confused about RAW

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bobby uk

Bobby uk

Suspended / Banned
Messages
771
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
I have been doing photography for about a year now and as you can well imagine im still learning and ever much still an amateur. I seem to come across the word RAW quite a bit and through all my research im not sure if i will be better off using it or not. I understand the concept off it but still not sure the gains i will have or loose and if it will be right for me.
I know its all about personal choice but i just wanted to get some vibes from you guys and maybe a few words of wisdom on the matter.
thanks
 
Bobby uk said:
I have been doing photography for about a year now and as you can well imagine im still learning and ever much still an amateur. I seem to come across the word RAW quite a bit and through all my research im not sure if i will be better off using it or not. I understand the concept off it but still not sure the gains i will have or loose and if it will be right for me.
I know its all about personal choice but i just wanted to get some vibes from you guys and maybe a few words of wisdom on the matter.
thanks
Click to expand...

Shoot in RAW and jpg for a while and see which works best for you.. RAW files always need work on the pc. If you don't want to spend time doing this, then stick with jpg.
 
RAW images aren't compressed. What this means is, you're essentially recording what the camera sees, and that information remains there, so when you bring it onto a computer and have software such as Lightroom, you can adjust the settings, colour etc quite a bit without actually affecting the quality. So essentially with RAW's you can repair them a lot easier, where as JPEG's are compressed down so they store less information. Because the computer has less information, repairing it is a lot more harder and a lot of the times JPEG's just can't be repaired.

Also, cameras aren't perfect: they have small imperfections like hot pixels etc. If you shoot RAW, image editing software such as Lightroom automatically fixes them.

Try thinking of it like this:
- RAW: the computer has more information to work with, therefore can adjust the information in a better way to still keep the original quality.

- JPEG: the computer has less information to work with, therefore even though you can adjust things such as shadows etc, it doesn't really know what was actually there and hence can't really fix it.

So if you have more information, you have more chances of fixing it. Because RAW's store more information, they take up much more file size.

Although as stated above, RAW files will need processing on a computer. So takes longer, but in my opinion really worth it. However, some new cameras such as the 60D have built in RAW processing, which means you can process them in camera (would never do this unless was on like a long flight etc).

A lot of photographers use RAW, it's a massive benefit and is a lot safer. I would highly recommend it. Although I did once attend a wedding and the photographer was shooting in JPEG mode (a bit risky in my opinion) but they all turnt out to be perfect. So really, whilst RAW and JPEG are both doing the same thing and getting the shot, a lot of the time it's just a case of "better safe than sorry."

So my advice to you is, if you have software which can process RAW images such as Photoshop, Lightroom etc, shoot RAW. If not, shoot JPEG.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
I like the analogy that RAW is a digital negative..and your computer, with a RAW converter, is the processing lab turning that negative into a positive/print (if you get my drift)

Robin
 
I used to shoot in RAW, but in the last few years shoot almost entirely in JPEG, not because my skills are so good that I get them right every time in camera but simply because I find that with most cameras the JPEGs they turn out are so good that using RAW is simply not necessary and takes up more room.

Having said that however, if you are going to do a lot of PP then JPEGs can occasionally suffer from "Banding" and "posterisation" due to the fact that they are only 8 bits per channel.

But if you are going to do only minimal work on them then JPEGs are easier to use.

One word of warning however - if you are going to use JPEGs then make copies of your OOC JPEGs then edit those - NEVER edit the originals as continual editing and saving can reduce the quality.

Which is why I always convert my OOC JPEGs into 16 bit TIFF files then edit those - since TIFF is a "lossless" medium.

.
 
I'm still a novice at photography and hence often my exposures aren't perfect. Shooting in raw allows me to:

1. Make adjustments like contrast/brightness/saturation without affecting the original file
2. Allows me to use lightroom to correct lens distortion
3. Has more detail to recover in postprocessing

This is a good video to help explain:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0j8QMmglvw
 
The thing is with RAW you can always generate JPEG's from them using the batch facility of your image editor if you need them quickly, so I never really see the point of filling the card with both RAW and JPEG when shooting.
 
Thanks for all the feed back people as always its much appreciated. Just a few question if I may.
1. If I shoot in raw do I always have to process the pic
2. What's the best kind of memory card for holding that amount of information.
3. I'm using photoshop elements 11 which I use quite a lot but have never prossesd raw, is this a ok programe to use?

Thanks again guys
 
RAW can allow you to change the apparent exposure while retaining detail that you wouldn't have achieved for a given exposure "in camera".

For example, if you shoot a starscape in RAW then drop the exposure by, say, two stops in post you darken the sky but still see the same number of stars. If you'd shot the original image two stops down you'd lose significant numbers of stars which are then irrecoverable.
 
Bobby uk said:
1. If I shoot in raw do I always have to process the pic
Click to expand...

No, but you have more choices available to you if you do.

Bobby uk said:
2. What's the best kind of memory card for holding that amount of information.
Click to expand...

There is no special requirement but just bear in mind RAW files will eat up your memory card more quickly.

Bobby uk said:
3. I'm using photoshop elements 11 which I use quite a lot but have never prossesd raw, is this a ok programe to use?
Click to expand...

Perfectly adequate
 
Bobby uk said:
Thanks for all the feed back people as always its much appreciated. Just a few question if I may.
1. If I shoot in raw do I always have to process the pic
2. What's the best kind of memory card for holding that amount of information.
3. I'm using photoshop elements 11 which I use quite a lot but have never prossesd raw, is this a ok programe to use?

Thanks again guys
Click to expand...
1. Yes you need to process each pic if you want to publish it eg jpg format
2. Memory card - I've always gone for the largest i could afford. Even with 16 and 32GB cards should be enough. More important to go for reliable cards - I use sandisk.
 
ChrisGilbert said:
No, but you have more choices available to you if you do.
Click to expand...
Yes you do. You might decide to go with your software designer's (be that in camera software, adobe, or whoever) default but the picture is still processed to an aesthetic default. Some level of sharpening, contrast adjustment, saturation, and other parameters are applied automatically. Not that shooting jpg avoids this, it just bypasses the step where it asks for your input.
You can't actually see a RAW image. The picture you see on the back of your camera or in your RAW conversion software is a jpg preview. This is a treatment of the RAW data that whoever wrote the software has decided is a "best fit" for most images.

The oft-boasted "unprocessed" image is a myth. You've either processed it yourself or settled for a default.
 
Last edited:
If you are only ever making minor changes to your photo then making those changes to a jpg are fine.
Best way to see what is best for you is to set your camera to produce jpg and raw and then do the typical changes you would do to both images and see if you can tell the difference.
I find that with a raw file you can recover more but then you may only need to recover more if the photo is a bit screwed up to start with.
 
Mystery57 said:
Excellent tutorial and article in this months Digital Photo magazine on RAW, the benefits and how to use it
Click to expand...

Only just picked it up last night and haven't had chance to flick through yet so will make sure I do.

Think the best thing is as you guys suggest, and I will have a go at RAW and see how I get on with the processing.
I think my only worry is that I have no confidence in that what I do process I'm processing right if you know what I mean. But I'm sure the good people on here can always guide me if I put a few prossesd pics up.
 
ChrisGilbert said:
There's no compulsory requirement for anything. RAW allows you to achieve certain things but there's nobody standing over you saying that you have to do it.

Well, there's nobody else in my studio :lol:
Click to expand...

So if you aren't going to view the file, why bother to take the frame?
What you've said is a fatuous argument. Basically if you want to view a RAW file anywhere other than a RAW processing engine ( ie DPP, ACR, LR, Aperture etc) - and mean a real one, not just some software that uses the Jpeg previews- then you have to process the file. Otherwise it's just a series of ones and zeros sitting on your hard drive.
 
DemiLion said:
Basically if you want to view a RAW file anywhere other than a RAW processing engine ( ie DPP, ACR, LR, Aperture etc) - and mean a real one, not just some software that uses the Jpeg previews- then you have to process the file. Otherwise it's just a series of ones and zeros sitting on your hard drive.
Click to expand...

Isn't a jpeg just a series of zeros and ones that needs software to make it viewable as a picture too?
 
Ed Sutton said:
Isn't a jpeg just a series of zeros and ones that needs software to make it viewable as a picture too?
Click to expand...

Not in the same way. A Jpeg is a universally viewable image file, whereas a RAW file contains just data ( and a Jpeg preview!)
 
Ed Sutton said:
So a raw file contains data, plus some more data. :D
Click to expand...

Do you want to be a smartarse, or would you actually like to help a beginner with their genuine question?

Arguing the toss about what's in a RAW file doesn't escape the fact that to view it properly, the file would need processing.
 
DemiLion said:
Do you want to be a smartarse, or would you actually like to help a beginner with their genuine question?

Arguing the toss about what's in a RAW file doesn't escape the fact that to view it properly, the file would need processing.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I thought this was the internet where pedantry and pointless arguments prevail... :D

My advice? Shoot raw and see how you get on with it. There's nothing to lose and you can always go back to shooting jpeg if you don't get on with raw.
 
Bobby uk said:
Only just picked it up last night and haven't had chance to flick through yet so will make sure I do.

Think the best thing is as you guys suggest, and I will have a go at RAW and see how I get on with the processing.
I think my only worry is that I have no confidence in that what I do process I'm processing right if you know what I mean. But I'm sure the good people on here can always guide me if I put a few prossesd pics up.
Click to expand...

Don't worry too much about mucking things up when you're working with RAW files - the way they're structured means that you can generally go back to the 'as shot' settings any time you want.
If you're using ACR with Elements then a good starting point while you're learning is to look at the adjustments and sliders you see on the right hand side and start at the top and work your way down. They're in that order for a reason and most RAW processing software packages have similar arrangements.
 
There are program's out there that allow you to view your unprocessed RAW files.


If you're going to process your files anyway, RAW is the better option.

Otherwise I hope you're bang on with your white balance and shadows, highlights and mid tones. Because a jpeg will not hold near as much info to recover any over cooked.


shooting jpeg is processing the RAW in Cam. Think of it that way. Isn't it better do it in a large screen where you can monitor it best?


And don't be put off by needless bickering about it.
 
Cagey75 said:
Otherwise I hope you're bang on with your white balance and shadows, highlights and mid tones. Because a jpeg will not hold near as much info to recover any over cooked.
Click to expand...

This is what I was getting at earlier. If you find you do minimal editing with your jpgs then you won't really see much difference.
 
I used to shoot jpeg all the time. No choice really with the old bridge cams I had. And you can really work them in the likes of Lightroom. But once you start using RAW, it's hard go back I think. Even for minor tweaking. With modern cameras the jpeg a are very, very good and hold tonnes of detail. But I think for WB changes alone, RAW is worth it.
 
Cagey75 said:
I used to shoot jpeg all the time. No choice really with the old bridge cams I had. And you can really work them in the likes of Lightroom. But once you start using RAW, it's hard go back I think. Even for minor tweaking. With modern cameras the jpeg a are very, very good and hold tonnes of detail. But I think for WB changes alone, RAW is worth it.
Click to expand...

I got my DSLR in March, and held out using RAW until June, when I took the plunge, and it's the best thing I did. I'm not brilliant with my white balance and exposure comp yet, and using RAW gives me a lot of wiggle room if I make errors with either.

It takes a bit more effort in PP than if you were using JPEGs, but I definitely think it's worth it.
 
I've shot RAW for years and I keep them.

When I changed my processing software some years ago I quickly realised that I could get much better result with it than I could get with the old software and when I come across an old shot that I like I pass it through the new software and I suppose I'll keep on doing that as new software gets ever cleverer in the future.

That's one advantage of RAW, you can revisit a shot as your processing software or your ability to use it improves.
 
We are arguing for the sake of it here

1. All cameras shoot in RAW
2. If you want, you can get your camera to process the RAW image into a JPEG for you, and then ditch the RAW file
3. If you choose the JPEG route, then your starting point is a "edited file"
4. If you choose the RAW file, you can choose how to edit it from scratch. This means you can walk through the door that was closed by asking your camera to make the decisions for you and produce a JPEG
5. FWIW, I suggest shooting RAW and getting a copy of Lightroom. In this way you have a non-destructive editing process
 
woof woof said:
That's one advantage of RAW, you can revisit a shot as your processing software or your ability to use it improves.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point and not one I have seen made before in any one of the hundreds of raw vs jpeg deiscussions
 
Have done so many time ^ that is the main reason to keep RAW files outside of back up for important shoots, like weddings or one off occasions. Otherwise I delete them once I'm happy enough with the exported full res jpegs.
 
Bobby uk said:
1. If I shoot in raw do I always have to process the pic
Click to expand...
Despite what some might say - yes.

A jpeg contains the image data, coded in a standard way so that any image viewing program will be able to load the data and display an image that will look the same in any viewer.

A raw file contains the image data, but there is no standard way of processing that data to produce an image. Every different raw program will process the data in a slightly different way and users can set their own default parameters for the programs to use.

Bobby uk said:
2. What's the best kind of memory card for holding that amount of information.
Click to expand...

One that's big enough. Cards are cheap, I've just bought a 64GB card, enough to hold around 3000 raw images (thank heavens raw images are compressed) - more than I'm likely to shoot in a day.

Bobby uk said:
3. I'm using photoshop elements 11 which I use quite a lot but have never prossesd raw, is this a ok programe to use?
Click to expand...

It's OK - but you can do better. For free!

With your Canon camera you should have got some software called Digital Photo Professional (DPP). It's a very good raw processor that has one big advantage over the others - it can read the shooting data in a Canon raw file and use it as the processing parameters to process a raw file in such a way as to produce a result identical to the jpeg the camera would have produced.

And the really cool thing about raw files is that you can't change them. The software always stores the raw data and the 'recipe' you want to apply to it. If you don't like the results you can just delete the 'recipe' and you've not damaged anything.
 
redddraggon said:
Why not shoot in TIFF to start with then?
Click to expand...

Because you can't shoot in TIFF with Canon.



However- resaving an 8bit Jpeg as a 16 bit TIFF is pretty pointless, unless the TIFF has been worked on and you don't want to save as PSD.
 
DemiLion said:
Because you can't shoot in TIFF with Canon.



However- resaving an 8bit Jpeg as a 16 bit TIFF is pretty pointless, unless the TIFF has been worked on and you don't want to save as PSD.
Click to expand...

My reason for converting JPEGs to 16 bit TIFFs is to edit them.

And I have found by trial that saving as 16 bit TIFFs, regardless of what anyone says, DOES give greater latitude when editing.

But I don't save the TIFF files as they are always massively bigger than either JPEG or RAW files - in fact the TIFF files from my JPEG files are 97MB in size.

.
 
As I said, utterly pointless. You can't add data that wasn't there in the first place.

It's a bit like pouring the contents of a half pint glass into a pint one. You don't get any more beer, but it makes you feel better about yourself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top