tmessenger
Established
No noise reduction with the raw conversion. I find 1 stop is about as much as I want to push it in raw conversion any more then that and it gets too noisy. The attached photo was shot @ iso 1600 1/15 sec f2 and then pushed +1-1/2 in the raw conversion and is only usable because of down sampling (again no noise reduction in the conversion).
Topdog1 said:
Didier
"Deed"
A classic picture editor, such as Picasa or Photoshop, can do much, but definitely not get all out of a JPG like the converters get out of the RAW. Definitely not. And if it occasionally can, then definitely not that easily. RAW files have a larger dynamic range than jpgs, which is crucial for exposure, contrast, brightness, gradation, histo and so on adjustments.
Didier
Didier
Last edited:
barjohn
Established
See the new thread where I follow up on my earlier comments with a more controlled experiment.
However, I have just discovered that some of the results I am seeing may be a result of a flaw in Photo Elements 4. When I look at the same ERF files in Epson PhotoRaw I see different results from what Elements is showing using the ACR converter.
However, I have just discovered that some of the results I am seeing may be a result of a flaw in Photo Elements 4. When I look at the same ERF files in Epson PhotoRaw I see different results from what Elements is showing using the ACR converter.
Didier
"Deed"
Johnbarjohn said:
I'll try this out as soon as I have gotten my replacement camera from Robert White.
Didier
Didier
"Deed"
barjohn said:
John
RAW converter is not = RAW converter. Every one works differently, and such are the results. Had different outputs of ERF files through PhotoRAW and Lightroom.
Didier
ampguy
Veteran
Raw files are not standardized
Raw files are not standardized
So it's possible with a specific RAW format, that JPG capture will have increased dynamic range. Most RAW specs are not open, which is an issue. Check out openraw.org.
Also, John (barjohn) needs to realize that ISO may not be taken into effect with some or all RAW converters of the ERF format, which explains why some of his images are the same exposure, with different settings.
re: the white balance parameter and RAW files with DNG RAW files:
From the Adobe DNG 1.0 spec:
"Normally the stored raw values are not white balanced, since any digital white balancing will reduce the dynamic range of the final image if the user decides to later adjust the white balance; however, if camera hardware is capable of white balancing the color channels before the signal is digitized, it can improve the dynamic range of the final image."
Raw is not the answer or a no brainer, JPG's can have many advantages, RAW+JPG may turn out to be a good thing for quite a long time, IMHO.
Raw files are not standardized
So it's possible with a specific RAW format, that JPG capture will have increased dynamic range. Most RAW specs are not open, which is an issue. Check out openraw.org.
Also, John (barjohn) needs to realize that ISO may not be taken into effect with some or all RAW converters of the ERF format, which explains why some of his images are the same exposure, with different settings.
re: the white balance parameter and RAW files with DNG RAW files:
From the Adobe DNG 1.0 spec:
"Normally the stored raw values are not white balanced, since any digital white balancing will reduce the dynamic range of the final image if the user decides to later adjust the white balance; however, if camera hardware is capable of white balancing the color channels before the signal is digitized, it can improve the dynamic range of the final image."
Didier said:
Raw is not the answer or a no brainer, JPG's can have many advantages, RAW+JPG may turn out to be a good thing for quite a long time, IMHO.
barjohn
Established
Standards would sure help. It is too bad they don't exist as we could get better at predicting final results if we had them. It also explains why on some later test shots the opposite phenomenum was taking place with the ERF looking lighter than the JPG. It was driving me crazy trying to figure out what to expect in my results.
John
John
LCT
ex-newbie
Raw is both the answer and a no brainer for me and i'm not a PP expert at all. I just use Elements 2.0 and a couple of plug-ins including the Epson raw converter. Doesn't take more than 5 minutes to develop my pics that way. Quite simple and way better than jpegs IMHO.ampguy said: