Best Workflow for JPEG only Capture

[Jean Henderson]

I had expected to have a camera capable of shooting RAW capture by now, but I don't -- and won't have in the near future. I can only capture JPEG with my Canon SX120 and Kodak Z1485. I have several questions about how to optimize my workflow given this limitation as I continue to learn CS4 and LR 2.6. The Canon has JPEG quality adjustments and I use "Fine"; the Kodak has sharpness adjustments and I use "low". I prefer the Canon for outdoor use and the Kodak for indoor use. Both have manual controls.

I know about "expose to the right," but then I blow highlights. Should I only shoot in low contrast situations until I can move up to RAW?

In PP I really liked LR until I figured out that it's really ACR+. At first I was intimidated by PS, but I am coming to love it and especially want to get into Lab color usage. When I start out in PS, I open the JPEG and immediately save it as a TIFF and work on that, converting back to JPEG just for Web use and email. I like to work in Adobe RGB for the extra color that even my mediocre HP Photosmart seems capable of producing.

But, if LR and ACR just keep records of your modifications without changing the original file, should I work there first to do all that I can -- and, in some cases, end there?

I am interested in landscape, nature photography and portraiture -- as an amateur fine artist.

Your comments and guidance are welcomed.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Jean,

One can potentially make anything one wants with your modest camera. The first thing is to get the light right. Is there an LCd that shows a histogram? If so, you can check each exposure. If you can expose the picture properly, then you will have a good file, at least as good you can get. The next thing is to put it into 16 BIT and save as a TIFf or PSD file. This will safeguard whatever data you have protect it from degradation when you alter the gamma or anything else so you will get less gaps in the histogram and therefore less chances of posterization.

Ideally, if you have the camera to the right white balance, then if you don't alter the color and the exposure is correct, you are pretty well home free with a great picture. Working in 16BIT and using the Shadow/Highlight tool of CS4 will give you all you need.

However, my choice would be to have you sell your grandmother and the CS4, get CS2 used and buy as used Canon rebel or a Canon G10. You'll have RAW and everything CS4 has that's needed.

Asher

 

[Jean Henderson]

Thanks, Asher. Yes, both cameras have a histogram, but should I expose to the right for JPEG, too, or just go with a good (most of the graph covered) histo?

To convert the 8 bit JPEG to 16 bit, just do it PS? Or convert to DNG on import?

BTW, I'd have to sell my granddaughter as I'm a senior just getting into digital!

Jean

 

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks, Asher. Yes, both cameras have a histogram, but should I expose to the right for JPEG, too, or just go with a good (most of the graph covered) histo?

To convert the 8 bit JPEG to 16 bit, just do it PS? Or convert to DNG on import?

Jean,

TTBOMK, DNG s just a fancy TIFF in a package. I don't see any advantage to using it.

BTW, I'd have to sell my granddaughter as I'm a senior just getting into digital!

Naah! I wouldn't do that, UNICEF, Interpol and a lot of meddlesome women's right's groups are already on to folk selling off their granddaughters, so don't go that route. Grandmother's are easy, especially dead ones. Just get a good flash light, a shovel and a bag fro the bones.

Anatomywarehouse.com Plastic reproduction, $189​

A good clean adult skeleton might be worth double!


Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Jean,

I believe there may be an easy way to get RAW and much more from your Canon digicam. You might try this called CHDK which is software that goes on your SD card and adds functionality to your camera but generally does not alter it in any way.

There is a version for the SX110 so look in the forum there to see if someone has tried t with your camera. The RAW data is ready for you to get from your camera, you just have to have the right additional tool to get it. Don't be inhibited by the website. I'm sure someone has tried it on your camera,if not they'll help you. L:et me know!

Asher

 

[Jean Henderson]

Asher,

WOW!!! I'm not at all intimidated by the website you provide the link for -- just want to say a huge THANK YOU!! for knowing about it. I'm off to it now, still chuckling as I go! Back later if I have more questions. Thanks so much again.

Jean

 

[Jean Henderson]

Asher,

The CHDK site is wonderful. All open source. Nothing yet for my camera, but I volunteered to test since I can't program. RAW will be coming to my camera after all. Can't thank you enough as I am on fixed income!

Jean

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

I believe there may be an easy way to get RAW and much more from your Canon digicam. You might try this called CHDK which is software that goes on your SD card and adds functionality to your camera but generally does not alter it in any way.

Wow! That is way fabulous! I will be looking into that.

The PowerShot SX110 IS is our current main compact digicam. (Our current main not-so-compact digicam is the EOS 40D.)

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[StuartRae]

I've just had a thought, which someone will probably tell me is silly, but...........

If we manage to persuade the SX110 to save a raw file, what software will we use to process it? No raw converter is going to support it as officially it doesn't exist.

Regards,

Stuart

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

I've just had a thought, which someone will probably tell me is silly, but...........

If we manage to persuade the SX110 to save a raw file, what software will we use to process it? No raw converter is going to support it as officially it doesn't exist.

Regards,

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

This is not a silly question, far from it! According to the CHDK Wiki, there are various ways to achieve this:
1) Use program called DNG4PS or DNG4PS4-2, which converts the resulting raw file into a generic DNG file.
2) Use a raw converter such as dcraw which seems to work with the majority of these officious raw formats or some other converters like the raw therapee.
3) optionally hack the raw file to change the camera name into G6 or some other camera which is supported by all the raw converters.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen any specific references to SX110, which may be a good thing or bad ;-) HTH

Cheers,

 

[Asher Kelman]

Unfortunately, I haven't seen any specific references to SX110, which may be a good thing or bad ;-) HTH

Cheers,

I read that the CHDK is available for the SX110. It's the SX120 that has to be done by someone.

Asher

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Unfortunately, I haven't seen any specific references to SX110, which may be a good thing or bad ;-) HTH

Cheers,

I read that the CHDK is available for the SX110. It's the SX120 that has to be done by someone.

Asher

Hi Asher,

I know that there is indeed a CHDK for SX110. What I was referring to was the lack of any references to SX1100 amongst the raw converters which can convert CHDK generated raw files. The remedy then is to use the DNG4PS first.

Cheers,

 

[StuartRae]

Hi Cem,

Use program called DNG4PS or DNG4PS4-2, which converts the resulting raw file into a generic DNG file.

I assume these are 'third party' DNG converters? Certainly the official Adobe converter wouldn't support the SX110.
I think you'd still have to edit the DNG to insert a camera name that's supported by the raw converter.
I have a kludge which enables my much loved RSP to convert 40D files. Convert to DNG and then edit the DNG to replace 'EOS 30D' with 'EOS 40D'. It works very well, but as the series progresses the internal 30D camera profile may not produce good results.

Use a raw converter such as dcraw ....or some other converters like the raw therapee.

AFAIK even DCRaw and RawTherapee have a list of supported cameras. The output of a generic interpolation is probably a linear RGB image?

optionally hack the raw file to change the camera name into G6 or some other camera which is supported by all the raw converters.

I think you'd have to convert to DNG first in order to standardise the metadata.


So option 1. looks the best as long as you can find a camera that's reasonable close.

Regards,

Stuart

 

[Jean Henderson]

Hi Everyone,

Just reporting back on the progress I've made with CHDK for my SX120. My camera is still in beta; I grew impatient as this is my first opportunity to learn RAW capture and processing; what did I have to lose?; I downloaded it onto a memory card.

Two of the gurus on the site have been helpful, but keep in mind I'm using a beta development thread and most everyone else there knows how to program -- so I guess the ins and outs come more naturally to them. First point to know: after downloading the beta onto the card, it is mostly unusable without also downloading one of the existing "builds" for a different camera. The SX110 build has been available for a while so, guessing that it might be the closest to the SX120, I downloaded the "autobuild" to the same card that has the beta for the SX120.

Secondly, you need to download the 76 page Quick Users Guide to understand how to set up the settings for the camera -- at least if, like me, you've never used RAW before. In the RAW parameters menu you will find the option of using the DNG extension on the RAW file. But first, you have to run a script dealing with the badpixels before the DNG extension option is available.

With all the above done (finally!), last night I shot a picture of my feet with a DNG extension that can be opened in PS, Elements and something else!!!!! VICTOIRE!!!

Because I have the double disadvantage of not being a programmer and never having been able to use RAW before, this has been a slow process for me, absorbing a little bit each day until the links start connecting together. But highly worth it given my budgetary restraints.

One more thing I have picked up is that these CHDK RAW files are only 10 bit files, not 12 or 14.

If anyone has any other genuinely basic questions, I will try to answer or find the answer.

Thanks so much, Asher, for pointing me in the direction of the CHDK work!

Jean

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Jean,

It is exciting to hear of your success with CHDK.

These projects involve so many layers, and the grasp of so many new concepts at each, that it is easy to think that the objective is hopeless.

But you obviously did what was necessary, and have prevailed. There are few who can, or do, do that.

I know you are not yet "done". But your accomplishment so far is really stupendous.

Thanks for filling us in on this adventure.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[John Angulat]

Hi Jean,
I'd like to echo Doug's congratulatory remarks.
This is indeed quite an accomplishment.
Many would not have had the drive to undertake such a learning experience.
I'm most impressed with the fact you chose to participate in a beta study.
Now that's going way out on a limb!

Thank for keeping us updated.
And...here's comes the inevitable request: let's see some images!

 

[Nill Toulme]

If you set your in-camera contrast and saturation to minimum it will serve to make your histogram more accurate for your RAW file. (It might also serve to maximize the dynamic range captured by the jpg, but I'm not sure about that.)

Nill

 

[Jean Henderson]

Thank you Doug, John and Nill! I really didn't expect your recognition and am pleasantly surprised since I just wanted to help others. As for images, I want to do some experimenting the next three days, but I don't think any of you would be interested in seeing shots of my feet as I wanted flesh tones for evaluating color balance.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Everyone,

Just reporting back on the progress I've made with CHDK for my SX120. My camera is still in beta; I grew impatient as this is my first opportunity to learn RAW capture and processing; what did I have to lose?; I downloaded it onto a memory card...........

Thanks so much, Asher, for pointing me in the direction of the CHDK work!

Jean

Jean, I'm so impressed that you proceeded with such sense of determination and purpose with the single goal of capturing in DNG format. Even in 10 but you are keeping a hell of a lot more data for your subsequent processing.

I'm looking forward to seeing some pictures!


Asher

 

[Jean Henderson]

I'm looking forward to seeing some pictures!


Asher

I've got some, but can't figure out how to post or attach them.

[Edit]:

Built a Picasa album and made it public at this link:

http://picasaweb.google.com/jeanhenderson5/WilliTests#

Straight from camera through Picasa without processing. I'm basically pleased. FYI, Willimantic, CT is a largish small former thread making factory town with its requisite river. It also carries a story about how frogs saved some early residents; therefore, this bridge has four VERY large frogs sitting on top of a spool at the four corners of the bridge.

I need to figure out how to add captions so I could ask you all some questions about them. For now, the two shots of the river surrounded by trees: The second one seems more "exposed to the right", but the comp is off. Which one would you guys process?

Jean

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Jean,

Do a search here on posting images. Meanwhile I just dragged this picture of yours to a new browser window and placed the url address n the top address bar between and [IMG]

Just reply with the "Quote] option and you will be able to read the syntax. It's really simple!


[IMG]http://lh6.ggpht.com/_qSE6n0P7WkE/S9x02lE_0nI/AAAAAAAAAM4/rjpb5fHiD2Y/s512/IMG_0136.jpg


and then you might center t to give it white space as in a gallery:

abdc add a Title

Jean Henderson: My Picasa Picture from RAW​

 

[John Angulat]

Hi Jean,
Here's a link to Cem's excellent thread on how to post images: http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10906

 

[Jean Henderson]

Thanks, John, for Cem's link -- I didn't get it from Asher's post. Thank goodness we all have our strengths! So here goes....

Old gears from the dam.

Guess Picasa uses Flash. Back to the drawing board, but will be back
​

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Jean,

Thanks, John, for Cem's link -- I didn't get it from Asher's post. Thank goodness we all have our strengths! So here goes....

The Center tags have to go outside the IMG tags, and there should not be URL tags (those would be to make a link - although maybe the board put those in because of the other problems).

And the URL has to be for the image on Picasa, not the Picasa page.

So. like so:

It's always something!

Nice shot.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Jean Henderson]

Thanks, Doug! All you folks are the best! Let's try one of the frogs:

Got it!!! Thanks everyone! Now I have to go figure out why I couldn't get EV comp, plus aperture/shutter selections changed in the field. But not tonight....

Jean

 

[Jean Henderson]

Another "Hey Folks!"

Late last night I found Andrew Rodney's excellent and concise article on the Digital Photo Pro site called, I think, "How to expose for RAW." While I already had 2 books on RAW capture and processing, which I am still working on, his article is, as I said, excellent and concise -- and relatively short given the subject matter. Thank you, Andrew! I still need to read it a few more times to absorb it more completely, but you put it right out there what it means to ETTR -- not at all what I had been getting from the two books. Here is the link:

http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/exposing-for-raw.html

Jean

 

[Larry Brown]

Hi Jean!
I have followed this discussion on your post asking the best workflow for JPEG as you are using Point and Shoot cameras as I have done for many years. As your cameras lack RAW capture features I must compliment you in trying to get RAW out of image taken using methods explained by others but I am wondering if your reward is worth the extra effort involved. I had tried the same at one point and found it a pain IMO. Although you may find some advantages with some extra room for PP but is it what you really want to do? Your original post was what would be the best workflow for JPEG. As you have noticed shooting ETTR with JPEG's will give you some blown highlights that you can not recover. My approach(and mentioned by others) is to use the Histogram when using JPEG and in using it and see if you have approached the edge without going over to keep it safe without losing the image. When shooting JPEG it is easier to recover a slighty underexposed shot than one slightly overexposed. I feel both cameras you have(I am also fellow Kodakian, I have 4 Kodak P+S's) will do fine IMO using JPEG just take the time to fine tune some of the in-camera settings to your liking and take the xtra time to make exposure and composition at the time of capture and you may find the JPEG's more acceptable to you with less work later.
That being said I have got the sense that you may want to take your photography to the next level after reading thru all the posts, you have read books on RAW and articles explaining ETTR reasoning and the flexibility of PP by doing so but I think and I think you do to that your cameras is limiting you in this respect. I know you mentioned that you may not be able to get a camera that is RAW capable right now. By this did you mean a DSLR camera? This may the best approach for shooting RAW (there are exceptions in the P+S marketplace,the Canon G series comes mind, G10,G11 ect.) but for creativity ease DSLR's seem to be the choice for most. Many brands (I shoot Pentax) offer economical entry models (400 to 600 dollar range) and the used market should be considered as many photogs upgrade and often sell their 2 or 3 year old model for a fraction of a new one may be an option. As an example here is one from the Pentax Forum I follow (often find lens and flash deals here for my camera system) and was tempted myself as it has a 100+ dollar focus screen installed to help with manual focusing lenses, 2200 clicks so a bargain in my book.. not encouraging you to go this route but just an example I just saw this morning...
...here is a link just to see....

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/...810-sale-pentax-*ist-ds-w-katz-eye-conus.html

So my advice is to maybe save your pennies, look for a bargain at KEH, B+H or others used section, Craigslist, friends of the family, drop hints to your kids ( let them know you can get some better shots of the grandchildren, LOL ), maybe a little yard sale may fund your next camera, and be patient and wait for the right time to come to step up but for now just be happy with the JPEG's you are getting at present, focus on getting the best image you can at the time of capture while using JPEG, framing the shot and exposure, play with your in camera settings and then you will spend less time in the post processing and more time taking photos.


..and Happy Mothers Day Jean! Hope you get some great shots of the kids paying their respects to mom today!

Larry

 

[Jean Henderson]

Thank you, Larry! BTW, I am also a member of the Pentax Forum since I have my old K1000, the original SMC 50mm 2.8 lens plus a Vivitar 70-210mm Macro lens (not sure yet if it is one of THE Vivitar 70-210 Macros, though). If I were to buy today, I would go with the K-x, but wonder if the replacement for K7 will incorporate some of the Kx's better features while retaining its own best features. That is all to say that I lean the Pentax way. I have already PM'd the poster to see if he will accept a payment plan! Many thanks -- even if he says "No". I haven't really looked in the Pentax Marketplace, though, because of not having the funds. You're quite right, it's a great deal.

Thank you, too, for the JPEG info. Yes, photography is really my passion, but I was brought up with the 1930s depression era mantra: Use it up, wear it out; make it do or do without! CHDK is a way of "making it do." I've been so hungry to shoot RAW! Your comments and guidance are greatly appreciated.

Jean

 

[Larry Brown]

You are more than welcome Jean!

I wish you luck on your offer but please know that this camera was more an example than a suggestion and I would encourage you to maybe read some reviews, look at some examples and also know that that camera is several years old but was and is a good performer and will deliver some nice images and has RAW.Your Vivitar lenses will work on this camera but manual focus but that Katz eye screen will help for sure. Also note that the higher ISO's suffer compared to the current model KX that uses the same Sony sensor that the Nikon D90 has in it and it is a good low light performer at the higher ISO's with low noise so for a little more you get get so much more. If you do get this camera the kit Pentax 18-55mm AF lens is reasonable in-expensive used and also a good performer for that camera. But please read the reviews, please do not base your decission on my post here, I would feel terrible if you were dissapointed. I was just wanting to show an example of how inexpensive you could get a DSLR on a budget for about the price of one of your P+S's you have now, that's all..shop wisely and keep us posted please!

Also note that stepping up to a DSLR from a P+S there will be some major differences that will become obvious right off. Some people are dissapointed that they don't get the great DOF (in focus area) with the DSLR and it depends the aperture you chose so there will be a learning curve to using one well.

Larry

 

[Jean Henderson]

I would encourage you to maybe read some reviews, look at some examples and also know that that camera is several years old but was and is a good performer and will deliver some nice images and has RAW.

Also note that stepping up to a DSLR from a P+S there will be some major differences that will become obvious right off. Some people are dissapointed that they don't get the great DOF (in focus area) with the DSLR and it depends the aperture you chose so there will be a learning curve to using one well.

Larry

Yes, I have been researching this all for months and months -- Pentax specifically, because of the lenses I already have. I did not make the Pentax Forum response based on your suggestion alone!

Yes, I expect there to be another learning curve with a DSLR, which is why I was using the CHDK as a means to learn RAW. Besides, since the *ist (what DOES that stand for?) would not come with a lens, it would be a reason to get a wide angle prime I might be happier with than the kit zoom lens. If he says yes, then I will just use my 50 and 70-210 for a while.

Jean