Raw vs Jpg

alz123

alz123

Suspended / Banned
Messages
720
Name
alan
Edit My Images
Yes
hi all

any advise please
i would like to master raw image photography
after reading some peoples views that its possible to recover
some none keepers to possible keepers ????

:)

alan
 
Raw - lots of processing, good if you are not sure about getting it right in camera, makes people think they have reached a higher level of photography

Jpg - used by 99% of professionals, less processing, good if you know what you are doing and can get it right in camera and is used by those who have reached a higher level of photography but also by those who haven't a clue :D:D:D

stew
 
I shoot raw all of the time (except motorsport) being a novice its helped me recover several images where i haven't quite got it right (exposure being the main culprit)
it does take longer to wade through your images and process them , but its definitely the way to go (for me anyway)
 
artona said:
Raw - lots of processing, good if you are not sure about getting it right in camera, makes people think they have reached a higher level of photography

Jpg - used by 99% of professionals, less processing, good if you know what you are doing and can get it right in camera and is used by those who have reached a higher level of photography but also by those who haven't a clue :D:D:D

stew
Click to expand...

LOL i totally agree with this - none of the pro's ive worked with have used RAW
 
thanks stew

have done a lot of jpg shooting (average) and been disappointed
with them
i dont have years of experiance and to me its just a hobby and it will
never be a means of income
but i would like to look at some pictures and think i took those

:)

alan
 
Hi Alan

Nothing wrong with learning Raw. A lot of landscape photographers will use it. I don't shoot landscapes so I have not looked into it in fine detail but I can give you some clues to start your search

1) Look for info on different bit levels, I think jpg will only save in 8 bit, you will get a greater depth of tonal values with 16 or 32 etc bit levels which will require you to produce Tiff or Png files from your raw files.

2) When processing raw files there are a lot of controls for altering your image.

However I would steer away from thinking along the lines of using raw files to make up for poor photographic ability.

Look into understanding exposure, colour temperature contol i.e white balance and getting a photograph focussed correctly.

I am sure you can drive a car just as you can hold a camera and you have insurance to claim on if you head the car in the wrong direction, don't see raw as an insurance policy, learn how to "drive" your camera as well as you do your car (accident prone drivers please do not reply :D:D:D)

Look up Ansel Adams zone system to start your quest into understanding exposure.

stew
 
I've read several articles on the Adams zone system and think I understand it OK except for one thing. Expose for the shadows makes sense but how, in digital, do you develop for the highlights?
Another point, one article says the matrix system incorporates the zone system so you don't need to worry about it.
 
Hi Parkmoy

Look HDR and layers. Ansel Adams wrote before the digital age so he was mixing chemistry to alter the way he developed negatives.

You could use layers to replicate this. Create a duplicate layer calling it highlights, alter for the highlights, duplicate the background layer, in the pallets box drag the duplicate background layer up and above the highlight layer, lower the opacity of the duplicate background layer until you can see the highlight layer show through, Now using the eraser tool rub it over the highlight areas you want to see. Now take the opacity of the duplicate background layer back up to 100% and merge the layers.

What you have done is rub a hole in the duplicate background layer to allow the parts of the highlight layer you want to see to show through.

Matrix might incorporate the zone system but it cannot read your mind. The whole basis of the zone system is knowing where you want detail to show. There is a range of grades of white to black where detail will show. If you imagine a really contrasty scene, maybe with a girl in white standing in a dark shadow. The film/digital sensor is not clever enough to record detail in the white cloth of the dress and the picnic basket she has in the shadow. There just happens to be 18% grey card in front of you, if you take this as your reading it will record detail in 3 zones towards white and 5 zones towards black but the picnic basket is in zone 6. If each zone is equal to a stop you then need to open up a stop to record detail in the picnic basket. But if the white dress falls into zone 3 on the white side you will now just get a bleached out dress.

If you are shooting jpg you have to make the call and matrix metering can't do that. Now this is where I would shoot raw. In the raw converter I would create at least two files at differing exposures so one would have detail in the shadows and one in the highlights. I would then use layers to combine the two.

How much fun would Ansel have if he was alive today. :):)

stew

ps I have used the range of zones as an example and your camera etc might react differently
 
Natalie_B said:
LOL i totally agree with this - none of the pro's ive worked with have used RAW
Click to expand...

Most of the Pro's I've worked (from the UK National Press) with are either too stupid or too lazy to figure out how RAW works...

Some (International Press, mostly working for Agencies) do as I do and use RAW because even though our immediate output may be in JPEG format, who knows what use those images may be put to in the future...?

If you only shoot a compressed JPEG you are limiting yourself to the use those images can be put to...shooting RAW not only gives you more control over the image (and I have to say right here that I seldom have to do anything more than a slight tweak of the colour temp, levels, sharpening and a bit of shading here and there), but gives you more latitude for future use of those images...

What's the point of buying a high-end DSLR if you throw 1/3 of the image information away before you even start processing?
 
ive always firmly believed that when you shoot in raw you get a kinda 'negative'. shooting in jpeg is just like getting a print and chucking he negative away.

ive shot solely raw since day one. with images that dont need anything doing to them its just a simple open in photoshop, slight adjust, slight sharpen then save as a jpeg/png. takes seconds. you get an 'original' to archive.
 
artona said:
Raw - lots of processing, good if you are not sure about getting it right in camera, makes people think they have reached a higher level of photography

Jpg - used by 99% of professionals, less processing, good if you know what you are doing and can get it right in camera and is used by those who have reached a higher level of photography but also by those who haven't a clue :D:D:D

stew
Click to expand...

Nice to know I'm one (and all my friends who are pros's) are in an exclusive 1% who shoot RAW ;)
 
Edtog said:
Nice to know I'm one (and all my friends who are pros's) are in an exclusive 1% who shoot RAW ;)
Click to expand...

Thank god there are more pro's out there that shoot RAW, thought for a wee while there I was the only one :lol:

Why do I shoot RAW? I started photography in the dim and distant days of 35mm, and I always see RAW as the negative i.e the important bit with all the information. The way I see it is you get a jpeg from the RAW but you cannot get a RAW from a jpeg.
 
Who cares what pro's shoot? I don't and I'm not going to change to shooting jpeg just because allegedly the majority of pro's do, I'm not under the time pressures of a Pro to get the shots uploded. In most cases I'd allways recommend people to shoot raw, and I'm with Arkady on this one ..

Arkady said:
What's the point of buying a high-end DSLR if you throw 1/3 of the image information away before you even start processing?
Click to expand...
 
Arkady said:
Most of the Pro's I've worked (from the UK National Press) with are either too stupid or too lazy to figure out how RAW works...

Some (International Press, mostly working for Agencies) do as I do and use RAW because even though our immediate output may be in JPEG format, who knows what use those images may be put to in the future...?

If you only shoot a compressed JPEG you are limiting yourself to the use those images can be put to...shooting RAW not only gives you more control over the image (and I have to say right here that I seldom have to do anything more than a slight tweak of the colour temp, levels, sharpening and a bit of shading here and there), but gives you more latitude for future use of those images...

What's the point of buying a high-end DSLR if you throw 1/3 of the image information away before you even start processing?
Click to expand...

Agreed. I always shoot RAW now, for this very reason. I also only use Lightroom these days and getting the best from your images doesn't take too long, even when you've got 100's from a shoot. Batch Exporting to jpeg files (for clients) is also quick and easy.

Shooting in raw is like having the negatives.
 
Edtog said:
Nice to know I'm one (and all my friends who are pros's) are in an exclusive 1% who shoot RAW ;)
Click to expand...

I only know one pro who shoots in jpeg, I must be in a very exclusive club? Raw gives you the option of 16 bit for printing or agencies, and it does give a little more leeway to pull back shadows or highlights, and usually more white balance options.
Yes you should get it right in camera, but there are times when you cant control things around you (in a press scrum with others blocking your flash etc) then RAW gives you a little extra insurance.
 
Arkady said:
Most of the Pro's I've worked (from the UK National Press) with are either too stupid or too lazy to figure out how RAW works...

What's the point of buying a high-end DSLR if you throw 1/3 of the image information away before you even start processing?
Click to expand...

Its nothing to do with being lazy or too stupid. It comes down to figures. If you are shooting nearly 2000 images per week and printing almost half of them the 15 seconds it takes to process the raw images suddenly mounts up and by shooting jpg you save yourself 10 hours per week. If you are paying someone £400 per week for a forty hour week that then amounts to over £5000 per year.

As to the second point above by shooting with a high-end DSLR you get better quality than shooting with a low end one if you are throwing away a 1/3, as you put it with each

stew
 
I know a lot of news 'Togs who shoot JPEG - we usually all sit at the same table to edit and my workflow takes no longer than theirs... I asked why they don't shoot RAW and for the most part, it's just idleness, it has to be said...
You still have to edit the image as I described above, caption in File Info, re-size for transmission and re-name the images according to the end-user's requirements, so I can't see any advantage in shooting JPEG unless you were at a Sports/News event with a Wi-Fi adapter and were transmitting images to the Picture desk via your remote latop...
And even then you can shoot RAW+JPEG simultaneously...

The ONLY advantage is that you get more space on the memory card - but I shoot with 2x 8Gb cards per body giving me 400+ RAW images in each, plus I carry another 4x 8Gb, 4x 4Gb and 2x 2Gb cards with me...
I never even used to carry that much film in the old days...
 
so arkady, do you images come out sharp enough, with the right amount of contrast. All I have to do with most of my images is crop and print, they are shot right in camera

stew
 
Aren't you the Super-Tog then?

Yes they do after I process..thanks very much...
And that still leaves all the 'for RAW' arguments above unanswered...doesn't it?
 
Arkady said:
Aren't you the Super-Tog then?

Yes they do after I process..thanks very much...
And that still leaves all the 'for RAW' arguments above unanswered...doesn't it?
Click to expand...

I think I gave a pretty good appraisal early on in the thread about for and against raw and no I do not see myself as a Super-Tog but I have been a Pro Photographer for thirty years and only speak as I do it and do not attack others for having different methods.

Maybe you are working so hard processing your raw images you do not have the time this morning to read fully what I have written :D:D, try again

stew
 
I didn't attack anyone and I did read all of the posts here, thanks very much...

Sorry but in my view a 'pro' is someone who takes full control of their images, not someone who lets the camera do it all for them and then bluffs people he knows what he's doing - the fact remains that you will get a better-quality image from a RAW than a JPEG, even with minimal processing - if you're just cropping and sending to print, you aren't getting the best from your images - that's not an attack - it's the plain truth of the matter...
...and I've been doing this for more than 30 years too, you know.

Get back in yer Box, sonny.
 
If you're able to view a raw and a jpeg side by side in Lightroom or Bridge, I'm sure you'll change your mind on RAW. I used to shoot JPEG all the time, now I value a 12 bit source that results in an 8 bit derivative. Images look "crushed" with jpeg (not to say they don't look good), much prefer RAW.
 
Arkady said:
I didn't attack anyone and I did read all of the posts here, thanks very much...

Sorry but in my view a 'pro' is someone who takes full control of their images, not someone who lets the camera do it all for them and then bluffs people he knows what he's doing - the fact remains that you will get a better-quality image from a RAW than a JPEG, even with minimal processing - if you're just cropping and sending to print, you aren't getting the best from your images - that's not an attack - it's the plain truth of the matter...
...and I've been doing this for more than 30 years too, you know.

Get back in yer Box, sonny.
Click to expand...

I step out of the box and make way for an even older hack :D:D:D:D
 
<---amateur.....

JPG mostly but if I want to be able to play with an image more I'd try RAW. mainly it's storage space, time and laziness...
also if I'm shooting a fight gig (the only time I get paid with my camera) I want a fast burst photostream. If the flash and focus works, then the image will be fine. if that cocks-up..then RAW won't help me out that much. RAW for landscapes and portraits though if possible I think.
 
artona said:
Its nothing to do with being lazy or too stupid.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with Arkady on this one and it has everything to do with this. Plus also inability to optimise your workflow which probably derives from not understanding RAW just as Arkady said.

artona said:
It comes down to figures. If you are shooting nearly 2000 images per week and printing almost half of them the 15 seconds it takes to process the raw images suddenly mounts up and by shooting jpg you save yourself 10 hours per week. If you are paying someone £400 per week for a forty hour week that then amounts to over £5000 per year.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting two things by saying that:

1) When shooting in JPEG - the development of the image applied in camera and is contyrolled by in-camera settings. This means that if you want to change the defaults for this processing then you have to fiddle with those settings in camera before to take a shot. Those 15 seconds you are talking about "wasted" on RAW development is actually atill there in JPEG shooting - they just happen at a different time. And I don't know whether it is better to fiddle with the settings in camera risking to loose the chance of a shot or do it in PP...

2) The RAW processing time is largely depending on your workflow - in majority of the cases, having a well organised workflow means you don't have to do any corrections - just open/import your RAWs and export/upload their JPEGs. That is what happens if you use something like Lightroom for example

All this I find to be honest a very narrow minded - you are looking at this whole issue from a very specific prospective with your specific shooting style and needs - can you honestly say that this is what all or even the majority of the photographers are using? I think hardly...
 
Plus if you shoot a large number of images at the same event under the same lighting conditions, you can apply those RAW settings to all of them in a Batch-process...it's not difficult - you just sit back and drink tea while you computer hums happily away to itself...
 
RAW... handy for loads of things but for me it's really the White Balance control you have in Post Processing.
 
Just wanted to add that RAW still does not negate the fact that you should attempt to get things right in camera as opposed to post processing. And this is the misconception of majority of the JPEG-only shooters - RAW does not mean you can be careless. It just means you have much more control over the final result and the quality of it (if you care) just as in the film days togs have more control shooting negatives and doing all the processing and printing themselves in darkroom as opposed to using the lab or polaroids...
 
dalex_257 said:
Just wanted to add that RAW still does not negate the fact that you should attempt to get things right in camera as opposed to post processing. And this is the misconception of majority of the JPEG-only shooters - RAW does not mean you can be careless. It just means you have much more control over the final result and the quality of it (if you care) just as in the film days togs have more control shooting negatives and doing all the processing and printing themselves in darkroom as opposed to using the lab or polaroids...
Click to expand...

Very true - I still treat digital as being less forgiving than Kodachrome and I don't go far wrong...
 
well thanks to everyone for your input

am of the the local ponds and wood for the rest of to day
shooting in raw to see how i get on

alan
 
artona said:
Hi Parkmoy

Look HDR and layers. Ansel Adams wrote before the digital age so he was mixing chemistry to alter the way he developed negatives.

You could use layers to replicate this. Create a duplicate layer calling it highlights, alter for the highlights, duplicate the background layer, in the pallets box drag the duplicate background layer up and above the highlight layer, lower the opacity of the duplicate background layer until you can see the highlight layer show through, Now using the eraser tool rub it over the highlight areas you want to see. Now take the opacity of the duplicate background layer back up to 100% and merge the layers.

What you have done is rub a hole in the duplicate background layer to allow the parts of the highlight layer you want to see to show through.

Matrix might incorporate the zone system but it cannot read your mind. The whole basis of the zone system is knowing where you want detail to show. There is a range of grades of white to black where detail will show. If you imagine a really contrasty scene, maybe with a girl in white standing in a dark shadow. The film/digital sensor is not clever enough to record detail in the white cloth of the dress and the picnic basket she has in the shadow. There just happens to be 18% grey card in front of you, if you take this as your reading it will record detail in 3 zones towards white and 5 zones towards black but the picnic basket is in zone 6. If each zone is equal to a stop you then need to open up a stop to record detail in the picnic basket. But if the white dress falls into zone 3 on the white side you will now just get a bleached out dress.

If you are shooting jpg you have to make the call and matrix metering can't do that. Now this is where I would shoot raw. In the raw converter I would create at least two files at differing exposures so one would have detail in the shadows and one in the highlights. I would then use layers to combine the two.

How much fun would Ansel have if he was alive today. :):)

stew

ps I have used the range of zones as an example and your camera etc might react differently
Click to expand...
Thanks Artona for your very full explanation. I see what you're getting at and when I've got time I'll try and work through the steps you describe. I'm only just dipping my toes in PSE at the moment but hopefully I'll get better!
 
I shoot in RAW - always have done and prefer to do so. I don't like the fact that a JPEG is not the image that you shoot - it has been processed to a degree in camera. I know Pros who only shoot RAW whilst those I know who work event photography shoot only JPEG as they print there and then on-site - no need for processing with JPEG's they tell me..

At the end of the day it's nothing more than personal choice - there is no right or wrong in shooting either format.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top