# Please help me compare Picasa vs RAW-PS Elements



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

Please help me compare these two shots...

One was processed with RAW and PS Elements 5 and the other just Picasa










http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3268/2539206543_f8833d1c4_b.jpg


----------



## Donnie Hayden (Mar 7, 2005)

Whatever program was used for the second pic seems to work pretty good.


----------



## Arlon (Feb 8, 2005)

I like the more natural colors of the first one. Second one looks over done and too blue to me. 

There is SO much you can "adjust" in the RAW editor and then you take it into PS for more adjustments, you end up doing more harm than good. 

I shoot a lot of RAW but I also delete a lot of RAW. I use it more for tonemapping of scenery in photomatix than anything else. RAW can save you on an underexposed shot or something shot with the WRONG white balance setting. For me the only reason I'd use RAW in PS is if the shot was "bad" in the first place. If the shot wasn't blown to start with, I don't see much value in monkeying with a RAW file. Shooting RAW files is just kind of like shooting an insurance policy of that shot. There if you need it but I don't need it very often.


----------



## Donnie Hayden (Mar 7, 2005)

I see what you are saying Arlon. I guess I was concentrating more on the fence colors.


----------



## Charles Helm (Oct 22, 2004)

To me, the color and contrast look better on the first one.


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

It would be better to do a white point adjustment with curves and make them equal before comparing. I also think the contrast and saturation are different between the two, which is not a function of the software, but of the settings you give the image.


----------



## sandybottom (Jun 1, 2005)

I like the first one, Rich. I have both programs too except I have PSE6. PS is great but it depends on how much time you want to spend with a single photo. The more time you spend with it on PS the better I think. I've actually have used both programs for the same photo. Now that's really bad isn't it? I may have photo fever.


----------



## Koru (Sep 25, 2006)

my 2c worth.

the first one _looks_ nicer. it is slightly darker, perhaps slightly easier on the eye to see. however i find it a little bit 'gold'.

the second one seems to have a slightly 'bluish/greyish' tinge. maybe the contrast needs tweaking...?

i think if you're looking for the one closest to the real deal, then you can use the background as an indicator. if, as in the second shot, the background has a white stripe, then you've completely lost the green stripe in the top image.

i guess sometimes it's a case of tweaking reality and deciding which end result you like best yourself. makes me wonder just how much of what we see printed, is real.

interesting post Rich, thanks for giving me food for thought.

rosesm


----------



## grayfish (Jul 31, 2005)

Tuff call Rich. Can you explain what you mean by "One was processed with RAW and PS Elements 5 and the other just Picasa"

How did you end up with a JPG file? Are the color representations the same? Is one aRGB and the other sRGB or are they both the same? When you convert to JPG from RAW did you do any other edit with PE5? Since the appear to be the same shot. Did you use the Raw image into Picasa or is it just Picasa only? Too many possible unknowns to render a comparison.


That said and I hate to say this; I do not care for either one over the other. They both seem off to me. The first has the background blown out and chipmunks colors are a bit dark and to the warm side. The second they appear to light and toward the cool side.


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

The original shot..untouched in any way....is posted below

White balance ( which is way off, IMHO,..was set on Auto).
The JPG picture (bottom of the two) was processed with only Picasa which has to no curves or white balance adjustments.

While I don't like the background or colors of either shot...I had no option other than to shoot it where I was. Any movement..... and the chipmunk would have been gone in a flash.

I guess Arlon told me what I wondered about,...and that is...how often do I really need RAW? I can automatically shoot a simultaneous RAW and JPG with the Sony A350 ( and probably many other cameras). So, I can always have an "insurance shot"...then just go home and delete the ones that are taking up space to no avail.

Greyfish.... both shots were from the same (simultaneous) image. The Picasa shot (2nd pix) came only from the JPG rendering. The first shot ( RAW processed) came from the the RAW image and was processed first as a DNG for curves etc..and then into PS E 5 for the crop.

Thanks for the help clarifying this issue for me.

regards, Rich


----------



## samurai_ag (Mar 31, 2008)

The second image looks overexposed. The first has a little much yellow in it. Remember RAW allows you to decide what the final image looks like as opposed to the camera making that decision for you and compressing the file. From my experiences if you are going to point and shoot the shoot jpg if you are trying to create an image for professional purposes or framing I would shoot in RAW. One thing Rusty mentioned to me about white balance is to shoot it on auto when you are in RAW because if the camera doesn't get it right then you can fix it in photoshop. I hope I was helpfull!!


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

Yea...they are both the very same image..taken with the same settings....just post processed differently. 

From this little experiment, it appears that I can choose whatever the heck I want to "see"..with whatever lighting; coloration; contrast etc. that I want, as long as I have a middle range pix in the first place. 

Sure gives me wonder about what I see when I look at various sites. In the old days, I would have just thrown the original picture out since the subject was way too dark to start with!!!!
thanks, Rich


----------

