Discussion
Its down to bit depth.
JPG is an 8 bit per pixel image, the darker ranges are represented by a very small number of bits and basicaly hold far less detail than RAW which is typicaly 12bit and holds a lot more info all over but most noticably at the darker end.
If you've blown out the shadows (no detail/all 0's - same as the highlites) theres nothing you can do.
JPG is an 8 bit per pixel image, the darker ranges are represented by a very small number of bits and basicaly hold far less detail than RAW which is typicaly 12bit and holds a lot more info all over but most noticably at the darker end.
If you've blown out the shadows (no detail/all 0's - same as the highlites) theres nothing you can do.
UKBob said:
Ive discovered the "lighten shadows" feature in photoshop. This is going to come in handy. Trouble is, when used, noise increases exponentially.
That's because you're going into the signal-to-noise-warzone. It's quite logical if you realise that low light means S2N is competing with the detail. UKBob said:
Can anyone explain how much less noise will be created when working with a raw file? I assume the problem wont be as severe?
I'm not so sure that there will be a fantastic amount of difference except for the fact that at least you're not trying to compress what little detail you have left. I agree that Noise Ninja or your RAW conversion is the way to go, and here's an idea 
Convert two files - one with no noise suppression, one with enough for you shadows, then blend them to get the best of both worlds....
robdickinson said:
Its down to bit depth.
JPG is an 8 bit per pixel image, the darker ranges are represented by a very small number of bits and basicaly hold far less detail than RAW which is typicaly 12bit and holds a lot more info all over but most noticably at the darker end.
If you've blown out the shadows (no detail/all 0's - same as the highlites) theres nothing you can do.
I never blow the shadows. Thats why they are shadows JPG is an 8 bit per pixel image, the darker ranges are represented by a very small number of bits and basicaly hold far less detail than RAW which is typicaly 12bit and holds a lot more info all over but most noticably at the darker end.
If you've blown out the shadows (no detail/all 0's - same as the highlites) theres nothing you can do.
(or am I singing off the wrong hymn sheet again)? The "lighten Shadows" feature is fantastic!! It brings only (and very cleverly) the under exposed "mid tones" to an ideal level of exposure. And has fixed photos with lighting so poor they wouldnt be accepted by any stock agencies.
Is it fair to say that shooting in raw will give me a 30% adjustment margin then, without noise compensation etc?
V6GTO said:
16 bit is best...trouble is it gives me 48Mb files 
Martin.
Martin.
poah said:
expose better bob lol
get yourself Noise ninja works a treat also apply some contrast after shadow/highlight
Im going to buy either Noise Ninja or NeatImage next month. After reading some reviews and hopefully finding out which one will suit me best. get yourself Noise ninja works a treat also apply some contrast after shadow/highlight
UKBob said:
Can anyone explain how much less noise will be created when working with a raw file? I assume the problem wont be as severe?
I'm not so sure that there will be a fantastic amount of difference except for the fact that at least you're not trying to compress what little detail you have left. I agree that Noise Ninja or your RAW conversion is the way to go, and here's an idea Convert two files - one with no noise suppression, one with enough for you shadows, then blend them to get the best of both worlds....[/quote]Sounds like an extra step Id rather avoid. Besides, I dont have the technical know-how. I shamefully admit that I like to get into a routine of shoot, run filters, save, keyword (for stock) and upload. Its time I broadened my already limited horizons and tried out a noise reduction tool. Im sure I'll switch to raw eventually.
UKBob said:
robdickinson said:
Its down to bit depth.
JPG is an 8 bit per pixel image, the darker ranges are represented by a very small number of bits and basicaly hold far less detail than RAW which is typicaly 12bit and holds a lot more info all over but most noticably at the darker end.
If you've blown out the shadows (no detail/all 0's - same as the highlites) theres nothing you can do.
I never blow the shadows. Thats why they are shadows JPG is an 8 bit per pixel image, the darker ranges are represented by a very small number of bits and basicaly hold far less detail than RAW which is typicaly 12bit and holds a lot more info all over but most noticably at the darker end.
If you've blown out the shadows (no detail/all 0's - same as the highlites) theres nothing you can do.
(or am I singing off the wrong hymn sheet again)? yep sorry.
With digital you have basicaly 5 fstops of light to capture an image. Anything off the scale (recorded as 0,0,0 or 255,255,255, is blown. people talk about blowing the highlites as its more important than loosing the shadows, but its technicaly EXACTLY the same, you record pure black or pure white, no detail is recorded. RSE will show you either blown highlites(red) or shadows (blue) if you ask it too.
Now if we take those 5 fstops and look at them, the wway raw & jpg store information theres always more detail in the furthest right (lightest) fstom, reducing until the last (darkest) fstop, jog uses less information than raw to record that, raw you can 'sort of' get an extra 1-2 fstops of shadow over jpg, purely because of how jpg/raw work.
Rob, or anyone who has used noise ninja.
I know Im missing out, by not shooting raw.
But for arguments sake... which tool (Is it possible to say) gives the photographer more control (control in this instance is defined by the manipulation of a photo, with the end result being as noise free as possible)
Shooting raw, adjusting, saving.
Shooting .jpg, adjusting, removing noise (with Noise Ninja) then saving.
I know Im missing out, by not shooting raw.
But for arguments sake... which tool (Is it possible to say) gives the photographer more control (control in this instance is defined by the manipulation of a photo, with the end result being as noise free as possible)
Shooting raw, adjusting, saving.
Shooting .jpg, adjusting, removing noise (with Noise Ninja) then saving.
UKBob you have to remember what RAW is and what JPG is.
JPG is a lossy 8bit compressed format, very usefull for low file size high quality images.
RAW is the basic , unprocessed image data off the sensor.
Its the difference between a print and a negative, in the digital world - anything you can do to a jpg you can do, usualy with better results, to a RAW image.
It has more detail right through, doesnt have any superflous in camera processing, isnt lossy, and hasnt had white balance applied either (tho the cameras sugested white balance is included in the exif).
Shooting jpg with in camera settings is great for a lot of snaps & ease to get them online or whatever. RAW has so many advantages in image quality though. Its disadvantages is that the file sizes are larger and you need to post process. I know canon's software can effectivly apply the 'in camera' processing and produce the JPG the camera would have from the raw.
JPG is a lossy 8bit compressed format, very usefull for low file size high quality images.
RAW is the basic , unprocessed image data off the sensor.
Its the difference between a print and a negative, in the digital world - anything you can do to a jpg you can do, usualy with better results, to a RAW image.
It has more detail right through, doesnt have any superflous in camera processing, isnt lossy, and hasnt had white balance applied either (tho the cameras sugested white balance is included in the exif).
Shooting jpg with in camera settings is great for a lot of snaps & ease to get them online or whatever. RAW has so many advantages in image quality though. Its disadvantages is that the file sizes are larger and you need to post process. I know canon's software can effectivly apply the 'in camera' processing and produce the JPG the camera would have from the raw.
UKBob said:
Rob, or anyone who has used noise ninja.
I know Im missing out, by not shooting raw.
But for arguments sake... which tool (Is it possible to say) gives the photographer more control (control in this instance is defined by the manipulation of a photo, with the end result being as noise free as possible)
Shooting raw, adjusting, saving.
Shooting .jpg, adjusting, removing noise (with Noise Ninja) then saving.
I know Im missing out, by not shooting raw.
But for arguments sake... which tool (Is it possible to say) gives the photographer more control (control in this instance is defined by the manipulation of a photo, with the end result being as noise free as possible)
Shooting raw, adjusting, saving.
Shooting .jpg, adjusting, removing noise (with Noise Ninja) then saving.
Or even better...
Shooting RAW, adjusting, removing noise (with Noise Ninja) then saving.
You can set up an action in PS to run NN, so it takes about 2 seconds per image.
If you're that concerned about having the best quality images for your stock libraries, then just take some time to have a play, and start shooting RAW.
best way is RAW>Adjust exposure(no shaperning)>export Tiff 16bit> Neat Image
When you expose the raw image in say Lightroom/CameraRaw or whatever remember to get close to the exposure you want using the raw file rather than in PS with the Tiff.
also a longer route is export 2 or 3 diff exposure values for shadows/midtone/highlights as tiffs and run through NN or neat image then blend the layers for final comp.
When you expose the raw image in say Lightroom/CameraRaw or whatever remember to get close to the exposure you want using the raw file rather than in PS with the Tiff.
also a longer route is export 2 or 3 diff exposure values for shadows/midtone/highlights as tiffs and run through NN or neat image then blend the layers for final comp.
V6GTO said:
flameop said:
best way is RAW>Adjust exposure(no shaperning)>export Tiff 16bit> Neat Image
When you expose the raw image in say Lightroom/CameraRaw or whatever remember to get close to the exposure you want using the raw file rather than in PS with the Tiff.
When you expose the raw image in say Lightroom/CameraRaw or whatever remember to get close to the exposure you want using the raw file rather than in PS with the Tiff.
Works for me
[quote=UKBob]SNIP
The "lighten Shadows" feature is fantastic!! It brings only (and very cleverly) the under exposed "mid tones" to an ideal level of exposure. And has fixed photos with lighting so poor they wouldnt be accepted by any stock agencies.
SIP /quote]
Surely, you should be exposing your images better, rather than "fixing photos with lighting so poor etc etc.."
Do you bracket all your shots?
The "lighten Shadows" feature is fantastic!! It brings only (and very cleverly) the under exposed "mid tones" to an ideal level of exposure. And has fixed photos with lighting so poor they wouldnt be accepted by any stock agencies.
SIP /quote]
Surely, you should be exposing your images better, rather than "fixing photos with lighting so poor etc etc.."
Do you bracket all your shots?
Bob...forget "lighten shadows", it's a bit like brain surgery wearing boxing gloves. Use "Levels" and "Curves".
http://ronbigelow.com/articles/articl
Martin.
http://ronbigelow.com/articles/articl
Martin.
V6GTO said:
Bob...forget "lighten shadows", it's a bit like brain surgery wearing boxing gloves. Use "Levels" and "Curves".
http://ronbigelow.com/articles/articl
Martin.
The link, like your comments, doesnt computehttp://ronbigelow.com/articles/articl
Martin.
Without going crazy with curves/levels, the basic exposure adjustment feature when editing RAW files is very useful, you can adjust the exposure of the whole shot by many stops with little or no loss of quality. I must admit I don't bother shooting RAW for uniformly lit images, I tend to use it for any shots using the flash, or where I think exposure might be a problem. Otherwise I'm pretty happy with what the 20D churns out. I'd have a go with RAW for images with challenging exposure if I were you... Levels, curves, and lighten shadows applied to a JPEG will not provide the same flexibility.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff