CG03+ DNG - JPG Comparison & Video

[Ty Pilot]

A couple weeks ago we we're shooting a property that was a somewhat difficult job. For one, the house was surrounded by trees which made the aerial part tough from a flying standpoint but also the realtor asked me to get a specific shot showing the front entrance garden and landscaping and in particular; show the vivid colors. I had to fly just under some trees and the lighting was not cooperating but we did the job. In the end I was able to use the DNG's to produce the results they wanted, which to my taste are a tad too colorful, but this is the type of stuff realtors want these days. I have reduced the size of these photos so you can see the effect of selective sharpening on the DNG - which is now a PNG.

I am in the midst of making a video showing the steps to create this type of image but I thought I would post a few pics here for you to see.

Here are reduced versions of the full 12 MP images. The JPG was shot on Gorgeous and is basically unaltered, while the DNG has been through processing and has been output as a PNG.

DNG


JPG

 

[PatR]

That---will sell Imagine how that would have turned out if they shot it as they usually do, with a cell phone and no touch up.

Good job!

 

[Ty Pilot]

Thanks, LOL yeah, every now and then they do skip out on us, but they do come back.

 

[Ty Pilot]

And here is the full edited, but uncropped DNG



And the full JPG

 

[Eagle's Eye Video]

Well edited... only thing I'd change would be to desaturate those flowers a tad in the magenta channel... but as you said, you give them what they want.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Thanks and I tend to agree, even in the Jpeg, those two magenta colored plants are already on fire and the funny thing is, I left the magenta alone.

 

[rdonson]

The difference in dynamic range is pretty startling. Most people don't realize that JPGs are 8 bit files so compared to RAW (DNG) files which are 12-14 bit, you're throwing a lot of data away for the sake of expediency. Of course, that doesn't matter to a lot of people.

 

[Steve Carr]

It appears to a novice (me) to require skilled artwork and an eye for detail. I suppose that explains why I spend more time soldering than editing.

 

[Dr Delta]

Very nice work.
Good to see the enormous difference in how details show so much better in DNG.

 

[rdonson]

On the odd chance someone might be interested here's the comparison between RAW (DNG) and JPG files.

A 12 Bit RAW file

Within the first F/Stop, which contains the Brightest Tones 2048 levels available
Within the second F/Stop, which contains Bright Tones 1024 levels available
Within the third F/Stop, which contains the Mid-Tones 512 levels available
Within the fourth F/Stop, which contains Dark Tones 256 levels available
Within the fifth F/Stop, which contains the Darkest Tones 128 levels available

A 8 Bit JPEG file

Within the first F/Stop, which contains the Brightest Tones 69 levels available
Within the second F/Stop, which contains Bright Tones 50 levels available
Within the third F/Stop, which contains the Mid-Tones 37 levels available
Within the fourth F/Stop, which contains Dark Tones 27 levels available
Within the fifth F/Stop, which contains the Darkest Tones 20 levels available

 

[Ty Pilot]

As just a novice in terms of photography, I have always appreciated that the DNG has more data, but to see it in those numerical terms is truly incredible - thanks for sharing that, Ron. When you look at the file size difference its not always easy to understand where the difference is between two photos of exactly the same size but there it is. Also, when you can recall some of that lost or unseen data from a raw file it becomes clear that there is so much more there and the Jpeg it creates is almost like an afterthought.

 

[PatR]

What’s interesting is that periodically we’ll see posts from people complaining about the large file sizes of a photo shot in RAW. They feel they use up too much storage space and don’t realize that larger files provide the data needed to generate a good photo. Small files make poor photos.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Yeah, it is the nature of the beast, it's kinda like how buying a "drone" is just the beginning of the spending/learning process if one wants to produce photos or videos.

 

[rdonson]

As an aside.....most mirrorless and DSLR photo cameras on the market now are 14 bit RAW. It won’t be long though until we start seeing 16 bit RAW sensors. Sony keeps pushing the envelope.

 

[rdonson]

Another photo tool that is very valuable is the histogram in the ST16. It will show where the light in your scene is distributed. One the left are the darkest tones and on the right are the brightest tones.

From a photographer’s perspective who’s familiar with the info I previously shared you will probably choose to change your exposure based on the histogram.

Since there are fewer tones in the darkest portion of the data you want to “expose to the right” without blowing out the details of the brightest tone.

If you’ve ever tried to lighten up the darks in a photo you will notice it adds a lot of noise. ETTR helps this a lot. When you “blow out” the brightest tones that means that detail there will be lost. Trying to bring that down will likely make those areas look grayish and still not produce the missing detail.

 

[Ty Pilot]

I actually didn't have the histogram on when shooting that photo but I have found thru trial and error that very thing you point out. In hindsight, I could/should have used, the EV Compensation (Left Trim Tab) and gone down a half step or so but at the time I felt it was pretty close and I was more focused on not flying into the limbs the hung just above the H. I kinda choose this particular image as a subject for the DNG example because it was so poorly exposed, showing the effectiveness of the DNG.

 

[Ty Pilot]

What’s interesting is that periodically we’ll see posts from people complaining about the large file sizes of a photo shot in RAW. They feel they use up too much storage space and don’t realize that larger files provide the data needed to generate a good photo. Small files make poor photos.

Your post got me thinking - So just as an example I went back to look at the Photoshop folder I created to do the video of the making of the DNG as shown above. It started with the Jpeg (About 6.2 MB), the RAW DNG (22.9 MB), then the Processed DNG (18.8 MB), the Final PNG (24.7 MB) And then for the making of the video I processed a few more examples such as a raw untouched and a few others, as well as the sized examples and all the Adobe Photoshop files. Anyway the folder size from that one clicked image - 612 MB. All from one single picture. I remember making videos 15 years ago, just before wide screen when everything was 480/540 and 100 megs was massive.

 

[Rubik]

Great photos Ty and information from the responders.
I'm wondering why that particular shot required a drone? Seems like a tripod and good digital camera would have given you more options.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Actually, I was about 16 feet up, just under the branches of the trees in front. This was the highest elevation one could get to still see the front of the house, plus we also shot all around the property at higher elevations. I just used this particular shot as the example for what you can do with a DNG. This particular job was one of those where we asked ourselves the same question "Why would they hire aerials" ? It was a difficult subject but they wanted a few specific shots, we obliged. My guess is they wanted to show how secluded the house is in the midst of all those trees?

 

[Rubik]

Since there are fewer tones in the darkest portion of the data you want to “expose to the right” without blowing out the details of the brightest tone.

You've got me confused, Ron. When shooting in bright sunlight and shadows, I've always found it best to underexpose slightly to leave more room for bringing out detail in the dark areas in post. There's no hope of bringing out detail in overexposed areas. Your information about the levels of color available at various f-stops seems to conflict with this. Perhaps that's just another good reason to shoot in RAW.
Also, is there an advantage to posting in PNG vs JPG? I've read the article below but would like to hear you thoughts.
JPEG vs. PNG: When and why to use one format over the other