Processed RAW vs JPG examples?

[duncdiver]

I understand the DC2000 also saves a internally processed (color corrected) JPG image file when in RAW mode. I am certain that any Photoshopped (or other post-processing software) RAW image can be tweaked for better colors and contrast, but does anybody have examples that compare the manually post-processed with their automated JPG counterparts? Bottom line - how good is the Sealife's internal color correction software?

 

[bvanant]

it is fine, but no where near as good as you can do yourself in lightroom.
For most uses on land the camera is quite "smart" about conversion but for many UW cases not so much. Shoot raw and convert yourself.
Bill

 

[duncdiver]

Dang, I was hoping some the photos take would be "usable" without spending lightroom time!

 

[sunnyboy]

I've been using Canon cameras for a long time. I think most brands do internal JPG color correction compared to raw images.

I take my jpegs off the camera, resize them and post the best on my web page after each dive. I take the raw files and import them into Lightroom for more processing if necessary. Lightroom is great when using things like manual strobes because pictures are often off "just a tad", and lightroom will allow you to correct them vs. jpegs which are either too light or dark by comparison.

So I consider camera jpegs good for web pages and facebook stuff (but I won't post on facebook due to their ownership rules for photos), and raw+lightroom for making better shots for prints etc.

 

[Hoag]

I always shoot in RAW (both above and below the surface) and do my "post production" in Lightroom. As noted above, it means an extra workload when doing post production, but the finished product is inevitably a better one. No matter how good the in camera colour correction is, you will do it better when you do it yourself.

For me, I would rather do that extra work and have someone look at my image and go "WOW!" than to share a pic that the reaction is "Meh".

Having said that, I always try to get the best possible result in the camera and try not to rely on the computer to fix a substandard image. Understanding the effects that the ambient conditions, Shutter Speed, Aperture and ISO have on light (and by extension, on the image) have is essential to getting as much as possible "right" in the camera. Reading and online research can only get you so far. Eventually you will need to get out and practice. There is now substitute for knowing you gear and for having fun or for the satisfaction of looking at the LCD screen on your camera after the dive and exclaiming "I got it! This is the shot I was after!".

 

[James R]

It's important to understand that an image shot in RAW will look relatively flat when compared to a jpeg image, such as if you shoot RAW+JPEG because the RAW file requires post processing to make it look its best, or what you think is the best as the photographer. If you shoot RAW then export, convert to jpeg without doing anything to the file, you won't have a great result.

 

[duncdiver]

I truly understand and agree with all that has been written above. However I am not sure my basic query is understood. "Most" cameras use internal color adjustment algorithms that were designed for air. The SeaLife was designed for primarily under water use. Thus I would expect their internally processed JPG images to have somewhat better quality colors. I don't argue that post-processing can always make colors "pop" better given good RAW data. I was hoping some board member would have a few examples. I guess that will be my own goal after I dive and use the camera!

 

[James R]

I have never shot a sealife, but i have shot JPEG and RAW once to compare using a Nikon D810. I didn't end up keeping the JPEGs because I couldn't get the white balance where I wanted it with them, so unfortunately I don't have any to show you the difference. White balance range is hugely better in RAW and very important for underwater images, in my opinion anyway.

 

[flyingDiver75]

I recently posted an Album of 'as shot' vs processed images from a Sealife DC2000. I tried to include a broad sample of overall 'marginal' shots to ones that turned out well to give a feel for just how much you could - or couldn't improve things using RAW.

 

[Pillpusher]

Just shoot RAW. Now that the camera offers it, there really is no reason to shoot JPEG only unless you really just don't want to bother post-processing your images at all. The camera's "underwater mode" does add some red back into the image, but because of the infinite different levels of ambient light and color spectrum loss from depth, RAW will ALWAYS yield a better result. Besides, that way you don't have to worry about constantly setting a custom white balance.