don't have much of a need to send images to people from the field, so in my case, I only shoot RAW since getting Lightroom. Before that, I shot raw+jpeg so I could get images up on my site faster after a sporting event. With Lightroom, my workflow is faster using RAW images than it was before Lightroom using jpeg's. Lightroom really changed my workflow.
    • 0
    unRAID server 18.5TB
    WSS-2011 5TB internal + 4x3TB RAID 5 Mediasonic USB 3.0 external storage
    Hyper-V server running 10 VM's(AMD 6 core with 16gig of ram - Raid 5 & Raid 0, plus USB 3 Mediasonic 4 drive enclosure)
    pfSense & Untangle (aka, SUPER ROUTER) running as seperate machines
    Broadcast server - broadcast the jpeg2RAW podcast - AMD 8 core 4Ghz, 8gig DDR3 1600, RAID 0
    [url="""]The jpeg2RAW podcast site[/url]




    Skins By Invisioneers