ESFotoClix Blog

The question of whether to shoot in JPG or RAW, and what if any are the advantages of using the RAW format comes up often. The following is not a definitive proof of the benefits of one approach vs. the other, but a sampling of how “getting it right” in camera with JPG shooting works when compared to getting right or almost right in-camera with RAW, then following up with some post-processing tweaks. We will approach this by answering 3 basic questions: (1) How does an out-of-camera (OOC) JPG compare to a JPG resulting from straight-up, none-edited conversion from RAW in post processing; (2) How do minor exposure adjustments to a fairly well-exposed OOC JPG compare to a JPG resulting from the same adjustments on the RAW file; and (3) How do white balance (WB) adjustments on the OOC JPG compare to a JPG resulting from the same adjustments on the RAW file?

Equipment, setup and software used
Images were taken with a Nikon D80 and AF 35-70 f/2.8 lens, using the “Normal” picture mode and WB=Direct sunlight. A tripod was also used to ensure exact framing. Straight conversions to JPG and 16-bit TIF were performed in ViewNX without any adjustments. All exposure and WB adjustments were performed in Paintshop Pro X2, ensuring that the same adjustment was applied to both the OOC JPG and its corresponding TIF version. JPG files resulting from adjusted original files were saved using the same and high JPG quality settings in Paintshop Pro X2.

Comparison of OOC JPG against post-converted RAW-to-JPG version
To answer the first question, here are two sample image pairs. You decide what, if any, are the differences between the OOC JPG and the RAW-to-JPG converted (using ViewNX, in this case) versions. Please note that the OOC JPGs are going to be rotated as I did not want to make any modifications to the camera output (and saving JPG is a lossy process).

OOC JPG	ViewNX JPG

Comparison of exposure-compensated OOC JPG against post-converted RAW-to-TIF version
Now we start by toning down the highlights and adjusting midtones with the Highlight/Midtone/Shadow (HMS) tool, then adding a little contrast with Unsharp Mask (USM) as I prefer doing to some of my images to add pop; and I do this both with the OOC image and the RAW (after 16-bit TIF conversion in ViewNX).

Edited OOC JPG	Edited TIF

Since the exposures we’ve seen were a tad clipped in the highlights, I took a second set of sample pairs, this time with -0.7EV of compensation. Here are the OOC JPGs, prior any adjusments. As you can see, the highlights are in better shape, but the shadows and midtones are under-exposed and dull.

OOC JPG 1	OOC JPG 2

Comparison of WB and exposure-compensated OOC JPG against post-converted RAW-to-TIF version
And here they are after using the HSM tool to bring out the shadows and lighten the midtones a bit, and some USM contrast added in. I would point you in particular to the color/shade transitions in the blue tile for the first sample pair and to the color/shade transitions in the red petals of the second sample pair. See a difference, and if so, is it significant enough for you?

Edited OOC JPG	Edited TIF

Finally, we look at the third question and adjust WB to better resemble the colors in the scene. We do this with the images taken with -0.7EV for the first sample pair, so we also have to add the exposure adjustments discussed above. Again, look for color transitions, and if you are so inclined, go digging through the shadows in pixel-peep mode and see what you find.

OOC JPG	ViewNX TIF

This is a controversial subject and one where expressing any hard conclusions is bound to be unproductive in the face of what is ultimate a matter of preference for many digital photographers. I will say that given these very mild (low contrast) and unchallenging (regarding exposure) images, even the subtle differences I can see are enough for me to continue shooting and enjoying the benefits of the RAW format. I will try and come with additional samples, and if anything more significant than these results comes of it, I will follow-up with a future blog entry.

Along the road to capture good photos, I often found myself cropping them in post-processing, usually feeling I had failed in preserving the original image or succeeded in degrading image quality through the resulting reduction in resolution. In some cases, cropping was acceptable and even necessary, as when the final image demanded frame dimensions other than the 4:3 or 3:2 aspect ratios that come with most digital cameras. More often than not, however, I found myself cropping to remove unwanted distractions, or to more tightly focus attention on the subject, or, if I must admit, to achieve the much-prized rule of thirds.

The feelings of cropping guilt nagged me for years until recently, when I realized that cropping could teach me how to make better framing choices. In quiet reflection in front of my computer monitor I began asking, “if I were taking this shot right now, how would I frame it differently, and why?” Then, I would crop the image as I would want it captured and tell myself, “next time, that’s how you want to frame it with the camera.” This was a process of reprogramming the way I took images. It’s not as easy to reflect in the heat of photographic battle as it is in the quiet post-mortem of post-processing. After repeating this exercise for a few months, however, framing the way I would crop became second nature, and the guilt started to vanish.

Here’s an image from the Paris subway, as originally shot. I don’t go to Paris often, so after I returned home I was somewhat discouraged when I realized this image needed quite a bit of trimming around the top and right. Though not an award winner by any means, the cropped version becomes stronger by avoiding the centered track (bullseye!), along with the do-nothing space up top, and by creating more of a juxtaposition between the staircase and the track. The elimination of the right platform also simplifies the image and focuses the attention more strongly on the commuters on the left and the leading line that the staircase they are taking forms.

The trick is thinking about all the stuff that makes the second, cropped image stronger at the time of framing, then stepping to the left and zooming in to compose it right from the start. Then I would have a stronger composition without the loss in resolution that cropping causes.

Key Tip:
As you use cropping to learn how to frame better, you might realize that you often include more than you want to in your image because of the way you look through your viewfinder. It’s perfectly natural to focus your attention toward the center of the frame, or to be most concerned with your subject. It’s far easier to trace along the frame’s perimeter when sitting in front of a computer monitor, but you can teach yourself to let your eye wander along the edges of the frame while looking through the viewfinder. Doing so will reveal all those unwanted objects, or even whether you have the right amount of spacing between what you want to include in your photo and the edges of the frame.

Perhaps among the most disdained practices in photography post-processing is the ability to clone unwanted objects from a photograph. Those who subscribe to what I would term “strict realism” would discourage it altogether, deeming anything that doesn’t come straight out of the camera as anathema. Realists that follow a slightly less strict approach may allow cloning for instances where it is needed to restore the image or to set right something that was by chance amiss with the capture. To illustrate, let’s look at the following example.

What if you traveled all the way to San Sebastian, Spain and somehow found yourself perched atop the famous Hotel Maria Cristina with a once in a lifetime opportunity to capture this scene, only to discover upon returning to your beloved computer that two dust spots on your sensor have marred the photograph? Would you allow yourself to clone these out, would you delete the photo on the spot, or would you print it at 16×20 dust spots and all? Common sense should prevail here. You should in fact realize that those dust spots, though they were really there on your sensor, were not truly part of the scene before you. They don’t belong there, so you clone them out, and while you’re at it, you increase contrast a bit and sharpen the image. “Es una vista magnifica,” you tell yourself, and life is good.

Image 1

Image 2

But suppose you’re not satisfied, and upon looking at the image you decide to turn it into a black and white image. You do, and something is still off. Ah, that lounge chair is so distracting. Maybe… No, I couldn’t. Could I? Before you know it, you use that cloning technique again. If it was good enough for those dust spots, it surely must be good enough for the chair, right? As you do it, your sense of guilt rises to a fever pitch. What are the people in your photo forum going to say? Well, you don’t have to tell them, do you?

Image 3

Image 4

After some moments of reflection and inner turmoil, you let it go, and while you’re at it, you decide to crop from the bottom of the photo to improve composition, having just realized that once again, you centered that horizon and included too much empty or unnecessary foreground detail. When you do this you tell yourself that no one would look down on you or altering reality through cropping. If you had cropped the lounge chair instead of cloned it out, only the strictest photo-must-be-right-out-of-the-camera proponents would have faulted you for it.

Image 5

This discussion has gotten a little silly, but again, let’s appeal to common sense. We didn’t alter reality by adding our favorite super model in a skimpy bikini, and we haven’t portrayed the scene in a way that bends the laws of physics or that would otherwise be impossible. We could have just as well moved the lounge chair before we pressed the shutter, and though some would even fault us for doing that, they wouldn’t if we had stepped up and framed the lounge chair out of the photograph — though that would have not provided us with the same vantage point and would have diminished the composition. The bottom line here is that so long as we strengthen the image while avoiding bizarre or blatantly over-cooked results, we shouldn’t feel guilty for making the alterations necessary to achieve our vision.