50-200 - testing.

[Guest]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

I think that's a little unfair on the RAW format

Remember, when the camera produces a JPEG it's based on the RAW data. The only difference between using RAW yourself and using an in-camera JPEG is that the camera has done it for you. But the camera has limited 'intelligence' so it will process the image to a fairly limited set of parameters compared to a skilled photographer working on a RAW file. It's true that Olympus in-camera JPEGs are highly regarded, but there is no doubt that in most cases a skilled photographer will be able to produced a better result from a RAW file than the camera can produce a JPEG. This is especially so if exposure and white balance need to be adjusted, and there is more latitude with sharpening and noise management. I tend to shoot RAW and JPEG at the same time because if I'm in a hurry and I don't have my RAW processing tools to hand and I need to use an image, especially for the Web, then the JPEG comes into its own. But normally my pictures are all processed from RAW.

Ian

I took time out to shoot in RAW+JPEG mode. Here is the result.
I think you'll agree that there isn't much in it. The RAW has slightly more contrast. Both images are out-of-camera.
The RAW of course had to be converted to jpeg for uploading to forum and aside from cropping to subject and resizing, both are unedited.

Screenshot of Unedited Olympus ORF (RAW) File as displayed in the CS4 Workspace


Out of Camera JPEG

[Ian]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

I'm not taking sides here, but I also prefer to take both JPEG & RAW 'cause I like using the Art Filters sometimes (since the E30 was the first Oly DSLR with it & Oly Viewer allows me to select them afterwards) like this:

Not quite sure what you mean

There is no need to record JPEGs with a RAW file if you want Art Filter effects as they can be applied retrospectively to the RAW file.

Ian

[Ian]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

I took time out to shoot in RAW+JPEG mode. Here is the result.
I think you'll agree that there isn't much in it. The RAW has slightly more contrast. Both images are out-of-camera.
The RAW of course had to be converted to jpeg for uploading to forum and aside from cropping to subject and resizing, both are unedited.

OK, I think there is some confusion here. Your comparison doesn't really make sense because a RAW file normally needs to be fine tuned to get the most out of it. 'Out of the camera' simply means the RAW file has been processed similarly to an in-camera JPEG by whatever RAW file viewer or processing application you are using. In fact the same image from a RAW file will look different according to which program it is initially viewed in because the initial processing of the file to get it to the state that you are viewing it in differs from one program to another.

The value of RAW files is completely in the additional processing or fine tuning that you would apply. That is why comparing an in-camera JPEG to an un-edited or un-processed RAW file doesn't really mean a lot.

Ian

[Ross the fiddler]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Not quite sure what you mean

There is no need to record JPEGs with a RAW file if you want Art Filter effects as they can be applied retrospectively to the RAW file.

Ian

It means I only take photos in JPEG without Art Filters & the RAW's for backup & the Art Filters are only applied afterwards to the RAW's if I want it at all. In other words, I use the art filters as an after thought & the RAW file is necessary to do it plus making life easier for WB adjustment, sharpness etc.

[Cathrine Stephansen]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Good morning, Cathrine - thanks for posting your pin sharp 200mm shot. To be fair to the lens I have yet to put it to such a test.

OK, so now let me in on your technique. Presumably handheld for flexibility but was IS on or OFF? What shutter speed, f/stop, ISO, EV settings were used?

I am yet to be convinced of any benefit in shooting Olympus RAW although as a former Nikon shooter shooting NEF was absolutely necessary for optimum results.

My experience with ORF is that I have spent lots of processing time producing results often inferior to the Olympus's JPG processing engine, which keeps the best image quality, detail, and properly balanced colors.

IMO s/f JPG files can be adequately processed with Adobe CS3/4 tools (I run both versions). JPG files can also be processed in Adobe RAW via Adobe Bridge (maybe not the same for the purists).

Hi again! Details are:

E5, Zuiko 50-200 mm (no converter) f/5.6, 1/2000 sec, -1.7 EV, ISO 400. Focal length 147mm. Handheld, IS is ON. I turn off the IS when I use a tripod, otherwise leave it on (I'm lazy)

As I shoot mainly Auto mode, the conditions meant 1/640 sec for this one, which has more movement:



The overall tone becomes a bit dramatic as I've exposed only for the white of the gull in the evening light. Shot in RAW, I'm afraid

[Roberta]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Mark, cannot comment on the lens...............still dreaming about it...............but I must say I like the umedited shot better than the cropped as I happen to like textures that are seen in the background and the rust on the rooves.
Roberta

[Guest]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

OK, I think there is some confusion here. Your comparison doesn't really make sense because a RAW file normally needs to be fine tuned to get the most out of it. 'Out of the camera' simply means the RAW file has been processed similarly to an in-camera JPEG by whatever RAW file viewer or processing application you are using. In fact the same image from a RAW file will look different according to which program it is initially viewed in because the initial processing of the file to get it to the state that you are viewing it in differs from one program to another.

The value of RAW files is completely in the additional processing or fine tuning that you would apply. That is why comparing an in-camera JPEG to an un-edited or un-processed RAW file doesn't really mean a lot.

Ian

Thanks for the opinion Ian and sorry for the belated reply.

I'm not sure if I understand you but if that is so then I would very much like to see a comparison
between both the RAW and JPEG files competently processed using Adobe Photoshop CS-4.

If exposure is close to optimum then there should be little fine tuning needed that can't be more easily done to the JPEG file in CS-3/4.

The screenshots illustrate the difference between two different RAW apps - CS4 above *** Olympus Pro Studio2 below.
These screenshots were from two different monitors (laptop and desktop machines run CS3 and CS4 respectively) that may be affecting the colour.
One is more saturated but there isn't much difference in hue. Ian, I don't know what this proves (if anything). The bottom line is how good is the edited picture quality.

[Guest]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Hi again! Details are:

E5, Zuiko 50-200 mm (no converter) f/5.6, 1/2000 sec, -1.7 EV, ISO 400. Focal length 147mm. Handheld, IS is ON. I turn off the IS when I use a tripod, otherwise leave it on (I'm lazy)

As I shoot mainly Auto mode, the conditions meant 1/640 sec for this one, which has more movement:

The overall tone becomes a bit dramatic as I've exposed only for the white of the gull in the evening light. Shot in RAW, I'm afraid

Thanks for those details Cathrine. I note you shot at -1.7 EV ... was that a camera exposure compensation or a RAW correction? I like the high contrast dramatic effect.

[Guest]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Mark, cannot comment on the lens...............still dreaming about it...............but I must say I like the umedited shot better than the cropped as I happen to like textures that are seen in the background and the rust on the rooves.
Roberta

Thank you Roberta.

[Cathrine Stephansen]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Thanks for those details Cathrine. I note you shot at -1.7 EV ... was that a camera exposure compensation or a RAW correction? I like the high contrast dramatic effect.

That was an in camera adjustment. Changing the exposure that much in Camera RAW post-exposure usually loses some detail. I usually do only minor adjustments to enhance tones, or make the exposure more ideal. You can save an image using RAW, but within certain limits.

I often expose to the right in-camera, using live view exposure preview when shooting landscapes. In this case I tried first -1 and then reduced to -1.7 EV after checking the first shots of other gulls in that spot. Had to compensate that much to avoid burnt-out white. The dark water was just a bonus

[Cathrine Stephansen]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Mark, I noticed your screen shot is from Camera RAW in Photoshop CS, not Photoshop. The sharpness that Camera RAW applies based on normal settings for E3 cameras doesn't show up on the image before you press open and see the photo i Photoshop, the middle stage can look frustratingly unsharp. I use Bridge to browse, and the preview there is horrible. Images I know are sharp look out of focus. Only when I open in Camera RAW, apply the fine tunings if necessary and then open in Photoshop do I see what the image is really like. I don't know why, but that seems to be the development process.

If I get it right in-camera, I don't adjust anything in Camera RAW, just let the image go through the standard "developing process" and open in PS, add a copyright notice, crop to a final composistion and maybe add a little sharpening at the end. That's all. Shooting RAW allows me to choose the colour space I want, something which is good when printing.

[Guest]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

That was an in camera adjustment. Changing the exposure that much in Camera RAW post-exposure usually loses some detail. I usually do only minor adjustments to enhance tones, or make the exposure more ideal. You can save an image using RAW, but within certain limits.

I often expose to the right in-camera, using live view exposure preview when shooting landscapes. In this case I tried first -1 and then reduced to -1.7 EV after checking the first shots of other gulls in that spot. Had to compensate that much to avoid burnt-out white. The dark water was just a bonus

Yes, I realise why you'd done it and am a little surprised as in a recent ppost of mine you queried why I had shot at -0.7, which was indeed for the very same reason.

Exposing for the highlights and letting the shadows fall where they will has been my standard practice for some time. If the dynamic range is excessively high then shooting brackets +0.07 / -0.07 for an HDR imo is preferable to shooting RAW!

[Guest]

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Mark, cannot comment on the lens...............still dreaming about it...............but I must say I like the umedited shot better than the cropped as I happen to like textures that are seen in the background and the rust on the rooves.
Roberta

Thanks for commenting Roberta and an appology for missing your thread earlier.