[Jocko]

Another Edinburgh image for you to critique. I have tried to open up the shadows on this one. What do you think?

   
Nikon D80, 1/125 sec, f11, ISO 200, 120mm lens equivalent.

[Eddy Canon]

Hi John is it me or do the buildings in the foreground look like their leaning out, there is a fix in ACR lens corrections should you feel you need it.

Pete

[Jocko]

I think you are right. Especially on the RH side. I never noticed that. This was taken back in my JPEG days, long before I ever heard of ACR!

[MrB]

John, the shadows look OK to me, relative to the rest of the photo. There is very little white in this image, so I would probably try increasing the general brightness and contrast a little, as I don't think a tiny bit of blown white would matter here. There is quite a lot of blue, noticeable in the clouds and the road surfaces, so I would try reducing the blue saturation and increasing the other colours.

Cheers.
Philip

[MrB]

There is a tiny bit of leaning out, but (in PaintShop Pro) the Pincushion Distortion Correction tool removes almost all of it.

Cheers.
Philip

[Jocko]

My version of ACR (CS4) doesn't have the necessary correction so I did it using Ed's method in Transform. I set the colour balance against the white trailer on the righthand side and raised the highlights somewhat. Here is the result.

   

[Jocko]

There is a tiny bit of leaning out, but (in PaintShop Pro) the Pincushion Distortion Correction tool removes almost all of it.

Cheers.
Philip

I haven't got to grips with PaintShop Pro yet.

[Eddy Canon]

There is a tiny bit of leaning out, but (in PaintShop Pro) the Pincushion Distortion Correction tool removes almost all of it.

Cheers.
Philip

I haven't got to grips with PaintShop Pro yet.

Hi John much better it's difficult to improve jpegs witht their limited amout of data so a good job, well done

Pete

[Jocko]

Hi John much better it's difficult to improve jpegs with their limited amount of data so a good job, well done.

I wish I had been working with raw, long before I did change. Even if I had kept what came out of the camera along, with the post processed images, I would be in a better position. Unfortunately I have only the post processed images to work with.

[EdMak]

My version of ACR (CS4) doesn't have the necessary correction

7 along from the left, Straightening Tool. I prefer the Transform. Ed.

[Jocko]

7 along from the left, Straightening Tool. I prefer the Transform. Ed.

Image was straight in the centre. It was just that there was distortion, causing the right edge to come in at the top. I probably over corrected converging verticals on my first post processing, back when the photo was originally taken.

[MrB]

I haven't got to grips with PaintShop Pro yet.

Have a go, John! In PaintShop Pro, Pincushion Distortion Correction is very easy - the tool is the last option in the Adjust menu. A value of 8 did the trick in your posted image, but try it, see the instant result then, if necessary, Undo and change the value!

Cheers.
Philip

[MrB]

Hi John much better it's difficult to improve jpegs with their limited amount of data so a good job, well done

Pete

There are myths regarding JPEGs, that continue to be perpetuated by the implications of statements similar to this one.

It is not difficult to improve JPEGs as John himself, and other members here, regularly demonstrate. Their results also show that, despite the limited amount of data (especially in the tiny down-sized versions of images posted in the forum), the JPEG compression algorithms (especially the optimised routines used by the camera to produce its original output JPEG) retain the important data for the image to be edited.

There are, of course, a few points that should be noted by the JPEG shooter:
The JPEG should be the result of a proper exposure - one that has captured as much light as possible without blowing-out the highlight areas of the scene. (This should, of course, also be the goal of the raw-shooter.)
In the camera, the JPEG should be saved at the largest possible size and with the highest possible quality (i.e. with the lowest possible compression).
The original JPEG from the camera should be archived, on a hard-disk and/or in a Cloud store, and editing should be applied only to a copy of the file.
All editing of the JPEG should be done in one session before saving the edited file. (Repeated opening, editing, and saving of the same JPEG degrades the image by re-compressing it each time.)

Mathematically, there is no contesting the fact that a raw file contains more data, but that does not mean that a JPEG file contains insufficient data for further image processing to be effective. When a JPEG from the camera is loaded into an image editor (and it can also be loaded into Adobe Camera Raw), it is decompressed into RAM and can be edited using the same tools as are available for any image file in any image format. The JPEG has more than enough image data (particularly from a modern camera) for editing to produce a high quality final product, to be viewed in a large print or on a large screen (unless it is required to be a wall-size print for viewing through a microscope!). If a further editing session is required to complete the job, the image can be saved in an uncompressed format (e.g. TIF) between sessions.

Of course, anyone who wishes to process the images from scratch needs to shoot in raw. The extra data might also be useful at the extremes: e.g. over- or under-exposure, or wildly wrong white balance. But it is also fine for a photographer at any level to shoot JPEGs - taking advantage of the processing technology in the camera. It is certainly not essential to shoot in raw for a photographer to be able to edit the camera's output to create the image that he/she visualises.

Cheers.
Philip

[Jocko]

I bought my first digital camera in May 2003 (Fuji FinePix S602 ZOOM) and from that day until July 2014 I shot entirely in JPEG format (with my first two cameras I had no other option). Initially I did no post processing. I didn't know what post processing was.
From day one I always shot the largest image available and with the Fine compression.
I was then introduced to Photoshop 7, and after reading the books knew I had to work on the image once, only saving after I was done. I totally ignored the advice to archive the originals and only work on copies. Back then, my PC (along with most), had what today would be considered a tiny hard drive. About 32Gb, if I remember correctly. As I was only taking photos as a hobby the expense of storage seemed unnecessary.
Here is one of the very first images, uploaded in the largest format the forum allows.

   

You can click the bar for the larger size.

As my post processing abilities improved I began to regret not having originals to work on, but I still didn't change my storage regime!
In July 2014 I moved from Photoshop CS to CS2, which allowed me to work with raw files, and at that juncture I decided to archive the raw originals and work only on copies.
With a correctly exposed image there is not a huge advantage working in raw, but if the exposure is slightly off, then raw allows me to recover the detail I need for a quality image.
I still work with JPEG images with my Dimage Z3 (no raw option), and believe it or not I still do not archive the originals and work on copies (although as of this moment that will change).
So, in the whole I have to agree with Philip's argument, expressed so well in the previous post. But having worked in raw it is my preferred format. Others may disagree.

[EdMak]

I only shoot Jpeg, best quality, do open in Camera Raw, was not aware for a long time this was possible.
Went from 6M to 14M, did not see a lot of difference really. Did use RAW initially 'till I changed camera, Sony a290, to find CS4E did nit support it's RAW files, so never used it again, and, never missed it, although my P/S knowledge then was sparse, as it still is.
If I were still working, would happily shoot Weddings in Jpeg, retired before Digital was acceptable.
When I retired, bought a Olympus compact, 3.1M, did not realise that cropping etc was fatal, finished up with a 222 Kb File. Used MGI Photosuite to edit.
Went back to it with P/S, years later, this was the result, it is more than acceptable as an A3, all my pics are printed externally to this. Personally, stress personally, see no real advantage in RAW. Again, my thoughts. Ed.

[MrB]

I had forgotten that I started a thread about JPEGs last year, but I found it again here -

www.shuttertalk.com/forums/Thread-JPEG-Image-File-Format

In Post #3 of that thread, I uploaded an example of quite extreme JPEG editing to show what can be done; the 100% crop shows what that small part of the edited image would look like, if the whole image was about 1.3 metres tall. However, I would hope that my usual output from the camera would require only gentle editing to enhance its image quality!

Cheers.
Philip

[EdMak]

On a similar note, this was all done on a Jpeg image. Ed.

http://www.shuttertalk.com/forums/Thread...Revelation

[Jocko]

Photoshop doesn't work with raw files. You do your "film" processing in ACR (or an equivalent), then you must change into an image format (raw is not an image format) such as tiff, PSD, JPEG, etc, to manipulate it in Photoshop.
That was a really interesting link you posted. There are so many interesting threads in here that I have still to find and read.
As an aside. I am getting a great deal from having my work gone over in this forum. It is a bit like having your children criticised by an outsider, but if it improves their behaviour then it is worth it!

[Eddy Canon]

Photoshop doesn't work with raw files. You do your "film" processing in ACR (or an equivalent), then you must change into an image format (raw is not an image format) such as tiff, PSD, JPEG, etc, to manipulate it in Photoshop.
That was a really interesting link you posted. There are so many interesting threads in here that I have still to find and read.
As an aside. I am getting a great deal from having my work gone over in this forum. It is a bit like having your children criticised by an outsider, but if it improves their behaviour then it is worth it!

This RAW jpeg thing is a bit like poking a Badger with a stick you know it won't go well, as has been said else where each to his or her own but I will always be RAW because I can.

Pete

[EdMak]

Took this for an exhibition, poster print, 9 feet x 5 feet, have never seen the print.
The Jpeg size was 81Mb.
The clock face is as would be seen on Print.

The goalposts have moved a bit re viewing distance, but 15/20 feet is reasonable, at this distance, the clock appears sharp. Ed.

[EdMak]

Having posting problems, here is original. Ed.