am i wasting my d60 by not shooting in raw?

gothgirl

gothgirl

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,589
Edit My Images
Yes
am i wasting my d60 by not shooting in raw?

I shoot in 7mp jpeg, instead of 11mp raw as can't be arsed with the software.

is it worth shooting in raw, does it make much of a diference?
 
If you shoot straight to JPEG, you are still post processing. It's just that you make all the post processing decisions before you take the picture (by setting the JPEG parameters, sharpness, contrast, white balance, noise reduction etc) instead of afterwards on the computer. The camera does all those basic things just as well as any post processing software can. (The beer tastes just the same ;) )

If you are happy with those settings (and there's quite a lot of adjustment you can make to them) then you might as well let the camera do it all for you. There's nothing to be gained by doing it all yourself, and you can still make changes to the JPEG, just not as much as from the Raw.

The only real benefit of shooting Raw is to make changes that are not available in-camera. But some people just prefer to work that way, to make absolutely sure they've got the best result, as if you get it wrong with a JPEG there's less scope for putting it right later.

On the other hand, if you take care to set up the camera how you want it and get everything right at the time of shooting, then you'll save a heck of a lot of work.
 
Agreeing with Hoppy does rather take the fun out of my day, but he's broadly right.

The other reason for shooting RAW is that you may decide at a future date to do other things with those images and it makes sense to start with the best image-quality your camera can provide.

You may not be 'into' post-production now, but you may be at a later date.
 
Arkady said:
You may not be 'into' post-production now, but you may be at a later date.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. I found it easiest to shoot just JPEG for a few years but wish I had my best shots from my early years in RAW so that I could get the best from them now. If you've got the storage space (card & hard drives) then shoot RAW + JPEG and keep the RAWs from your very best shots, you might be glad you did.
 
If you shoot to JPEG you certainly are not post processing before you take the picture simply by definition. Post means after so you can never post process before you take the image its a totally different thing.

In fact raw images still contain all the parameters that you set before you take an image. It sits in the data and if you shoot nikon and use capture NX or viewNX editing software all those settings will be applied to the image as soon as you open it in those programs. Camera manufacturer don't really want you using third party editing software. Adobe tried to get Canon and Nikon to adopt DNG but quite obviously they didnt go for it. Each company has a propriatary format and they all contain a certain amount of lockdown over their settings this means that when you load up your raw image in Lightroom or photoshop they cannot read all the settings you set before shooting the picture. The third party software just has to make a best guess as to how the image should look.

JPEGs from nikons consumer DSLRs are all soft and over compressed. Shooting raw is a huge advantage. There really is no reason not to shoot in RAW. If you dont want to do any editing to the images and you also just want to store JPEG files rather than NEF then get your self a nice big memory card shoot in raw then download viewNX free from the nikon site, load the pictures into that and do a batch export to JPEG. The JPEGs will be much better quality being processed on the computer than in camera the JPEG engine is not so good on the lower models
 
Another reason for shooting RAW is that the RAW converters are constantly evolving and getting better. So a RAW image taken say 3 years ago can be processed today with the latest RAW converter and you'd get better image quality.
 
I always shoot jpeg. I'm not a fan of photo shopping. and I feel that you should have an idea of what the image should look like before you press the shutter. and Its also a training exercise as it means you have to get all the setting right in camera.

It also save you money on hard drives! you should get 10mp from Jepg fine on your D60 although there will be a slight loss of resolution due to compression. but if you are shooting with standard lenses then 10mp is over sampling the optics anyway.

Stuart
 
photosensitive said:
If you shoot to JPEG you certainly are not post processing before you take the picture simply by definition. Post means after so you can never post process before you take the image its a totally different thing.

In fact raw images still contain all the parameters that you set before you take an image. It sits in the data and if you shoot nikon and use capture NX or viewNX editing software all those settings will be applied to the image as soon as you open it in those programs. Camera manufacturer don't really want you using third party editing software. Adobe tried to get Canon and Nikon to adopt DNG but quite obviously they didnt go for it. Each company has a propriatary format and they all contain a certain amount of lockdown over their settings this means that when you load up your raw image in Lightroom or photoshop they cannot read all the settings you set before shooting the picture. The third party software just has to make a best guess as to how the image should look.

JPEGs from nikons consumer DSLRs are all soft and over compressed. Shooting raw is a huge advantage. There really is no reason not to shoot in RAW. If you dont want to do any editing to the images and you also just want to store JPEG files rather than NEF then get your self a nice big memory card shoot in raw then download viewNX free from the nikon site, load the pictures into that and do a batch export to JPEG. The JPEGs will be much better quality being processed on the computer than in camera the JPEG engine is not so good on the lower models
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence for that? I've heard it said, never seen it.

stu_the_flat said:
I always shoot jpeg. I'm not a fan of photo shopping. and I feel that you should have an idea of what the image should look like before you press the shutter. and Its also a training exercise as it means you have to get all the setting right in camera.

It also save you money on hard drives! you should get 10mp from Jepg fine on your D60 although there will be a slight loss of resolution due to compression. but if you are shooting with standard lenses then 10mp is over sampling the optics anyway.

Stuart
Click to expand...

There is no loss of resolution with a JPEG. The file size is compressed, but there is still the same number of pixels represented.

Example of Raw data: 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1

Compressed JPEG: 1x20

The answer is still 20.

There is no loss of resolution with lower quality JPEGs either, just that the compression isn't as fine and the groups of data are bigger. Maybe not groups of 20 pixels, but groups of 100, or 200 etc. What you lose with high rates of compression is very subtle tone separation, not resolution.

Easy test - shoot two idential frame, first as a regular JPEG, and then switch the picture style to monochrome. The mono version will be about half the file size, as all the colour data has been dropped, but resolution is the same.
 
stu_the_flat said:
I always shoot jpeg. I'm not a fan of photo shopping. and I feel that you should have an idea of what the image should look like before you press the shutter. and Its also a training exercise as it means you have to get all the setting right in camera.
Click to expand...

I would be cautious about these statements. Photos can be taken for printing, for business, etc and not as an exercise.

I also fail to imagine any of my photographs the way they are produced in camera as JPEGs. I have a feeling most respectable and self-respecting pros would agree with this. Art (photography) is all about the choice and total control.
 
It depends what your shooting.

Me (like most other sports shooters I know) shoot jpegs every time. We set-up the processing to give us contrasty, colourful shots SOOC & we tend to only touch levels.

If I'm shooting landscapes or anything without a deadline I just shoot RAW. It lets me recover the brightest tip of a cloud & gives you the very best.

But for a deadline, set-up your jpegs properly and your set.

I think RAW shooters should learn to shoot jpegs too. It makes you think much more about nailing WB, exposure, lighting, metering etc. etc. DONT RULE OUT JPEGS!!!
 
I tend to shoot RAW + Jpeg, it gives me the option to do something with the RAW file if I want to but I can still print direct from the Jpeg if I need a print quickly. Its surprising how much PP goes into your straight from the camera when you compare it to the RAW image
 
In answer to the OP, no you're not wasting your D60 by not shooting in RAW. I never have and never will, it is something I'm just not interested in doing either, so each to their own I say. I'm only a hobby photographer so binning a totally unusable image matters not to me.
 
I (for work) shoot all images as JPEG as I have no time to edit and indeed editting is not allowed.

However, for my own use I now use RAW, I'm not up to speed with photoshop etc.. but I intend to get the kit and software and when I do all my options are open.

I intially shot RAW+JPEG, but this only added to filling the car quciker and it is very easy and qucik to convert a RAW to a JPEG using the Nikon software.
 
JEmerson said:
It depends what your shooting.

Me (like most other sports shooters I know) shoot jpegs every time. We set-up the processing to give us contrasty, colourful shots SOOC & we tend to only touch levels.

If I'm shooting landscapes or anything without a deadline I just shoot RAW. It lets me recover the brightest tip of a cloud & gives you the very best.

But for a deadline, set-up your jpegs properly and your set.

I think RAW shooters should learn to shoot jpegs too. It makes you think much more about nailing WB, exposure, lighting, metering etc. etc. DONT RULE OUT JPEGS!!!
Click to expand...

Good point! One I hadn't realised!
 
I'll say this much - if you're used to shooting RAW, dealing with JPEGs is a pain. Once you've gotten a decent grip on the freedom RAW gives you, using the "basic" functions of Photoshop without Camera Raw feels like a major step backwards.

Hope my own D60 gets back to me soon!
 
stu_the_flat said:
I always shoot jpeg. I'm not a fan of photo shopping. and I feel that you should have an idea of what the image should look like before you press the shutter. and Its also a training exercise as it means you have to get all the setting right in camera.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point of shooting in raw, Stuart. When shooting in raw all of the data that enters through the lens is recorded on the card, when you shoot in JPEG the camera has already decided that a huge chunk of that data isn't required to produce an "acceptable" image.

With JPEG, before the data is recorded the camera looks at it and says to itself "do we really need all these 100 tones of blue in the sky? No, 10 will do, so let's discard the data for the other 90." Then it goes on to do the same with every other colour in the image, so right away you have surrendered the interpretation of how your image should look to the machine.

The best anaology is to think of raw as a film negative and JPEG as a Polaroid. Using Photoshop today is no different to having used a darkroom in the days of film, the same tweaks and manipulations are still made, but in a different way.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
The best anaology is to think of raw as a film negative and JPEG as a Polaroid. Using Photoshop today is no different to having used a darkroom in the days of film, the same tweaks and manipulations are still made, but in a different way.
Click to expand...

Nice analogy, will have to remember that one for the next time I'm asked about 'photoshopping' images.
 
Trying to learn to use RAW would probably be better in the long run, I don't think the D60 will let you shoot RAW and large jpeg at the same time though. you could have shot both and had a play about.
 
pinktrainers said:
Nice analogy, will have to remember that one for the next time I'm asked about 'photoshopping' images.
Click to expand...

The Raw file being like a digital negative isn't really true, even though it's often quoted.

The closest comparison with film is the Raw file being like the digital latent image (unprocessed) and a JPEG being a finished transparency (processed to pre-set parameters).
 
HoppyUK said:
Do you have any evidence for that? I've heard it said, never seen it.



There is no loss of resolution with a JPEG. The file size is compressed, but there is still the same number of pixels represented.

Example of Raw data: 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1

Compressed JPEG: 1x20

The answer is still 20.

There is no loss of resolution with lower quality JPEGs either, just that the compression isn't as fine and the groups of data are bigger. Maybe not groups of 20 pixels, but groups of 100, or 200 etc. What you lose with high rates of compression is very subtle tone separation, not resolution.

Easy test - shoot two idential frame, first as a regular JPEG, and then switch the picture style to monochrome. The mono version will be about half the file size, as all the colour data has been dropped, but resolution is the same.
Click to expand...

Flash In The Pan said:
I think you're missing the point of shooting in raw, Stuart. When shooting in raw all of the data that enters through the lens is recorded on the card, when you shoot in JPEG the camera has already decided that a huge chunk of that data isn't required to produce an "acceptable" image.

With JPEG, before the data is recorded the camera looks at it and says to itself "do we really need all these 100 tones of blue in the sky? No, 10 will do, so let's discard the data for the other 90." Then it goes on to do the same with every other colour in the image, so right away you have surrendered the interpretation of how your image should look to the machine.

The best anaology is to think of raw as a film negative and JPEG as a Polaroid. Using Photoshop today is no different to having used a darkroom in the days of film, the same tweaks and manipulations are still made, but in a different way.
Click to expand...

OK so to say loss of resolution is wrong. but I was mainly referring the compression that FITP talks about.

I'm certainly not anti raw . To be honest I find that I will do more damage to my photos in paint shop. the colours start to look unnatural and I can never get them back unless I revert to the original

If I could shoot TIFF I would.

Stuart
 
HoppyUK said:
Example of Raw data: 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1

Compressed JPEG: 1x20

The answer is still 20.

There is no loss of resolution with lower quality JPEGs either, just that the compression isn't as fine and the groups of data are bigger.
Click to expand...

Since this forum seems to love a bit of over-information (because knowing more technical stuff makes one a better person somehow) I think I need to make a few points here.

The compression example you have given is more akin to GIF or PNG compression. JPEG compression is a rather different beast and would be difficult to give a simple example of here... I just think it needs to be put out there so that no one reads this thread and comes away thinking that JPEG works in a way it doesn't.

As for loss of resolution, lower quality JPEGS can and do lose resolution as part of the compression algorithm. Certainly in the colour channels (not so much in the luminosity) and if the quality level is set too low, though the number of pixels isn't reduced, image resolution is, quite dramatically.

Anyway, to bring things back on topic, I would say that for most purposes, shooting JPEG in camera is fine and no waste of a DSLR. Sure, shooting RAW and processing properly will typically give better results, but the payoff there is time and effort. Out of camera JPEGs from the DSLR will be better than those from a compact camera, which is enough for most of us really. It's more important to get things right at the time of shooting unless you care about getting the absolute best out of your camera, which as I said isn't entirely necessary for most of us.

Would I shoot a drunken night out in RAW? Probably not. I'd probably not take my DSLR on a drunken night out anyway. In fact, you'd be hard pushed to find me on a drunken night out. I digress.
 
You can process jpegs in Adobe camera raw and enjoy many of it's benefits if you so wish.

In Elements editor- File/open as/select camera raw and select image.
 
JEmerson said:
I think RAW shooters should learn to shoot jpegs too. It makes you think much more about nailing WB, exposure, lighting, metering etc. etc. DONT RULE OUT JPEGS!!!
Click to expand...
This is like saying all RAW shoots don't know what they are doing....
How wrong you are, to start with I started photography in 1964 as a school boy developing my own film and prints in my bedroom.
May be new tog who never use film might not have the same experience of taking photo correct but please don't label all with the same brush Thank you.
 
phototuition said:
You can process jpegs in Adobe camera raw and enjoy many of it's benefits if you so wish.

In Elements editor- File/open as/select camera raw and select image.
Click to expand...

You're completely missing the point of working with a raw file there, John. If you start processing a JPEG then most of the decisons pertaining to what can be adjusted or tweaked have already been taken by the camera software and any "surplus" data discarded.

Certainly you can still make some changes, but you have nowhere near the lattitude that you would have had, had you started with a raw file.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
You're completely missing the point of working with a raw file there, John. If you start processing a JPEG then most of the decisons pertaining to what can be adjusted or tweaked have already been taken by the camera software and any "surplus" data discarded.

Certainly you can still make some changes, but you have nowhere near the lattitude that you would have had, had you started with a raw file.
Click to expand...
Which is fine if you are only bothered about making small tweaks. Everyone talks as if the camera manufacturers have no clue, I'm sure the camera's decisions are fine for many people and many applications. In fact, I know they are.
 
mustanir said:
Since this forum seems to love a bit of over-information (because knowing more technical stuff makes one a better person somehow) I think I need to make a few points here.

The compression example you have given is more akin to GIF or PNG compression. JPEG compression is a rather different beast and would be difficult to give a simple example of here... I just think it needs to be put out there so that no one reads this thread and comes away thinking that JPEG works in a way it doesn't.

As for loss of resolution, lower quality JPEGS can and do lose resolution as part of the compression algorithm. Certainly in the colour channels (not so much in the luminosity) and if the quality level is set too low, though the number of pixels isn't reduced, image resolution is, quite dramatically.

Anyway, to bring things back on topic, I would say that for most purposes, shooting JPEG in camera is fine and no waste of a DSLR. Sure, shooting RAW and processing properly will typically give better results, but the payoff there is time and effort. Out of camera JPEGs from the DSLR will be better than those from a compact camera, which is enough for most of us really. It's more important to get things right at the time of shooting unless you care about getting the absolute best out of your camera, which as I said isn't entirely necessary for most of us.

Would I shoot a drunken night out in RAW? Probably not. I'd probably not take my DSLR on a drunken night out anyway. In fact, you'd be hard pushed to find me on a drunken night out. I digress.
Click to expand...

What I meant to demonstate was the basic principle of compression, ie it is not just a case of making everything smaller.

If you shoot to Large JPEG there is no loss of resolution. Zero. That was my point. If you select Medium JPEG, resolution is halved, and a Small JPEG halves that again.

By the same token, if you select Small Raw you lose resolution. On Canon, S-Raw1 loses half the resolution and S-Raw2 halves that again, mirroring the JPEG losses.

I'm not sure why anybody* would ever want to use the Small and Medium options on a modern DSLR with fast processing and decent memory.

* Edit: I guess press togs who shoot loads and need to transmit stuff back to base.
 
gothgirl said:
am i wasting my d60 by not shooting in raw?

I shoot in 7mp jpeg, instead of 11mp raw as can't be arsed with the software.

is it worth shooting in raw, does it make much of a diference?
Click to expand...

Hi,

Taking aside the technicalities of RAW/Jpeg and post processing arguments here - I personally shoot both and love manipulating RAW, I also learn from it!

If you cant be ar5ed with the software, then shoot Jpeg - why waste space on your card? I think this is the simple answer to your question lol.

I like cooking, throwing around RAW ingredients and getting the perfect dish - however sometimes I cant be ar5sed and grab a readymeal:lol:

However as said, you may wish to come back to a RAW file in the future, thats the call you have to make :thumbs:



Andy
 
I shoot RAW all the time now. Never used to, I thought fine jpg was enough until i decided to go through some 5yr old images from my old D70. As my processing skills had developed so too had raw editing and i managed to breathe new life into images i'd have initially thrown in the bin.
Downside to this is discs and drives full of old images but i have an OCD for organisation so enjoy filing the discs and going through them now and again and having a play.

As you said you're not too bothered about processing, but I just think even making a few minor tweaks to an image can add that extra clout missing from a jpg.

Al
 
This site is full of photographers whose enthusiasm for the technical is totally overwhelming and as such it must be somewhat off putting for those whose interest in the craft originates in aethsetics and creativity.

To answer the original question, I say NO, you are not wasting your time, the pursuit of interesting and thought provoking images is far more important than learning some of the more complex techniques. In general the image sharpness, range of tones, an colour will appear no different to the average viewer.

How many times have I seen a tog on this site with a highly spec'd kit and a great deal of kit display the most banal of images "My car, 250th @ f.11 24-105mm f4l set at 76mm....." and so on.

We're clearing the loft out at the moment prior to conversion and guess what we've found, my wife's 25 year old dusty dirty wedding dress and a plastic Diana camera from the 70's I suppose. My 16 year old daughter is going to wear it and my son's taking the shots.

Could be interesting, now that Diana, raw or Jpeg? I wonder!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top