Raw or not?

onona said:
That's great that you manage to get your exposures perfect in-camera, but it still doesn't hurt to shoot RAW as a failsafe. I guess in the end it comes down to your goals with your photos. For me, my photography isn't necessarily about reproducing reality 100% accurately, it's more of a creative expression (sorry, I know that sounds a bit flakey but I can't think of a better description), so I like to have a lot of control over everything in post. RAW allows far more headroom for creativity after the fact. It is also uncompressed, unlike JPG.
Click to expand...

No makes perfect sense to me I feel the same ish but go about it another way
Not flakey at all.
I would love someone to show me how raw would work for me I tried it and didn't need it.
 
straycat said:
how does it compromise what i can do?

i dont need to alter white balance i get it right

my exposures are 99% correct and not to far of to alter in jpeg

contrast,sharpening,cropping all available in JPEG

i dont do hdr or photo tricks

i personally dont need raw,nor do most newspapers or magazines
Click to expand...


Wow! I wish I was perfect. However, I'm not and until I can get everything 100% correct in-camera, 100% of the time then I'll carry on shooting raw. But I do promise I'll switch to jpeg when I acheive perfection - and the first thing I'll shoot in jpeg will be the squadrons of pigs flying over the frozen wastes of hell.

  • It is always possible to process a raw file to produce a jpeg identical to that which the camera would have produced.
  • Unless every single in-camera setting was 100% correct at the time of shooting it is always possible to process a raw file to produce a jpeg better than that which the camera would have produced.
 
Last edited:
why do raw shooters get so het up :)

i am not perfect,i shoot jpeg as that has all the options i need to achieve a good photo.
post a half decent jpeg here and i will show you

its that simple really
 
OK, here's a jpeg.

Grass.jpg



Luckily, I shot raw at the same time.


Grass%20Proc%20Raw.jpg



Let's see you process that jpeg file to be anything as good as the processed raw.
 
i would delete that one from the camera before i even downloaded it,i dont see how you can overexpose like that unless using bracketing?
also its not a jpeg with the same information my jpegs have either,as i could have done something from that if it was one of my jpegs [nikon].


these are saved to web so detail lost.
here i could see the photo i wanted "colonel kurtz"
low changing light i knew exctley how far i could take it.it was a question of exposure and composition within the confines of the stage.
its come out how i visulised it.
i didnt expect to have a usable photo from the camera without editing.



JM7_7732-nnn.gif





dark.gif






of course when its half decent light its even easier this i can edit in about 2 mins top or if i have to send it as it is.straight out of the camera.

JM7_2644.gif
 
i found one i should of deleted,very bright day and different light on them both.
saved to web again very poor quality
it took a minute i wouldnt waste my time normally unless it was somthing rare or famous and i only got one shot of.
i can easy get some detail back in the highlights.


JM7_1934ccc.gif




JM7_1934.gif
 
Last edited:
I always shoot raw. Gives me more flexibility in post production. I've no need to produce JPGs straight out of the camera and so see no need to limit myself by doing so.

Straycat, why are the images you've presented here in GIF format?

Here's one way of explaining the benefits of shooting raw - http://www.pixiq.com/article/why-you-should-take-photos-in-raw

And another JPG vs raw - http://www.pixiq.com/article/can-photos-taken-in-jpeg-be-as-good-as-photos-taken-in-raw

And another - http://www.pixiq.com/article/when-jpeg-trumps-raw-image-files

And yet another - http://www.pixiq.com/article/advantages-of-raw-over-jpeg
 
Last edited:
There are good points and bad points to both.

Jpegs arn't bad. They are excellent for when you want the camera to decide on all of the post processing of that photo you've just taken, and then chuck away all the information it thinks you don't need in the jpeg. Think of it as "auto post processing". It depends on how much you trust the camera to the thinking for you.

On the other hand RAWs have a great capacity for recovering lost detail and blow highlights (should you need it) while containing every single iota of information captured by the sensor. I also particularly like the fact that you can apply varying levels of distortion correction and vignette removal on raw files if you wish.

For me, it's all about choice. That's why cameras have RAW + Jpeg. You can choose what works for best for you.
 
DigitalRelish said:
I always shoot raw. Gives me more flexibility in post production. I've no need to produce JPGs straight out of the camera and so see no need to limit myself by doing so.

Straycat, why are the images you've presented here in GIF format?

Here's one way of explaining the benefits of shooting raw - http://www.pixiq.com/article/why-you-should-take-photos-in-raw

And another JPG vs raw - http://www.pixiq.com/article/can-photos-taken-in-jpeg-be-as-good-as-photos-taken-in-raw

And another - http://www.pixiq.com/article/when-jpeg-trumps-raw-image-files

And yet another - http://www.pixiq.com/article/advantages-of-raw-over-jpeg
Click to expand...


i used save for web,theres details in the exif i dont want public and i dont know any other way of removing it.
 
let me explain i have a nikon camera so settings relevant to nikon,i dont know canon etc.


so i have jpeg compression set on optimal quality

picture control on neutral [sometimes on B&W]

sharppening etc. is turned of .

as i "save as" after editing my original jpeg is retained for future use so i have NOT lost all the data in it

jpeg discards things like white balance data etc. [i dont need the white balance data if i get it right].

i have enough in the jpeg for my needs,you could not tell from my photos that i have used jpeg or raw.

its up to you how you do it this is my way.

i was paid to shoot a cover last week and have been asked to shoot a cover for a different publication next week.they have used lots of my photos before they all printed up in colour very nicely.

they never ask how i do it or what camera etc. they just like the results.
 
Last edited:
this article sums it up for me


When to shoot RAW, when to shoot JPEG?
The main reason to shoot JPEG is that you get more shots on a memory card and it's faster, both in camera and afterwards. If you shoot RAW files you have to then convert them to TIFF or JPEG on a PC before you can view or print them. If you have hundreds of images, this can take some time. If you know you have the correct exposure and white balance as well as the optimum camera set parameters, then a high quality JPEG will give you a print just as good as one from a converted RAW file, so you may as well shoot JPEG.
 
straycat said:
i would delete that one from the camera before i even downloaded it,i dont see how you can overexpose like that unless using bracketing?
Click to expand...

That shot was specifically taken to give an example where the jpeg was fit only for the bin, whereas the raw file was recoverable. In a previous thread somebody else claimed that it was always possible to process a jpeg in the same way as a raw. This pair of images proves that statement wrong.

straycat said:
also its not a jpeg with the same information my jpegs have either,as i could have done something from that if it was one of my jpegs [nikon].
Click to expand...
Please explain just what the difference is between Canon and Nikon jpegs. Exactly what 'information' does a Nikon jpeg contain that is lacking in a Canin jpeg.
 
i wouldnt have taken a photo like that to start with.

i dont know about different makes jpegs only what i have.

when i downloaded that picture it was 166057 bytes what ever that is

my jpegs are all about 1.8mb so i have lots to work with and thats on normal not fine.

there is no point argueing,a question was asked and i answered how i do it. there is more than one way to skin a cat.

shooting in raw does not make you a better photographer.




i expect this kind of argument on music sites

analogue or digital recording?for me analogue

cd or vinyl? for me vinyl

james blunt or nick cave?for me nick cave

etc.
 
Last edited:
http://enticingthelight.com/2010/06/01/raw-vs-jpeg-an-end-to-the-war/

what a good way of putting it

What Format Should I Shoot?

The choice is easier than you think:

•Shoot RAW if you enjoy postprocessing or you feel the subjects you shoot are too complex from a dynamic range perspective and/or the camera cannot capture the scenes you shoot as you see them. If you shoot B&W and want to do more than just press the monochrome button, then RAW is probably the best option. If you are shooting under tough lighting conditions (and pressed for time) and are not sure the camera will meter correctly, shoot RAW to give yourself some leeway if you need to adjust a shot in postproduction.
•Shoot JPEG if you don’t enjoy postprocessing and have your camera set up such that the photos that come straight out of it are to your liking. If you are strapped for space on your computer, shooting JPEG will allow you to store many more files, and you can also fit more images on each memory card when you’re out shooting. Many people are not computer savvy and would like to stay as far away as possible from a laptop—there’s nothing wrong with that, and these people are one of the reasons engineers spent so long programming the JPEG engine in those cameras.
Whatever you choose, don’t consider it a decision for life. There may be shooting conditions when one or the other is better, and a wise photographer will change format if the situation requires it. Be at the mercy of the Photograph, not at the whim of your idiosyncrasies.

Most of all, dear reader, don’t think you have The Answer; don’t diminish your fellow photographers if they don’t shoot the same format as you. Each of us has different needs and tastes; we’re all individuals; but maybe more importantly: We don’t need another war.

peace out :)
 
Lovely summary Starycat. I have enjoyed reading this thread from beginning to end this morning and following the links. ETTR seems like a fascinating approach to me, as I have previously shot jpeg only but I am currently exploring whether raw (and therefore something like LR) is right for me. Perhaps, as you say, it will be right in certain situations...

Thanks for the engaging debate everyone!

Neil
 
straycat said:
i wouldnt have taken a photo like that to start with.

i dont know about different makes jpegs only what i have.

when i downloaded that picture it was 166057 bytes what ever that is

my jpegs are all about 1.8mb so i have lots to work with and thats on normal not fine.

there is no point argueing,a question was asked and i answered how i do it. there is more than one way to skin a cat.

shooting in raw does not make you a better photographer.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anyone in this thread claiming that shooting in RAW makes you a better photographer, nor do I see a "war" here, just a discussion. Furthermore, and with all due respect, a lot of your posts are not really making a whole lot of sense. To be perfectly frank, I get the impression that you don't really fully understand what you're talking about.

If you're happy to shoot in JPEG, great! That's totally cool and I doubt anyone here is trying to shoot you down for it or change your mind about how you should work. But you don't actually appear to fully understand the technicalities of image formats, and this is showing in your posts. Suggesting that your camera shoots JPG in a different way to other brands, making allusions to covers that you're shooting without really giving any concrete information, being strangely secretive about your Exif information and providing less than impressive images to back up your claims aren't really doing you a whole lot of favours in the credibility camp, from my perspective. My point being that if you're going to argue against something, you should understand all the technicalities of that argument to begin with.

Please understand that I mean no disrespect to you with this post; I'm just explaining how your posts look from my perspective - vague, nebulous and unnecessarily defensive.

I've actually found this thread quite interesting, as I previously had no idea that there was any kind of debate on this issue; I assumed everyone shot RAW. I'm genuinely surprised to see that there are people with strong feelings on the subject.
 
straycat said:
•Shoot RAW if you enjoy postprocessing or you feel the subjects you shoot are too complex from a dynamic range perspective and/or the camera cannot capture the scenes you shoot as you see them. If you shoot B&W and want to do more than just press the monochrome button, then RAW is probably the best option. If you are shooting under tough lighting conditions (and pressed for time) and are not sure the camera will meter correctly, shoot RAW to give yourself some leeway if you need to adjust a shot in postproduction.
Click to expand...

+1. I have travel photos that were taken at contrasty mid-day conditions (which was the only time I could be there and I didn't have nd grads). The camera barely had enough dynamic range no matter how carefully I metered, so I used the grad tool in LR to bring back detail in the sky, which could only be done from RAWs. I understood the limitations of my tools, and used RAW as a way to faithfully reproduce the scene as my eye saw it. There's no shame in having to use RAW here, even if you usually shoot jpeg. In fact, I'd argue it makes you a better photographer if you realise different situations need different solutions. This weekend I'm a guest at a christening and I'll shoot jpeg because mum and dad will want a copy of my memory card before I go home.

It amazes me so many people have a preference one way or the other on this. You'd happily swap lenses if the need arose, so why not swap file format as well?

That said, I mainly shoot RAW, but it's just a slightly irrational personal thing, not because of any raw vs jpeg reasons (I just like to keep complete control over my photos).
 
to be honest i wish i hadnt replied now

its like no ones listening,it works for me



the final image is what counts [not wether its a raw or jpeg to start]



i am not going to post my best pictures of nick cave,seasick steve,ronnie wood etc. on here or elsewhere i have no control over

those where examples of what can be done with the basic controls i have.
i dont need to understand the aligorithms of a jpeg or raw to produce a good picture.

likewise i do not know the chemical formulae for id11, i do know how to mix it and how to use it.



catwoman unedited shows whats coming out of my camera you can see i dont need a lot of editing options.i would crop,contrast maybe lighten and sharpen a little thats it.

i have a friend covers a lot of concerts the same as me.
he shoots raw,i know hes always stopping to change memory cards and downloading.

we never talk about it or the fact he uses canon :).
he has a different style and way of working to me his photos are technically as good as are mine,we are not in competition,we sometimes work together.
i do not judge the fact of his camera or recording options.
i do look at his photos and evaluate them compared to mine.

as for ansell adams i have all his books.
he went though a lot of experiments before he found what worked for him.i was shocked reading that he wished he didnt need to do it all and that he embraced all the new technology.
he would of used the easiest for him that gave the results he wanted he did all he did with film becuase of the limited tonal ranges and deficencies of his equipment.
 
caveat if i was doing lots of landscapes and couldnt get what i wanted with a graduated filter then i would consider raw.
but as that hasnt arisen for me yet its still just a option.
 
straycat said:
http://enticingthelight.com/2010/06/01/raw-vs-jpeg-an-end-to-the-war/

what a good way of putting it

What Format Should I Shoot?

The choice is easier than you think:

•Shoot RAW if you enjoy postprocessing or you feel the subjects you shoot are too complex from a dynamic range perspective and/or the camera cannot capture the scenes you shoot as you see them. If you shoot B&W and want to do more than just press the monochrome button, then RAW is probably the best option. If you are shooting under tough lighting conditions (and pressed for time) and are not sure the camera will meter correctly, shoot RAW to give yourself some leeway if you need to adjust a shot in postproduction.
•Shoot JPEG if you don’t enjoy postprocessing and have your camera set up such that the photos that come straight out of it are to your liking. If you are strapped for space on your computer, shooting JPEG will allow you to store many more files, and you can also fit more images on each memory card when you’re out shooting. Many people are not computer savvy and would like to stay as far away as possible from a laptop—there’s nothing wrong with that, and these people are one of the reasons engineers spent so long programming the JPEG engine in those cameras.
Whatever you choose, don’t consider it a decision for life. There may be shooting conditions when one or the other is better, and a wise photographer will change format if the situation requires it. Be at the mercy of the Photograph, not at the whim of your idiosyncrasies.

Most of all, dear reader, don’t think you have The Answer; don’t diminish your fellow photographers if they don’t shoot the same format as you. Each of us has different needs and tastes; we’re all individuals; but maybe more importantly: We don’t need another war.

peace out :)
Click to expand...

Very good summary :thumbs:
 
I love the argument 'if you like post processing choose RAW, and if you don't like post processing choose Jpeg'. It gives the impression that Jpeg shooters do no processing whatsoever. :shrug: It's a very simplistic view of course, and for the most part, not the case.


Shooting RAW doesn't make you a better photographer, and neither does shooting Jpeg either. :shrug: ;) :)

I like threads like this because it shows people who were unaware of the options both side of the subject, whatever the subject.

My thoughts on it, get as much information for and against whatever, and then hopefully make an informed choice of what is right for you.


However I reserve the right to point out any technical/factual errors people may proffer. ;) :lol:

On this subject at least, it's happened before. ;)
 
hollis_f said:
Let's see you process that jpeg file to be anything as good as the processed raw.
Click to expand...

Hardly a fair challenge though. Put up the original and you could probably do quite a bit with it.
 
Had a read through this thread and while I shoot RAW + jpeg I tend to just edit the jpegs. This was because until recently I just had the free software with the camera which had limited editing options and Picasa (which wouldn't open the .NEF files) so I tended to just use the jpegs.

But the last few weeks I got LR3 and Elements 8 so today had a go at editing from RAW in LR3. My first attempts are here - http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=3902067#post3902067

I'm still playing about with stuff and learning a lot about PP, but I find trying stuff and seeing if its a hit or a miss is the best way to learn.
 
Raw let's you play with the shot in software a lot more than jpg. A raw file has lots mor info than a jpg, take a shot in raw and large, place the side by side in a thumb nail, you will see the difference straight away. Always raw.
 
I started shooting in Raw after about a week of having my camera, and while I'm not really up on PP yet, but just being able to look at the full size image before applying the standard camera settings from the kit software is quite helpful.

Having said that, at this stage the camera probably makes better decisions than I do! :D
 
ShoeQueen said:
Had a read through this thread and while I shoot RAW + jpeg I tend to just edit the jpegs. This was because until recently I just had the free software with the camera which had limited editing options and Picasa (which wouldn't open the .NEF files) so I tended to just use the jpegs.

But the last few weeks I got LR3 and Elements 8 so today had a go at editing from RAW in LR3. My first attempts are here - http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=3902067#post3902067

I'm still playing about with stuff and learning a lot about PP, but I find trying stuff and seeing if its a hit or a miss is the best way to learn.
Click to expand...

there is no better way to learn than doing it yourself,any mistakes you make wont be repeated.
 
hollis_f said:
Will make no difference for fixing exposure and White balance.
Click to expand...

You could be right, I don't know, but I'd like to try. There's still a lot of detail in that jpeg. As you can see below theres not that much that isn't recoverable to some degree, even with the small file to work with. Given the original I'm sure there's a lot could be done with it.

Grassblown.jpg
 
dod said:
You could be right, I don't know, but I'd like to try. There's still a lot of detail in that jpeg. As you can see below theres not that much that isn't recoverable to some degree, even with the small file to work with. Given the original I'm sure there's a lot could be done with it.

Grassblown.jpg
Click to expand...

agreed there was not enough in it.
it was degraded,as soon as i tried any adjustments which does not happen in the same manner with my jpegs.
 
I wish people would actually check out some of the things they quote.

Firstly I used to shoot in RAW but then found that there was so little difference between RAW and JPEGs for the kind of pics I shoot that I now shoot almost exclusively in JPEG.

So let me try to put some old wives tales to rest.

Firstly:"You can't alter the WB in JPEG".

Well if you use Canon's DPP to edit your JPEGs and get the latest updates you certainly CAN, and batch edit too.

And you can also batch edit sharpness, contrast, brightness etc.

In other words you can treat a JPEG exactly as a RAW file.

But for me I usually convert my source JPEGs (as I call them) to TIFF files then edit them as needed before converting back to JPEGs for the internet etc.

And you CAN increase the sharpness on any JPEG and get excellent results (I usually shoot at a sharpness level of 0 to minimise noise and then sharpen in editing).

But for me the biggest advantage is that they take up less space and I can get about 20 images in continuous shooting in JPEGs but only about 7 in RAW.
 
OK, here's the full-size jpeg (warning it's 3.2MB).

I took these images for one purpose. A poster on another forum claimed that it was always possible to process a jpeg to produce an image just as good as you can get from processing the raw, and no amount of argument based on logic could dissuade him of this delusion. So I deliberatley got the exposure and white balance wrong and shot in raw+jpeg. The challenge is to process the jpeg image to recover the proper colour range and the detail visible in the processed raw image (reproduced below).

Grass%20Proc%20Raw.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top