Worth shooting in raw, since cameras sharpen better than computers now?

[waterjug]

Is there any other reason to shoot in raw at this point? I have a t2i, and recently I tried experimenting. I shot in raw & jpg and then tried to see if I could get the raw to be as sharp as the jpg. The answer? not even close. Using Digital Photo Professional or whatever Canon's software is called, even taking the raw image and cranking the sharpness up to 10 the pictures STILL weren't as sharp as the JPGs off the camera, and obviously setting it at 10 causes a ton of graininess.

I know there's color correction bonuses to shooting in raw, but if you're shooting in pretty much stable light, without much chance of f'ing up a shot and blowing out your whites or shadows or something, is there really any reason left to shoot in RAW at this point, considering cameras sharpen better than software on the computer?

here's the picture I was talking about, it helps if you view it at full-size, and ctl-tab between the tabs in your browser. Look at the feathers near the base of the bird's bill, on the top of its head. You can clearly see that the one sharpened by the computer is much higher quality. For reference, to get it even CLOSE I had to jack the sharpness up to 8 in DPP for the one sharpened on the computer.

sharpened on computer
sharpened by camera

 

[AkumaX]

try lightroom's NR function?

 

[Anteaus]

I think you have more issues with noise than sharpness. The camera image looks better because I think it is using more NR and I think you might be confusing one for the other, though I'm not certain. Otherwise they are very similar. What ISO were you using? Is there any way you can link the raw file?

Remember that RAW is the recorded data from the sensor, and the JPG is a post processed form of that data. Anything the camera gives you as a JPG you can achieve outside the camera because they both come from the same source. The benefit to processing from RAW yourself is that you get far more control over exposure, of which sharpness and color correction are only a small part. I think shooting in raw is more important than ever because imaging tools have given us so much control.

If you are happy with the JPGs your camera gives you, then just shoot JPG. It's up to you. No one is going to tell you that you're wrong. Just keep in mind that RAW ultimate gives you control and it can mean the difference between saving an image from a bad exposure or committing it to the metaphorical recycling bin.

 

[magomago]

I think you have more issues with noise than sharpness. The camera image looks better because I think it is using more NR and I think you might be confusing one for the other, though I'm not certain. Otherwise they are very similar. What ISO were you using? Is there any way you can link the raw file?

Remember that RAW is the recorded data from the sensor, and the JPG is a post processed form of that data. Anything the camera gives you as a JPG you can achieve outside the camera because they both come from the same source. The benefit to processing from RAW yourself is that you get far more control over exposure, of which sharpness and color correction are only a small part. I think shooting in raw is more important than ever because imaging tools have given us so much control.

If you are happy with the JPGs your camera gives you, then just shoot JPG. It's up to you. No one is going to tell you that you're wrong. Just keep in mind that RAW ultimate gives you control and it can mean the difference between saving an image from a bad exposure or committing it to the metaphorical recycling bin.

Not exactly; cameras aren't doing all that PP in software the way a PC does. There is dedicated hardware to speed things up; I would think that you could get a PC in software to get close to what hardware is doing, but probably not replicate it exactly. However, just like most things when its comes to cameras, its probably not perceptible unless you are looking for it.
If there is that big of a discrepancy, he just does most likely need to fiddle with his settings until he gets his desired effect.

 

[Throckmorton]

The sharpening out of the camera is useless once you resize to the final resolution. It's just data degradation at that point

 

[Gintaras]

You can fix bad focus using RAW file. Post processing of a RAW file gives you more controls over those in camera - white balance, exposure....etc...
You can't fix blurry photo using raw file...

RAW file is just a data...
JPEG file is a post processed in camera, used by camera settings...

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Not exactly; cameras aren't doing all that PP in software the way a PC does. There is dedicated hardware to speed things up; I would think that you could get a PC in software to get close to what hardware is doing, but probably not replicate it exactly. However, just like most things when its comes to cameras, its probably not perceptible unless you are looking for it.
If there is that big of a discrepancy, he just does most likely need to fiddle with his settings until he gets his desired effect.

There may be proprietary algorithms involved, but theoretically there is nothing preventing a general-purpose CPU from exactly replicating the results obtained from a dedicated image processing chip (although the latter may do so more quickly).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness

 

[waterjug]

Thank you for the replies; here's the raw file. There is a bit of noise, it was taken in the evening, so the ISO is 800.

I'll try messing around with NR, but I'm not sure if that will really make the bird look sharper; even if it does, it doesn't really seem like it's worth all the extra effort to just get the picture to the point where it looks AS good as it does coming off the camera.

 

[Anteaus]

Thank you for the replies; here's the raw file. There is a bit of noise, it was taken in the evening, so the ISO is 800.

I'll try messing around with NR, but I'm not sure if that will really make the bird look sharper; even if it does, it doesn't really seem like it's worth all the extra effort to just get the picture to the point where it looks AS good as it does coming off the camera.

My point is that from my POV both images looked equally sharp, except that the camera processed image had more NR thus looked cleaner. By adding in additional sharpness with RAW processing the image quality actually declined. RAW files with no sharpening look dull because that's exactly how they are captured.

It also helps to not look at images super zoomed in because pixel peepers will almost always face disappointment.

I'm sure others will beat me to it, but I'll take a look at your raw file this evening as I'm curious.

 

[radhak]

You can fix bad focus using RAW file. Post processing of a RAW file gives you more controls over those in camera - white balance, exposure....etc...
You can't fix blurry photo using raw file...

RAW file is just a data...
JPEG file is a post processed in camera, used by camera settings...

That must be a that a typo, right? The one thing shooting raw does not fix is focus...

edit: sorry, I see your 3rd sentence now; the earlier reference was just a typo; my bad.

 

[waterjug]

Alright, just tried playing around with noise reduction....makes the image blurrier. I think most of you guys that are shooting in raw so you can sharpen later are wasting your time. I mean there's other reasons to shoot in raw, but if you're doing it mainly for sharpening on your computer later you are DEFINITELY wasting your time. NR on the computer, even slight NR, will blur the living crap out of your pictures, and the sharpening tool in things like DPP are actually worse than your camera can do. I definitely recommend just shooting JPG, and cranking up the sharpness a bit on your in-camera settings. Results are vastly improved over doing it on your computer, plus it saves tons of time, all for a better result. I guess the trade-off if you DO shoot in raw, is that you get more ability to adjust levels, but the trade-off is your picture will be not as sharp because computers can't sharpen as well as cameras can these days. To each their own

 

[Syborg1211]

Alright, just tried playing around with noise reduction....makes the image blurrier. I think most of you guys that are shooting in raw so you can sharpen later are wasting your time. I mean there's other reasons to shoot in raw, but if you're doing it mainly for sharpening on your computer later you are DEFINITELY wasting your time. NR on the computer, even slight NR, will blur the living crap out of your pictures, and the sharpening tool in things like DPP are actually worse than your camera can do. I definitely recommend just shooting JPG, and cranking up the sharpness a bit on your in-camera settings. Results are vastly improved over doing it on your computer, plus it saves tons of time, all for a better result. I guess the trade-off if you DO shoot in raw, is that you get more ability to adjust levels, but the trade-off is your picture will be not as sharp because computers can't sharpen as well as cameras can these days. To each their own

Things like noise reduction and sharpening will depend HEAVILY on the program you choose to edit with. Using Lightroom and Photoshop, noise reduction as well as sharpening can put out better results than the off-camera jpegs. You also have to realize that theres a few different knobs to both the sharpening tool and the noise reduction tool that impact the performance. You have to tailor it to the picture.

I will agree that it is faster and easier to shoot on jpeg if you don't plan to do any post processing. However, if you have a good editing tool, the differences between jpeg and raw capabilities is stark. Just try taking an underexposed jpeg and bring up the shadows and do the same with the raw and you'll see a world of difference. I've seen basically all black photos get recovered by Lightroom.

 

[gevorg]

most good sharpening jobs are done with masking, in the OP image, only the bird should be sharpened while the rest should be left unsharpened and smoothed out by noise-reduction

 

[Fardringle]

Alright, just tried playing around with noise reduction....makes the image blurrier. I think most of you guys that are shooting in raw so you can sharpen later are wasting your time.

I honestly don't know of anyone that shoots RAW so they can sharpen later. That's not what RAW is for. Most people shoot RAW so they can manipulate the color balance, white balance, shadows and highlights, and do other processing on the photo without losing image quality by repeatedly re-saving a compressed JPEG file (you can re-save a RAW or TIFF file as many times as you like since they are -usually- not compressed.

 

[waterjug]

I honestly don't know of anyone that shoots RAW so they can sharpen later. That's not what RAW is for. Most people shoot RAW so they can manipulate the color balance, white balance, shadows and highlights, and do other processing on the photo without losing image quality by repeatedly re-saving a compressed JPEG file (you can re-save a RAW or TIFF file as many times as you like since they are -usually- not compressed.

Well yeah, I'm just saying if you shoot in RAW your photo will never be as sharp as if you had just gone with JPG straight off the camera though

 

[waterjug]

Things like noise reduction and sharpening will depend HEAVILY on the program you choose to edit with. Using Lightroom and Photoshop, noise reduction as well as sharpening can put out better results than the off-camera jpegs. You also have to realize that theres a few different knobs to both the sharpening tool and the noise reduction tool that impact the performance. You have to tailor it to the picture.

I will agree that it is faster and easier to shoot on jpeg if you don't plan to do any post processing. However, if you have a good editing tool, the differences between jpeg and raw capabilities is stark. Just try taking an underexposed jpeg and bring up the shadows and do the same with the raw and you'll see a world of difference. I've seen basically all black photos get recovered by Lightroom.

Gotta be honest, have lightroom & PS as well, the sharpening still doesn't look as good as off my camera. Lightroom is slightly better than canon's software on my pc, but still not close to the results I get when shooting straight JPG

 

[Syborg1211]

Gotta be honest, have lightroom & PS as well, the sharpening still doesn't look as good as off my camera. Lightroom is slightly better than canon's software on my pc, but still not close to the results I get when shooting straight JPG

So you're adjusting the Radius, Detail, and Masking settings of the Sharpening Tool, or are you just referring to the Export Sharpening Output? Same goes for Noise Reduction with Detail and Contrast? Maybe instead of declaring the camera best for sharpening, you should be asking what settings do you have to change in Lightroom to make it better? Perhaps you can explain how a camera's sharpening is going to be that much better than a computer's? You know a RAW file tells the computer the exact same info that the camera gets when it creates jpegs...

 

[glen]

Post the RAW file, and I bet we can process it better than the camera.

 

[jaedaliu]

I think the issue is that lightroom and photoshop are super powerful, and you aren't using it to the full ability of the software.

I leave most of my post processing to my friends that have time to help me with a picture here or there.

 

[Anteaus]

Seems fine to me.... did a quick run through LR 4.4. Lifted the exposure and added some sharpening with NR

 

[glen]

Do you like this better?

 

[glen]

Anteaus, where did you host a file that big?

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Anteaus, where did you host a file that big?

Looks like imgur.com?

 

[Gintaras]

Well yeah, I'm just saying if you shoot in RAW your photo will never be as sharp as if you had just gone with JPG straight off the camera though

Sharpness on the photo is how do you focus on the object - it should be discussed not about RAW vs JPEG, but about tripod vs monopod vs steady hands vs shaky hands....

Forget about sharpness of the photo - RAW vs JPEG - neither one would make a blurry photo look sharp...You can slightly - SLIGHTLY sharpen slightly misfocused photo...that's all...

Your camera setting - does sharpen the whole frame, not the object to choose to take picture of...You want to sharpen a bird, camera won't do that for you - you have to focus very good on a bird to get a sharp photo....in PS you can do a little sharpening of your object - Filter/Sharpen/Unsharp Mask....

When talking about a sharp picture of a bird or wildlife - it isn't about RAW or JPEG, it is about handhedl, monopod or tripod....

 

[glen]

Her we go. More full size.