Shooting in RAW all the time?

A Raw is generally speaking a 12 or even a 14 bit image..... a jpg will always be an 8 bit image. If you're willing to through away at least 33% of your image data then continue to use jpg.

You simply cannot alter the white balance of a jpg after the fact.... you can only shift the colour cast!
 
Just because the final output wont always need raw isnt a valid reason for not shooting it imo. I dont see the point unless you have an issue with space of throwing away so much data that might come in usefull at a later date.
 
Chappers said:
Here's a link to one of Michael Reichmann tutorials.It deals with RAW v jpeg. The scary bit is just how much information is lost within a 8 bit jpeg image.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml
Click to expand...

hmmm I love the bit where he says "The 12 or 14 bits recorded by the camera are then spread over the full 16 bit workspace."

So where is the post processing software generating the extra information from? Sounds noisy to me ;)
12 or 14 bits will only every be 12 or 14 bits no matter how much effort you put in to it - although you may be able to guess the other values :) and I thought that RAW processing was to increase the available information/accuracy of the final image :D

Personally, I prefer to "get it right in camera"; however I do shoot in raw+jpg because I can - one day I may get all technical and actually process some raw files :)

Each to their own I suppose.

Ben
 
^ Thanks for that Slapo, great piece of software :woot:
 
oreo5000 said:
p3ryg, in PS I beleive you can use levels and select individual colours and use the sliders to adjust, alternative you can use plugins to provide you with a slider to adjust wb. See here http://www.lonestardigital.com/white_balance_solutions.htm
Click to expand...

The big problem with white balance adjustments on JPG files is the loss in quality, as with every edit to a jpg file it slowly reduces the qulaity of the file. If you do your white alance adjustment on a RAW file it does no degrade the quality. I think thats the point everyone is trying to make.
 
a1ex2001 said:
The big problem with white balance adjustments on JPG files is the loss in quality, as with every edit to a jpg file it slowly reduces the quality of the file. If you do your white alance adjustment on a RAW file it does no degrade the quality. I think that's the point everyone is trying to make.
Click to expand...

Edits of raw files also lead to some loss in quality. Because there's more data in raw files, you won't see it as soon as with 8-bit jpegs.
After editing, you should store the new version in a lossless format and export a new jpeg if needed, if you don't do it this way already.
 
First time I really used RAW was when I got "lumbered" with doing my sisters wedding pics. Just was well too, because a few of them came out under exposed and I was surprised how much better LightRoom handled them than the JPG's. (I shot in both)

Now anything serious that I do has both. The JPG's are great for a quick download and view on the laptop, but the RAW images always give better results, mainly because that the computer & software on your desk has more power and flexibility than the "computer" in your SLR.

.
 
Slapo said:
Edits of raw files also lead to some loss in quality. Because there's more data in raw files, you won't see it as soon as with 8-bit jpegs.
---- CLIP----
Click to expand...

I just don't see how this is so.

The RAW sensor data is stored and any RAW editing that takes place is simply as a set of instructions appended to the file. Any changes made are made with reference to the instructions - NO changes are made at all to the image data itself.

RAW is kewl..... RAW rocks..... Totally non-destructive!
 
This is an interesting thread!! I used to shoot jpg all the time and nothing else and have had some great images from them blown up to large canvas and sold (from a D60) I never saw the need for Raw myself but when I got the 1d Mk2 decided to have a play. For the picture libraries I use Raw I will not comment again about what has already been said about shadow detail quality etc.
For editorial / newspaper stuff I will shoot jpg, it is so much quicker to get onto the wire (sorry e-mail) . I would also say that I do not shoot raw so that I can adjust the exposure later or correct it, there is no excuse for getting the exposure wrong in the first place. Anybody remember film? !!!!!
 
Quite simply RAW gives you more options and allows for so much more flexibility, think not just about exposure and colour balance but image type and quality, from a RAW file you can create any kind of file type you like.

Start with a jpg and you end with a jpg or a poorer copy.
 
Time & place for each of the formats imo.
As Gary said, If I'm working for someone on a photog job that requires quick/instant turnover of files then I have to use jpg as there is no scope for editing, you either get it right or you lose the shot - it's not good therefore to rely upon the margin of error that RAW formats give you.
If I am shooting for myself or my portfolio then I use RAW because I can take my time editing the images.

Out of camera Jpegs can be very high quality if your camera is set correctly & as long as you don't have to go overboard with editing there really isn't much between the file formats imho.
 
chuckles said:
I just don't see how this is so.

The RAW sensor data is stored and any RAW editing that takes place is simply as a set of instructions appended to the file. Any changes made are made with reference to the instructions - NO changes are made at all to the image data itself.

RAW is kewl..... RAW rocks..... Totally non-destructive!
Click to expand...

What I meant was that any RAW format has only a limited amount of data to work with. Just like jpeg does. RAW files have more data in them, but that amount is still limited, usually to 12 or 14 bits per channel.
Solarisation can appear when editing RAW files too. It's just that you have to for example tweak a curve more before you can see it.
 
moomike said:
...Out of camera Jpegs can be very high quality if your camera is set correctly & as long as you don't have to go overboard with editing there really isn't much between the file formats imho.
Click to expand...
Finally, someone gets my point.
 
Slapo said:
What I meant was that any RAW format has only a limited amount of data to work with. Just like jpeg does. RAW files have more data in them, but that amount is still limited, usually to 12 or 14 bits per channel.
Solarisation can appear when editing RAW files too. It's just that you have to for example tweak a curve more before you can see it.
Click to expand...

It's your conversion software that sets the limits depending on what file type you choose to convert to.
 
I shoot RAW and Jpeg at the same time. Raw for all the options and jpegs for quick messing around to see if something works. If it works well as a jpeg it'll be even better with converted RAW files.
 
dcash29 said:
Oreo, my comment was saying that in my opinion HDR is a lazy way. Anyone can take pictures at a stop here and there and make something out of nothing although not from exposing correctly but with a computer. Plus earlier you said Raw was a waste of space other than use with Hdr.. thats your opinion. But a Raw files contain 12-16 bit information where a jpg holds 8 bits if i'm correct.
By the way my 'irrelevant PP comment' as you say stated that we dont all underexpose so that the image can be brought back from the dead with PP.

At the end of the day Jpg, Raw and Hdr has their place its whatever one wishes to work with.
Click to expand...
Well I disagree with you here, yes anyone can take HDR's but making an impressive image using this technique still requires the same skill it would take to capture an image using normal methods.

If its lazy then I dont think you would see such a big difference between Pete Carr's impressive HDR's than those of someone who has taken a poorly composed, boring image, dropped it into photomatix and other than turning it into an oversaturated cartoon, its still the same poor image.

You are also contradicting yourself by negatively saying that 'anyone can make something out of nothing by using a computer' but then arguing the point that you use RAW because you can tweak it more in PP...

Also your first comment seemed to suggest I had stated only ever shooting HDR's.. I simply stated I used RAW as and when I wish to shoot this method. If you read it through again I think you will find that you have mis-understood.

Im not debating how much extra data the raw file holds, I understand the technical side of this which some people seem to keep stating the obvious here or just repeating previous posts, im merely stating that if your exposure is right to begin with, you can tweak a jpeg just as much as a raw file within reason and end up with the exact same print, regardless of how the two file types differ. Obviously if you are printing the size of a house then you would start to notice a difference here, but I doubt many of you are.
 
a1ex2001 said:
The big problem with white balance adjustments on JPG files is the loss in quality, as with every edit to a jpg file it slowly reduces the qulaity of the file. If you do your white alance adjustment on a RAW file it does no degrade the quality. I think thats the point everyone is trying to make.
Click to expand...
Only if you keep making edits and saving.
If you take an out of camera raw, and an out of camera high quality jpeg, then adjust both wb's, regardless of what is happening technically, I doubt you could tell the difference.
 
oreo5000 said:
If you take an out of camera raw, and an out of camera high quality jpeg, then adjust both wb's, regardless of what is happening technically, I doubt you could tell the difference.
Click to expand...

But you CAN'T adjust the white balance with a jpg file, that is just what everyone has been saying.

You can with a RAW file... but you only have the option of a colour shift with a jpg, which isnt the same at all.

I used large jpgs once and found I just couldnt correct any blown out hightlights like I could with RAW files, they never looked right.
 
I expose to the right, this leaves in-camera jpegs looking overexposed and blown out but in reality its just collecting as much data as possible in the raw file.

Also you can adjust the colours on a jpeg but not adjust the white balance, if its close you can do a botch job that will work but if you are working at the extremes it wont work, if you have a photo taken indoors under incandessant light with the white balance set at 8000k then you wont be able to get the same image as the raw file taken at the same time.
 
I normally shot in both, but when I was in japan 2 week's ago I used only jpeg as I had no intention to spend time altering the images it was just a case of take the shoots cropping and getting them on the web. now when the koi arrive back and they will be photographed individually I will use raw as I will have a lot more time and the pics need to be spot on before they go on the for sale pages
 
I shoot RAW exclusively all the time. Why pay all that money for cameras and lenses and then use a format that strips out a lot of data allowing you less latitude when it comes to processing?
 
Janice said:
But you CAN'T adjust the white balance with a jpg file, that is just what everyone has been saying.

You can with a RAW file... but you only have the option of a colour shift with a jpg, which isnt the same at all.

I used large jpgs once and found I just couldnt correct any blown out hightlights like I could with RAW files, they never looked right.
Click to expand...
Yes and I have already answered this, you cant technically adjust WB with a jpg, but if you do the same colour shifts you can match them exactly. Just because it isnt written the same on paper doesnt mean the end result differs in print.
 
mole2k said:
I expose to the right, this leaves in-camera jpegs looking overexposed and blown out but in reality its just collecting as much data as possible in the raw file.

Also you can adjust the colours on a jpeg but not adjust the white balance, if its close you can do a botch job that will work but if you are working at the extremes it wont work, if you have a photo taken indoors under incandessant light with the white balance set at 8000k then you wont be able to get the same image as the raw file taken at the same time.
Click to expand...

I agree at those extremes, but then this comes back to my point about getting the image right in-camera to start with
 
Hacker said:
I shoot RAW exclusively all the time. Why pay all that money for cameras and lenses and then use a format that strips out a lot of data allowing you less latitude when it comes to processing?
Click to expand...
Because imo you end up with a smaller file to work with, more images on your cf card, and the same ability to make minor tweaks in pp and ultimately you end up with the same print
 
Is this still going? I think there's a good chance we'll get a resolution this time :D :popcorn:
 
oreo5000 said:
Because imo you end up with a smaller file to work with, more images on your cf card, and the same ability to make minor tweaks in pp and ultimately you end up with the same print
Click to expand...

But you don't...... 8 bit is 8 bit..... 12 bit is 12 bit (or 14) and on a properly profiled printer... ?

You WILL see the difference on paper.... :bang:

Unless, of course, you choose to think otherwise..... :naughty:
 
dod said:
Is this still going? I think there's a good chance we'll get a resolution this time :D :popcorn:
Click to expand...

Don't think so Dod.... dunno why that is though do you? :lol:
 
chuckles said:
But you don't...... 8 bit is 8 bit..... 12 bit is 12 bit (or 14) and on a properly profiled printer... ?

You WILL see the difference on paper.... :bang:

Unless, of course, you choose to think otherwise..... :naughty:
Click to expand...
Ok well we'l agree to disagree ;)
At larger sizes I would agree with you, but smaller prints I really dont think there would be such a noticeable difference between the two.
 
I think this is basically the thing some people like myself will always shoot raw and if the photos are needed very quickly afterwards I will shoot raw + jpeg. My editing style often requires the raw files because a great many of my shots are hdr'd subtly.

Other people dont mind so much not having a raw file for every single shot they take and prefer the workflow that jpeg allows them.
 
Is anyone else confused, or is it just me?
 
nah, this has got weeks to run yet :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top