Left vs Right

[d0lph1n]

 

 

===

 

JPG: Nikon D3100 jpg engine (auto white balance, auto hdr)

RAW: Nikon D3100 raw file processed by Capture NX2 (custom wb, some hdr applied on the liverock - Acan photo; no HDR in the Snail photo; other custom settings)

Other info: Custom lights (Rebel ES leds) // Nikon DX 55-200mm f4-5.6 (kit lens)

[Veng]

I'm confused, they're both jpgs, one has just been color balanced and contrast adjusted. Most will prefer the one on the right. It took me a while before I started doing that on photos because I thought it was some how "dishonest" when presenting my tank. Then I realized it was more about fixing the errors in my photography skills than it was about being dishonest.

 

Back to your original question, I'm a fan of png on file formats.

[d0lph1n]

Of course both are jpgs

 

I've added more explanations. About honesty or dishonesty, I generally agree with you. As long as you are not selling anything or you are not in a coral related competition, I believe you should be able to do what the hell you want with your photos. For me, so far, the biggest challenge has been reproducing the colors under actinic lights. All the cameras and jpg engines I tried so far can't reproduce it accurately.

 

Even, when both light channels (blue&white) are on like in the photos above, the colors are not accurate.

[jestep]

RAW is pretty much the only way to shoot on a royal blue LED or actinic only tank. Even on a nice DSLR I've never been able to get the colors even close shooting in just JPG's. Always saturated to the point of being unusable.

[d0lph1n]

I realized if you expose for the blue channel (no clipping on the blue channel), it's easier to adjust the blues but still, the results are far from reality. The colors I see under my blue channel are amazing. I'm planning to build a portable actinic light and use it when purchasing corals from LFS.

[Veng]

Of course both are jpgs

 

I've added more explanations. About honesty or dishonesty, I generally agree with you. As long as you are not selling anything or you are not in a coral related competition, I believe you should be able to do what the hell you want with your photos. For me, so far, the biggest challenge has been reproducing the corals colors under actinic lights. All the cameras and jpg engines I tried so far can't reproduce it accurately.

 

Even, when both light channels (blue&white) are on like in the photos above, the colors are not accurate.

Ahh my bad, I didn't have my coffee this morning (actually I don't drink coffee, but you know what I mean) and didn't realize you were talking about the jpg engine in the camera.

[d0lph1n]

My bad, since it's a photo forum, I assumed everybody knows what i'm talking about. That's why I've edited a description.

[Rain24]

Voted. But, unrelated to the photography discussion, what type of snail is that in the top photos?

[Veng]

My bad, since it's a photo forum, I assumed everybody knows what i'm talking about. That's why I've edited a description.

Not your bad, it was mine. I clicked in the link from the front page and didn't see the forum. I do like the new OP though, much more clear.

[Withers]

what is this poll asking? which pictures we like better or which format we prefer taking pictures in?

 

They serve different functions. When shooting in JPEG you have the camera make your adjustments. If you shoot in RAW you do it with post processing software. You'll always be able to do a better job at accurately portraying the scene if you're doing the editing yourself.

[d0lph1n]

Voted. But, unrelated to the photography discussion, what type of snail is that in the top photos?

 

I had a hard time remembering the name of the snail that's why I called it "snail". I think it's a tonga fighting conch

 

what is this poll asking? which pictures we like better or which format we prefer taking pictures in?

 

They serve different functions. When shooting in JPEG you have the camera make your adjustments. If you shoot in RAW you do it with post processing software. You'll always be able to do a better job at accurately portraying the scene if you're doing the editing yourself.

 

Right. It was not intended as a general question RAW vs JPG. It's more like left vs right. I edited the title.

[Withers]

i like the white balance of the left better but the exposure is better on the right then

[d0lph1n]

So which one is which? I would guess camera default jpg on the left and edited raw images on the right.

 

Correct. Left is jpg from camera and right is raw but the raw has exposure correction, custom wb etc.

 

i like the white balance of the left better but the exposure is better on the right then

 

I tend to agree ..but the wb on right is closer to reality. I exposed for the blue channel (RGB histogram) trying to capture all the blue light available. I tried using a grey card under water for WB correction and exposure ..but it doesn't work.

[markalot]

A couple of comments.

 

More is going on here than just RAW or JPG. Your camera probably has other settings for sharpness, saturation, etc. Also, if you use Irfanview to open the RAW image you can choose (if it's a recognized RAW format) to use the camera white balance to alter the photo.

 

I find turning any in camera enhancements off and doing them outside the camera produces much better results. On my Panasonic I turned sharpness all the way down so no sharpening is done in the camera. Noise reduction is another story. I turned it down and results are worse. I'm guessing noise reduction in the camera is finely tuned to the sensor used and can improve the image rather than adding artifacts.

 

Of course each camera will vary.

[Withers]

Correct. Left is jpg from camera and right is raw but the raw has exposure correction, custom wb etc.

 

 

I tend to agree ..but the wb on right is closer to reality. I exposed for the blue channel (RGB histogram) trying to capture all the blue light available. I tried using a grey card under water for WB correction and exposure ..but it doesn't work.

 

Closer to reality as in that's exactly what your lights make your tank look like or closer to reality as in the colors of the corals are closer to their real color? Like everything else, it's subjective

[d0lph1n]

Closer to reality as in that's exactly what your lights make your tank look like or closer to reality as in the colors of the corals are closer to their real color? Like everything else, it's subjective

 

Closer to what I see, definitely subjective . That's why i said earlier, if it's not about a coral contest or coral sale, who cares if the colors are natural or enhanced. Do you like it or not, that should be the question.

[d0lph1n]

A couple of comments.

 

More is going on here than just RAW or JPG. Your camera probably has other settings for sharpness, saturation, etc. Also, if you use Irfanview to open the RAW image you can choose (if it's a recognized RAW format) to use the camera white balance to alter the photo.

 

I find turning any in camera enhancements off and doing them outside the camera produces much better results. On my Panasonic I turned sharpness all the way down so no sharpening is done in the camera. Noise reduction is another story. I turned it down and results are worse. I'm guessing noise reduction in the camera is finely tuned to the sensor used and can improve the image rather than adding artifacts.

 

Of course each camera will vary.

 

 

A couple of comments.

 

More is going on here than just RAW or JPG. Your camera probably has other settings for sharpness, saturation, etc. Also, if you use Irfanview to open the RAW image you can choose (if it's a recognized RAW format) to use the camera white balance to alter the photo.

 

I find turning any in camera enhancements off and doing them outside the camera produces much better results. On my Panasonic I turned sharpness all the way down so no sharpening is done in the camera. Noise reduction is another story. I turned it down and results are worse. I'm guessing noise reduction in the camera is finely tuned to the sensor used and can improve the image rather than adding artifacts.

 

Of course each camera will vary.

 

I'm using Nikon Capture NX2 for many reasons and it offers more options than I need and recognizes all the in-camera enhancements applied. All my photos are raw+jpg. The jpg settings are setup for my taste and minimum post process work like contrast & cropping. Occasionally if it;s worth it, i will edit the RAW.

[markalot]

So what jpg compression does it apply? I don;t have a Nikon so we can assume it's not as good, and my finest setting applies to much compression for my taste.

[d0lph1n]

Jpg compression:

In camera: fine (raw + jpg fine)

Capture NX2: 0-100%, I use 80%