RAW vs. JPG - I think I'm convinced!

Shak

Shak

Suspended / Banned
Messages
833
Edit My Images
Yes
I wasn't sure about the debate before. Anyway, I was at Cadwell Park yesterday and I was playing with some settings. I then suddenly see a spin that I had to abrupt myself and take this shot:

pre_raw.jpg



"Damn, I've over exposed it! Ah well, I'll adjust the brightness in CS2 and see what happens."

I was taking most of the photos during the day, in .jpg. So when I adjusted the RAW file of the above, this was the result! :eek::eek:

post_raw.jpg



All the detail of the track, and the windscreen! It's still there! Surely in .jpg all that would be lost?
 
Thats why I always shoot in RAW, gives you that extra flexibility during processing if you need it.
 
dellipher said:
did u take the top shot in jpeg? or raw? am confused? lol
Click to expand...

The original is in RAW, ie the first photo. If that was a .jpg, there's no way the detail would be there, as shown in the adjusted second photo.
 
Yes raw is wonderful kinda like taking pictures in reverse:)
 
Most of my in-camera shots look overexposed because I expose to the right. I generally have to pull the exposure down one or two stops in RAW. This is the best way to capture the most detail but you have to make very sure that you dont blow the highlights completely, usually the jpeg histogram does show some blown highlights but you can generally figure out if there will be detail there in the raw file after a bit of practice.
 
Even with a tight crop, the image is fairly sharp:

post_raw_cropped_small.jpg
 
A good demonstration of the value of your own experience, and actually seeing the difference in front of you, side-by-side on-screen, versus the so-so 'value' of others' opinions!
 
Raw doesn't help with sharpness, but it does help you adjust exposure and colour easily enough. Once you've started shooting Raw, you won't go back. You'll only buy more memory cards :-)
 
Erm? I fail to see the point. It's not hard to use either curves or levels to pull down an overexposure, but if you've underexposed it's harder (but depending on the shot, not impossible) to get the detail back.

If I had the time and patience (and inclination) to spend hours processing raw files, and possibly even earnt my income from photography then I would shoot raw. Until that day I'm still shooting jpeg.
 
mobilevirgin said:
Raw doesn't help with sharpness, but it does help you adjust exposure and colour easily enough. Once you've started shooting Raw, you won't go back. You'll only buy more memory cards :-)
Click to expand...

I love shooting in RAW. it kinda gives me a second chance at exposure.
and i've just ordered another 2gb SD card! :lol:
 
mobilevirgin said:
Raw doesn't help with sharpness, but it does help you adjust exposure and colour easily enough. Once you've started shooting Raw, you won't go back. You'll only buy more memory cards :-)
Click to expand...

Totally agree - When I first got the 30D I always shot in Jpeg -Until I tried Raw after read a photo mag article on Raw vs Jpeg....Always shoot in raw now...
 
I shoot in RAW too. All my software just works seamlessly with it. Its helpful because I'm rubbish at this photography lark :'(
 
I had to shoot in jpg one day as I was printing straight out on the spot..........Id not used jpg before. All went well.

But on the pc back at home.... any blown whites were unrecoverable... and those I did manage to pull back looked really weird.

RAW for me.
 
Oh no, not another RAW vs JPG debate ...

100% RAW for me by the way :)
 
I always shoot RAW but I was in a situation the other day when I wished I'd been shooting RAW+Jpeg.

I was doing a shoot of a bar in London for a mate of mine who works for Budweiser. Once the shoot was done we had to get the photos onto his laptop to use in a presentation. I'd forgotten to switch to RAW+Jpeg and so he had to download picasa to view the pictures and convert them to jpeg.

It would have been fine but Picasa scans your HDD to compile an image library and we couldn't stop it. It took an age and he got quite stroppy because I'd made him download some software he didn't want and it wasn't doing what he wanted lol.

Oh well Live and learn.

Panzer
 
I'd never go back from RAW now. Just wish I'd shot everything in RAW previously, as there are lots of old photos I'd like to rework.
 
I always shoot raw + small jpeg so I have the small jpeg files there to use if i want/need to.
 
I have recently been won over by the RAW side of things. Now I need a bigger hard drive!
 
Have to admit, I only started using raw on Saturday, but have found it so much better, and because I am still only learning, it means I can correct my mistakes (and there are lots of them at the minute!), much more easily. Well, it feels like that to me anyway!!!
 
Shak said:
"Do you use RAW or .jpg on your Canon or Nikon, with a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8?" :lol:
Click to expand...

"Do you use RAW or .jpg on your Canon or Nikon, with a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8, with a Skylight or UV filter?" :D :lol:
 
I am a convert to RAW now - and I managed to convert another 'starter' on Saturday too ! ! !
 
Ross said:
Erm? I fail to see the point. It's not hard to use either curves or levels to pull down an overexposure, but if you've underexposed it's harder (but depending on the shot, not impossible) to get the detail back.

If I had the time and patience (and inclination) to spend hours processing raw files, and possibly even earnt my income from photography then I would shoot raw. Until that day I'm still shooting jpeg.
Click to expand...

Could you paste the first image into Photoshop and make it look as good as the second then do you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top