RAW vs. JPEG

[IronDogPhoto]

Would someone tell me the benifits of shooting in RAW vs. JPEG?

I shoot a 40D and have the Canon software that came with the camera. I also use Paint Shop Pro X2.

I shot some images over the weekend (with flash - 5.6 @ 1/100) in both RAW and JPEG. The resulting images looked quite similar and when I batch processed both sets (in PSP X2) for density, color, and contrast I couldn't tell much difference.

There wasn't a noise issue to deal with, so I didn't have to process for noise, although when I shoot action in low light (like when I shoot indoor dog agility in poorly lit venues - F2.8 @ 1/400 or 1/500) I always have lots of noise to deal with.

I'm just trying to decide which format is best for me and why.

Thanks.

- Gary

[Candid Arts]

Raw files on the 40D run on an average about 9-12MB, where as a JPEG file is gonna be in the 3-6MB range. That means about 200-300% more information to work with when editing. A JPEG file adds different things to the photo (well the camera does when you shoot it), sharpening, contrast, saturation, etc... A RAW file is just that...RAW. No processing done to it, just a RAW file. In post processing, when adding or taking away different things (exposure, contrast, fill light, recover, saturation, hue, clarity, etc...) you'll get less artifacts from editing with a RAW file.

I shoot in RAW 100% of the time...always.

[JustPlainMe]

I am a brand-new newbie, only been shooting RAW for about two months (since I've had my dSLR), and I tell you, I shoot in RAW + JPEG only so I can preview my pictures quickly and immediately delete the ones I don't want. When I decide what to keep, I delete all the JPEGs and start processing the RAW files that I want to save.

I was ambivalent about RAW until I did a series of shots for a friend about a month ago that looked "great" on the JPEGs. I thought I had the lighting and everything figured out, but I didn't, and their beautiful, rich, red/orange cabinets came out looking gray in the JPEGs. When I opened the RAW files and adjusted the curves and did some minor tweaking, they looked wonderful. I could not have fixed the series without the RAW capabilities.

I strongly recommend shooting in RAW. Storage is so cheap; 1 TB EHD for $120, space is no longer an issue.

Just my 2 cents!

Sarah

[Ric Grupe]

Think of your camera as a "raw file converter".

Many like the ability to convert as they see fit...thus raw.

Once your camera does the conversion...that's it.

The only reason I can see to not shoot raw is...if you are shooting at a continuous high frame rate. (full buffer...have to wait)

[arodney]

Long but worth the read, after which you'll be hard pressed to shoot JPEG and not Raw:
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf

[IronDogPhoto]

So if I am reading you correctly, when I run my files through noise reduction, the occassional "artifacts" that I see sprinkled in various areas of the image won't be there if I start with a RAW image?

I have been running two batch processes in Post Production with my JPEGs in Paint Shop Pro X2. #1 is One Step Photo Fix which takes care of exposure by correcting brightness, saturation, color balance, etc. #2 is One Step Noise Reduction. After applying the noise reduction step, I notice two things. First the image appears to be softer. Second is the appearance of "artifacts", which look like a tiny bit of the noise was left behind in several places on the image.

If processing from the RAW file will take care of these two issues and leave me with a properly balanced image, I'll be a happy camper.

Thoughts?




Raw files on the 40D run on an average about 9-12MB, where as a JPEG file is gonna be in the 3-6MB range. That means about 200-300% more information to work with when editing. A JPEG file adds different things to the photo (well the camera does when you shoot it), sharpening, contrast, saturation, etc... A RAW file is just that...RAW. No processing done to it, just a RAW file. In post processing, when adding or taking away different things (exposure, contrast, fill light, recover, saturation, hue, clarity, etc...) you'll get less artifacts from editing with a RAW file.

I shoot in RAW 100% of the time...always.

[Candid Arts]

Not 100%, but yes, it will be A LOT better.

[IronDogPhoto]

Am I correct in my thinking that it's the noise reduction step that is softening the images, or is it just my imagination?



Not 100%, but yes, it will be A LOT better.

[Candid Arts]

Am I correct in my thinking that it's the noise reduction step that is softening the images, or is it just my imagination?

Havn't done NR software, so couldn't tell ya. But possibly. It's trying to blur the edges of the pixels together to an average to try and get rid of the noise. So maybe.

[Anthony]

[..]


Thoughts?

First I declare an interest; I only shoot raw (I don't do any high speed frame rate stuff). Secondly, my time spent in film photography (and darkroom processes) is much longer than my time spent in digitial. Would not go back mind you, I really enjoy digital.

Whilst the saying "...raw is your digital negative" can be overworked, it does represent a fair analogy of how a raw image might be perceived in processing terms. The same picture-taking criteria still applies in terms of obtaining the raw/negative; get it the best you can in the camera. And in terms of the print/web picture/whatever, produce the best image you can which shows your vision of what you wanted to express when the picture was in the viewfinder.

Bearing in mind all the above, it makes logical sense to have the maximum flexibility with the maximum amount of information in your hands at all stages of the process. Jpegs are dead easy to produce from raw and you already know from the information you have given in your posts how to do some 'quick-and-dirty' adjustments to give you acceptable pictures for you run-of-the-mill requirements. What you will enjoy is taking those better-than-average shots to an entirely new level as you come to really exploit the potential available in the image editing software and your raw images.

My intention is to offer a view to supplement the excellent technical advice given our colleagues in this thread. Oh, and do read the document recommended by Andrew; it's a very comprehensive exposition of the reasoning behind using raw over jpeg and I would have said required reading for serious photographers of all abilities.

Anthony.

[aj986s]

FWIW, Consider Lightroom (or other similar batch processing/management software) to review and edit your photos. Lightroom lets you view the Raw files just like any other, to speedily flag the rejects, etc. Avoids the hassle of working with 2 simulataneous versions of the pic. Even as a photo hack, I've accumulated nearly 50,000 pics since I started using digital in 1999. About 2 years ago I learned about Lightroom, and its been one of the best investments I ever made! GREATLY simplifies the management of my photo files.

[catspaw]

AND Lightroom has a full feature 30-day trial, so it's worth the try to see what sort of images you get and how much you can change them (try purposefully over or underexposing and see how much you can fix a JPG vs. RAW file).

:clap

[Candid Arts]

AND Lightroom has a full feature 30-day trial, so it's worth the try to see what sort of images you get and how much you can change them (try purposefully over or underexposing and see how much you can fix a JPG vs. RAW file).

:clap

good idea. do this. also, note when doing this to zoom in to 100% on a edited RAW file AND a edited JPEG file. look at the difference. you'll only shoot RAW again.

[zoomer]

Noise reduction definitely will soften your images.
Invest in a camera that will let you shoot at iso 1600-3200 (d700,d3 or equivalent Canon) with little or no noise if possible then you will not need noise reduction.

I looked at your website. Shooting the highest quality jpeg will make your life simpler and give you all the quality you need.
The differences in RAW are very hard to see.

The main benefit of raw used to be that you can adjust your exposures.

With Lightroom that benefit is no long unique to raw because you can do the same thing with your jpegs.

A lot of people INSIST that raw is the only way to go.
Show those same people a two photos processed in Lightroom, one processed in raw and one processed in jpeg and they will not be able to tell the difference.

[zoomer]

Of course having said that, shooting raw or jpegs and processing them in Lightroom is essentially the same process.
Then the benefit of shooting jpegs is processing speed and file size.
If I were you, shooting what you shoot I would shoot the highest quality jpegs you can and never look back.

[T. Bombadil]

. . . The differences in RAW are very hard to see. . . .

A lot of people INSIST that raw is the only way to go.
Show those same people a two photos processed in Lightroom, one processed in raw and one processed in jpeg and they will not be able to tell the difference.

two perfectly exposed images (one sent from the camera as a JPG, one RAW) will be identical. the advantage of RAW is that you have more latitude when you need to recover from less than ideal capture.

you can demonstrate the benefit of RAW to yourself. take some photos with the white balance deliberately set incorrectly (capturing JPG and RAW). the RAW file can be perfectly adjusted, the JPG might be unusable (if the white balance error is big enough).

the camera's white balance setting is of no consequence to the RAW file because the camera hasn't applied that processing. the camera's WB setting is applied to the JPG and can only be partially mitigated if wrong.

there _is_ a real cost to shooting RAW, but there is a real benefit. whether the benefit is worth the cost is a personal decision, but for my money RAW is well worthwhile.

most of what i shoot would be fine if i captured it as JPG, but (for me) it is worth the cost of RAW to ensure my occasional (OK, frequent) mistakes can be corrected after the capture. (hey, most of what i capture is out of focus and badly composed - but that is another thread).

[Candid Arts]

I'm gonna have to disagree with this:

The differences in RAW are very hard to see.

The main benefit of raw used to be that you can adjust your exposures.

With Lightroom that benefit is no long unique to raw because you can do the same thing with your jpegs.

A lot of people INSIST that raw is the only way to go.

As stated, WB is also a huge factor. In addition, if you need to adjust fill light, recovery, saturation, among many other adjustments, the artifacts that WILL be produced in a JPEG file, that won't attain the same results as RAW due to lack of editing options, will be way greater and noticeable vs a RAW file. Exposure is one large benefit of RAW, but one among MANY.

With JPEG's, your editing options are severly dropped, as well as the amount of information that you have to edit. Imagine this, a song ripped at 320 kbps versus one ripped at 25 kbps (HORRIBLE sound quality). For those few times when you shoot the photo perfect out of camera (everything is perfect, exposure, wb, saturation, blacks, contrast, etc...) then jpeg is fine, yes, but I wouldn't trust my camera to make the perfect shot 100% of the time.

Show those same people a two photos processed in Lightroom, one processed in raw and one processed in jpeg and they will not be able to tell the difference.

This too I disagree with. It really depends on what you are doing to the photo. If you take the JPEG, put it in LR and bump contrast +1. Then at the same time put a RAW file in LR and bump contrast +1 and that's all you need to do, then yes, you can't tell the difference. But once you need to adjust exposure, blacks, contrast, fill light, highlights, shadows, saturation, camera profile, hues, luminence, white balance (and the list goes on) the JPEG file will become un useable where as the RAW file will look fantastic still after all your editing.

[pathfinder]

Read "Real World Camera RAW with Photoshop CS4" By Jeffe Schewe and Bruce Fraser before you decide.

While it is true that in camera jpgs can be very good when shot under ideal circumstances, in my world, I rarely get ideal circumstances, and RAW saves my bacon at very little cost, since I am going to run my files through LR either way.

[arodney]

two perfectly exposed images (one sent from the camera as a JPG, one RAW) will be identical.

Well the exposure for Raw will be "under exposed" to produce a proper JPEG!

ETTR:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/exposing-for-raw.html

Even taking proper exposure into account, the two would not be identical since the camera is processing the Raw to JPEG using proprietary methods and the Raw is processed in any number of ways depending on the Raw processor and how you've configured the defaults for rendering, then optional slider manipulation.

In the end, there's not much in similarity between a Raw and a JPEG:
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf

[jfriend]

Well the exposure for Raw will be "under exposed" to produce a proper JPEG!

ETTR:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/exposing-for-raw.html

Even taking proper exposure into account, the two would not be identical since the camera is processing the Raw to JPEG using proprietary methods and the Raw is processed in any number of ways depending on the Raw processor and how you've configured the defaults for rendering, then optional slider manipulation.

In the end, there's not much in similarity between a Raw and a JPEG:
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf I think the point of his posting was that if you have a good exposure on the image (exposure, white balance and other camera settings are what you want for the image and the image was not photographically challenging like high dynamic range), then you can get a very high quality output from the in-camera JPEG and may not be able to tell the difference between a well exposed JPEG and a developed RAW file.

Of course, it's the opposite situation (in camera settings were not ideal or the scene was very challenging to capture) where RAW provides it's biggest advantages.

[T. Bombadil]

I think the point of his posting was that if you have a good exposure on the image (exposure, white balance and other camera settings are what you want for the image and the image was not photographically challenging like high dynamic range), then you can get a very high quality output from the in-camera JPEG and may not be able to tell the difference between a well exposed JPEG and a developed RAW file.

Of course, it's the opposite situation (in camera settings were not ideal or the scene was very challenging to capture) where RAW provides it's biggest advantages.

yes, thank you - that is what i was trying to say. you and others have done a better job expressing it than did i.

[arodney]

I think the point of his posting was that if you have a good exposure on the image (exposure, white balance and other camera settings are what you want for the image and the image was not photographically challenging like high dynamic range), then you can get a very high quality output from the in-camera JPEG and may not be able to tell the difference between a well exposed JPEG and a developed RAW file.


There's no more dynamic range in the JPEG or the Raw at least in terms of the data provided, however, the in camera processor could clip data in producing the JPEG that's less then ideal. That's why we shoot Raw.

I agree that a JPEG can be lovely. It can also be not so lovely and you're stuck with it. Rendering is very subjective. You can let some auto algorithm do it in camera (and toss away a lot of bit depth and color gamut), or you can do this yourself.

[T. Bombadil]

ETTR:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

your links are good reading, and show why i wish for cameras with greater bit-depth more than i dream of more pixels.

[jfriend]

There's no more dynamic range in the JPEG or the Raw at least in terms of the data provided, however, the in camera processor could clip data in producing the JPEG that's less then ideal. That's why we shoot Raw.

Uhhh. I think we agree that there are lots of good reason to shoot RAW, but I'm puzzled why you said there's no difference in the dynamic range captured in a JPEG vs. a 12 or 14-bit RAW?

[arodney]

Uhhh. I think we agree that there are lots of good reason to shoot RAW, but I'm puzzled why you said there's no difference in the dynamic range captured in a JPEG vs. a 12 or 14-bit RAW?

Because there isn't. The native dynamic range of the camera is what it is. The Raw can reflect this (using proper exposure). To say Raw has more is not really correct. It has what it has, it has the potential to render a wider DR than a rendering in camera that is lower. But you could just as easily slam the tone range in a converter and get less DR than that in camera rendering. The good news is you have control over the DR with Raw, you don't with the JPEG.

With proper rendering, an in camera JPEG can has the same DR as a Raw you process. But it might not.

Oh, bit depth and dynamic range are totally separate spec's. You can have a wider DR in a lower bit depth capture or vise versa.

[jfriend]

Because there isn't. The native dynamic range of the camera is what it is. The Raw can reflect this (using proper exposure). To say Raw has more is not really correct. It has what it has, it has the potential to render a wider DR than a rendering in camera that is lower. But you could just as easily slam the tone range in a converter and get less DR than that in camera rendering. The good news is you have control over the DR with Raw, you don't with the JPEG.

With proper rendering, an in camera JPEG can has the same DR as a Raw you process. But it might not.

Oh, bit depth and dynamic range are totally separate spec's. You can have a wider DR in a lower bit depth capture or vise versa.

To capture detail in a specific dynamic range, you need a certain bit depth. The two are not independent. I'd like to see you capture detail in 8 stops of DR in a 4-bit image. It is not possible because the result would have such giant step functions in the tonal values that the image would be quite posterized and you would not have successfully captured 8 stops of detail. The two are clearly not independent.

The math tells us that to fully record what the sensor can capture, we need a bit of depth for each stop of DR the sensor can record in order to record the detail without throwing information away. If you have less than that, then you start losing detail somewhere, usually shadow detail. Now, how many stops of DR the sensor actually has depends upon many things, but is often largely gated by the noise floor since there's no point in adding additional bits of shadow detail if the extra bits are purely random noise.

It sounds like what you are saying is that the DR of the sensor can be compressed into an 8-bit JPEG without clipping if the camera settings are perfect. That might be true for some situations (and is not true for other situations), but that isn't the same as actually capturing the full DR of the sensor in a RAW file because you've irreversibly thrown away lots of tonal detail when it was compressed into the 8-bit JPEG. By my definition, you did not capture the full DR because you threw away some detail somewhere in the tonal spectrum in order to cram it into an 8-bit JPEG.

Anyway, the whole point here (which I actually think we agree on) is that a RAW captures the entire extent of what the sensor recorded so you, the photographer, can decide at a later date what the best way is to render that data for viewing, printing, sharing, etc...

Converting to a JPEG in camera makes a bunch of decisions at shoot-time that are irreversible. If the capture isn't too challenging and the camera settings are just right, the JPEG can come out pretty darn good. But, if the scene is very challenging or some of the camera settings are not just right, the RAW image will give you a much, much better chance of making a great image out of it.

[arodney]

To capture detail in a specific dynamic range, you need a certain bit depth. The two are not independent. I'd like to see you capture detail in 8 stops of DR in a 4-bit image. It is not possible because the result would have such giant step functions in the tonal values that the image would be quite posterized and you would not have successfully captured 8 stops of detail. The two are clearly not independent.

Yes it would look real ugly but it would still represent the DR from end to end. There's no question we need a minimum bit depth (that being less than 8 but for the simplicity and speed of the math, 8-bit per color works out well). Still, no bearing on the actual dynamic range. One is an encoding specification, the other a range of tones.

The math tells us that to fully record what the sensor can capture, we need a bit of depth for each stop of DR the sensor can record in order to record the detail without throwing information away.

Again, I agree that throwing away encoding data to the point the data doesn't appear contone is bad.


If you have less than that, they you start losing detail somewhere, usually shadow detail.

I don't see how if we're still talking dynamic range. The lowest value (zero) shouldn't change because we are encoding all the other values finer or less fine numerically.


Now, how many stops of DR the sensor actually has depends upon many things, but is often largely gated by the noise floor since there's no point in adding additional bits of shadow detail if the extra bits are purely random noise.

I fully agree that the resulting DR values are vague because as you point out, we rarely know the level past a certain amount of noise, we say "start". But if we agree that is well defined, all things being equal, why should the bits defining the numbers from end to end affect the values end to end?

It sounds like what you are saying is that the DR of the sensor can be compressed into an 8-bit JPEG without clipping if the camera settings are perfect.

I'm saying short of a properly exposed (for Raw) scene referred capture, we can't even start to define the DR. I'm saying there's a fixed DR and that depending on what you (or the camera) does with the Raw, the DR might be significantly different from the scene referred data.



That might be true for some situations (and is not true for other situations), but that isn't the same as actually capturing the full DR of the sensor in a RAW file because you've irreversibly thrown away lots of tonal detail when it was compressed into the 8-bit JPEG.

Yes, the rendering could throw away tonal detail. That's got nothing to do with 8-bits. And then there's the data thrown away in making a JPEG but lets not go there. Its quite possible the camera could render the full DR in 8-bits and build a JPEG. But its more likely it will not and that toothpaste is out of the tube. At least with Raw, we've got, well Raw. Its like Tivo for your images....

By my definition, you did not capture the full DR because you threw away some detail somewhere in the tonal spectrum in order to cram it into an 8-bit JPEG.

There's rendering and encoding. You can render and throw away tonal data. The encoding happens next. If you can cram the tonal data in your Raw converter, you can end up with an 8-bit document with that DR.

Anyway, the whole point here (which I actually think we agree on) is that a RAW captures the entire extent of what the sensor recorded so you, the photographer, can decide at a later date what the best way is to render that data for viewing, printing, sharing, etc...

Yes.

Converting to a JPEG in camera makes a bunch of decisions at shoot-time that are irreversible. If the capture isn't too challenging and the camera settings are just right, the JPEG can come out pretty darn good. But, if the scene is very challenging or some of the camera settings are not just right, the RAW image will give you a much, much better chance of making a great image out of it.[/QUOTE]

[jfriend]

I fully agree that the resulting DR values are vague because as you point out, we rarely know the level past a certain amount of noise, we say "start". But if we agree that is well defined, all things being equal, why should the bits defining the numbers from end to end affect the values end to end?

I believe that the technical community has a different definition of what it means to capture a specific DR which is more than you are making it out to be. It doesn't just mean that you've got some bit in your image that loosely corresponds to something on the bright end of what the sensor captures and similarly on the dark end and then you've squeezed the hell of out the middle to make that work.

Instead, it means that you've actually captured the detail in the whole DR that the camera had to start with. To do that the math says that you need at least one bit per stop of original DR. An 8-bit container can only capture full detail in 8-stops of DR. Since the best dSLRs today have somewhere in the 9-11 stops of DR (depending upon who is measuring, what they're measuring and how they do it), that info won't fit in an 8-bit container without throwing significant data away.

If you want to capture lossy DR, you can squeeze the hell out of what the camera captured so it fill fit into any size container you want, but that isn't actually capturing that DR - it's throwing data away so that you can do fit into a container that is too small to hold all the information it contains.

[arodney]

Again, a simple question. If you've got a DR of X, what does the encoding of that data have to do with the DR? One stop of DR or 8 stops can be defined in 24 bit color using a zero to 255 set of values.

[aim&shoot]

WOW! So I have been reading everyone's response, and from what I gather, shooting RAW would be the best bet if you are not that experienced and make mistakes because in RAW it is easier fixed than in JPEG, correct?

So after fixing the mistakes in RAW, do you just save as jpeg in order to download to the net, or make a DVD in order for viewing, or what would be the process?

Thanks

[Candid Arts]

WOW! So I have been reading everyone's response, and from what I gather, shooting RAW would be the best bet if you are not that experienced and make mistakes because in RAW it is easier fixed than in JPEG, correct?

So after fixing the mistakes in RAW, do you just save as jpeg in order to download to the net, or make a DVD in order for viewing, or what would be the process?

Thanks

Correct on both accounts.

[davev]

WOW! So I have been reading everyone's response, and from what I gather, shooting RAW would be the best bet if you are not that experienced and make mistakes because in RAW it is easier fixed than in JPEG, correct?

Thanks

I've been saying this for years, and then everyone gets mad.

I shoot JPG's only, and I can't see me switching to RAW anytime soon.
If you take your time, and set up the camera correctly, your JPG's will look just as good as the RAWs.
And really what I should say is, with enough time in photoshop, you'll be able to make your RAWs, look like a JPG from the camera.

I really find it funny that everyone feels the the camera is so incompetent, that it can't convert their shots.
I'm surprised that you let the camera meter your shots, or let the lens autofocus. You're giving up control.
OH NO!!!:D

The cameras and lenses of today are amazing.
You can do things now that were only dreamed of 20 years ago.

The camera does nothing that you don't tell it to do. If you screw up a lot, shoot RAW.

BTW, you know that you can run JPGs through camera RAW, right? (at least with CS3)

[zoomer]

Now you have gone and done it, HERESY!!
I agree with you. The people who insist RAW is the only way to go always seem to win these discussions through sheer will power....
Especially for novice shooters stick with jpegs until the level of knowledge of your equipment and your skill level of taking photos has advanced to the point that shooting raw is then worth exploring.



I've been saying this for years, and then everyone gets mad.

I shoot JPG's only, and I can't see me switching to RAW anytime soon.
If you take your time, and set up the camera correctly, your JPG's will look just as good as the RAWs.
And really what I should say is, with enough time in photoshop, you'll be able to make your RAWs, look like a JPG from the camera.

I really find it funny that everyone feels the the camera is so incompetent, that it can't convert their shots.
I'm surprised that you let the camera meter your shots, or let the lens autofocus. You're giving up control.
OH NO!!!:D

The cameras and lenses of today are amazing.
You can do things now that were only dreamed of 20 years ago.

The camera does nothing that you don't tell it to do. If you screw up a lot, shoot RAW.

BTW, you know that you can run JPGs through camera RAW, right? (at least with CS3)

[arodney]

Now you have gone and done it, HERESY!!
I agree with you. The people who insist RAW is the only way to go always seem to win these discussions through sheer will power....
Especially for novice shooters stick with jpegs until the level of knowledge of your equipment and your skill level of taking photos has advanced to the point that shooting raw is then worth exploring.


This is akin to saying "Just concentrate on shooting, send the film to a one hour lab". And that's OK! But you're going to get what you get so be happy or change the game plan.

[davev]

This is akin to saying "Just concentrate on shooting, send the film to a one hour lab". And that's OK! But you're going to get what you get so be happy or change the game plan.

Once again, you know that you can run JPGs through camera RAW, right?

If you have to change half the settings that 'you' entered into the camera, you either need more practice, or to read more about photography.

100% crop, half from RAW, half from JPG.
Pick whatever side you want, and I can make the other side look like it.
For this and 99% of my shots, no difference will be seen between a RAW and a JPG of the same shot
by the time I'm done with it in post.

http://davev.smugmug.com/photos/264431414_J4GcQ-O.jpg

[aim&shoot]

Hmmm, ok... Well I have been playing with RAW and JPEG both, I have been shooting alot in JPEG, but was reading alot of post here and started to wonder about RAW and would it be beneficial / easy to do...

Seems like whatever you shoot you can fix with photoshop. But I am not one who really likes to sit and mess with photoshop to much, well one I don't have photoshop (ok trial version) which seems pretty fun... But I would really like to just shoot and only fix minor flaws. I know it takes practice but I have all the time in the world to practice and play...

I just wanted to make sure if I did choose to shoot jpeg would it be easy to fix problems with photoshop or whatever program and still be able to get a good enlargement out of the picture if needed? And not compromise the resolution / pixels?

DAVEV = like the pic by the way...

[Candid Arts]

I just wanted to make sure if I did choose to shoot jpeg would it be easy to fix problems with photoshop or whatever program and still be able to get a good enlargement out of the picture if needed? And not compromise the resolution / pixels?

This is the issue... With any major flaws in the original photo, with a jpeg it will be compromising the quality of the photo. Let's say your in a place where WB is changing constantly, instead of having to always switch, you can just shoot and fix it later. The ONLY downfall to RAW files is they take up more space. That's it. If you don't mind spending an extra 100-200 on some memory cards so you have the room if you do long shoots (upwards of say 500 photos before you can offload), then a RAW file will benefit you greatly in so many ways. Even if the photo you take is near perfect and you only have a minor tweek, that minor tweek is going to be WAY WAY WAY less noticeable in a RAW file vs a JPEG. YOU are controlling the conversion to JPEG when you shoot RAW where as the camera is when you shoot JPEG. Even if you're in the same place with the same lighting doing a shoot, things change, shadow's move, you might want more or less contrast in one photo to the next. And most of the time when I shoot, I don't spend 10 minutes per photo making sure every little tiny thing is correct in my camera. I'd much rather control all that later and worry about composition and subject matter during the time of shoot. Editing the details can come later. That's why the genius of PS and LR are there. You can fine tune everything much much much more than the camera can for you, even if you do set the camera up, it only has so many things you can set. And once it's taken, it's taken. You put it in LR or PS and that's what you got. Yes some minor adjustments can be made to a JPEG without any artifacts or anything bad like that, but why even limit yourself? You do that, and you'll shoot that one shot that...subject matter wise, and compositionally is THE MONEY shot, but oh no, you forgot to adjust this, or forgot to adjust that. Well good news! You shot in RAW! So you can fix it, and still have a flawless image.

Now having said all that, RAW can't fix everything. If your photo is blurry, it's blurry. If your focus point is wrong, your focus point is wrong. But, the moral of the story is, I'd rather work with 20MB worth of information than 5MB. It's like recording a movie in HD(1080p) versus recording it in 480i, You have a LOT more information to work with. Might as well take advantage of it.

[jfriend]

I have a feeling this thread could go on for years. Here's the deal.

Shooting RAW and using a RAW processor is just one of many tools you can use for your photography. There are many documented cases where you can get more out of your images by shooting RAW, particularly when there's something unusual about the scene (high dynamic range, exposure goof, a need to pull extra detail out of shadows, large white balance correction, etc...). But, if you don't have those challenges or manage to deal with them appropriately with your camera settings, there are zillions of wonderfully fine images that came out of the camera as JPEGs and may not have been any better if shot RAW.

There's no point in trying to convince someone else which they should do. I shoot RAW because I choose to use the tool that preserves the most data from the camera and gives me the most latitude to make corrections or changes in post processing. That is purely a personal choice. I don't have any need to foist that choice on anyone else. These are just tools. You should each pick the tool that is going to work the best for you. If JPEGs work the best for you, then by all means, that's what you should use.

I find it pointless to argue one is better than the other. They are tools with different tradeoffs. Understand the difference between the tools and pick the one that works the best for you and allow for the fact that a different person might choose a different tool and still produce great images.

[davev]

There is one other problem with RAW that no one talks about.
I have Photoshop CS3. Bought it 8-10 months ago.
I have a Canon G10 and a Canon 5D MKII. This program will not open the RAW files from either of these cameras.

I'm sure some will say, buy the new program. If you can afford the cameras, you should be able to buy CS4.

Yeah, I could do that, but my point will be this instead.
Every computer (I think) has something that will read JPGs.
Can that be said about RAW files? No.
Right now I see that because my software isn't new enough, it won't read the newer files.
Do you think that there may come a day that the software companies will start to drop cameras from the lineup, say PS would no longer read RAWs from a 10D?

I don't know. But it seems that JPGs have been around for a long time. My oldest computer can read them, my newest computer can read them.

Having something that's proprietary isn't always the best choice.

[Candid Arts]

There is a free plugin for cs3 that will read those files.

[Art Scott]

I have not made it to page 3 yet and no one hit on this important little note......every time you open and close a jpg it re-compresses an already compressed file.....so you toss pixels every time....with raw it never happens......I shoot a combo..raw+jpg and yes I could almost double the count on my cards by dropping the jpg....but I have found that if I need to magnify ashot on my lcd then I have to keep shooting r+j.....cause the embedded jpg will not magnify........but when I down load from the card I only move the raw files and never store camera generated jpegs for any reason.

[Art Scott]

WOW! So I have been reading everyone's response, and from what I gather, shooting RAW would be the best bet if you are not that experienced and make mistakes because in RAW it is easier fixed than in JPEG, correct?

So after fixing the mistakes in RAW, do you just save as jpeg in order to download to the net, or make a DVD in order for viewing, or what would be the process?

Thanks

some save as tiffs (really huge....and I do this if I am saving a layered file) but a lot of us, me included, save as a jpg and upload to SM for archiving....

[aim&shoot]

Ok, well than everyone has been alot of help answering my questions... I have not yet purchased photoshop or lightroom, but I am playing around with the trial versions to see how they work... My goodness I really need to learn ALOT!!!! Maybe I should just go take a class or something....

With film you just took it to a lab and that was that, don't get me wrong I LOVE digital, I just need to learn all the steps I guess...

My brain is trying to suck up all this wonderful knowledge everyone has, I think it's going to explode... LOL But that's a good thing, at least I am learning...

I am prob. gonna go more for using raw+jpeg just to keep my options open... and eventually just maybe shoot raw if I can mastermind the programs...

I do like the idea of Raw being sort of a safety net, for those just in case incidents... And the whole not compressing everytime you open the file... So I guess there are alot of pros to it...

But I know everyone is going to shoot what they feel comfortable with and what they like, no one is wrong and I thank u for all the information you have given me....

[aj986s]

I have not made it to pagge 3 yet and no one hit on this important little note......every time you open and close a jpg it re-compresses an already compressed file.....so you toss pixels every time....with raw it never happens......I shoot a combo..raw+jpg and yes I could almost double the count on my cards by dropping the jpg....but I have found that if I need to magnify ashot on my lcd then I have to keep shooting r+j.....cause the embedded jpg will not magnify........but when I down load from the card I only move the raw files and never store camera generated jpegs for any reason.

I'm a bit confused....:scratch Are you saying that you cannot zoom into an image viewed on your camera's LCD, unless you've saved it as JPG?

[Candid Arts]

I'm a bit confused....:scratch Are you saying that you cannot zoom into an image viewed on your camera's LCD, unless you've saved it as JPG?

That's what I got from that. But when you shoot only RAW, it creates a small JPEG just for the purpose of viewing on the LCD. Ive always been able to zoom on a "just RAW" picture I've taken.

[mercphoto]

There is one other problem with RAW that no one talks about.
I have Photoshop CS3. Bought it 8-10 months ago.
I have a Canon G10 and a Canon 5D MKII. This program will not open the RAW files from either of these cameras.... Having something that's proprietary isn't always the best choice.
You are correct that is a problem. The problem stems solely from the fact that the camera manufacturers, for reasons I do not comprehend, feel its important to keep that file format proprietary and to constantly muck with it. That's why I like DNG and why I wish my camera could create a DNG natively rather than a CR2. At least one camera manufacturer has this ability - to natively create DNG raw files straight in the camera.

[Candid Arts]

You are correct that is a problem. The problem stems solely from the fact that the camera manufacturers, for reasons I do not comprehend, feel its important to keep that file format proprietary and to constantly muck with it. That's why I like DNG and why I wish my camera could create a DNG natively rather than a CR2. At least one camera manufacturer has this ability - to natively create DNG raw files straight in the camera.

There is a free plugin for cs3 that will read those files.

As stated, I bought my new 50D, and had this problem. I've since been able to get a free download plugin for CS3, and now they work fine, also a free update for preview (mac's photo viewing program), and now they work fine.

Go to adobe's website and check for the free plugin for CS3. This is not an issue.

[mercphoto]

I shoot JPG's only, and I can't see me switching to RAW anytime soon.
If you take your time, and set up the camera correctly, your JPG's will look just as good as the RAWs.
And really what I should say is, with enough time in photoshop, you'll be able to make your RAWs, look like a JPG from the camera.

Not to fuel the fires, but I think I'm going to fuel the fire. :D Most cameras let you modify how it will create the in-camera JPG. You can adjust the saturation, sharpness and color tone, in the very least. Canon lets you set "picture styles" on many of their models, which further affects how the final JPG will look. DPP will even let you apply a picture style to a RAW image, giving you the ability to change picture styles after the shot was taken. How a picture should "look" is rather subjective and is reflected in the number of parameters a camera gives you when it takes the pic.

But as far as "making your RAW images look like the JPG from the camera", most people I know who shoot RAW do so in order to make the final result look better than what the camera can do. If your ultimate goal is to make your RAW file look like an in-camera JPG, either your expectations are too low, or your skills with post-processing are not very high, because then you're wasting your time with RAW.

In my opinion, no image is complete as it comes off the camera, and this includes in-camera JPGs. You can always do something to it to make it better. And given that there really is little reason to start with a JPG. I have images from night motocross that, after extensive editing in post production, turned out fantastic, and I would not have been able to get to that final result starting with a JPG. There simply is too much data thrown away during the JPG compression.

Digital photography is all about bits. Don't throw away data until you absolutely have to.

[BradfordBenn]

no one hit on this important little note......every time you open and close a jpg it re-compresses an already compressed file.....so you toss pixels every time....

That is slightly misleading and while I realize the intent is there, the file is not recompressed/sampled unless you select SAVE. So if you open the file and view it no problem. Make changes and save changes, yes it is recompressed. However if you open it in a photo editing program and the first thing you do is save it in non compressed format you will no longer recompress each time you save. Then when complete save it compressed if you want.

[davev]

I have images from night motocross that, after extensive editing in post production, turned out fantastic, and I would not have been able to get to that final result starting with a JPG. There simply is too much data thrown away during the JPG compression.



Unless you shot in RAW + JPG, you don't know for sure that this statement is true.
Not knowing what you had to do to fix the shots, maybe some in camera setting would have made the job easier.

(This is just in general and not directed at you mercphoto)

Here's one thing that I can say, and not many RAW shooters can.
I get dogged every time I post a shot, and then when people ask, I say it was a JPG from the camera.
Does a shot automatically get better just because it was shot in RAW.

NO.

Yet I always get some .... person that will say "It's to bad it's not a RAW"

Here's another thing that I can say that very few RAW shooters can.
People asked me to just give RAW a try. So I did. I shot in RAW and JPG so I could compare.

Because I set my camera up in a manner to get what I think are well exposed shots. The RAWs just took
more work to get them to look the way I want them to.

As for converting to DNG, then to JPG, I don't think so.
Until I bought the 5DMKII, I had never heard of DNG. I'm probably just out of the loop on this one,
but why would I want to convert all my shots to another format that may not have the following to become a standard.

If you want to look at a bunch of crummy JPGs, you can go to my site davev.smugmug.com

I don't want to post any more examples in the thread.

You like shooting RAW, shoot RAW, but don't tell someone there images will look like crap because they don't use RAW.
That's just wrong.

Have a good evening, and go take some photos. (whatever way you like)

[mercphoto]

Unless you shot in RAW + JPG, you don't know for sure that this statement is true.
Not knowing what you had to do to fix the shots, maybe some in camera setting would have made the job easier.
I shot motocross for two years, and spent a lot of time getting night shots right (its not easy, and is a combination of equipment, proper settings and capture, and then finally post processing). You don't just "set the camera up" and click the shutter and get a great image.

Because I set my camera up in a manner to get what I think are well exposed shots
A proper exposure is just one element of good image. Not saying you can't get good images from an in-camera JPG if you know what you are doing. But to say the image can't be made better still in post-production (whether from RAW or JPG) just isn't true. And if you are going to post-process then it makes little sense to start with a JPG.

[mercphoto]

If you want to look at a bunch of crummy JPGs, you can go to my site davev.smugmug.com
Very nice work by the way.

[arodney]

Because I set my camera up in a manner to get what I think are well exposed shots. The RAWs just took more work to get them to look the way I want them to.


You have to expose properly for Raw!
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

[AaronNelson]

You have to expose properly for Raw!
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

i agree fully, and would like to add shooting a additional bracket of the left side of the histogram and preform a layerd image using the best from both layers to make one image that contains more of a dynamic range.

i have not made it prefection, (and may never get there) but ive only been doing this technique for a year now...
it takes time, but worth it.

now for myself i only apply multi exposures to Landscape sunrise/sunset shooting...

if i were to be doing wildlife shooting, (like Davev) i would likly shoot raw still, but post processing would be minimal compared.... and maybe i would start to just shoot wildlife in jpg, but i dont so i wont say...

[aim&shoot]

Well, everyone has some good point's on here... And I have looked thru almost everyone's site, and since I am a newbie, I really can not tell what is Jpeg or Raw... All the picutre's look good to my eye's...

So, I have been shooting in raw+jpeg and really do not see a big o difference, but I guess maybe since I am still on the learning curve, it would be a safe bet to just keep shooting raw+jpeg in case of a big mess up?

I have been shooting jpeg and not to worried about the mess up's because i wouldjust trash them, but since I am going to do my niece's 15th, I am really trying to do the best I can and learn as much as I can... I do have some time, but need to practice, practice, practice....

Most of this talk about histogram's and dealing with layer's confuses me at time's, all I want to do is take the pic and just print... But I realize that there is so much more than that... So I am trying to get it, I have gone to sleep and waken up thinking digital, jpeg, raw... I live on the internet and this forum!!!! And will keep doing it until I get it right!

So do you all think it would better suite me to shoot Raw for the event pics for just in case, because I could prob. fix most of it with software?

I know I keep asking this question, but with reading everyone's post, I still don't know what to do.:scratch If I shoot jpeg and let's say I have to fix the photo do you think it would loose a lot of resolution if they wanted to blow it up vs having to fix it if it were raw? My biggest dilema is what will the final product look like if they decided to enalarge the pic to let's say a 20x24, using either raw or jpeg?

I've actually taken test shot's and ordered blow up's just to see what I am dealing with, but they have not arrived yet.

Well back to playing I go....

[Art Scott]

I'm a bit confused....:scratch Are you saying that you cannot zoom into an image viewed on your camera's LCD, unless you've saved it as JPG?

If I shoot only raw I cannot zoom in on the cameras lcd....that is correct.....it may just be a Konica Minolta thing...because all 3 of my camera's refuse to allow magnification of a raw only file.

[davev]

Well, everyone has some good point's on here... And I have looked thru almost everyone's site, and since I am a newbie, I really can not tell what is Jpeg or Raw... All the picutre's look good to my eye's...

So, I have been shooting in raw+jpeg and really do not see a big o difference, but I guess maybe since I am still on the learning curve, it would be a safe bet to just keep shooting raw+jpeg in case of a big mess up?

I have been shooting jpeg and not to worried about the mess up's because i wouldjust trash them, but since I am going to do my niece's 15th, I am really trying to do the best I can and learn as much as I can... I do have some time, but need to practice, practice, practice....

So do you all think it would better suite me to shoot Raw for the event pics for just in case, because I could prob. fix most of it with software?

I know I keep asking this question, but with reading everyone's post, I still don't know what to do.:scratch If I shoot jpeg and let's say I have to fix the photo do you think it would loose a lot of resolution if they wanted to blow it up vs having to fix it if it were raw? My biggest dilema is what will the final product look like if they decided to enalarge the pic to let's say a 20x24, using either raw or jpeg?

I've actually taken test shot's and ordered blow up's just to see what I am dealing with, but they have not arrived yet.

Well back to playing I go....

This is one of the times that you should shoot in RAW.
I'm going to guess that this will be indoors, and maybe have a mix of lighting. A little sun light through
the windows, some flash, regular light bulbs. This is the perfect place to use RAW.

When lightning gets dicy, this is where I think RAW shines.
Say the background of your shot is getting lit with tungsten bulbs, and the foreground is lit with the
flash. You can run the shot through camera raw twice, once with the white balance setting to flash, once
with tungsten, and then combine/fade the 2 shots together.

Even I shoot in RAW mode in this kind of setting, in particular if it's a one time event.

[aim&shoot]

This is one of the times that you should shoot in RAW.
I'm going to guess that this will be indoors, and maybe have a mix of lighting. A little sun light through
the windows, some flash, regular light bulbs. This is the perfect place to use RAW.

When lightning gets dicy, this is where I think RAW shines.
Say the background of your shot is getting lit with tungsten bulbs, and the foreground is lit with the
flash. You can run the shot through camera raw twice, once with the white balance setting to flash, once
with tungsten, and then combine/fade the 2 shots together.

Even I shoot in RAW mode in this kind of setting, in particular if it's a one time event.

Hmm, ok that sounds like an idea especially for the church b/c of their limit's on flash sometime's....

Thanks for the input...

Love your waterfall pic by the way...