1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

em5 ii question on raw vs jpeg at high iso

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by travelbug, Jul 30, 2016.

  1. travelbug

    travelbug Mu-43 Regular

    136
    Oct 20, 2014
    i compared a couple of shots on my em5ii at iso 6400 with the raw+lsf setting (12-40pro lens) and i was surprised to see much more noise in the raw files. i know that the camera does some sort of pp image processing for jpeg, but the difference blew me away. is this normal fare, or do i have some settings for my raw files set poorly ( i do have dark field reduction on and noise reduction off already).
     
  2. gpburdell

    gpburdell Mu-43 Veteran

    248
    Jul 16, 2014
    Apples and oranges.

    RAW files by themselves have no processing done to them at all, which is kind of the point of a RAW file. Any processing is performed by whatever software you're using to display/modify the RAW files. It's also quite normal for those software defaults to be fairly weak, as many prefer to default to minimal processing and add to it when/where necessary to achieve the desired results.

    So, look to whatever package you're using and what its settings should be for high ISO noise reduction. If you post the name of your software some may be able to suggest settings; those will be specific to the software whether it be Olympus Viewer 3, Lightroom, DxO OpticsPro, Apple Photos, Affinity Photo, or whatever.
     
  3. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Hard to add much to gpburdell's post. You can get your Raws to look the same as jpegs if you wish, but you can also get them looking much better. Once you get used to raw you'll never go back to JPEG.
     
  4. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I rarely use RAW anymore, so that's not always true. :)
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    You'll have to explain that to me. Anything you can do with a JPEG you can do with a raw. The converse is not true. Jpeg means baked-in sharpening, NR, white balance, tone curve and colours. Why is that a good thing, apart from convenience? The convenience issue can be handled with a good raw workflow.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    For many kinds of shots it is not worth the hassle for such little benefit.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  7. gary0319

    gary0319 Mu-43 Veteran

    300
    Nov 26, 2014
    Sarasota FL
    Yes, Raw has more flexibility, but it does not mean that you are locked into sharpening or other JPEG settings, just turn them off in the camera if you don't like them.

    I shoot Super Fine JPEGs + Raw and 99% of the times I use the Super Fines. If I'm thinking of printing, I'll go for the Raw. I do quite a bit of manipulating in LR to my JPEGs and they hold up just fine. This didn't used to be the case, particularly when I shot Canon, but with newer, better sensors and firmware, the old saw that Raw is the only way to go is, to my mind, kind of old school now.
     
  8. gpburdell

    gpburdell Mu-43 Veteran

    248
    Jul 16, 2014
    I'll just say storage is cheap. Raw+JPEG gives the convenience of OOC JPEGs with the "digital negative" aspects of RAW available should you later want it. I've gone back to decade-old RAW files and reprocessed with modern shadow/highlight recovery and noise reduction, where I'd have been more limited if I had only the results of a decade-old in-camera jpeg engine. With something like Lightroom, I don't find conversions to be any hassle at all, though that's likely dependent on LR and may not apply to others. Especially if using OV3 for RAW conversions.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  9. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Well, I guess JPEGs have the convenience advantage, but I can't really see many other positives. In my mind it seems odd to spend a lot of money on camera gear and then compromise on what the gear is technicality capable of delivering. However, that's just my opinion and I've definitely not got any special privilege to be right!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. CWRailman

    CWRailman Mu-43 Top Veteran

    563
    Jun 2, 2015
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Denny
    The main difference is that you do not have the latitude with JPG that you have with RAW files but as an example, if using Lightroom, you have all the major adjustment features available for manipulating JPG that are available for RAW. Unless you are proficient with your RAW processor, and many folks are not which sometimes results in grossly over processed images, then the out of camera JPG produces a better image than what some folks achieve with RAW converters. As JPG files are getting better at interpreting the shooters desired image and more folks are moving toward instant gratification in shooting and quickly posting images via in camera WiFi, the number of RAW shooters is diminishing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. gary0319

    gary0319 Mu-43 Veteran

    300
    Nov 26, 2014
    Sarasota FL
    Well, that is one way to look at it.

    Another way would be to consider that my Pen F has a whole set of features for shooting JPEGS and modeling the output after any manner of films and cameras. To me it would be a waste of money not to take advantage of them and in essence just cripple the camera back to what I had with my E-M10.

    Now, if one doesn't want to take advantage of the new technology and features, that's fine.........saves on the money.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    It's not a compromise unless you are shooting at the extremes of what the sensor can do.

    Not to mention, the absolute quality over convenience argument seems odd coming from a bunch of small sensor shooters.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 2
  13. Ian.

    Ian. Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2013
    Munich
    Ian
    It's worth spending money on a camera that is designed to produce excellent jpegs, when the exposure is not too extreme. I only go to the raw in extreme exposure situations. Which is not too often. There is no point in repeating the operations that the camera has already done. And done maybe better than I might have.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  14. CWRailman

    CWRailman Mu-43 Top Veteran

    563
    Jun 2, 2015
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Denny
    The next time you are standing on the street and see a Ferrari or some other high performance car go by realize that that car will never be driven to it's full potential. In fact it may never see even half it's potential and I am not just talking about speed. The same goes with cameras. Some folks just enjoy owning the best or what feels best to them though they will never use it to it's full potential.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. dalto

    dalto Mu-43 Regular

    186
    Jul 6, 2016
    Texas
    This.

    It is not just about the comparison of your pictures today it is what future processing brings. I have been able to salvage old files into usable images that I could not have easily done with the technology at the time. On top of that, my vision as a photographer has changed over the years. If I had been shooting processed jpegs I may not have been able to convert them into the potential I saw in them later.

    Conversely, I like to take advantage of my investment in my computer and the new software technology where my workflow allows me to produce high quality images without any hassle at all.

    Ultimately, the jpeg vs raw debate has been going on since the early days of digital SLRs. Everyone has there own preference based their specific needs. As long as you are making your decision from an informed perspective all is well.

    When in doubt shoot RAW+jpeg. ;)
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  16. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    I guess that just shows how we're all different. All those JPEG features on the Pen F can be done in post processing with a good raw editor - and what's more, I wouldn't need to commit myself to a particular look when I took the shot. I guess different strokes for different folks...

    As to the Pen vs the E-M10 - well, I like the Pen F in many ways, but (as a hardened raw shooter) the JPEG features would be very low on the list of things that might persuade me to buy one over the E-M10. In fact, nice as the Pen F is, at 4 x the price of a good used E-M10, I know what I'd be buying!
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Well, since I do a lot of landscapes I guess I'm more often shooting closer to the sensor's limits than some. I've tried jpegs and the lack of ability to recover highlights in skies etc is a real problem. That together with the baked-in sharpening and NR completely finishes them off as a viable route for what I do.

    As to wanting the best IQ but using a small sensor - well where do we end? Leica SL and Phase One gear?
     
  18. gpburdell

    gpburdell Mu-43 Veteran

    248
    Jul 16, 2014
    Careful on making assumptions, such as the one underlying the italicized text I've quoted.

    All those modes on the Pen F (as far as I've encountered) allow RAW+JPEG, providing both the artistic vision created at the time of the shot as well as a RAW file you can do what you wish with later on if you desire a different look.

    I'm not seeing where that's committing oneself to anything at all?

    Previously I've wondered at why I would use the various creative modes and someone either here or in a review put it well. When they're processing the image a few days or weeks later they might not remember just what vision they'd had in mind when they shot it. Plus, I'm finding it can be very handy to visualize the effect and possibly suggest slight changes in framing/composition.

    Then later on since I have both RAW and JPEG I can either use what I got OOC or I can try for something better or different from the RAW.

    As for the "I spent all this money why wouldn't I use the fullest extent of the capabilities" line of thought: Speaking for myself, in addition to the shots requiring higher skill and quality, there's also a lot of plain old mundane family/event/holiday/miscellaneous shots that don't need every bit of dynamic range and detail squeezed out of them. I own a fun car that can carve corners like it's on rails and accelerate from zero to jail in nothing flat, but even as often as I do enjoy those capabilities a lot of my driving is boring stuff any car will do just fine for half the price. Just because you buy something for its ability in extreme use cases doesn't mean you only use it in those instances.

    Yes, definitely use every bit of capability in the instances that benefit from it such as your landscapes. A couple days later when photographing some disused item to go onto eBay, you may not need all that extra imaging capability.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2016
    • Like Like x 3
  19. CWRailman

    CWRailman Mu-43 Top Veteran

    563
    Jun 2, 2015
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Denny
    Yes it has however these days the difference between JPG and RAW is no where as vast as it once was when that debate started. In the past few years we have seen camera manufactures succeed in reducing that differential. Yes there will always be those that insist they shoot RAW :hmmm: but I suspect that is only because they have bought heavily into those T-Shirts that proudly proclaim that they shoot RAW and they cannot afford to replace that wardrobe even though it causes them issues at airports.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  20. gpburdell

    gpburdell Mu-43 Veteran

    248
    Jul 16, 2014
    Making snarky jabs at those who choose to do something in a different way than you choose is neither funny nor particularly helpful to anyone here. Let's maybe strive to help others learn and grow their ability, not put them down.