RAW question—excuse my ignorance

[GetBusyLiving]

Just watching a YouTube video wherein the man says he uses this or that on his camera and that if there is anything he doesn't like, he can change it in post processing in Lightroom.

My question is: when shooting in RAW, does it make any difference at all what settings you have on the camera (focus aside)? As I understand it, RAW is just a digital presentation of the light falling on it and nothing affects this apart from aperture, shutter speed and ISO—basically, the amount of light.

Is this a reasonable assumption? If so, why are there so many image settings on a modern camera when all they do is affect what you see on the camera screen or EVF? Is there really any point to them when you can change everything in post?

 

[Box Brownie]

If you think back to the film days when you, if using print not transparency film, you got a set of negatives and if the prints produced by the lab were not quite right in some manner they would put a sticker on them drawing your attention to the issue.

Yes, lots of folk developed their own B&W films and made the prints....where dodging & burning techniques could remedy some exposure issues......later on home colour processing and printing became (for some) a practical possibility.

A raw image file is the digital equivalent of the film negative and as such has a lot of potential to overcome exposure anomalies e.g. under or over exposure. NB jpeg files are not so forgiving.

So, IMO the video (taken at face value of your description) is misleading by implying that you can correct anything in post processing to recover the file.

It has been and always will be good camera-craft to get the exposure as 'right' as you can at the time you press the shutter......thus reducing the amount of time spent post processing purely to recover from any mistakes made in your settings.

If I have misunderstood your question then do please list the "image settings" that you are referring to?

Oh, I have been shooting raw for years and keep my post processing as simple as possible.

 

[sk66]

As I understand it, RAW is just a digital presentation of the light falling on it and nothing affects this apart from aperture, shutter speed and ISO—basically, the amount of light.

Is this a reasonable assumption? If so, why are there so many image settings on a modern camera when all they do is affect what you see on the camera screen or EVF? Is there really any point to them when you can change everything in post?

Short answer is, yes it is a reasonable assumption/understanding. However, most modern software (OEM/LR/Etc) can read the other settings and apply them as default edits, so what you see as default is what the camera would record as a jpeg. And recording jpegs is still valid as well; a lot of the editing done is often just to achieve jpeg level quality. Think of it like presets... automatic edits based on something someone else decided... often just picking between options because there is no unique vision/idea that exists.

 

[GetBusyLiving]

If you think back to the film days when you, if using print not transparency film, you got a set of negatives and if the prints produced by the lab were not quite right in some manner they would put a sticker on them drawing your attention to the issue.

Yes, lots of folk developed their own B&W films and made the prints....where dodging & burning techniques could remedy some exposure issues......later on home colour processing and printing became (for some) a practical possibility.

A raw image file is the digital equivalent of the film negative and as such has a lot of potential to overcome exposure anomalies e.g. under or over exposure. NB jpeg files are not so forgiving.

So, IMO the video (taken at face value of your description) is misleading by implying that you can correct anything in post processing to recover the file.

It has been and always will be good camera-craft to get the exposure as 'right' as you can at the time you press the shutter......thus reducing the amount of time spent post processing purely to recover from any mistakes made in your settings.

If I have misunderstood your question then do please list the "image settings" that you are referring to?

Oh, I have been shooting raw for years and keep my post processing as simple as possible.

I have to be fair to the video creator: The video was about the Olympus camera settings he used and mentioned that he set his colour temperature manually (can't remember why) and that if there were minor differences, he could correct them in lightroom. It was this that prompted my general question about RAW files, but thank you for your reply.

Short answer is, yes it is a reasonable assumption/understanding. However, most modern software (OEM/LR/Etc) can read the other settings and apply them as default edits, so what you see as default is what the camera would record as a jpeg. And recording jpegs is still valid as well; a lot of the editing done is often just to achieve jpeg level quality. Think of it like presets... automatic edits based on something someone else decided... often just picking between options because there is no unique vision/idea that exists.

So really, most of the settings on a modern camera could, simplistically, be called 'cosmetic'. If I set the aperture, shutter speed, focus and ISO to give a suitab;e mid-range image then almost everything else can be done after the fact. At a push, I really only need to set the focus correctly to have the raw material for a decent picture.

Comparing RAW to a simple negative is an excellent way of looking at it, especially if one started in the days of film.
Thank you both.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I don't use Lightroom, but in Photoshop it's a simple process to make the "raw" adjustments to jpg images too, but as I understand it, it then becomes a subtractive process that affects the image quality, so it's better to shoot in raw.

People have very polarised views on this, personally I only shoot in raw, but raw suits my type and style of photography, other people only shoot in jpg for the same reason, i.e. they take thousands of shots, often in machine-gun mode and jpeg gives them the results they want.

And there's another, historical factor too - a few years ago, when memory cards were both small and very expensive, and computers were much slower, and cameras had much smaller buffers, jpgs were a lot easier than raw.

If you think back to the film days when you, if using print not transparency film, you got a set of negatives and if the prints produced by the lab were not quite right in some manner they would put a sticker on them drawing your attention to the issue.

Yes, lots of folk developed their own B&W films and made the prints....where dodging & burning techniques could remedy some exposure issues......later on home colour processing and printing became (for some) a practical possibility.

A raw image file is the digital equivalent of the film negative and as such has a lot of potential to overcome exposure anomalies e.g. under or over exposure. NB jpeg files are not so forgiving.

So, IMO the video (taken at face value of your description) is misleading by implying that you can correct anything in post processing to recover the file.

It has been and always will be good camera-craft to get the exposure as 'right' as you can at the time you press the shutter......thus reducing the amount of time spent post processing purely to recover from any mistakes made in your settings.

If I have misunderstood your question then do please list the "image settings" that you are referring to?

Oh, I have been shooting raw for years and keep my post processing as simple as possible.

I think that this (my bold) sums it up well. Clever software and hours of work can, to a very large extent, correct errors that should have been avoided in the first place, but my own approach is to use PP to improve good images, not to rescue bad ones

 

[GetBusyLiving]

Yes, I try to get a decent picture to start off with as I hate spending a lot of time in LR messing about. I have a subscription to LR but mostly use it for adjusting exposure and cropping. It's a bit of a waste of money for me really but it's always there for the more challenging jobs and fairly cheap if you do the annual Amazon bargain.

 

[droj]

With a RAW processor (such as LR), you can certainly alter colour temperatures without detriment, & bang sliders about with the aim of getting tones how you like them - but camera exposure is still a basic, since even a RAW file has limits of what it can record, especially at the light and dark ends of its range. In particular, since the exposure for a digital sensor equates to that for slide film rather than negative, a key is to protect your highlights, which with clumsy exposure can become irrecoverable.

So exposure remains a basic.

 

[ecoleman]

You are correct in that the majority of settings on modern camera do not affect a raw file and can be changed in post.

Why do they exist? Because not everybody shoots in raw.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Why do they exist? Because not everybody shoots in raw.

I think it would be interesting to know just how many people switch on RAW recording, for those cameras which offer it?

I tried it out once and gave up on it very quickly. If I found it less than useful, with my experience of both photography and information technology, I imagine that very few people, whose cameras offer the facility, bother with the hassle it brings.

 

[woof woof]

I'm going to say something I've said before several times on this issue

Over the years I've changed my processing software several times and each time I've seen an improvement in the IQ offered or maybe they've just made better IQ easier to achieve. What I've been able to do is revisit old pictures and reprocess them with the newer and very likely better software to get a better result IQ wise. This would have been much more difficult and perhaps even verging on impossible to do had I taken the pictures as JPEG's.

Back to the OP. I think I'm right in saying that in some instances even ISO isn't as important as it once was as some cameras have a base ISO or perhaps two and you can use just these one or two settings and boost the exposure post capture and get the same results you'd get by selecting what you'd think is the correct ISO in camera.

 

[GetBusyLiving]

I think it would be interesting to know just how many people switch on RAW recording, for those cameras which offer it?

I tried it out once and gave up on it very quickly. If I found it less than useful, with my experience of both photography and information technology, I imagine that very few people, whose cameras offer the facility, bother with the hassle it brings.

I always shoot in RAW, always have. I suppose it comes down to a psychological FOMO: if it can record it all, I want it all, even if I don't need it

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I always shoot in RAW, always have. I suppose it comes down to a psychological FOMO: if it can record it all, I want it all, even if I don't need it

There's nothing wrong with using it and nothing wrong with not using it.

 

[swanseamale47]

I think it would be interesting to know just how many people switch on RAW recording, for those cameras which offer it?

I tried it out once and gave up on it very quickly. If I found it less than useful, with my experience of both photography and information technology, I imagine that very few people, whose cameras offer the facility, bother with the hassle it brings.

From my very rough straw pole of friends and training students over the years I'd say somewhere in the 25-40% (more than I expected) That said a fair number of those shoot raw and jpeg, and I suspect mostly use the jpegs Only resorting to raw when theres a problem.
Out of the serious photographers I know most use raw, but they almost all have been working pros at one time or still are.
A proper survey would be interesting. Maybe TP should do one?

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

A proper survey would be interesting.

I agree but it would have to somehow identify how many people own RAW capable cameras and then ask them. I can't imagine that any organisation would take that on.

 

[artyman]

I always shoot RAW, it's easy to do a bulk convert to JPG if you need to

 

[Garry Edwards]

Pretty pointless, it's all about horses for courses. My guess is that very close to 100% of advertising/commercial photographers only use raw, and the opposite with sports photographers . . .

Here's a pic that I posted on facebook last night, original on the left, about 1 minute of PP on the right, including an adjustment to the vibrance. Just a jpg from a phone, more than good enough for the purpose. What it needed was a bit more thought from the photographer, shooting in raw wouldn't have made any difference to that thought process.

 

[sk66]

Back to the OP. I think I'm right in saying that in some instances even ISO isn't as important as it once was as some cameras have a base ISO or perhaps two and you can use just these one or two settings and boost the exposure post capture and get the same results you'd get by selecting what you'd think is the correct ISO in camera.

This is true... as well as huge improvements in ISO performance overall. I.e. the first Nikon D1 was completely ISO invariant; it also sucked in comparison to today's cameras.

I would warn that there are some settings that can affect raw images, depending on the camera. Things like dynamic range improvement; because it causes the camera to underexpose (meter), and then it recovers the jpeg in processing but not the raw file.

 

[myotis]

This is true... as well as huge improvements in ISO performance overall. I.e. the first Nikon D1 was completely ISO invariant; it also sucked in comparison to today's cameras.

I would warn that there are some settings that can affect raw images, depending on the camera. Things like dynamic range improvement; because it causes the camera to underexpose (meter), and then it recovers the jpeg in processing but not the raw file.

The Fuji DR enhancement settings affect the raw file. By, it seems, selectively adjusting the gain at a photosite level, but I've never seen it explained, just demonstrated. It doesn't work at base ISO, but at 200 ISO it pulls highlights down by a stop and at 200 ISO and above, 2 stops.

I've alway ignored it, as I assumed it was a JPEG thing only, but apparently it's not

 

[Plain Nev]

Just watching a YouTube video wherein the man says he uses this or that on his camera and that if there is anything he doesn't like, he can change it in post processing in Lightroom.

My question is: when shooting in RAW, does it make any difference at all what settings you have on the camera (focus aside)? As I understand it, RAW is just a digital presentation of the light falling on it and nothing affects this apart from aperture, shutter speed and ISO—basically, the amount of light.

Is this a reasonable assumption? If so, why are there so many image settings on a modern camera when all they do is affect what you see on the camera screen or EVF? Is there really any point to them when you can change everything in post?

Yes, it will make a difference. Post will only work with the information present in the raw file. If you have burnt out the highlights through poor judgement, there is no way you will get that detail back again.

 

[Garry Edwards]

This is true... as well as huge improvements in ISO performance overall. I.e. the first Nikon D1 was completely ISO invariant; it also sucked in comparison to today's cameras.

I would warn that there are some settings that can affect raw images, depending on the camera. Things like dynamic range improvement; because it causes the camera to underexpose (meter), and then it recovers the jpeg in processing but not the raw file.

Yes. I still remember one of my expensive mistakes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS_Pro_14n. Outstanding image quality for its time, at 80 iso, but increase it to 100 iso, let alone the theoretical maximum of 400, and it became unusable.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Given that I'd have to import jpegs from camera to PC, then resize them to use online in most cases I might as well shoot raw giving me the option to process if required. Usually my processing is just tonal adjustments, so no great hardship.

I shot jpegs by mistake one day ad was surprised how much I could do with them in Lightroom. If I was better at nailing exposure in camera (I never have been, but I'm better with today's cameras than I was with film) and didn't take a lot of photos in low and/or contrasty lighting situations jpegs would do for me.

 

[Kell]

A lot depends on the end user.

I *think* that most cameras shoot in RAW all the time. But if you set it to JPEG output, it never records the RAW file, it uses it, applies pre-set edits to it and spits out a smaller, more manageable file.

This can be fine. It takes up less space on your memory card and is normally quicker to write to that memory card. If you're not that bothered by PP, then it's probably the solution that woudl work for most people most of the time.

However, shooting RAW captures a lot more data so allows more leeway when it comes to post processing work. You can recover way more detail in the shadows and/or reduce overexposed highlights too. Caveated with if you've completely blown the highlights, there's no detail to recover and vice versa with shadows.

And this ^^^ is where I think the answer to your question is. Shooting RAW gives you more opportunity to correct the mistakes made in camera.

But, you can’t just use any settings and hope for the best. If you massively overexpose an image for example, you can’t recover your highlights as the detail is gone. Conversely, if your shadows are completely underexposed, then trying to pull out detail from them usually results in a tonne of colour noise.

I'd liken a RAW file to having the original negative to work from, versus a JPEG being more like scanning in the print that came from it.

I get that it's not that simplistic nor quite as extreme as that, but maybe it helps to think of it that way when it comes to your ability to process them.

The negative is the negative. The print is the result of the negative with someone's processing decisions applied. If you only have the print to work from, you can never go back to the original file. So let's say you set up a profile that you like today and it's really vibrant. Then, five years down the line you change your preference and would love to edit that image with muted tones. That's going to be much, much harder to achieve from an image that is already vibrant.

Whereas if your starting point is the RAW file, you can re-edit it any way you see fit in the future. So long as you keep it that is. I don't keep all of mine, but for big holidays and the like, I do keep those Raw files. Partly for the reasons above. When I first started doing my own PP, I was way too heavy-handed. By ditching those original RAW files, I now can't reprocess them with more sympathy.

I also find it a lot easier to keep track of images if I know the unprocessed versions are RAW and the processed ones are JPEGs.

 

[andrewc]

There is more latitude in processing a RAW file, but it can't alter fundamental laws of physics.

The light hitting the sensor is the same light if you shoot in RAW or JPG or HEIC or whatever formats your camera has, so the effects on an image due to shutter speed, and/or the aperture value will not alter.

 

[Brentor]

This is true... as well as huge improvements in ISO performance overall. I.e. the first Nikon D1 was completely ISO invariant;

Does this only apply to ISO invariant cameras?

 

[sk66]

Does this only apply to ISO invariant cameras?

No, there are many cameras that are (very nearly) "ISO invariant" which are not particularly good in terms of image noise.
ISO invariance is nothing new; what is new is the common use of the term and it being a useful characteristic.

 

[snerkler]

Just watching a YouTube video wherein the man says he uses this or that on his camera and that if there is anything he doesn't like, he can change it in post processing in Lightroom.

My question is: when shooting in RAW, does it make any difference at all what settings you have on the camera (focus aside)? As I understand it, RAW is just a digital presentation of the light falling on it and nothing affects this apart from aperture, shutter speed and ISO—basically, the amount of light.

Is this a reasonable assumption? If so, why are there so many image settings on a modern camera when all they do is affect what you see on the camera screen or EVF? Is there really any point to them when you can change everything in post?

Sorry if this has been said already but in general it is a fair assumption and for the most part the answer is yes. However I went on a free Nikon course at Harrison Cameras and the Nikon Embassador showed that settings can have small, sometimes insignificant affects on the raw files. For example white balance will affect certain aspect of exposure and colour depth. I experimented with this and found it to be so minimal it's not worth considering.

The other thing t conisder is the software you're using. For example if you use the camera manufacturers own software this will often apply the effects set in camera, however programs like lightroom and photoshop will show just the raw file (from thier algorithms)