Shooting in the raw

Cobra

Cobra

In Memoriam. TPer Emeritus
Admin
Messages
114,434
Name
The real Chris
Edit My Images
No
Ok There seems to be a few of us, OK then me, who don't actually shoot raw,
rather than hi-jack other threads I will start one
I did it once, ( shoot In the raw, but I did leave my socks on. well, I did need somewhere for the CF cards)
I downloaded the images onto PSP XI.2 and couldn't see a difference, since then I have moved on to elements 5 courtesy of the OU course hand out. And then again onto CS3 again courtesy the OU student discount. But not yet loaded it onto my PC, I am just waiting for a few quite moments so I can get to grips with it.

Is it really that much better?
and why?
Is it easier to manipulate an image in RAW say rather than a "large" JPEG file
and why?
Now theres a leading question or two!
I guess I just plain don't understand the term "RAW" :shrug:
Thanks in advance
 
OK. There's nothing wrong with shooting jpegs as long as you nail the perfect or near perfect exposure every time. Lots of press and reportage types shoot jpegs purely because they're in a race to meet publishing deadlines and don't have time for RAW processing.

RAW has numerous advantages though

There's no wb or sharpening applied to the image in camera - you have total control of sharpness and white balance along with numerous other parameters.

RAW gives you far more control of over and under exposure in your images than you have with jpegs or any other format.

Any changes applied to your image in RAW processing aren't permanent - only to the Tiff file you output. This has the huge advantage that you can always go back to your RAW image and start again from scratch, which is why you should always keep a back up copy of your RAW images.

No brainer really! :D
 
From what I understand the only real advantage is that it is uncompressed and you can change the white balance after you shoot. TBH I rarely use RAW, except for something I may HDR after (and even then I can't tell if there really is a difference). I can't tell the difference between a high quality jpeg and an uncompressed version and if I want to change the white balance after shooting I can just use colour filters in CS2.
 
:agree:

For someone like me who never gets the exposure right RAW is a godsend
 
I'm another who hardly ever uses RAW, mainly due to time constraints. As far as white balance is concerned in outdoors conditions the camera gets it right 99% of the time anyway so there's very rarely any alterations needing to be done.

Cams are set up for no sharpening, a badly under or over exposed image will still look like rubbish if it's recovered in RAW so to be honest I really don't see the point most of the time, it's just an extra step in processing.

Having said that, if it's a situation where I think there might be problems I will use it, sort of an extra insurance.
 
I disagree with the statements above that there is NO DIFFERENCE. The resultant JPEG is a processed file with sharpening applied (not the the only application but the one that will have the most impact on your shot). A JPEG is also COMPRESSED which means data is discarded.

There are times I shoot jpeg (sports mostly)but I would never use anything ther than RAW for Landscape or Portrait shots.

It does swallow memory but this is so cheap now and with programs like Lightroom processing is barely noticeable if the shot is OK out of the camera (which was argued above).

I think of it as follows; RAW = Quality, JPEG = Convenience.

I am well aware that for many people this reach for quality is unimportant however for any tog reading this with aims to get the best quality image from their box I would recommend getting to grips with RAW early on.
 
OK I accept that Dod but you must have taken shots side by side and seen the difference. :shrug:

The compression usually loses too much highlight/lowlight detail which is probably the biggest reason for me not to use JPEG.
 
Thanks for the comments so far guys
Dod, are you saying that you can turn off / on "in camera processing"?
I guess this is something else I need to find out about?
(Canon 400D)
 
On the Olympus, you can customise lots of the camera setting, including the Noise Filter, and Jpg compression.

To me there is very little difference between the two. I am waiting for some decent weather then i can go and shoot some nice landscape shots and check for differneces.
 
HIMUPNORTH said:
OK I accept that Dod but you must have taken shots side by side and seen the difference. :shrug:

The compression usually loses too much highlight/lowlight detail which is probably the biggest reason for me not to use JPEG.
Click to expand...

In all honesty I can't say I've ever tried. I would agree though that the RAW file must contain more detail, it has to, as nothing has been discarded in camera.

However, most of what I do get's printed, from Jpeg, up to about 8X10, a good few A3, occasionally A2. The biggest issue I've had has been with poor focus rather than detail loss.

And that's what I think my position is with RAW. There's so much mentioned about getting maximum detail out of the image, people inspecting the detail in it at 100% on their screen, nodding their heads, and then 99 times out of 100 it's printed out at 6X4/7X5 on a crappy old printer and the benefit is lost anyway. I've NEVER (yet ;) ) had a non photog, or customer, come to me and say "I'm a bit disappointed in the shadow detail here". I've never had anyone come back and say the stitching on the bridle (which is fuzzy at 100%) isn't as clear as they'd like it to be. I think there are times when we get obsessed with the technicalities of the final image rather than the image itself.

I'm not sure if I'm really getting across what I'm meaning here and I'm certainly not trying to convince anybody either way. I'll use RAW occasionally, but only because better togs than me say RAW gives me more scope if I mess up on exposure/white balance. I think it probably does. :)

It's a bit like slide and negative this debate, it's not going to go away ;)

http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/raw-vs-jpeg/

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/rawvsjpg/

http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm

http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/digitalphotography/a/raworjpeg.htm

http://photography.about.com/library/weekly/aa061603a.htm
 
oldgit said:
You can turn down the sharping in a custom setting, but I dont think you can turn it off.
Click to expand...
Going to have to check that, I'd assumed, possibly wrongly, that setting sharpening to 0 in 1D meant no sharpening. It might mean simply the minimum on a scale of 0-5 :thinking:
 
Cobra said:
Thanks for the comments so far guys
Dod, are you saying that you can turn off / on "in camera processing"?
I guess this is something else I need to find out about?
(Canon 400D)
Click to expand...


You can adjust the sharpness in camera (Canon 400D) with setting at 0 the image will appear softer and set at 7 the shaper the image (haven't adjusted mine - I just read that in the manual) :D
 
oldgit said:
You can turn down the sharping in a custom setting, but I dont think you can turn it off.

As to the why of RAW... her's one I wrote earlier

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=13437
Click to expand...



dod said:
http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/raw-vs-jpeg/

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/rawvsjpg/

http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm

http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/digitalphotography/a/raworjpeg.htm

http://photography.about.com/library/weekly/aa061603a.htm
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links Guys :thumbs: they have been Duly book marked to be digested later, having just flicked around them though "things" are starting to become a little more clear,

Lady Pitstop said:
You can adjust the sharpness in camera (Canon 400D) with setting at 0 the image will appear softer and set at 7 the shaper the image (haven't adjusted mine - I just read that in the manual) :D
Click to expand...
Thanks Lady, Guess I had better go back and read some.
instead of
"if in doudt, clout, if all else fails read the bloody instructions" :D
 
I think the Ken Rockwell sums it up in a nutshell in one of Dod's links above:

Each format has no absolute goodness; it's all in how appropriate they are to your particular work at hand. Everyone's need vary and I just happen to prefer JPG.

I prefer Raw, mainly because it suits my processing style (I'm very much a push/pull type of processor) and with raw I can push and pull processing more aggressively if needed.
 
Thanks Lady, Guess I had better go back and read some.
instead of
"if in doudt, clout, if all else fails read the bloody instructions" :D [/QUOTE]

Well, what can I say ................. you're a man!!!!!!! (aren't you????):lol: :lol:


*waits for torrents of abuse back!!!!* LOL
 
I started shooting everything in RAW a couple of months ago - now I'd never go back, and I regret not starting earlier. This is simply because post-processing RAW is much better, and I've recently taken very plain images and managed to transform them into something I really like.
 
My 2C worth - I always shoot jpeg except in the following circumstances:
Sunrise
Sunset
Misty conditions
Low light
When you can't afford a mistake such as:
Wedding-type conditions (lots of white & black in-shot)
Portraiture
When my girlfriend insists....
 
I think that overall there is a time, place & situation for both RAW & JPEG. There are times when I do a lot of post processing on an image that I have taken (:p) - may not be an image that I thought would turn out ok, may well have just been a snapshot style capture. I only ever use RAW due to the flexibility that it gives me in dealing with occasions such as this - the difference that the RAW plugins can make to an image is amazing & definitely something I would not like to be without! I don't use RAW to adjust WB though, normally happy with whatever I/the camera has set it at but once again, nice to have the option if its needed.
I could simulate the changes that RAW processing provides using Photoshop or other editing program but it's just extra work at the end of the day when adjusting a few sliders will give exactly the same/better results - If you don't have the luxury of time to spend on your images then it's a completely different matter & JPEG all the way IMHO.
 
I just shoot large JPEG & RAW (at the same time) - still got 140 odd shots on a 2gb card. Use the JPEG unless I notice something I missed, or a blown highlight or something, then I will play with the RAW. Saves me arguing with myself or forgetting to change back from one to the other
 
To echo what people are saying... horses for courses

I shoot RAW+Small Fine JPG. Why...

- More often than not most shots go in the bin, which get reviewed in the standard Windows JPG viewer. If I delete the JPG then the RAW gets snuffed later when I run a script that deletes lone RAW files.
- Snaps for the family I bin the RAW. Can get a good 4x6 from the JPG to give to the wrinklies.
- Stuff I want to play with in PP the JPG is only used as a reference point ('cos you can see the pic in the standard file browser). The RAW then hits PS2 and I fiddle..

If you have the memory cards to use then why not do both, as long as you are prepared to tidy later b'cos RAWs are BIG.
 
Thanks again for all the input Guys I can now see the advantages, so I guess I must at least try it a few time to see "what happens" some of what I have gained, from this is, that the "Important ones" should be shot in RAW in case of a hen-up ( why does the male get asterixed out? :D ) as its easier to recover but the trade off is the time required sat in front of a PC manipulating. I still have to go through the links provided BUT

T.G. for "talk photography" and the excellent knowledge of the members who give so willingly :thumbs:
Thank you guys & gals


 
I shoot RAW simply for the quality and control it gives.....

Which is better? Simple.... JPG's are only 8bit images - RAW (at least Nikon) are 12bit images. I doesn't take a genius to work out which files are carrying more data and have a wider colour gamut :shrug:

Would the punter in the street see the difference? Doubt it. But given a proper printer and a correct colour profile (something other than sRGB) there WILL be a difference!
 
JPEG 8bit is ...
8 bit per colour per pixel (not a choice of 2^8 = 256 colours for the whole pic)
possible colours = 256*256*256 = 16.7 Million colours

Tho 12bits per pixel as in RAW is 2^12=4096.
possible colours = 4096^3 = 69,719 Million colours

ie more than 4000 times more colour definition.

Most of that up in the lighter side of the image (top 4-5 stops)

Makes you think eh ???
 
oldgit said:
JPEG 8bit is ...
8 bit per colour per pixel (not a choice of 2^8 = 256 colours for the whole pic)
possible colours = 256*256*256 = 16.7 Million colours

Tho 12bits per pixel as in RAW is 2^12=4096.
possible colours = 4096^3 = 69,719 Million colours

ie more than 4000 times more colour definition.

Most of that up in the lighter side of the image (top 4-5 stops)

Makes you think eh ???
Click to expand...

Wow its making my head spin now :D but I see what you mean Paul Thanks
 
Cobra said:
T.G. for "talk photography" and the excellent knowledge of the members who give so willingly :thumbs:
Thank you guys & gals
Click to expand...

The invoice is in the post. Payment is to be within 28 days. Late payment charges apply. Please see terms and conditions. :p ;)

And just for your info Mr Dictionary, I always shoot RAW (when I'm not using film of course. ;))

For me, but possibly not for you I find the following. :D
1) Shooting RAW and JPEG is just a good way to fill the buffer up even quicker than shooting just raw and I'd need a really good reason to do it. As I'm not a photojournalist it's not important for me.
2) I never have to worry about setting the white balance. No 'oops! I still have it on the setting from last night' moments.
3) Batch processing of RAW doesn't mean you have to spend all your time in front of the PC. With a few presets you can process to jpeg after the fact with little intervention. It also means the PC's more powerful CPU can use possibly better processing algorithms in the conversion to jpeg.
4) I always process levels etc in 16 bit tiff so having the raw file is important.

Have fun experimenting Mr Cobra. Oh, and Toto_Returns will expect you to shoot in the RAW on that trip to Africa. It'll make good lion bait. :eek: ;)
 
oldgit said:
ie more than 4000 times more colour definition.
Click to expand...
Which most of the time is printed through four, maybe five, cartridges?

Edit: should make it clear I'm not against using RAW, I shot about 500 images last weekend at an equestrian event all using RAW. The conditions were horrible so I decided I might as well make use of the extra latitude if I should need it. When it comes to the final print though I'm really struggling to see the difference :shrug:
 
I shot RAW, but didn't get the REAL benefit until I changed my RAW converter program.

I used to use Canon's supplied software, which was ok, but I only made white balance changes and other minor changes. Then I gota copy of phase one's, capture one which is just excellent. Now I notice the benifits in shooting RAW. Having said that, I still use JPG for fast non-essential stuff.
 
Irritable_Rabbit said:
The invoice is in the post. Payment is to be within 28 days. Late payment charges apply. Please see terms and conditions. :p ;)

And just for your info Mr Dictionary, I always shoot RAW (when I'm not using film of course. ;))

For me, but possibly not for you I find the following. :D
1) Shooting RAW and JPEG is just a good way to fill the buffer up even quicker than shooting just raw and I'd need a really good reason to do it. As I'm not a photojournalist it's not important for me.
2) I never have to worry about setting the white balance. No 'oops! I still have it on the setting from last night' moments.
3) Batch processing of RAW doesn't mean you have to spend all your time in front of the PC. With a few presets you can process to jpeg after the fact with little intervention. It also means the PC's more powerful CPU can use possibly better processing algorithms in the conversion to jpeg.
4) I always process levels etc in 16 bit tiff so having the raw file is important.

Have fun experimenting Mr Cobra. Oh, and Toto_Returns will expect you to shoot in the RAW on that trip to Africa. It'll make good lion bait. :eek: ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input my lachrymogenic, lagomorphic :D friend!
Its appriciated:thumbs:
As I said in a previous post I will happily shoot in the raw But must leave my socks on so I have somewhere handy to keep CF cards
 
thx.gif

Glad it helped
 
oldgit said:
thx.gif

Glad it helped
Click to expand...

It did indeed! I've discovered that I've been doing essentially the opposite of what I should have been, constantly underexposing through a morbid fear of blown highlights. My habits will now change :)
 
dod said:
Which most of the time is printed through four, maybe five, cartridges?

Edit: should make it clear I'm not against using RAW, I shot about 500 images last weekend at an equestrian event all using RAW. The conditions were horrible so I decided I might as well make use of the extra latitude if I should need it. When it comes to the final print though I'm really struggling to see the difference :shrug:
Click to expand...

You are correct.
You can't see the difference... if you process it exactly the same way as the Cameara JPG was created. Our eyes can only resolve around 7 million colours, and a printer cant get anywhere near that close. :shrug:

On the other hand if you want to pull fiddle and faff with details in PS then having the RAW non interpolated finer digitized granularity of data to start with is always going to help.

Actually I think we are agreeing to agree?
 
dod said:
Which most of the time is printed through four, maybe five, cartridges?

Edit: should make it clear I'm not against using RAW, I shot about 500 images last weekend at an equestrian event all using RAW. The conditions were horrible so I decided I might as well make use of the extra latitude if I should need it. When it comes to the final print though I'm really struggling to see the difference :shrug:
Click to expand...

Well, I did say "using a proper printer and a correct colour profile"..... that would also include some decent paper..... :help:

Epson's R2400 uses eight cartridges! :thinking: That doesn't include the choice of - which black? ....... :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top