“raw” grape hyacinth …

… just for testing purposes juxtaposed …
JPEG format is what we nearly always use,
RAW is what comes out of a camera before it is a JPEG

… and all cameras do this conversion for you …

Then why do it yourself …?
To be in control when it goes wrong with automatic conversion.

How often will that be …?
When photographing a clear blue sky, JPG only knows 16 million colours and about 500 shades of sky-blue, while raw could offer 4 trillion colours and at least 100 times more shades of sky-blue.
When paying close attention we’d notice the linings of 500 shades of sky-blue, but not when there’s 50000 of them.

BTW: GIMP only works with 500 shades of blue while doing the processing, so one has to do preprocessing with a RAW plugin like UFraw … You’ll have to wait 1 more year for the next stable milestone version of GIMP, 2.10, to be ‘in control’.

Besides, whenever you export to JPEG, you’ll go back to 500 shades of blue, and the internet always does.
So whatever we do, it will be barely noticeable …

And that’s why I wanted to do this test:

2 GIMP processed JPGs of the same picture (4632), but on the left one using the already preprocessed version of the CAMERA, while on the right the RAW input and manually controlled result (costs a lot more time) … I immediately noticed the difference in colour temperature, and the loss of the EXIF information.

But of course, I like the picture that I present here, with very strange light, coming from a near horizontal source of light, just before sunset.


Picture by bvdb (whoisbert) march 2016 – @home – Nikon D3300 – x_dsc_4632

Advertisements

6 thoughts on ““raw” grape hyacinth …

  1. Very interesting – thanks, Bert! Would you say that the human eye notices the difference especially with blue (or maybe green) hues? When I tried to calibrate a monitor and compare it to a second one I always felt that the differences in blues were particularly striking.

    • I don’t think it is completely due to the colour blue itself, although the shorter wavelength could have an influence. We should try and make real colour pictures of martian landscapes in 8bit RGB to really find out.
      But the fact that a skyscape is often occupying more than half a screen might be the main reason, while other ‘surfaces’ are most of the time occupying a much smaller surface in your picture.

    • Thank you, Ellen.
      15 months ago, RAW mode on the pocket Canon, revealed to me that the camera was close to end of life. It has so many bad/hot pixels that raw was impossible to use.
      Last Monday I wanted to repeat the same experiment with the NikonD3300, and found none. Then I really wanted to SEE the difference. If I want to spend an extra 5 minutes per picture, RAW mode possibly offers a 2% extra. Something that might be visible on A3 format. And not at all on most computer screens. 🙂
      I’m in discovery mode these days. I never before read the manual of the camera, except to find out how to bind the straps. Most presets on the camera are completely wasted on me, but I’d like to try night photography, and have to find out how to lock the mirror 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s