R-D1 "Film1,2,3" Profiles?

T

Topdog1

Well-known
Local time
7:12 PM
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
591
Has anyone experimented with the R-D1's Film1,2,3 user settable profiles to try to imitate well-known film types, e.g. Velvia, Kodachrome, etc? It would be a useful starting point for my own experiments.

Regards,
Ira
 
Ira,
I may be wrong, but I think the "film" settings only affect the jpeg files the camera produces.

Well I was wrong, I just shot three raw images with different "film" settings -- When the raw files were opened with the Epson software it honored the "film" settings when 'film type' was set to 'as shot.'

The problem I have is that I really don't care for the Epson software. I find it too slow on my powerbook. Adobe's Lightroom gives me enough speed, good file management, and great raw processing. I believe it has the flexability to mimic many film types. The one exception would be the grain of the film you want to mimic.

Take care,
Michael
 
I do like to shoot jpgs when doing b/w - I like the Epson b/w conversion - the 'grain' seems more natural than other processors, though it's more prominent too.

IMO the R-D1 is unequalled for b/w, unless of course, you're going for that 'medium format' look with the smooth tones, in which case there's the M8 and 5D which may do better. But for the street work...
 
Topdog1 said:
Has anyone experimented with the R-D1's Film1,2,3 user settable profiles to try to imitate well-known film types, e.g. Velvia, Kodachrome, etc? It would be a useful starting point for my own experiments.
Click to expand...

This feature has not much to do with "film type imitation". It affects the jpgs only, and the five settings let you fiddle (or, when you prefer, "experiment") a bit around with contrast, sharpener, and so on. Like for a typical consumer p&s. I used the feature for a particular lens which has low contrast, but got rid of changing the film settings everytime I changed the lens.

"Imitating" film kinds is better done in postproduction (PS, Lightroom, PhotoRAW, Fred Miranda Tools/Plugins, etc.) - but it will never be exactly like a particular film.

Didier
 
Topdog1 said:
Uh, I hate to admit this, but alot of time I just shoot jpegs. :angel: Am I the only lazy one here?

/Ira
Click to expand...


You're not alone :D I shoot jpgs 99% of the time (with DSLRs though). Haven't encountered any problems so far when these get printed on magazines, small posters, or even an occasional billboard. The printed images look clean, tones and hues come out OK.

Jay
 
pfogle said:
I do like to shoot jpgs when doing b/w - I like the Epson b/w conversion - the 'grain' seems more natural than other processors, though it's more prominent too.

IMO the R-D1 is unequalled for b/w, unless of course, you're going for that 'medium format' look with the smooth tones, in which case there's the M8 and 5D which may do better. But for the street work...
Click to expand...


I guess you know already but if you shoot in RAW+JPG you will have raw RGB and B/W jpg. Sometimes it is better to convert into B/W in one channel (R,G,B)
 
ZorkiKat said:
You're not alone :D I shoot jpgs 99% of the time (with DSLRs though). Haven't encountered any problems so far when these get printed on magazines, small posters, or even an occasional billboard. The printed images look clean, tones and hues come out OK.

Jay
Click to expand...

Jay,
Are you serious? Straight jpeg to a billboard size enlargement? Why ever bother with raw then?

Regards,
Ira
 
Topdog1 said:
Jay,
Are you serious? Straight jpeg to a billboard size enlargement? Why ever bother with raw then?

Regards,
Ira
Click to expand...

Yes it has happened more than once. One time it wasn't even intentional- client initially planned to have flier-sized brochures. After shoot was done (set Canon 300D to 1/2 resolution or slightly less than 3Mp at high jpg setting), client suddenly finds someone to finance the billboard and the camera jpg files were used to make one. BTW, billboards have lower resolution, and being viewed from a distance, the low res nature of the image isn't too obvious.

And the path a jpg capture takes to becoming a billboard (or published in magazines) isn't really straight :D A lot happens along the way- much like what is done with just about any image file type- when processed for a particular application. Jpgs aren't no exception. Levels, curves, and colours are also adjusted, then finally, resized.

Perhaps many would not agree and insist that only RAW is the right approach. But I've been doing this for the last 3 years and am not alone here. Other coleague photographers here have shot on jpg (highest quality or lowest compression) as well. Incorrect or not, I've seen the results, as previously mentioned, printed on magazine covers, posters, editorial layouts, cd inserts,
etc.

Jpg and RAW differences don't lie in the resolution, but rather in the tonal information which each is capable of retaining. RAW takes in everything the sensor saw, jpgs represent what the camera's software thought to be the most relevant information. This software also throws away what it deems redundant to enable compression and make smaller files. A lot does depend on the camera's inboard software. For instance, if RAW is able to record 100 steps of white to grey, jpgs would have only 10 or 30.

In processing, RAW is expected to make 'better' tonalities since all the information is retained which the user can use to form the image he desires during conversion and PP editing. In many cases, it's hard to tell whether a final image originated as a camera jpg or a RAW capture file. In instances where there is severe or steep tonalities, it is likely RAW captures will tend to do better.

For most of my applications and submissions, jpg seems adequate enough. The art directors don't seem to be complaining, though there would be times that they would request RAW or TIFF.

Jay
 
Last edited:
Wow. Now I'm scratching my head trying to decide if its worth changing my work flow to start with raw? I'm basically a lazy bones and like the one click PP enhancements I get with basic image editing software like (gulp) Picassa.

Regards,
Ira
 
jpgs here too

jpgs here too

and no photoshop. I'm a purist. :p

Topdog1 said:
Uh, I hate to admit this, but alot of time I just shoot jpegs. :angel: Am I the only lazy one here?

/Ira
Click to expand...
 
B&W Norway said:
I guess you know already but if you shoot in RAW+JPG you will have raw RGB and B/W jpg. Sometimes it is better to convert into B/W in one channel (R,G,B)
Click to expand...
thanks, yes, I usually shoot RAW, and always for pro work - It doesn't cost much in time and I'd never forgive myself if I screwed up for a client because I didn't take the extra protection (WB, exp etc..) that a RAW file gives.

That said, if I'm shooting for fun (which is most of the time these days!) it's quite challenging to shoot jpg, like flying without a parachute :)
 
Topdog1 said:
I guess I'll just have to try it for myself and see which works best for me.

/Ira
Click to expand...
That's it exactly. You should do what is right for your images as you want them to be. (Commercial stuff is different -- the client being the ultimate boss.) You are the one who decides how and which way to "develop" the digital image. If you want to use the camera jpegs then that's cool. They are great. I just like the flexibility I get with raws.
I once had a Professor who described it as making biscuits -- everybody's recipe is just a little different.

Take care,
Michael
 
Topdog1 said:
Wow. Now I'm scratching my head trying to decide if its worth changing my work flow to start with raw? I'm basically a lazy bones and like the one click PP enhancements I get with basic image editing software like (gulp) Picassa.

Regards,
Ira
Click to expand...

Perhaps the PP software used determines the final quality as well. Most of us 'cheats' use Photoshop. :p

One publication issued a memo requiring the use of RAW for their shoots. They don't want the RAW files to be submitted however, only TIFF. It was either their own production people preferred not to mess or do not know how to handle the various RAW formats from the different cameras which their photographers used. The memo even said that "jpg is only used by amateurs with limited memory capacities" :eek:

Some photographers continued shooting jpgs secretly and submitted their work as TIFF converted from the original camera files. It appears that the production people couldn't really tell- apparently they judged "quality" by the number, numbers in terms of megabytes. A RAW file converted to TIFF will have almost the same as another TIFF converted from a jpg. The difference is just a few hundred kB.

It also appears that not much is lost when one starts from the original camera files- deterioration stems from each jpg resave since each 'save' cycle throws out a lot of information.

Camera hardware and software play an important role too. For instance in the Fuji S2, turning off the inboard sharpening, tone, and colour adjustments yield a more flexible (read: flat) jpg file. What the camera software does when these controls are on aren't necessarily the best and the resulting file leaves less room for editing.

Jay
 
I have just gotten back into the RAW workflow with NEF files ... I have found alot more flexability, however the image quality is not that much better than the jpg files I use.

Fuji Pro files are an interesting bunch, if you ask anyone who still use the S2 or are using the S3, they will often state there is no reason to work with RAW because the JPEGs are so good right out of the camera. That has everything to do with the dynamics of that sensor and the camera's processing... plus RAW files slow the Fuji cameras down quite considerably.
 
Topdog1 said:
Why ever bother with raw then?
Click to expand...

Because RAW contents much more information and a higher dynamic range than the compressed jpg (and the jpgs are compressed in a R-D1, even in hq mode).

If a jpg is over- or underexposed, not contrasty enough or too contrasty, has a wrong white balance or whatever what may go wrong in a expsoure, it's lost. With a RAW you can can repair most of the exposing errors - and the R-D1 metering and auto-whitebalance is not above any reproach for shure. As posted from another member, converting to B&W is better done afterwards. Thanks to the RAW/RGB you can fiddle the color channels separately, that's like using color filters after the exposure. A great advantage, but of course, no one is forced to take profit of it.

The question should be the other way round: if you use a $2k, RAW-featured digital camera with even more expensive lenses, why using the low-end consumer format jpg? IMO, it's usable for quick'n'dirty snapshots, but otherwise too limiting.

Didier
 
Didier said:
Because RAW contents much more information and a higher dynamic range than the compressed jpg (and the jpgs are compressed in a R-D1, even in hq mode).

If a jpg is over- or underexposed, not contrasty enough or too contrasty, has a wrong white balance or whatever what may go wrong in a expsoure, it's lost. With a RAW you can can repair most of the exposing errors - and the R-D1 metering and auto-whitebalance is not above any reproach for shure. As posted from another member, converting to B&W is better done afterwards. Thanks to the RAW/RGB you can fiddle the color channels separately, that's like using color filters after the exposure. A great advantage, but of course, no one is forced to take profit of it.

The question should be the other way round: if you use a $2k, RAW-featured digital camera with even more expensive lenses, why using the low-end consumer format jpg? IMO, it's usable for quick'n'dirty snapshots, but otherwise too limiting.

Didier
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm a Yahoo (the classical kind), but I can fix almost all of those problems on jpegs with a program like Picassa. I do it all the time on almost every photo I shoot. I'm sure it's not as felxible as working with the raw image, but I do like the results I get with this basic software. Perhaps we should switch, if you've never tried Picassa, and compare notes.

Regards,
Ira
 
Topdog1 said:
Wow. Now I'm scratching my head trying to decide if its worth changing my work flow to start with raw? I'm basically a lazy bones and like the one click PP enhancements I get with basic image editing software like (gulp) Picassa.
Click to expand...

Hmm, using a R-D1 to shoot compressed jpg's is like using a Porsche to go shopping for a bread roll... :)

But seriously, I have a proposal for you: Use RAW+jpeg mode. Use your JPGs as you always did. And if there's once a JPG that you would like to edit, because of exposure errors for instance (and they do happen quite often), then open the corresponding EPF in Epson PhotoRAW, which is a very easy-to-use tool, even easier than Picasa ("Picassa" must have been a Freudian slip from Picasa to Picasso? :) )... Having learned to use PhotoRAW, you will suddenly change your habits.

The only inconvenient part of using RAW+jpeg mode is the slower writing times on the SD card, and the higher disc space need on card and harddisc. On the PC, I erase the unused EPF and JPG from time to time to save disc space.

Didier
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom