RAW vs JPG

[karlblessing]

You can see the additional noise in the JPG image; that's the primary difference I noticed in the non adjusted images, a bit less noise is apparent in the RAW versions of my images. Color balance is decidedly cool in RAW images though (if anyone has a LUT to correct this, let me know). But, as has been noted, RAW is much better to recover image details typically.

Great shot, btw Dale!

Or you can just slide the color temperature up a little in the raw processor, depending on what you're using to open and tweak the raw before bringing it into something like Photoshop.

Also if you're shooting with white balance set to Auto in the camera setting of the drone, a LUT isn't really going to help you if the source keeps having unpredictable/variable input colors (though I understand you would just apply as needed).

Far as noise, it's actually more typical that when viewing non-adjusted, the Raw file will have more noise, as the jpeg will have already went thru some noise reduction on the camera's chip when being processed into a jpeg (which also includes some color bumps etc, whatever the manufacture deemed to be more pleasant to consumers).

It's possible, that if you're looking at a comparison between two ISO 100 shots, that what you're observing is not actually noise, but the chunkiness I witnessed a lot more on the original Mini's jpeg where detail was lost due to over-processing noise reduction. I notice in the jpeg of the Mini 2 (Which I don't use often), even at the lowest ISO, there is an appearance of more detail, but it looks like a trick I used to do a lot when cleaning noisy video footage, basically the aggressive noise reduction would leave the frame smoother without much detail in the non-edge areas. The trick was to sharpen the edge slightly, and then throw a grain overlay (either as a gentler gaussian noise pattern of non-color pixels only, or slap on a real 4K film grain scan), that would bring texture back to the image making it appear natural and crisp, but at the same time introduced a subtle-but-pleasing grain appearance (as opposed to the chunky bleedy digital noise appearance).

For example the shot Tom showed the Jpeg is clearly much more detailed, and has that very slight grain texture in areas of no details. The DNG image is waaaaaay too soft and should not be softer than the Jpeg like that, it should deliver same level of detail but without compression artifacts or banding. So for that side by side example, that's the fault of how it was processed after (possibly just a straight DNG to Jpeg conversion with no tuning).

 

[TomSull]

Or you can just slide the color temperature up a little in the raw processor, depending on what you're using to open and tweak the raw before bringing it into something like Photoshop.

Also if you're shooting with white balance set to Auto in the camera setting of the drone, a LUT isn't really going to help you if the source keeps having unpredictable/variable input colors (though I understand you would just apply as needed).

Far as noise, it's actually more typical that when viewing non-adjusted, the Raw file will have more noise, as the jpeg will have already went thru some noise reduction on the camera's chip when being processed into a jpeg (which also includes some color bumps etc, whatever the manufacture deemed to be more pleasant to consumers).

It's possible, that if you're looking at a comparison between two ISO 100 shots, that what you're observing is not actually noise, but the chunkiness I witnessed a lot more on the original Mini's jpeg where detail was lost due to over-processing noise reduction. I notice in the jpeg of the Mini 2 (Which I don't use often), even at the lowest ISO, there is an appearance of more detail, but it looks like a trick I used to do a lot when cleaning noisy video footage, basically the aggressive noise reduction would leave the frame smoother without much detail in the non-edge areas. The trick was to sharpen the edge slightly, and then throw a grain overlay (either as a gentler gaussian noise pattern of non-color pixels only, or slap on a real 4K film grain scan), that would bring texture back to the image making it appear natural and crisp, but at the same time introduced a subtle-but-pleasing grain appearance (as opposed to the chunky bleedy digital noise appearance).

For example the shot Tom showed the Jpeg is clearly much more detailed, and has that very slight grain texture in areas of no details. The DNG image is waaaaaay too soft and should not be softer than the Jpeg like that, it should deliver same level of detail but without compression artifacts or banding. So for that side by side example, that's the fault of how it was processed after (possibly just a straight DNG to Jpeg conversion with no tuning).

Yes, I need to actually compare the non HDR'd photos which I think is causing the detail loss in the raw image. Good point on the color balance. Take a look at the snippets I replaced above (which will be there in about 5 minutes from 10:25).

BTW, your comment on color temp, I've installed the Microsoft Raw Image Extension on my laptop (I assume that's what's allowing these to render initially). I did play around with the filters/effects in Aurora and their Warm filter is actually close but doesn't work in batch HDR work. I could color grade these by hand, but it would be nice to have a daylight LUT to tweak it to DJI specs, which I DO like btw, they do a nice job on color, a tiny bit over saturated but I like that.

BTW, I see you're in New England? I'm in central Mass where those shots came from.

 

[karlblessing]

Yes, I need to actually compare the non HDR'd photos which I think is causing the detail loss in the raw image. Good point on the color balance. Take a look at the snippets I replaced above (which will be there in about 5 minutes from 10:25).

BTW, your comment on color temp, I've installed the Microsoft Raw Image Extension on my laptop (I assume that's what's allowing these to render initially). I did play around with the filters/effects in Aurora and their Warm filter is actually close but doesn't work in batch HDR work. I could color grade these by hand, but it would be nice to have a daylight LUT to tweak it to DJI specs, which I DO like btw, they do a nice job on color, a tiny bit over saturated but I like that.

BTW, I see you're in New England? I'm in central Mass where those shots came from.

I'm actually in West Michigan (Caledonia is a little south of Grand Rapids).

Far as extensions and such (mostly for previewing raw files in Windows Explorer), they pull their preview typically from the jpeg thumbnail embbeded in the raw file (depending on the way the manufacture set it, it could be a full jpeg copy, or a reduced resolution version of it). So the white balance, or color in the preview will typically be that of the jpeg with the in-camera processing applied. You get a decent yet more accurate look using IrfanView viewer if you need something free that can quickly view those file types.

If you have a sample image you want corrected, I can likely do tweaks of the still image in Davinci Resolve Studio 16 (my choice of video editor), and save those changes to a 3DLut (cube) file that can be loaded into most photo software (for example can be loaded into Photoshop's Lookup Table adjustment filter). Just have to know in which manner you want adjusted. And preferably with source image being set to something like 5600K white balance (or whatever looks 'neutral' as long as it's manually set) to be accurate each time the Lut is applied.

 

[TomSull]

If you are looking to learn how to process the images (color grading/sharpness etc) and how photoshop sees color there are way better forums for it.

Here is a good start, Google is your friend:

Color and camera raw

Find out more about using Adobe Camera Raw to perform photo adjustments before editing them in Adobe Photoshop Elements.

helpx.adobe.com

Adjust color rendering for your camera in Adobe Camera Raw

Learn how to adjust color rendering for your camera in Adobe Camera Raw. Apply and customize camera profiles.

helpx.adobe.com

Set up color management

In Adobe Photoshop Elements, set up color management to achieve consistent color among your digital cameras, scanners, computer monitors, and printers.

helpx.adobe.com

Thanks, I'll check out Adobe Camera Raw. I'm using Luminar along with Aurora HDR for photos, Divinci Resolve for video. At this point, I'm far better in Divinci than Luminar, still figuring Luminar out. I'm an old Photoshop user, but has a lapse of several years from photography, and I didn't want to have to pay every month to get a current copy of Photoshop.

 

[karlblessing]

Thanks, I'll check out Adobe Camera Raw. I'm using Luminar along with Aurora HDR for photos, Divinci Resolve for video. At this point, I'm far better in Divinci than Luminar, still figuring Luminar out. I'm an old Photoshop user, but has a lapse of several years from photography, and I didn't want to have to pay every month to get a current copy of Photoshop.

ACR comes as a part of Photoshop and Bridge (Lightroom Classic does it built in). It's not a separate standalone product. It's the dialog that pops up when you go to open a raw file (OCR, NEF, CR2 etc) in PS allowing you to make non-destructive tweaks there before bringing it into PS with those adjustments. The Photography subscription (Photoshop, Lightroom and Bridge) is still $10/month.

If you want a pay-once-and-keep kind of deal, their competitor On1 Photo Raw is the alternative.

 

[TomSull]

I'm actually in West Michigan (Caledonia is a little south of Grand Rapids).

Far as extensions and such (mostly for previewing raw files in Windows Explorer), they pull their preview typically from the jpeg thumbnail embbeded in the raw file (depending on the way the manufacture set it, it could be a full jpeg copy, or a reduced resolution version of it). So the white balance, or color in the preview will typically be that of the jpeg with the in-camera processing applied. You get a decent yet more accurate look using IrfanView viewer if you need something free that can quickly view those file types.

If you have a sample image you want corrected, I can likely do tweaks of the still image in Davinci Resolve Studio 16 (my choice of video editor), and save those changes to a 3DLut (cube) file that can be loaded into most photo software (for example can be loaded into Photoshop's Lookup Table adjustment filter). Just have to know in which manner you want adjusted. And preferably with source image being set to something like 5600K white balance (or whatever looks 'neutral' as long as it's manually set) to be accurate each time the Lut is applied.

I'm using the Windows Photos app, which is showing the images pretty well, EXCEPT for DNG's. As it turns out, it's pretty lousy at rendering the DNG's themselves; it shows them as being smaller with a LOT of noise in the images. I pulled the DNG into Luminar and it looked MUCH better; I'd never noticed how bad that viewer was before (the Raw Image Extension from the Windows Store). I'll give IrfanView a shot, thanks for the steer.

I ALSO use Davinci Resolve, and I've edited images in it as well, though I've only done a few. I was unaware you could export the edits into a 3D Lut! Can you give me a quick steer as to where I find that export? I love Davinci for video.

So, I did (finally, I got interrupted by work of all things) update the 2 images I uploaded. There's also a fair amount of contrast work the drone is doing for it's JPG version in addition to color correction. I really like their take on their own raw images, not bad for straight out of the drone.

 

[karlblessing]

I'm using the Windows Photos app, which is showing the images pretty well, EXCEPT for DNG's. As it turns out, it's pretty lousy at rendering the DNG's themselves; it shows them as being smaller with a LOT of noise in the images. I pulled the DNG into Luminar and it looked MUCH better; I'd never noticed how bad that viewer was before (the Raw Image Extension from the Windows Store). I'll give IrfanView a shot, thanks for the steer.

I ALSO use Davinci Resolve, and I've edited images in it as well, though I've only done a few. I was unaware you could export the edits into a 3D Lut! Can you give me a quick steer as to where I find that export? I love Davinci for video.

So, I did (finally, I got interrupted by work of all things) update the 2 images I uploaded. There's also a fair amount of contrast work the drone is doing for it's JPG version in addition to color correction. I really like their take on their own raw images, not bad for straight out of the drone.

It's because the windows photo app is showing you the jpeg preview embeded in the raw file, and not a rendering of the actual raw data. It's pretty common that raw files contain not just the raw data, but also a copy of the jpeg (usually at a much lower resolution and size) as a quick preview. Windows photo viewer I doubt has native support for DNG raw so it shows the preview instead (which is less CPU intensive too).

This is for the older 15 version, but should still be the same. You just right click the clip in the color tab, and export a 3D Lut, it should contain most of the adjustments you've done via the color panel (which only applies to color, it's not going to copy the noise reduction, stabalization etc features of the color pane).

Their take on the raw file is generally going to be no-adjustment other than what the raw viewer you use applies by default (adobe camera raw for example usually applies a little bit of color noise reduction but no luma noise reduction). So it's typically about as neutral as it gets short of the white balance setting.

 

[TomSull]

It's because the windows photo app is showing you the jpeg preview embeded in the raw file, and not a rendering of the actual raw data. It's pretty common that raw files contain not just the raw data, but also a copy of the jpeg (usually at a much lower resolution and size) as a quick preview. Windows photo viewer I doubt has native support for DNG raw so it shows the preview instead (which is less CPU intensive too).

This is for the older 15 version, but should still be the same. You just right click the clip in the color tab, and export a 3D Lut, it should contain most of the adjustments you've done via the color panel (which only applies to color, it's not going to copy the noise reduction, stabalization etc features of the color pane).

Their take on the raw file is generally going to be no-adjustment other than what the raw viewer you use applies by default (adobe camera raw for example usually applies a little bit of color noise reduction but no luma noise reduction). So it's typically about as neutral as it gets short of the white balance setting.

Excellent, thank you very much Karl. I'll do some experimenting! And good to know about the embedded jpeg. I was unaware the raw extension was cheating this way. None of the DNGs would open at all without the raw extension but it's a real disappointment that they took such a shortcut for an application that would clearly demand higher quality.

 

[Meta4]

I was unaware the raw extension was cheating this way. None of the DNGs would open at all without the raw extension but it's a real disappointment that they took such a shortcut for an application that would clearly demand higher quality.

There's no cheating or shortcutting going on.
You need a sophisticated graphics program to deal with dng images.
You tried using a free basic program and it cannot open dng files.
You were confused because you thought it did, but it was just showing you the embedded preview image that's included in the dng file.
Those preview images are there so that people can see what the image is before they open the actual file.

 

[TomSull]

There's no cheating or shortcutting going on.
You need a sophisticated graphics program to deal with dng images.
You tried using a free basic program and it cannot open dng files.
You were confused because you thought it did, but it was just showing you the embedded preview image that's included in the dng file.
Those preview images are there so that people can see what the image is before they open the actual file.

Absolutely true with one exception. When someone writes a piece of software to extend rendering of DNG and other raw images, it should render the true raw image, not the embedded JPEG. VERY lazy and sloppy to have done it this way, it tarnishes the brand. We disagree that a shortcutting was done, to me this was a major shortcut, cheating really if they're going to call it a raw image viewer. A raw image viewer should display the raw image, not the embedded JPEG. As a developer myself, I find it very distasteful and downright lazy.

As I mentioned, I'd been working in Luminar 4 and Aurora HDR primarily with these, and in there, they render as expected. I was trying the photo viewer to get a quick image comparison between JPEG and DNG results. The photo viewer is the default viewer for JPEGs in Windows, and I had (initially) expected it to do a true render of the DNG as well (it didn't display at all until I loaded the raw extension from the MS Store, and when I saw what it rendered, I was shocked at how poor it was).

Anyway, I'd NEVER take such a shortcut myself and call it a raw image viewer. It's not as far as I'm concerned as it never display the raw data.

 

[NG Wildman]

Looking forward to responses
I'm no expert..just someone who likes photographs but I'm pretty tired of what I'm seeing in magazines like Westways where they run photo contests where the winners are usually just plain overworked in my opinion...like I said..I'm no expert

I wholeheartedly agree. It's like waaaay too much CHI in films these days.

 

[PaulDoneDrone]

I wholeheartedly agree. It's like waaaay too much CHI in films these days.

Majority likes McDonald, and McDonald sells probably the most. Contests are just sophisticated creative marketing tools. You have to ask yourself who is judging and based on what criteria, who is paying them.

Is a popular vote\award any indication of "good art" I beg to differ, Populus has no taste and brain at all.

Just enjoy what you like and stop looking at what is trendy or what others like, enjoy life in your own way through your own view.

 

[scro]

I think Vicvideopic's video below hits pretty much on what I was thinking with my original post on this. RAW is nice to have, affords a little more lattitude and choice in processing and editing, and can ultimately lead to a higher quality photo, but isn't the huge leap forward that a lot of the hype around the Mini2 would have us believe. From the very first photos I took with my Mini1 I was pleasantly surprised with the quality of the JPGs and felt that the lack of RAW wasn't a huge loss.

DJI Mini 2 for photography

A review of the MINI 2 for photography. RAW files, AEB, low light and HDR performance https://youtu.be/g9tyqqYcuus

mavicpilots.com

 

[NG Wildman]

Looking forward to responses
I'm no expert..just someone who likes photographs but I'm pretty tired of what I'm seeing in magazines like Westways where they run photo contests where the winners are usually just plain overworked in my opinion...like I said..I'm no expert

Me too...I am also sick of the much un-needed CGI BS in movies these days.