JPEG Vs RAW - Prime conditions to SEE the difference

[ba354]

Hi everyone,

Just bought my first ever Digital SLR camera which I'm really looking forward to using but have some newbie questions for you all please! I've bought myself a basic Canon EOS 600d with an 18-55mm EF-S IS2 (Kit lens) and also a 55-250mm EF-S IS2 telescopic lens to get me started.

I've read up a bit online regarding shooting in JPEG vs RAW. I think I get the basics regarding the advantages of shooting in RAW (mainly around post capturing flexibility etc..)

What I'd really like to know is what conditions (and/or subject) would I see the MOST difference between a RAW image (processed to a JPEG in Canon's DPP software) and a JPEG (processed/created by the camera itself). Please explain/demonstrate this as simply as possible so I can try for myself.

After reading an article on SLR lounge: (http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide) I've tried taking several of exactly the same shots in both JPEG & RAW however there never seems to be as much of a difference between them (my RAW files never look as flat, poor contrast & dark as their example).

Any pointers would be appreciated so I am able to clearly see these differences first hand for myself.

Cheers all

P.S. Any pointers, tips, comments regarding my choice of equipment/setup would also be very much appreciated!

 

[Phil V]

Ignore me if you wish, but my advice is to just go out and shoot. Otherwise you risk becoming one of those people who care more about colour distortion at the edge of a frame than about the picture.

Shoot RAW and JPEG, and whilst you're happy with the JPEGs all is good, when it's not, roll your sleeves up and see what you can make from the RAW file. Honestly 'good enough' is good enough, the pursuit of perfection is a road to frustration.

 

[dalegt4]

As above, perfect advice there.

I shoot JPEG and RAW on all my shots for that precise reason, if the jpeg will do then it stays, if i need shadow or highlight alterations or more sharpening etc then i use and convert the raw.

The only time I shoot jpeg only is when time is of the essence, when shooting the motorsport I need to get the images off to the organisers the next day... and converting upto 3000 raw files is not fun.

 

[russellsnr]

Hi, All JMO.
Always shoot RAW!! WHY? because a RAW file will hold so much more information, for example, you shoot a photo of your garden but when you look at it on your computer you cannot quite see that gnome that the boss bought and put under that tree so with the jpeg you try to lighten the photo only to find that you have now blown out that lovely fluffy white cloud in the sky but with a RAW you have a much better chance of recovering that gnome from the shadows and not blowing out the sky.
As I said all JMO and to be honest as Phil said above go out and shoot but please not in that auto mode that says it does everything for you, I believe the best way to learn how to take a photograph once and get it right is to use manual mode, learn how the camera works don't let it dictate to you. You cannot make a good photo out of a bad file and don't always trust what you see on that little screen on the back of the camera. If you want to see some good video advice on exposure have a look at the Sekonic site although it is about hand hels meters there is a vast amount of common sense spoken on it.
Russ

 

[ba354]

Ignore me if you wish, but my advice is to just go out and shoot. Otherwise you risk becoming one of those people who care more about colour distortion at the edge of a frame than about the picture.

Shoot RAW and JPEG, and whilst you're happy with the JPEGs all is good, when it's not, roll your sleeves up and see what you can make from the RAW file. Honestly 'good enough' is good enough, the pursuit of perfection is a road to frustration.

As above, perfect advice there.

I shoot JPEG and RAW on all my shots for that precise reason, if the jpeg will do then it stays, if i need shadow or highlight alterations or more sharpening etc then i use and convert the raw.

The only time I shoot jpeg only is when time is of the essence, when shooting the motorsport I need to get the images off to the organisers the next day... and converting upto 3000 raw files is not fun.

Hi Phil V/Dalegt4,

Agreed, all great advice so thanks very much for responding. I totally get your comments but from my perspective the number 1 priority is that I want to get the best possible pictures out of my camera. Not fussed about the extra storage, nor the time taken to process them (as i'll typically never be doing any more than a few hundred at a time). RAW is unprocessed, larger and holds far more data so this has to have an impact on the end result - I'm just trying to justify that using my own camera and own eyes!

What I really want to know/see is what conditions will the camera processor itself struggle with when converting to JPEG VS post processing a RAW file to JPEG in Canon's DPP software. Any ideas how I can replicate this myself?

Hi, All JMO.
Always shoot RAW!! WHY? because a RAW file will hold so much more information, for example, you shoot a photo of your garden but when you look at it on your computer you cannot quite see that gnome that the boss bought and put under that tree so with the jpeg you try to lighten the photo only to find that you have now blown out that lovely fluffy white cloud in the sky but with a RAW you have a much better chance of recovering that gnome from the shadows and not blowing out the sky.
As I said all JMO and to be honest as Phil said above go out and shoot but please not in that auto mode that says it does everything for you, I believe the best way to learn how to take a photograph once and get it right is to use manual mode, learn how the camera works don't let it dictate to you. You cannot make a good photo out of a bad file and don't always trust what you see on that little screen on the back of the camera. If you want to see some good video advice on exposure have a look at the Sekonic site although it is about hand hels meters there is a vast amount of common sense spoken on it.
Russ

Russ, Again - thanks very much for this great advice. Like you, many have said "Always shoot in RAW" If RAW IS so much better how can I see this for myself? I dont mean just the flexibilty of "finding the Gnome without worsening the sky" as you explained it but surely the end image has always got to be better using RAW, even if no additional editing needs to be done?

Cheers!

 

[Suvv]

I have not got a Canon or have ever used DPP.
However when you open a raw file using a program (raw converter) it will probable apply some adjustments to the raw file unless all the defaults are set to 0 or no change. The changes may include Contrast boost, Sharpening, Colour Boost etc.
As I said I do not know DPP but as it is Canon's own program it will probably apply the settings that were set on your camera to the raw file therefore the raw file & JPEG will look the same. (I am basing my assumptions on what happens with the Nikon equivalent program so may be wrong )
As an extreme example, with my Nikon I can set the camera to raw and set it to shoot Black & White. My raw converter program will show the raw as Black & White as it reads the camera settings but with the program I can easily change the mode to another setting and the colour will be restored. If I use Elements to open the photo it shows in colour as Elements does not know what the camera was set to and just applies "best guess" settings.
So for me it makes sense to shoot raw but set the camera to get the effect I want, if when I open the raw in the Nikon program it looks OK then that is it, if it needs a few tweaks then I do those, if it needs quite a bit of adjustment or White Balance changing then, and only then, I need the extra info. held in the raw file.
The advantage of raw is the ability to make some adjustments that you cannot with a JPEG such as White Balance and Exposure Compensation plus the extra bit depth which allows more "aggressive" adjustments before problems occur.
If you want to learn a bit more about raw the have a look here (raw articles near the bottom)
I also agree with Phil don't get hung up on technicalities etc. get out and take pics with good subjects, good composition and above all good lighting.

 

[hollis_f]

What I'd really like to know is what conditions (and/or subject) would I see the MOST difference between a RAW image (processed to a JPEG in Canon's DPP software) and a JPEG (processed/created by the camera itself). Please explain/demonstrate this as simply as possible so I can try for myself.

The biggest difference is - when you've cocked up.

Yes, some people are perfect and always get it right in-camera (and don't you just hate them). Yes, some people shoot subjects that allow them to repeat the shot exactly if they cock it up. The rest of us find it sort of comforting that we can often rescue oursleves from a cock-up.

Here's an example of a cock-up. I've used the wrong exposure and the wrong white balance. The jpeg, straight out of the camera is rubbish -

Here's what I could get out of the raw file using LR4

So, I shall continue to shoot raw until I'm certain that I'll never cock-up again. And on that day I shall be out shooting perfectly-exposed images of squadrons of pigs flying over the ice-fields of hell.

 

[ernesto]

go out and shoot but please not in that auto mode that says it does everything for you, I believe the best way to learn how to take a photograph once and get it right is to use manual mode, learn how the camera works don't let it dictate to you.
You cannot make a good photo out of a bad file

Doesn't matter what mode you use, you can understand how a camera works before even using one. Admittedly full auto is probably the least helpful as you need to look at the settings afterwards and can't experiment but I have only ever used manual once or twice - the point is I understand the camera and know that I don't need to use it.
Agree that you cannot make a good photo out of a bad file but you can make a good photo out of a file that has very slightly blown highlights (a case where raw will give you a better chance)

 

[ba354]

If you want to learn a bit more about raw the have a look here (raw articles near the bottom)
I also agree with Phil don't get hung up on technicalities etc. get out and take pics with good subjects, good composition and above all good lighting.

Really good link that, it really explains RAW in detail - Thanks

The biggest difference is - when you've cocked up.

Thanks so much for explaining that with images that you'd corrected, really helps a newbie like me to understand the extent of correction that can be applied in RAW. I would'nt of thought anything could have saved that original shot!

 

[johnnypanic]

My take on this, is that my photography doesn't always need to rely on speed of capture, so I'm much better of with the raw file. It will give me, more creative control over the image, if that's what I desire.

At times when I need speed of capture, e.g. fast moving objects, requiring high speed shooting, I shoot in jpeg with the knowledge that I'll not have as much control of the image afterwards.

As with everything to do with photography, most times it's a trade off, but ultimately as has already been stated, don't get to wound up with the technicalities. It's much better to concentrate your efforts on getting a powerful image than it is to get a technically perfect image.

Of course, it will be great when you get the perfect image, that is also technically sound.

 

[woof woof]

The biggest difference is - when you've cocked up.

Here's an example of a cock-up. I've used the wrong exposure and the wrong white balance. The jpeg, straight out of the camera is rubbish -

I actually like the cock up picture, I'd keep it.

 

[Chrisjc90]

The biggest difference is - when you've cocked up.

Here's an example of a cock-up. I've used the wrong exposure and the wrong white balance. The jpeg, straight out of the camera is rubbish -


Here's what I could get out of the raw file using LR4

Thank you Frank, you've just persuaded me to download a trial of Lightroom. I knew there was a reason to shoot in RAW and jpeg...

Chris

 

[shaylou]

This topic has been brought up more than any other. It's simple!

Jpeg. - only when the shot has to be delivered right away. (If your not shooting professionally you don't need it really).

Raw for all others, - don't let the camera make your decision what to keep and what to throw away.

It's that simple...

 

[dinners]

Ignore me if you wish, but my advice is to just go out and shoot. Otherwise you risk becoming one of those people who care more about colour distortion at the edge of a frame than about the picture.

Shoot RAW and JPEG, and whilst you're happy with the JPEGs all is good, when it's not, roll your sleeves up and see what you can make from the RAW file.

100%

Fanny about all you like with Raw files to get the exact image you want for that special image but at the end of the day its a photograph that may just be nailed perfectly when shot as a jpeg.

 

[acetone]

Ignore me if you wish, but my advice is to just go out and shoot. Otherwise you risk becoming one of those people who care more about colour distortion at the edge of a frame than about the picture.

Shoot RAW and JPEG, and whilst you're happy with the JPEGs all is good, when it's not, roll your sleeves up and see what you can make from the RAW file. Honestly 'good enough' is good enough, the pursuit of perfection is a road to frustration.

100%

Fanny about all you like with Raw files to get the exact image you want for that special image but at the end of the day its a photograph that may just be nailed perfectly when shot as a jpeg.

100%. Perfect answers.

 

[shaylou]

100%

Fanny about all you like with Raw files to get the exact image you want for that special image but at the end of the day its a photograph that may just be nailed perfectly when shot as a jpeg.

With all do respect, the chances of it coming out perfect are extremely slim. That's not my opinion it's the opinion of many extremely talented professionals.

 

[Furtim]

100%

Fanny about all you like with Raw files to get the exact image you want for that special image but at the end of the day its a photograph that may just be nailed perfectly when shot as a jpeg.

My problem at least is I don't know whether I've nailed the shot or not until after the event.

I don't need a high burst rate, I'm not under any time pressure to deliver a photo, and using Lightroom, my workflow is identical whether I use JPG or RAW, so I just choose the format that offers me the most flexibility after the fact - RAW.

If you nail the shot, sure JPG is just as good as RAW, but by inference, RAW is just as good as JPG too I suppose.

Back to the OP's question, as far as I am aware, in camera RAW to JPG is not conditional upon the content of the image. By that I mean, when you select a picture style with 'saturation +1', then it will apply a fixed amount of additional saturation to the image and won't wont make any relative judgements such as 'this image is already quite heavily saturated, so +1 in this case means a little but less that that flat image he took 10 minutes ago".

Thus by relying on in-camera alone, you run the risk - small as it may be, that the RAW-JPG conversion process could push your image a little too far in one aspect or another, and then, due to the 'lossy' nature of JPG compression, put you in a position where it can't be recovered as effectively in post processing.

Now, to put it in balance, it's not going to make a complete hash of it unless you've really pushed the in camera settings, and unless you've pushed compression to the max, you will always have some leeway in PP, but I would say 99 times out of 100, the camera's going to make a good if not great stab at the conversion (with the possible exception of White Balance, but that's not a biggie).

Far more likely (certainly in my case) is user / environmental error, nothing to do with the in camera conversion, but where you benefit from having as much information to hand to help you fix it in post.

 

[macvisual]

I would like to shoot raw but I don't posess any knowledge or skills in editing at all, very daunting for me, so I always shoot j-peg.

I wouldn't have a clue where to start with raw, and the same with any editing suites, totally lost in that area.

A lot of people believe if others shoot raw that they can automatically edit in basic or complicated editing programmes without a hitch, not always the case....

Just my tuppence worth input.

 

[Nod]

With all do respect, the chances of it coming out perfect are extremely slim. That's not my opinion it's the opinion of many extremely talented professionals.

With all due respect, the chances of someone f@rting about in LR/PS/DPP etc and coming up with perfection is just as slim. They may come up with something that they feel they can justify spending ages on getting that result but perfection?
There's no correct answer to the raw/JPEG question, it's a matter of personal choice and occasionally circumstances - the example that springs to mind is a bride's dress when she's stood next to the groom in strong lighting. Yes, raw files do carry more hidden detail that allows greater scope for rescuing poor exposures but with modern metering (and some experience to know when the metering's likely to be fooled), it's not often a shot's beyond PP even in JPEG.
By all means shoot raw if you want to and enjoy spending the time dealing with every shot on an individual basis (batch processing? Little difference to shooting JPEGs, it's just you making the decision that affects the processing rather than the camera - if you shoot raw, deal with each file on an individual basis [unless you have a load shot in exactly the same circumstances]) but I'll stick with JPEGs and enjoy the time spent shooting instead of PPing!

 

[ernesto]

I would like to shoot raw but I don't posess any knowledge or skills in editing at all, very daunting for me, so I always shoot j-peg.

You really don't need any skill in editing. All depends what software people use but if you use something very basic such as iPhoto it takes in a raw file just as easily as a jpg. You then have some really simple edit options like exposure, highlights, shadows, sharpening and so on that are all just sliders.
I have found that very little actually needs to be done to a raw file to get it to the same point as a jpeg, sometimes absolutely nothing at all.

However, the big difference is when you do make adjustments the results can be better. I am talking about shots which are exposed well but maybe need a bit of highlight reduction to get some detail back in the sky.

Best way is to just set your camera to raw + jpg and try it out for yourself. If you can't see any difference or don't see the benefit then don't use it. The clear advantage with jpgs is they are smaller so you get more on a card, faster write times, faster loads time to computer, faster switching between images on computer and so on.

 

[hollis_f]

I would like to shoot raw but I don't posess any knowledge or skills in editing at all, very daunting for me, so I always shoot j-peg.

You should have got a bit of software called DPP with your camera. Install that then take a couple of pics in raw format and load them into DPP.

There are two main things to bear in mind.

1. If you keep DPP's settings at the default values then you can instantly produce a jpeg image from DPP that is identical to the jpeg that the camera would have produced.
2. Any fiddling about in DPP will not change the raw data, you can always get back to the original. So you can play with various settings as much as you like with no fear of ruining the image.

 

[dinners]

With all do respect, the chances of it coming out perfect are extremely slim. That's not my opinion it's the opinion of many extremely talented professionals.

Yes - which is why I was advocating RAW + JPEG.

Normally I shoot JPEG but if I think the images are important (for whatever reason) then I shoot RAW to one card and JPEG to the other.

I'll copy the JPEGS to my PC, look through them and decide which ones I want to work with.

Unless I want to go to town with the processing - It's rare these days that I feel the need to go and get the corresponding RAW file.

 

[arclight]

Hi everyone,

Just bought my first ever Digital SLR camera which I'm really looking forward to using but have some newbie questions for you all please! I've bought myself a basic Canon EOS 600d with an 18-55mm EF-S IS2 (Kit lens) and also a 55-250mm EF-S IS2 telescopic lens to get me started.

I've read up a bit online regarding shooting in JPEG vs RAW. I think I get the basics regarding the advantages of shooting in RAW (mainly around post capturing flexibility etc..)

What I'd really like to know is what conditions (and/or subject) would I see the MOST difference between a RAW image (processed to a JPEG in Canon's DPP software) and a JPEG (processed/created by the camera itself). Please explain/demonstrate this as simply as possible so I can try for myself.

After reading an article on SLR lounge: (http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide) I've tried taking several of exactly the same shots in both JPEG & RAW however there never seems to be as much of a difference between them (my RAW files never look as flat, poor contrast & dark as their example).

Any pointers would be appreciated so I am able to clearly see these differences first hand for myself.

Cheers all

P.S. Any pointers, tips, comments regarding my choice of equipment/setup would also be very much appreciated!

Perhaps the illustrations were adjusted to exaggerate the difference just for the purpose of demonstration. There was a recent article in Amateur Photographer about RAW v JPEG and I thought the same about the illustrations in it.

 

[hollis_f]

I've tried taking several of exactly the same shots in both JPEG & RAW however there never seems to be as much of a difference between them (my RAW files never look as flat, poor contrast & dark as their example).

What program are you using to view the raw images?

If you're using the Canon software that came with your camera then it's designed so that the image it displays initially will be identical to the jpeg. A lot of other image viewers will show the embedded jpeg (the raw file contains a low-quality jpeg image, used to speed up viewing) - which is also identical to the jpeg that the camera would have shot at the time. So there's a good chance that the raw and jpeg images look the same because of the viewer you're using.

Here are a few facts about raw vs jpeg (applies to Canon, probbaly Nikon as well, but I can't be certain).

• It is always possible to process raw data to produce a jpeg identical to one that the camera would have produced.
• Unless the camera settings were exactly optimal at the time of shooting it is always possible to process raw data to produce a jpeg better than one the camera would have produced.
• If the camera settings were close to optimal then the improvement possible by processing the raw data may be close to imperceptible.

 

[bledyn125]

i hope the thread starer dosent mind me asking this question.i have shot a load of raw files today but i cant veiw them with the canon dpp software any idea where i can get a update or something for the canon 60d i have had a look about but im not realy sure what im looking for.

bleddyn

 

[Phil V]

i hope the thread starer dosent mind me asking this question.i have shot a load of raw files today but i cant veiw them with the canon dpp software any idea where i can get a update or something for the canon 60d i have had a look about but im not realy sure what im looking for.

bleddyn

You'll get an update for DPP from the Canon website.

 

[bledyn125]

cheers phil but i think i will leave it as im not realy good with computers or cameras i will probabley mess something up

cheers anyhow


bleddyn

 

[ba354]

Perhaps the illustrations were adjusted to exaggerate the difference just for the purpose of demonstration. There was a recent article in Amateur Photographer about RAW v JPEG and I thought the same about the illustrations in it.

Yeah, that could possibly be the case i suppose. Reading the article makes it sound like these were untouched (straight out the camera) which raised the question to me.

What program are you using to view the raw images?

If you're using the Canon software that came with your camera then it's designed so that the image it displays initially will be identical to the jpeg. A lot of other image viewers will show the embedded jpeg (the raw file contains a low-quality jpeg image, used to speed up viewing) - which is also identical to the jpeg that the camera would have shot at the time. So there's a good chance that the raw and jpeg images look the same because of the viewer you're using.

Here are a few facts about raw vs jpeg (applies to Canon, probbaly Nikon as well, but I can't be certain).

• It is always possible to process raw data to produce a jpeg identical to one that the camera would have produced.
• Unless the camera settings were exactly optimal at the time of shooting it is always possible to process raw data to produce a jpeg better than one the camera would have produced.
• If the camera settings were close to optimal then the improvement possible by processing the raw data may be close to imperceptible.

I was thinking that may be the case, any other free viewer I can test this theory in then (other than the DPP software I mean) to be able to see the 'real' raw image?

i hope the thread starer dosent mind me asking this question.i have shot a load of raw files today but i cant veiw them with the canon dpp software any idea where i can get a update or something for the canon 60d i have had a look about but im not realy sure what im looking for.

bleddyn

Not at all! I'm new to this forum but really appreciate everyone's help and advice.

Thanks to the other posters in this thread for their input/advice also.

Cheers

 

[shaylou]

With all due respect, the chances of someone f@rting about in LR/PS/DPP etc and coming up with perfection is just as slim. They may come up with something that they feel they can justify spending ages on getting that result but perfection?
There's no correct answer to the raw/JPEG question, it's a matter of personal choice and occasionally circumstances - the example that springs to mind is a bride's dress when she's stood next to the groom in strong lighting. Yes, raw files do carry more hidden detail that allows greater scope for rescuing poor exposures but with modern metering (and some experience to know when the metering's likely to be fooled), it's not often a shot's beyond PP even in JPEG.
By all means shoot raw if you want to and enjoy spending the time dealing with every shot on an individual basis (batch processing? Little difference to shooting JPEGs, it's just you making the decision that affects the processing rather than the camera - if you shoot raw, deal with each file on an individual basis [unless you have a load shot in exactly the same circumstances]) but I'll stick with JPEGs and enjoy the time spent shooting instead of PPing!

Your camera must be much smarter than mine. I will stick to making the decisions and spending the 3 minutes in pp to make sure I'm getting everything I paid for. If jpeg works for you that's wonderful.

 

[shaylou]

Yes - which is why I was advocating RAW + JPEG.

Normally I shoot JPEG but if I think the images are important (for whatever reason) then I shoot RAW to one card and JPEG to the other.

I'll copy the JPEGS to my PC, look through them and decide which ones I want to work with.

Unless I want to go to town with the processing - It's rare these days that I feel the need to go and get the corresponding RAW file.

Do you do this to conserve space on your hard drive or is there another reason to make two copies?

 

[arclight]

OP wrote in #1:-
"After reading an article on SLR lounge: (http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg...e-visual-guide) I've tried taking several of exactly the same shots in both JPEG & RAW however there never seems to be as much of a difference between them (my RAW files never look as flat, poor contrast & dark as their example)."

Just had a look at that website and have to agree with what you say.

 

[redhed17]

I shoot RAW, and have done for almost 10 years because I want to get the best image I can from the pictures I take. I don't need the final images quickly, and I enjoy trying to get the best picture I can.

I also choose to use a Neutral Picture Control to try and get a more accurate Histogram for the RAW file, because the Picture Control (or whatever it's called in brands other than Nikon) and the settings in the camera affects the review image and Histogram because it is derived from a in camera processed Jpeg.

By all means shoot raw if you want to and enjoy spending the time dealing with every shot on an individual basis (batch processing? Little difference to shooting JPEGs, it's just you making the decision that affects the processing rather than the camera - if you shoot raw, deal with each file on an individual basis [unless you have a load shot in exactly the same circumstances]) but I'll stick with JPEGs and enjoy the time spent shooting instead of PPing!

Stick with whatever way you want to do your images.

However, when you say there is little difference to shooting Jpegs, I think you can optimize the processing on a per image, or multiple image basis, depending on the image(s). If you choose to shoot only Jpeg, which is fine, and if you are happy with all of your images, well done, then every image will have the same in camera settings applied, regardless of the image content. Same Sharpening, Contrast, Picture Control, Noise Reduction or not, etc. I don't want to be changing a lot of settings in camera when I'm shooting, and I don't think the majority of Jpeg only shooters do either. :shrug:

And yes, you can edit your Jpegs later to try and get the best final image you can, and you can do a lot, but you are working with less information than a RAW file, and you can't do as much, if you need to, with a Jpeg.

If anyone is getting close to perfect images out of their camera most of the time, and is shooting Jpegs, then well done to you. It should be the aim of everyone imho, to get the best image they can, by either optimizing the settings for the Jpeg, or for the RAW file. Whatever works for you, but know what your options are with regards to Jpeg and RAW capture. And you can do both of course.

I enjoy the editing though, and I get as much enjoyment with editing the image, and taking the image. Twice the fun from each picture.

 

[hollis_f]

I was thinking that may be the case, any other free viewer I can test this theory in then (other than the DPP software I mean) to be able to see the 'real' raw image?

The problem is that there's no such thing as the 'real' raw image. The raw data has to be interpreted to produce an image. DPP can read the camera settings at the time of shooting and apply those to the raw data to produce an image that is the same as the jpeg that the camera would have produced.

But DPP is the only program that can apply the camera settings, all other raw processors apply a default set of parameters - either those set by the programmers or those set by the user. The default programmer's parameters are normally set to produce an image that has lower contrast, less sharpening, less noise-reduction and lower saturation than your camera-produced jpeg.

This is responsible for one of the more common complaints about LightRoom - that it initially display a contrasty, over-saturated, over-sharpened image (that the complainant really likes) and then it replaces it with a wishy-washy, colourless, blurry image that it just horrible. That's because LR initially displays the embedded jpeg (which the camera produces using the camera settings) then, once it's processed the raw data, using its default parameters, it displays the 'real' image.

It's realtively easy to fix this by creating your own default parameters that will be applied to each image automagically when you import them.

So, there's no real answer to your question. I'd have to recommend using DPP to start with - because it, by default, is the same as shooting jpeg. But play around with a few images - double-click an image and the editing window should open. If the Tool Palette isn't visible press CTRL-T, then just twiddle with everything until you've got a good idea what it all does. Raw processors don't change the raw data, so you can't ruin anything and can always go back to the beginning.

 

[Nod]

Stick with whatever way you want to do your images.

However, when you say there is little difference to shooting Jpegs, I think you can optimize the processing on a per image, or multiple image basis, depending on the image(s).

Somebody above mentioned 3 minutes per image to convert from raw; 200 images at that rate = 10 hours of PP. Sod that!!! I don't shoot professionally, purely as an amateur and I have no love for PP (either as a process or as a result when overdone). My cameras have all turned out very good JPEGs and I shoot enough shots to be able to discard the (very) few that I or it get wrong. If I'm not sure, I take a test shot and fiddle with the camera settings until they're good then can shoot with confidence. WB is always set to auto and if it's odd lighting, I'll stick a piece of white card into a shot so I can adjust to that if necessary (but it very rarely is IMO).
The bit of the paragraph you failed to highlight was the Batch processing bit. plenty of people seem to think that shooting raw then batch processing the whole shoot will give better results than JPEGs when (unless the whole shoot's been in identical conditions etc) in fact, each image (or series of images) needs to be processed on an individual basis.
By all means, if PP work is a part of the process you enjoy, shoot raw and enjoy the PP - I don't enjoy it and am prepared to make the possible compromise and spend the extra time shooting rather than peering at a screen! Each to his/her own!

 

[ernesto]

Somebody above mentioned 3 minutes per image to convert from raw;

If it took me 3 minutes per image I would share your opinion. I find it hard to understand what someone is doing for 3 minutes exactly, and if they are dramatically changing the image they would take the same 3 minutes with a jpg wouldn't they?

There is a difference in the final image as the raw will take alterations more effectively and the alteration would need to be made in raw or jpg, i.e. reduce highlights. I have tested this and the difference is enough for me personally to use raw.

 

[Phil V]

I think people who don't shoot Raw really struggle to understand batch processing.

I shoot fairly consistently and shoot lots of images in similar conditions, so I can easy process in batches, note, that's with an s. Theres no way I can process a whole days shooting in one batch, and by the same token, I have no need to process all images uindividually.

The last time I accidently shot JPEG on an important job, I had a nightmare balancing up just a handful of shots. AWB hadmade a dogs dinner of them, and what would have been seconds with RAW took me 20 mins for a result I wasn't 100% happy with.

 

[redhed17]

Somebody above mentioned 3 minutes per image to convert from raw; 200 images at that rate = 10 hours of PP. Sod that!!! I don't shoot professionally, purely as an amateur and I have no love for PP (either as a process or as a result when overdone).

If you don't do/don't like any post processing then Jpeg is the obvious solution. I couldn't find the '3 minutes per image to convert' you mentioned, but think they may have been talking about the editing time too. :shrug: To actually convert a RAW file on my aging PC to a Jpeg is 5-10 seconds. To convert to a Tiff, it's a little longer because it is a larger file.

Yes, every RAW file needs to be processed/converted, or at least converted if nothing needs to be done, but I don't know about you, but not every image I take will end up being a 'picture', and by that I mean a picture I would show to other people. If I take 10, 20, 50, 100 pics of a sunset for example, are all of them going to be 'pictures'? :shrug: No, only the few that are the best representation of the scene. So only a few need to be processed/converted. If you don't like editing pictures though, then it may not be the format 'for you'. If you do need to do some editing though, and most people will do, there is more information and flexibility available in a RAW file.

My cameras have all turned out very good JPEGs and I shoot enough shots to be able to discard the (very) few that I or it get wrong. If I'm not sure, I take a test shot and fiddle with the camera settings until they're good then can shoot with confidence. WB is always set to auto and if it's odd lighting, I'll stick a piece of white card into a shot so I can adjust to that if necessary (but it very rarely is IMO).
The bit of the paragraph you failed to highlight was the Batch processing bit. plenty of people seem to think that shooting raw then batch processing the whole shoot will give better results than JPEGs when (unless the whole shoot's been in identical conditions etc) in fact, each image (or series of images) needs to be processed on an individual basis.

When I will batch process is where I have a group of images with similar settings, and need a similar change applied. I try not to use Auto WB when in a situation with a constant, known light source because it can sometimes be fooled by a large dominant colour in a scene. The times I do use Auto WB, with changing light sources, in and out of squares and side streets on holiday for example, if the camera gets some of those pictures incorrect, it is an easy change to fix, with no degradation to the image. And that is just a quick change to view those images closer to correct before choosing any that I want to make into 'pictures'.

By all means, if PP work is a part of the process you enjoy, shoot raw and enjoy the PP - I don't enjoy it and am prepared to make the possible compromise and spend the extra time shooting rather than peering at a screen! Each to his/her own!

Thanks, I will. I take as many pictures as I want, the amount of time I choose to process/convert my images has no impact on that.

If we all did things the same, there would be one camera, with one lens, with one file format, edited on one computer, with one piece of software. Thankfully we are all different. Whatever gets you what you want.

 

[hollis_f]

plenty of people seem to think that shooting raw then batch processing the whole shoot will give better results than JPEGs when (unless the whole shoot's been in identical conditions etc) in fact, each image (or series of images) needs to be processed on an individual basis.

No, batch processing raw data from a shoot will not give you better results than jpegs.

No, each image froma raw shoot does not need individual processing.

Batch processing raw data can be done automatically, with no need to change settings, to produce jpegs identical to the jpegs the camera would have produced. No user interaction is required, just select the images and set off the batch conversion then let it run while you do something else. It takes around 10s per image.

Then you can select the images that would benefit from further processing (and most images can benefit from a bit more work) and get images better than the jpegs.

But, if the jpegs are good enough...

 

[Jan K.]

...But DPP is the only program that can apply the camera settings, all other raw processors apply a default set of parameters - either those set by the programmers or those set by the user...

Sorry, but feel the need to add, that both Nikon ViewNX2 (comes with camera) and Nikon Capture NX2 both can read and apply camera settings as well.

Thank you, carry on!

 

[Phil V]

No, batch processing raw data from a shoot will not give you better results than jpegs.
...

My batch processing definitely gives me better results than the JPEGs from the camera. If it didn't I would shoot JPEG.

No, each image from a raw shoot does not need individual processing.
...

And if it doesn't how is this useful?

Again; Batch processing doesn't mean all shots = one batch. Batch processing means that we process in batches

If all my shots were under strictly controlled conditions, I'd shoot JPEG, because it'd be quicker to set the camera to process to my requirements than to have the computer do it. But in changing conditions, Raw allows me to process to my requirements after the shoot.