Poor RAW quality downloads to pc (1 Viewer)

Smithy1000 · Aug 5, 2020

Hello,
Can anyone tell me why the RAW images are significantly worse than the JPEG image?
when the files have been downloaded to the pc the image looks ok for a couple of seconds then changes to a really noisy darker image.

The images were shot on Nikon D5600 with 200-500m f/5.6 VR lens
shot on manual mode at 1/500s @f/5.6 with auto ISO selecting 6400.

The 2 images show the jpeg version on the left and the raw version on the right.

Can anyone tell me why the RAW image changes from ok to really bad after 2 seconds after clicking on the downloaded image?

Mono · Aug 5, 2020

What happens when you "develop" the RAW image in whatever program you use?

Most RAW formats carry a jpeg preview, my guess would be that this displays first and then the image is displayed in all its RAWness.

Smithy1000 · Aug 5, 2020

i use raw therapee and ive tried editing the RAW image requires so much noise reduction that it makes the subject lose so much detail.
This has happened a few times but not every time so its got me baffled.

njlarsen · Aug 5, 2020

I agree that first you see the embedded jpg and thereafter the program you used for downloading replaced that with the developed version it produced itself.

Niels

GeorgeMac · Aug 6, 2020

A digital camera is a computer with a very basic 'photoshop' photo editor installed. The RAW file is the photo you took, and is, therefore, a reflection of your prowess with a camera. The jpg is what your camera did with your RAW file to produce an edited photo. If you don't know how to edit RAW files, shoot jpg and don't worry about it. Looks to me like your camera does a more than reasonable job of editing your RAW files for you. The time to think about working with RAW files is when you know you can do a better job of editing the files than your camera, and that takes expensive software and long learning curves. Modern cameras do an excellent job producing jpgs from RAW files these days. The noise is due to the high ISO. When the light is good most photographers walk around in aperture priority so they can control depth of field. The only time I resort to manual is at night when I'm forced to use a tripod. The two images by the way are two different photos, not a RAW and jpg of the same photo.

Smithy1000 · Aug 6, 2020

Thanks George, I’m out this weekend so I’ll try different settings.
Just out of interest, the shots were taken early morning )sun was out but area a little shaded) so light was not brilliant but ok ish.
I’ve got my lens set as open as it will go, my shutter speed is as really low as I could go, the auto iso determines the ISO. I was using a monopod what other option could I have chosen?

scatcat · Aug 6, 2020

Smithy1000 said:
Thanks George, I’m out this weekend so I’ll try different settings.
Just out of interest, the shots were taken early morning )sun was out but area a little shaded) so light was not brilliant but ok ish.
I’ve got my lens set as open as it will go, my shutter speed is as really low as I could go, the auto iso determines the ISO. I was using a monopod what other option could I have chosen?

hello Smithy1000

With regards to your settings, your aperture was set as wide as it could go. Nothing wrong with that. Working in aperture priority mode would probably have resulted in very similar end results. Sometimes it is just too dark for your gear!
There is nothing wrong with shooting in manual mode since you can govern all three values yourself. Shutter speed, iso and aperture, or like I think you have done, shutter speed, Aperture and AUTO ISO

Maybe you should set the range of AUTO ISO to a maximum of 3200 in the cameras menu

The only thing you could have tried was to reduce the shutter speed to 1/250 and drop the iso to 3200 and take a few shots in high frames per second, hoping that one of the frames will be sharp.

Even if you had a prime lens with f4 aperture, you still would have been shooting at 1/500 f4 iso 3200

With regards to software, do you not get a Raw editing program when buying a Nikon camera?

Smithy1000 · Aug 7, 2020

Thanks scatcat. I use raw therapee to edit my pictures, which is usually ok. It seems the noise issue is causing the problem so this weekend I’m going to set up in a different spot where there will be more light where I need it.
I’m going to try photos with different shutter speeds and vary ISO to see which pictures come out best.
I’ve only had my camera for a short while so still learning, thanks for the advice.

GeorgeMac · Aug 7, 2020

Your jpg is rather good. Try shooting jpg for a while. That camera of yours is cranking out nice jpgs. I took the liberty of putting your jpg through my photo editing workflow and it came out rather well. I use Photoshop Elements and Topaz plugins.

First I cropped the image to put the bird on the left third @16:9 ratio. I then removed a few of the distracting leaves that were cutting into the edges of the image, then used two of my plugins to produce a rather nice photo.

scatcat · Aug 7, 2020

Smithy1000 said:
Thanks scatcat. I use raw therapee to edit my pictures, which is usually ok. It seems the noise issue is causing the problem so this weekend I’m going to set up in a different spot where there will be more light where I need it.
I’m going to try photos with different shutter speeds and vary ISO to see which pictures come out best.
I’ve only had my camera for a short while so still learning, thanks for the advice.

Hi Smithy1000

Keep a close eye on your cameras metering system and try to expose to the right of centre + ( without clipping the highlights ) This may result in a slightly higher ISO but it will produce a better final image than one that has been under exposed and had the shadows lifted in post.

StephenHampshire · Aug 7, 2020

Smithy1000 said:
Thanks scatcat. I use raw therapee to edit my pictures, which is usually ok. It seems the noise issue is causing the problem so this weekend I’m going to set up in a different spot where there will be more light where I need it.
I’m going to try photos with different shutter speeds and vary ISO to see which pictures come out best.
I’ve only had my camera for a short while so still learning, thanks for the advice.

I do have RAWTherapee but tend to use another programme to develop my RAW images- in this case DXO PhotoLab. All RAW developers give you options in noise reduction- to vary chroma and luminance noise reduction and to what degree to keep details. Your camera will have settings for these too, but once the in camera JPEG has been produced these are set in. With the RAW file you can go back and re-process the original with different parameters for noise reduction, and indeed contrast and saturation too!

Dark birds against light backgrounds are a recipe for underexposure of the crucial bits (i.e the bird!) so as another poster has suggested, try to expose for the shadows, without allowing the highlights to clip too much!

normjackson · Aug 7, 2020

On Location:

I'm thinking the exposure setting chosen by the camera (ie. the ISO as the only option left to it) was basically good.
On the other hand am wondering whether for this sequence of photos of the kingfisher you could well have got away with a slower shutter speed than 1/500 resulting in a lower ISO and potentially less issues with noise later. The monopod and your VR lens should reduce the risk of camera shake and by taking several or more pictures (possibly using a burst mode) you should secure a photo with this particular subject pretty still. In your post #8 you suggest you're hoping do some experiments at the weekend which sounds an excellent idea.

At Home :

Not sure if the photo shown on the right in your first post is what RawTherapee turned out for you with its default settings. The histogram indicates that it is rather dark/low key and lacking in contrast but that nothing has been lost in the shadows or highlights (hence opening comment). The JPEG produced by the camera (asume that is left photo) has done a good job eliminating background noise but probably at some cost to sharpness on the bird and foreground branch. Also a little bit of the highlights are burnt out. With work in a photo editor you could potentially do better. It's more work but I'd reckon the more experienced folks here, for example, would probably look at selectively doing noise reduction on the background where it is most noticeable and loss of detail is not an issue.

You say you've not had the camera long. That's a great start if I may say so.

Smithy1000 · Aug 7, 2020

Thanks for the help everyone and the photo editing George, there’s quite a bit to learn but I’m getting there slowly.
I’m by the the river Saturday morning hoping for a sight of a Kingfisher and the light looks like it should be good. If I get anything I’ll post it back here for any feedback.
Cheers everyone.

Smithy1000 · Aug 8, 2020

Went down last night for a couple of hours and a few hours this morning.
Loaded pictures to Flickr account so data can be seen on most pictures.( Picures 3 to 20 were taken last night and this morning)
Turned up brightness 1 stop this morning, camera shutter speed kept to minimum, ISO maximum at 3200 and RAW uploads were better.
There is a mixture of RAW and JPEG on flickr. The RAW photos were edited slightly and the jpegs left as camera processed them.
Some have come out better than others but its a learning process.
Thanks for the advice:t::t:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/189492421@N05/ya2sjp

normjackson · Aug 10, 2020

Got some crackers there. Glad you managed to take advantage of the Sahara light that day (while some of us were wilting in front of fans...). And looks like you manged to get closer to your subject too. Surely a day to convince you the effort made and occasional disappointments experienced are worth enduring in the long run.

Smithy1000 · Aug 10, 2020

Hi Norm, i bought a cammo net from decathlon and a couple of line props for 3 quid each to hold it up.
The Kingfishers were totally oblivious to my presence, they'd land on the perch and i would start clicking away. They would look in my direction on hearing the noise and then just carry on, it was heart pumping stuff.
Light was better so could lower ISO and increase shutter slightly.

See the outtake picture. Thought id got it until i reviewed. Gutted |^||^|

njlarsen · Aug 10, 2020

One of the responders adviced to shoot jpg rather than raw for a while. If you have the room to same images, I would let the camera save in jpg + raw: that would allow you to return to the raw images later after you have learned more about post-processing and possibly get an even better output than your current ooc jpgs.

Niels

Smithy1000 · Aug 13, 2020

Thanks, most noticeable noise seems to be in the low contrast background not so much the bird.
Is there some editing software where you can select certain areas to remove noise (namely background areas) leaving the subject untouched?
Thanks

MalR · Aug 13, 2020

There are various ways of doing this, depending on which photo-editing software you use.

Many people speak highly of Topaz Denoise AI. Although it applies noise reducation across the whole image, it seems to preserve fine details well.

Here's a link to a video of a wildlife photographer using it and explaining his workflow. It looks very quick and easy. There's also a link to a free 30-day trial, if you fancy giving it a go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOZckl9JMiA&t=496s

Malcolm

Smithy1000 · Aug 14, 2020

Cheers Malcolm, I’ll give it a look.

Poor RAW quality downloads to pc (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Attachments

Hi!

Well-known member

Gallery Moderator

Sutherland

Well-known member

Joe boy

Well-known member

Sutherland

Attachments

Joe boy

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Gallery Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread