danielsterno
making soup from mud
Jordan/All:
So as a digital neophyte and where i am a little confused and to Jordans point. Lets say I shoot in B&W with a red filter and have JPEG fine and RAW as my selected image quality in the camera. Are you saying that LR/Silver Efex will do a better job with the RAW color file file versus further enhancing the x100 produced B&W red filtered image JPEG file in Silver Efex as a general example... this is one area where I am trying to process in my mind.... thank you and Thank You for all the input for discussion- appreciate it....
rbelyell
Well-known
LR doesnt do any job processing a RAW file, you do. upon download RAW files are unprocessed, jpegs are processed. thats really the crux of the issue. as a neophyte do you want to spend all your time processing, or do you want the camera to present you with a great processed image for you to further play with?
fyi, RAW will not show the effect of the 'red' in camera filter. thats something else you,d have to do manually with a RAW image, play with curves to recreate that effect. should take you just a few short hours of fun trial and error at the computer. or you could just shoot jpeg, take advantage of the processing engine you paid for, get the effect you want upon download, and spend your time taking pictures vs processing, or in this case trying to duplicate an effect the camera does for you, and does better!
fyi, RAW will not show the effect of the 'red' in camera filter. thats something else you,d have to do manually with a RAW image, play with curves to recreate that effect. should take you just a few short hours of fun trial and error at the computer. or you could just shoot jpeg, take advantage of the processing engine you paid for, get the effect you want upon download, and spend your time taking pictures vs processing, or in this case trying to duplicate an effect the camera does for you, and does better!
danielsterno
making soup from mud
rbelyell:
very eloquently put. to answer your question: i just want to further enhance/push what the x100 (or any camera) gives me to further push it to my liking. i am not a "photographer" i am a painter/artist who takes images and rather be spending my time taking/making art. i am getting caught up in the be great at PP stuff being as i said i am new to digital.... btw I just saw this piece and it speaks to this conversation nicely. thanx https://vimeo.com/49425975
edge100
Well-known
The whole "I'd rather be shooting than PPing" argument is a blatant false dichotomy. One can shoot as much as one wants, and still enjoy PP and/or recognize that one's artistic expression is always best-realised when one retains control at all stages.
The X100 does have a great jpeg engine, and the ability to bracket films emus is terrific. But converting to jpeg in camera means I give up a lot of highlight headroom and control over white balance, and I'm not willin to give those things up.
This isn't a judgement against jpeg shooters. We can coexist. It's just my preference.
The X100 does have a great jpeg engine, and the ability to bracket films emus is terrific. But converting to jpeg in camera means I give up a lot of highlight headroom and control over white balance, and I'm not willin to give those things up.
This isn't a judgement against jpeg shooters. We can coexist. It's just my preference.
rbelyell
Well-known
of course we can coexist, thats what lifes about, differences of opinion!
however, it does take a lot more time with the x100 getting one's RAW image in shape than starting with a jpeg. thats maybe not a big deal, though i honestly think it is to me, for a few photos. but when one has 50, 100 etc on your card, the time difference is measured in hours, not minutes.
second, while there is no debate that RAW images have more headroom than jpeg, whether one needs, or indeed even notices the incremental absence in jpegs is very personal. i dont. ive never had any issue at all finding the headroom i need to do significant editing with x100 jpeg files. none, nada, never.
lastly, certain folks not only have a predisposition to PP, but also have a talent for it. others simply dont have either. i do to a point, but i know my limitations. i know for me that after a few minutes working an image i hit a point of diminishing returns. some folks just rather spend our time trying to achieve our vision through the hardware tool--after all, thats really the art of it, no? i'm not saying PP is not part of the art, it most certainly is! but i personally would rather spend my time trying to get the WB etc right at the time of the shot than correcting my photographic missteps later in the digital darkroom.
however, it does take a lot more time with the x100 getting one's RAW image in shape than starting with a jpeg. thats maybe not a big deal, though i honestly think it is to me, for a few photos. but when one has 50, 100 etc on your card, the time difference is measured in hours, not minutes.
second, while there is no debate that RAW images have more headroom than jpeg, whether one needs, or indeed even notices the incremental absence in jpegs is very personal. i dont. ive never had any issue at all finding the headroom i need to do significant editing with x100 jpeg files. none, nada, never.
lastly, certain folks not only have a predisposition to PP, but also have a talent for it. others simply dont have either. i do to a point, but i know my limitations. i know for me that after a few minutes working an image i hit a point of diminishing returns. some folks just rather spend our time trying to achieve our vision through the hardware tool--after all, thats really the art of it, no? i'm not saying PP is not part of the art, it most certainly is! but i personally would rather spend my time trying to get the WB etc right at the time of the shot than correcting my photographic missteps later in the digital darkroom.
edge100
Well-known
Agree with everything you said, except the bolded bit, which implies that PP is a way of correcting mistakes. I don't view it that way at all. It's simply another tool in the bag towards achieving the image I'm after.
Saying "I'll set my WB later", for example, does not connote the same thing as "I'll fix in in Photoshop" does. It's not fixing something that I couldn't be bothered to get right in the first place, but is simply me saying, "I'm going to retain the ability to colour balance my images later, and possibly to use multiple settings to achieve the overall look I want."
rbelyell
Well-known
good point. one of the most interesting aspects of this forum is to get insight into how other photographers think. your analysis of WB at the time of shooting for example wouldnt even enter my mind! you obviously approach shooting with a much more artistic mindset than do i, which is to get the scene exactly right. i often wish i had a less reality based thought process, or was more gifted artistically....
tony
tony
bobbyrab
Well-known
I'm finding these Fuji raw files slightly odd, so for example my Canon raw and jpg files will look very similar when imported to Lightroom. With the Canon raw files I have the option of choosing, in Lightroom, the Canon presets such as neutral, Landscape, Faithful etc, or user defined as set up in camera. These are all available to me in Lightroom, however with the Fuji files they're importing about 1.5 stops darker than the jpg, and the Raw file shows up as Adobe standard, I had expected the Fuji film presets to be available.
If this has been your experience with raw files to date I could understand your preferring to work with the jpg, but I'm pretty sure there must be a work around, I haven't had a chance to look at it properly yet, but Raw files should sart out just as well as your jpg but give you much more room for manoeuvre there after.
Personally recovering highlights is only a small part of Raw, far and away the biggest advantage over jpg for me is the colour stability should you want to make changes to the WB, with a jpg the colour falls apart very quickly, you make an improvement on one colour and another three all go pear shaped, getting colours right is my big battle with all digital.
If this has been your experience with raw files to date I could understand your preferring to work with the jpg, but I'm pretty sure there must be a work around, I haven't had a chance to look at it properly yet, but Raw files should sart out just as well as your jpg but give you much more room for manoeuvre there after.
Personally recovering highlights is only a small part of Raw, far and away the biggest advantage over jpg for me is the colour stability should you want to make changes to the WB, with a jpg the colour falls apart very quickly, you make an improvement on one colour and another three all go pear shaped, getting colours right is my big battle with all digital.
willie_901
Veteran
It is impossible to make "photographic missteps" when it comes to WB and a raw workflow. The raw data contains no WB information whatsoever. But the raw file does contain copies of the WB parameter estimates computed by the camera firmware or the photographer.
The initial WB present when a raw file is rendered during post processing is based on the WB parameters set by the camera or the photographer. In a raw workflow the initial WB parameters are only used for convenience. If the camera or photographer's WB parameter estimates happen to be optimal, no further adjustment is required. So careful and skillful WB selection before the shutter is pressed reduces the raw workflow.
Modifying the white balance from that point on uses all the available data, not just the data that survives the jpeg compression (which may, or may not, be enough data to achieve the best possible result).
Often scenes contain light from sources with different color temperatures. Shadows in sunny weather and daylight from a window in a room with strong tungsten light are just two examples. In this case, no amount of skill or care before the shutter is pressed can provide optimum WB parameters. WB must be set differently for regions with different color casts in the frame. Selectively adjusting the WB with all the data is preferred to making the same adjustments with much less data. But this advantage only increases the chances the best possible localized adjustment are made. Some JPEG files will tolerate selective WB adjustment better than others.
The initial WB present when a raw file is rendered during post processing is based on the WB parameters set by the camera or the photographer. In a raw workflow the initial WB parameters are only used for convenience. If the camera or photographer's WB parameter estimates happen to be optimal, no further adjustment is required. So careful and skillful WB selection before the shutter is pressed reduces the raw workflow.
Modifying the white balance from that point on uses all the available data, not just the data that survives the jpeg compression (which may, or may not, be enough data to achieve the best possible result).
Often scenes contain light from sources with different color temperatures. Shadows in sunny weather and daylight from a window in a room with strong tungsten light are just two examples. In this case, no amount of skill or care before the shutter is pressed can provide optimum WB parameters. WB must be set differently for regions with different color casts in the frame. Selectively adjusting the WB with all the data is preferred to making the same adjustments with much less data. But this advantage only increases the chances the best possible localized adjustment are made. Some JPEG files will tolerate selective WB adjustment better than others.
Perfect Imposter
Member
Is your DR set to something other than 100? If so the X100 underexposes to recover highlights easily.
As for PP. Give Raw Photo Processor (RPP) a try.
crispy12
Well-known
The beauty about shooting raw is that you can change your mind. It's like shooting black and white film and deciding that you would like Portra 160 instead of Tri-X. Of course it would be less work if you set the WB and exposure in camera, but if you managed to stuff it up then it can be fixed with a single mouse click.
There are cases where Jpeg is superior such as journalists who rush their pics straight to the press, but for the vast majority of us hobbyist can usually afford an extra 10 mins. Just select "apply preset" when importing your jpegs in LR. I have a black and white preset which looks just like Tri-x, very convenient.
There are cases where Jpeg is superior such as journalists who rush their pics straight to the press, but for the vast majority of us hobbyist can usually afford an extra 10 mins. Just select "apply preset" when importing your jpegs in LR. I have a black and white preset which looks just like Tri-x, very convenient.
DtheG
Established
You could use the in-camera processing to create a jpeg copy from the raw file. Not something to do all the time but for some situations where there is not the opportunity or time to take multiple shots with different jpeg settings it an be useful.
I have occasionally used raw+jpeg when I thought I might want to extract the maximum information later. But, in practice, I have always found the jpegs are good enough for me. After all, in film days, I chose the film but I did not develop and print myself. Very occasionally something was good enough to be hand printed and enlarged; but I did not do so myself. It is now a dozen years since I last had prints made: develop and scan to CD, I very rarely do more than crop and scale for the web.
I have occasionally used raw+jpeg when I thought I might want to extract the maximum information later. But, in practice, I have always found the jpegs are good enough for me. After all, in film days, I chose the film but I did not develop and print myself. Very occasionally something was good enough to be hand printed and enlarged; but I did not do so myself. It is now a dozen years since I last had prints made: develop and scan to CD, I very rarely do more than crop and scale for the web.
rbelyell
Well-known
i guess repeatedly saying that ive never had a problem with the x100 jpeg files in substantially changing WB, substantially cropping, making substantial highlight/shadow adjustment, is somehow repeatedly irrelevent. folks just keep saying that in order to make these very same adjustments one must shoot RAW. i guess i must just be wrong and my results over the past 18 months just a big misunderstanding between me, my camera, LR and my printer...
boomguy57
Well-known
1. Aperture 3.0
2. RAW only, all the time.
3. Silver Efex Pro 2 is regularly used on my end, but I also use Color Efex Pro as well.
2. RAW only, all the time.
3. Silver Efex Pro 2 is regularly used on my end, but I also use Color Efex Pro as well.
bobbyrab
Well-known
That all depends on what your happy with colour wise, it may well be your colours and exposures are always spot on and look great without using Raw, or it could be your not as fussy as some about what you find acceptable. I don't mean that to be rude I haven't seen any of your images, but my saying I prefer to work on Raw files is not the same as saying your wrong to rely on Jpgs, each to his own and all that.
Thanks for that I'll have a look at my settings, I've only had the camera for 5 days and can't find the instructions at the moment, but I think I have the hang of most of it.
edge100
Well-known
It's not always about changing WB, but rather about multiple colour temperatures within a single photograph. Or sometimes its about changing WB such that it may not accurately reflect the scene, per se, but rather suits the final image as the photographer envisions (e.g. warmer or cooler than reality).
Once again, there's nothing wrong with shooting JPEGs, and the X100 is one of the best cameras with which to do so (especially with skin tones). And if you're getting results that you're happy with, then that's really all that matters.
But it is also demonstrably true that PP on a Raw file offers a far greater flexibility than PP on a JPEG. This is primarily true in terms of bit depth (i.e. tonal gradients as well shadow detail), white balance (i.e. post-hoc alterations of overall as well as local colour temperatures), and highlight retention (i.e. the linearity of the sensor data vs. the contrast curve applied to the JPEG in camera).
There are many arguments for shooting JPEG vs Raw, but increased post-processing flexibility is not one of them.
rbelyell
Well-known
i am most assuredly not arguing that point. i do most assuredly take issue with the point that all of these adjustments can only be made on RAW files. i, and honestly i know many many on this forum, make substantial alterations to x100 jpeg files. the ability to make those adjustments is not limited to RAW--it is only a matter of degree. and honestly, while i do not take issue with your posts because they are in fact balanced, it is quite tiresome to read and reread other posts that choose innaccurately to ignore the fact that x100 jpegs have enough headroom to make such substantial adjustments. it may not be enough for everyone, but there is enough for a whole lot of folks who look uopn their photography with some degree of seriousness.
bobbyrab
Well-known
Could you post a couple of before and after examples?
rbelyell
Well-known
i wish i could bob, but ive tried many time to post images on this forum, and for the life of me i cant seem to accomplish it. and to be honest, i dont know what one would be able to tell from these downsized samples anyway. however, this and other forums are replete with x100 jpeg photos taken in all manner of conditions. my bet is no one could pick an original jpeg from an original RAW x100 photo on this site if you held a gun to their head.
also, this 'esoteric' debate doesnt at all take into account the circumstances of the OP, which is that he is presently editing with iphoto and just wants an upgrade. as a matter of pure fact, just going to LR for editing from iphoto is going to blow the OP away. its also going to take him a while to get used to to LR vs iphoto. why overcomplicate further by requiring him to figure out how to get his RAW photos to look as good in the first instance as his jpegs looked on iphoto?
if he finds that his LR adjustments are degrading his jpegs to an unacceptable degree, great, then he can have a whirl at RAW. my bet is he never gets to that point. but telling him its de riguer to shoot in RAW, that he is precluded from making WB and highlight/shadow adjustments if he doesnt, is just plain silly and inaccurate.
also, this 'esoteric' debate doesnt at all take into account the circumstances of the OP, which is that he is presently editing with iphoto and just wants an upgrade. as a matter of pure fact, just going to LR for editing from iphoto is going to blow the OP away. its also going to take him a while to get used to to LR vs iphoto. why overcomplicate further by requiring him to figure out how to get his RAW photos to look as good in the first instance as his jpegs looked on iphoto?
if he finds that his LR adjustments are degrading his jpegs to an unacceptable degree, great, then he can have a whirl at RAW. my bet is he never gets to that point. but telling him its de riguer to shoot in RAW, that he is precluded from making WB and highlight/shadow adjustments if he doesnt, is just plain silly and inaccurate.
edge100
Well-known
No argument from me here. It is absolutely a matter of degree.
So it seems we have settled the Raw/JPEG debate. We can now shut down the internet, for it no longer has a purpose.
