RAW or JPG

[Antonio Correia]

Suddenly I ask myself:
Is is worth, for me, to shoot RAW all the time ?
Which of these pictures was shot on RAW on camera and transformed to JPG?
And which was born JPG ?
Guess ...

A http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/86885138-L.jpg B http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/86885024-L.jpg

[thebigsky]

Did you do any PP on the RAW image or just convert it straight to JPG?

[Antonio Correia]

Did you do any PP on the RAW image or just convert it straight to JPG?

You were fast !

I photoshop both files. :thumb

[Nikolai]

Suddenly I ask myself:
Is is worth, for me, to shoot RAW all the time ?


I think only you can answer that question...:dunno

As to me, I answered it long time ago: RAW only, unless we're talking some ultrafast event (bikeracing being such an example), where you may want to sacrifice the end quality for the number of shots taken during a very short amount of time..
HTH

[Antonio Correia]

I think only you can answer that question...:dunno

As to me, I answered it long time ago: RAW only, unless we're talking some ultrafast event (bikeracing being such an example), where you may want to sacrifice the end quality for the number of shots taken during a very short amount of time..
HTH

Sorry Nikolai but I am not quite following you, I think.
You mean:
Shoot only raw when we want a great quality.
If we are shooting kite-surf shoot jpg. Less quality but fast saves in the CF.
I re-read and I think this is your point.

But here, and that is if I am interpreting correctly, lies my point:
For the post in the net and prints not larger than 20*30 cms (7.9*11,8 inches) do I have to go throught larger files, slower computer and work flow, duplicating the files, space on disk, etc....:scratch

Does it worth ?

[wxwax]

It's not important for us to be able to tell the difference.

It's important for you to know whether the additional flexibility and control offered by shooting in RAW will help you or not. If it doesn't, then you don't need RAW. But if you find yourself wishing you could correct a shot and can't, then maybe RAW would be handy for you.

Only you know. What we think doesn't matter.

[Nikolai]

But here, and that is if I am interpreting correctly, lies my point:
For the post in the net and prints not larger than 20*30 cms (7.9*11,8 inches) do I have to go throught larger files, slower computer and work flow, duplicating the files, space on disk, etc....:scratch

Does it worth ?

Once again, my friend, this is the question only you can answer for yourself...
Before dSLR I was pretty happy with JPEGs. I simply always copied them twice into two different drives, never-ever touched ones I dubbed "originals".
Now with DSLR my RAWs are my originals, so I only copy them once (backup is a different issue:-) and post-process in place. Since I *must* post-process them before I can give them to somebody or to upload, it forces me to look at them and often cull out the baddies, thus improving general average quality of the crop. For me, I find the benefits of the RAW workflow outweighing their bulkiness and the necessity to always process them.
I must note that I have a rather fast "gaming-grade" machine and enough of the HDD space. Your mileage may wary...:dunno

[Nikolai]

It's not important for us to be able to tell the difference.

It's important for you to know whether the additional flexibility and control offered by shooting in RAW will help you or not. If it doesn't, then you don't need RAW. But if you find yourself wishing you could correct a shot and can't, then maybe RAW would be handy for you.

Only you know. What we think doesn't matter.

What Sid said :deal

[pathfinder]

Like Nik and waxy I tend to shoot RAW routinely, unless there is a compelling reason not to.

That is my choice and I don't think the RAW processing really slows me down that much more than shooting jpgs, because even my jpgs need some tweaking to satisfy me.

I was a darkroom rat when I was younger, so maybe I just can't really give up the dark room.

If you prefer your images to be processed by the local drugstore, jpgs will probably do just fine for you. Folks looking at them may not see much difference, but I CAN see a significant difference in my RAW shots and my jpgs. I rarely shoot jpgs.

If I was a journalist or a sports shooter who was churning 500 frames a day that needed to be sold immediately, I would rather shoot jpgs then. But I'm not.

[spudjer]

I think only you can answer that question...:dunno

As to me, I answered it long time ago: RAW only, unless we're talking some ultrafast event (bikeracing being such an example), where you may want to sacrifice the end quality for the number of shots taken during a very short amount of time..
HTH

I agree with Darth!

I always shoot RAW for a superb "original" with all the control I demand. Jpegs only if you twist my arm... ever shoot 35mm for a client because they were going to reproduce them small in a brochure and some images worked so well they wanted to do full page magazine ads or billboards and 35mm wasn't good enough for reproduction? I have. Since then, I have always shot in largest format possible... and in digital world it is RAW.:thumb :thumb

Rock and Raw Antonio.... peace

[jfriend]

Suddenly I ask myself:
Is is worth, for me, to shoot RAW all the time ?
Which of these pictures was shot on RAW on camera and transformed to JPG?
And which was born JPG ?
Guess ...

A B
First of all, I've chastised a few folks on dpreview for making RAW vs. JPEG a religious argument with only one correct answer so I want to make sure we don't do that here. RAW is a tool that is available to you. You have to weigh the usefulness of that tool and use it if it gives you a better result for the cost/work that you have to put in. It's no different than deciding whether to buy a separate noise reduction program vs. the built-in noise reduction in CS2. Evaluate the tools available and decide which one works for you within your cost boundaries. If the answer for you is JPEG instead of RAW, then that's the best choice for you and I am fine with that.

For me, I know that there are shooting conditions where I can get better results from RAW (messed up or widely varying white balance, wide dynamic range, accidental exposure mess up, intense colors with potential channel clipping problems, high or low contrast scenes). Further, I've gotten down the learning curve with Bridge/ACR that I spend less time in PP with RAW than I would with JPEG (largely because of the advantages of multiple image changes and non-destructive editing) and I mostly shoot events of 200-300 photos. The only downside I really feel with RAW is that it takes more storage on the card and on my hard disk. To me, that's a tradeoff worth paying for. I just buy bigger storage.

[thebigsky]

How about taking this approach, when you shoot JPEG your camera applies some PP to the image, depending on the model it's usally a bit of sharpening, contrast, saturation etc.

You could shoot all your images in RAW and use your computer to batch convert your images to JPEG applying the above settings as chosen by you.

Now you have your JPEG images but you also have the security of a RAW file should you ever need it.

Having changed to RAW I can't imagine going back, and I regret deeply that some of my early images weren't shot in RAW as my exposures were invariably a little out and I could now recover those mistakes, plus I don't like some of the PP that was applied by the camera but now I'm stuck with it.

The downside of RAW is that every image needs PP and when new to this you find youself fiddling endlessly with every permutation, paranoid that you're not getting the best result. However you soon develop your own workflow and this processing time speeds up.

Charlie

[Stustaff]

Now that I do like thebigsky, never got it that straight in my head!
How do I apply a setting to all my RAW's that ouputs a sharpened etc JPEG?

I have CS2 on a Mac

because if I can do that and then use the RAW for the 2 or 3 BEST images or any that need a major fix but have most of them in JPEG it would be great.

Any suggestions?

[thebigsky]

Now that I do like thebigsky, never got it that straight in my head!
How do I apply a setting to all my RAW's that ouputs a sharpened etc JPEG?

I have CS2 on a Mac

because if I can do that and then use the RAW for the 2 or 3 BEST images or any that need a major fix but have most of them in JPEG it would be great.

Any suggestions?

I should point out I don't actually employ this method, I shoot all my images in RAW now and import them into Lightroom.

I found this link (http://avondale.typepad.com/rawformat/2005/05/thomas_knoll_on.html) for batch converting in CS2 but there are others probably more qualified to advise. By the way many cameras will save both a JPEG and RAW file for you when shooting, though you're going to need a fast and large CF card if you choose this route.

Charlie

P.S. Have you tried Lightroom, it's currently a free beta download, I really like it.

[Stustaff]

Thanks,

problem with jpeg in camera is the camera processing is then done! if I create a jpeg from a Raw I can then alter WB etc so hopefully get a better JPEG!

Lightroom - read a bit about it but at the moment my Main PC is a PC! and my mac is just an ibook so not really up to running lightroom.

I'll take a look at that link cheers, I seem to remember something about doing Batch conversions through Bridge!?

[thebigsky]

Lightroom is now available for the PC.

[dancorder]

My $0.02:

I'm planning on shooting RAW from now on for three reasons:
1) Bibble Pro. It's a RAW converter but it also lets me do the most common edits (curves, cropping, sharpening, noise reduction) directly. It's actually quicker for me to do my edits in Bibble than in the GIMP (no PS for me at the moment) unless I want to do something special.
2) Exposure latitude. I'm not a particularly experienced photographer yet so the ability to recover some shadow or highlight detail that would be lost in a JPG is useful to me
3) I have lots of storage and I might want to blow up a picture really big in the future. Then again I might not, but I don't feel I'm losing anything by shooting RAW.

[mercphoto]

First of all, EVERYONE shoots RAW. The only question is which converter do you use? For some they use the converter in the camera. This means the camera spits out a JPG. And you can usually tweak various conversion parameters in the camera to affect the final JPG. But once its converted there is no going back. Others either do not like the in-camera results, or want to be able to choose various conversion parameters on an image-by-image basis, or (let's admit it) cannot get a proper exposure and white balance to save their life, so they use a RAW converter on a computer rather than in the camera. All those are valid reasons to shoot RAW (even the last one).

When I had the original Digital Rebel I found its auto-white-balance feature to be lacking and I shot RAW more often than I wanted just to get around color casts. The 20D was nearly flawless on AWB, plus its in-camera JPG's were very, very good. I seldom shot RAW with a 20D unless the lighting situation was particularly difficult.

I now have a 1D Mark II. I find the AWB to be not quite as good as the 20D. However these days I'm shooting a lot of night racing. I'm not always happy with the flash metering so I am now shooting mostly RAW so that I can adjust exposure, white balance and shadow point as needed.

[claudermilk]

It's not important for us to be able to tell the difference.

It's important for you to know whether the additional flexibility and control offered by shooting in RAW will help you or not. If it doesn't, then you don't need RAW. But if you find yourself wishing you could correct a shot and can't, then maybe RAW would be handy for you.

Only you know. What we think doesn't matter.

The most accurate, to-the-point answer so far.

Me, I now go both ways. :wink Usually I shoot RAW as I prefer the latitude for much of my shooting as it't in demanding lighting conditions & the control-freak in me prefers to reserve final decisions. However, when doing quick shooting in daylight, and when the camera gets passed to someone else for when I cannot be the loose nut behind the viewfinder, JPG is easier. It just depends on the needs of the situation; sometimes shooting RAW makes a huge difference, sometimes not at all.

[Nikolai]

Me, I now go both ways. :wink Usually I shoot RAW as I prefer the latitude for much of my shooting as it't in demanding lighting conditions & the control-freak in me prefers to reserve final decisions. However, when doing quick shooting in daylight, and when the camera gets passed to someone else for when I cannot be the loose nut behind the viewfinder, JPG is easier. It just depends on the needs of the situation; sometimes shooting RAW makes a huge difference, sometimes not at all.

While I totally agree that sometimes (and maybe even often) there is not much difference between out-of-the-camera jpeg and a quickly processed raw file, I - personally - find it easier to have just one (RAW-based) workflow rather than two different ones, one for RAWs and one for JPEGs...

Just MHO and my personal preference, of course :):

[rutt]

You are getting a lot of great advice here, so normally I wouldn't weigh in. But I've been rethinking this very issue and exactly what raw is good for and what out of camera jpegs are good for, so here goes.

First, what exactly is a raw image? It's an exact recording of the state of the camera's sensor at the moment the shutter activated. No post processing at all is applied. It just gives a level for each pixel on the sensor. A number of camera settings have no impact at all on raw images. Whate balance is applied as a post processing step by the camera, so this setting doesn't effect the raw image (well, it gets recorded in the raw image, but that's it.) Similarly for contrast and saturation. Also ISO. ISO only effects the meter which determines shutter speed and aperture and also how the image is processed. But shoot in manual mode and ignore the meter and ISO doesn't matter to your raws.

What's wrong with raw?

It's big. Even the finest quality jpegs (essentially lossless) are quite a bit smaller, maybe 1/4 the size. Big translates to slow when you want to shoot a lot of frames quickly (as at a sporting event.) The buffer fills up faster and then it has to empty to the card and it's generally a drag. Also when it's time to preview and edit, more has to be read from the camera and/or card and that can be awkward.
It's not post processed. Look at a raw image in ACR and turn off all the automatic stuff, exposure, shadows, contrast &etc. Choose a flat curve. No sharpening. Choose a random color balance. The image will be flat. 0 pop. If that's what came out of the camera, people who didn't know better would complain. A lot.

So when the camera makes jpegs, it does some things that are good for 90% of the images that people actually shoot. It applies an S curve to open up the midtones at the expense of the highlights and shadows. Typically this curve is designed to make some part of the image a light point and some part a dark point. The camera makes this choice based on some algorithm. That means that it will plug a shadow and blow a highlight. That's what you want if it chooses the right highlight to blow and the right shadow to plug. Not what you want if it chooses to blow or plug something you care about. Similarly for sharpening and noise reduction.

Now in most DSLRs and all professional DSLRs, it's possible to set things up so no sharpening is applied to jpegs and very little contrast or saturation added. Jpegs like this offer almost as much flexibility as raw images if they are correctly exposed. ISO is still not ignored when generating the jpegs which means some detail is lost in the shadows and/or highlights.

So? Well, the truth will set you free. How much post processing are you planning on? Shooting raw really doesn't add much time if you were already planning on some manual post processing and it can open up quite a few options. Manual sharpening in particular can almost always improve on what the camera does. And once the an image has been sharpened, it's basically impossible to resharpen effectively. Color balance is really no big deal. It's very easy to fix with curves once you get the hang of it. Contrast and exposure can really be a big deal. But on balance, if you can turn off in camera sharpening, contrast and saturation enhancement, in camera jpegs can work as a starting point for post processing much of the time. Butt I just hate it those few times the camera lost something in making the jpeg that I wanted. One good shot ruined out of 50; how much would you pay for a camera that did better?

I like to shoot RAW + medium quality jpeg. It's still slower than just jpeg, but the medium quality jpegs don't add much to total size and don't slow things down much. They are very useful for previews and proof sheets and are ready to upload to smugmug.

Sorry for the long post. As I said, I've been thinking about this.

[Nikolai]

I only didn't quite get this one point of yours:

ISO only effects the meter which determines shutter speed and aperture and also how the image is processed. But shoot in manual mode and ignore the meter and ISO doesn't matter to your raws.

I mean, I understand what you're saying, but it seems to me that ISO (i.e. light sensitivity) setting is important enough parameter to think about.
I mean, even if you keep the shutter speed and f/stop the same in full manual mode, changing the ISO *will change* the content of the RAW file.

Am I missing something? :dunno

Thanks! :thumb

[rutt]

It's taken me a while to get this, but the ISO setting doesn't actually change the state of the sensor at the time of exposure. With a given shutter and aperture setting, the exact same number of photons strike each pixel on the sensor no matter how the ISO is set. The raw image just records this value, essentially the number of photon strikes. It makes a lot of sense to use ISO to interpret this afterwards, whether in the camera of in the raw converter, so that happens. But if you are willing to change the raw converter settings, you can get the same image back no matter how the ISO is set. Prove it to yourself.


I mean, even if you keep the shutter speed and f/stop the same in full manual mode, changing the ISO *will change* the content of the RAW file.

Am I missing something? :dunno

Thanks! :thumb

[Nikolai]

It's taken me a while to get this, but the ISO setting doesn't actually change the state of the sensor at the time of exposure. With a given shutter and aperture setting, the exact same number of photons strike each pixel on the sensor no matter how the ISO is set. The raw image just records this value, essentially the number of photon strikes. It makes a lot of sense to use ISO to interpret this afterwards, whether in the camera of in the raw converter, so that happens. But if you are willing to change the raw converter settings, you can get the same image back no matter how the ISO is set. Prove it to yourself.

It sounds really strange to me, so I am going to check it out tonight.
I'm gonna set the camera on a tripod, lock shutter and f/stop in manual and then take a series of shots changing only the ISO. Then I'm going to bring the results into ACR, uncheck all the auto stuff, set curve to liear and see if I can arrive to identical end-result images from ALL of them by manipulating only with the exposure slider (which supposed to be a master one, correct).

If I don't lose any highlights or shadows - you win:): , but, frankly, I highly doubt this will happen:dunno

Does this plan make sense in "proving the point", or you were talking about something different?

Thanks! :thumb

[rutt]

That's just the experiment you should do. To be honest I haven't done it, so I am interested in your results. My thoughts on this are based on what I learned in my Computational Photography course.

Really, though, the camera can change the physics of the sensor. The same number of photons are going to strike each pixel, not matter what the ISO setting. It can only change the interpretation of it. It may be that precision is lost at lower ISO settings. I'm not sure what kind of numbers are used to represent the data. (Fixed, floating, how many bits.) Low light images are essentially noisy because less light means fewer photons strike each sensor and it becomes error becomes statistically significant.

It sounds really strange to me, so I am going to check it out tonight.
I'm gonna set the camera on a tripod, lock shutter and f/stop in manual and then take a series of shots changing only the ISO. Then I'm going to bring the results into ACR, uncheck all the auto stuff, set curve to liear and see if I can arrive to identical end-result images from ALL of them by manipulating only with the exposure slider (which supposed to be a master one, correct).

If I don't lose any highlights or shadows - you win:): , but, frankly, I highly doubt this will happen:dunno

Does this plan make sense in "proving the point", or you were talking about something different?

Thanks! :thumb

[Nikolai]

That's just the experiment you should do. To be honest I haven't done it, so I am interested in your results. My thoughts on this are based on what I learned in my Computational Photography course.

Really, though, the camera can change the physics of the sensor. The same number of photons are going to strike each pixel, not matter what the ISO setting. It can only change the interpretation of it. It may be that precision is lost at lower ISO settings. I'm not sure what kind of numbers are used to represent the data. (Fixed, floating, how many bits.) Low light images are essentially noisy because less light means fewer photons strike each sensor and it becomes error becomes statistically significant.

I'm glad to hear we're on the same page about this test applicability.

Let me just tell you now, in advance, what I'm thinking would happen.
I think that ISO level actually affects how sensor records the incoming light. Roughly speaking, if, say, at ISO 100 it would take 100 photons to increase the pixel's value one step, at ISO 200 it should only take 50 of them (the actual numbers of photons are unimportant for this discussion, only their relative values are).
That been said, I speculate that if I "zero in" shutter and f/stop at ISO 400 and then go in both directions, thus getting 100-200-400-800-1600 (and 3200, just for the sake of it), I should end up losing some shadows at 100 and some highlight at 1600.
There is one point in your favor:-) in this particular test, though: going both ways from 400 only asks for 2 full f/stops adjustments. And we all know that RAW can easily handle that amount of correction without necessarily breaking a sweat.
So, to make it representative, I'm also going to perform two other series.
In the first I start with ISO 100 and go all the way up to 3200.
In the second I'll start with ISO 3200 and go down to 100.
This way we'll get not 2, but 5 full stops in each direction, which, to my knwoledge, ACR cannot handle as gracefully as 2.
I predict we'll lose highlights when going from 100 to 3200 and we'll lose shadows when going backwards.
We shall see, won't we? :D

[rutt]

Yeah, Nik, we're on exactly the same page here. Real true raw would actually record the real true number of photon hits and I'd win. But perhaps the representation isn't good enough for this. Some sort of floating point representation would work great here, I'd think because it would allow exact description of shadows with just a few pixel hits and adapt well to higher light situations where the differences are expressed as much greater numbers of pixel hits. Essentially, this is how good high dynamic range representations work. Of course, you don't want floating point exactly because you don't need negative numbers or non integers. But that exponent is just what you want.

[Antonio Correia]

I want to thank all for the participation in this discussion.
It is very interesting and I hope it will continue with the experiences of the two wellknown photographers present in this thread.

I must learn to work with the window of raw conversion in CS2.
Now, I look but I don't see. :scratch

:thumb

[mercphoto]

It's taken me a while to get this, but the ISO setting doesn't actually change the state of the sensor at the time of exposure. With a given shutter and aperture setting, the exact same number of photons strike each pixel on the sensor no matter how the ISO is set. The raw image just records this value, essentially the number of photon strikes.
I agree up until that last sentence. The ISO is basically a gain on the sense amplifier coming off the sensor. ISO 100 is a 1:1 gain. ISO 200 is 2:1 gain. Etc. So the RAW file really will change with a different ISO setting.

[Nikolai]

So the RAW file really will change with a different ISO setting.
That's what I think, too.
We'll get experimental confirmation in a few hours :D

[Nikolai]

Well, I didn't even have to go to +/- 5 f-stops :D
ISO 400 +/- 2 stops shows enough difference:

http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/87145635-L.jpg

If Rutt's theory about "ideal raw" were correct, adjusting ISO in camera and then adjusting exposure setting "in reverse" in post (ACR in my case) should have brought the histogram (and the image itself) back to the original values.
However, it does not look so. Adjusted histograms, although close, are not matching the original one, especially at the end of the spectrum.
In the images this was reflected as a strong cast.

Just in case anybody interested, I have the entire set of images I was talking about earlier:

100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 (all at 1/640s at f/10)
100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 (all at 1/30s at f/22)
100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 (all at 1/1000s at f/22)the highlighted item denoting the anchor shot (for which the series was correctly exposed) and the rest just with the ISO changed. I was shooting in RAW + small coarse JPEG. Both (converted raw and jpeg, both scaled down to 800x600) are uploaded here: http://nik.smugmug.com/gallery/1758459

Caveat: we have not one, but TWO test subjects: camera sensor hardware and post-processing software, ACR 3.4 in this case. I'm not claiming ACR is perfect, but I kinda hope it does a good job with exposure adjustment.

Anyway, for all practical purposes, I believe this test proves that in-camera ISO settings does affect the content of the RAW file in a way that cannot be compensated via available software in post.

Quad erat demonstrandum.

PS
John, you owe me a :beer

[mercphoto]

Anyway, for all practical purposes, I believe this test proves that in-camera ISO settings does affect the content of the RAW file in a way that cannot be compensated via available software in post.
Correct. The ISO setting IS reflected in the values ultimately written to the RAW file. ISO is not like white balance, it is analogous to shutter speed and aperture setting, and none of those three can be changed after capture. White balance can. ISO, shutter speed and aperture cannot.

Think of it this way, why is there no adjustment for ISO in any available RAW converter? :)

[rutt]

OK, I stand corrected. Glad to know it. When I design a camera, it's raw format will use a representation which will allow ISO adjustment after exposure.

[Nikolai]

When I design a camera, it's raw format will use a representation which will allow ISO adjustment after exposure.

I don't think you should. :dunno
Think of it as of a car with the manual transmission. For each gear (ISO) you'll have a certain (overlapping) range of velocities (exposures). It's not wise/optimal/possibleto try start the car in 5th gear, it's not feasible to try to drive 90 mph in 1st.
Or like a lens line. There is no such thing as quality zoom lens 10-1,000mm. You have to narrow down your soom range to achieve certain engineering goals and the end image quality. Hence we have ultrawide, wide, medium, tele, and ultra tele zoom ranges - kinda like 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 ISOs :-)

Anyway, I'm glad we brought this issue up and got some solid practical confirmation on how these things actually work.. :):

[rutt]

I don't think you should. :dunno

This case is a little different. I want a high dynamic range camera which can capture faces with sunsets in the background. Using a better representation of the events that actually happened on the sensor would be a step in this direction (as your experiments show.)

[Nikolai]

This case is a little different. I want a high dynamic range camera which can capture faces with sunsets in the background. Using a better representation of the events that actually happened on the sensor would be a step in this direction (as your experiments show.)

You'd have to design your sensor with like 15 (or even 20) f-stops of the range to cover the usual 5 stops of the today's dslrs and +/-5 (or more) stops for possible ISO setting. Which means 2 to the 15 (or 20th) power...

I sure like you to do so, but I'm kinda suspicious if the technology today is capable of creating a sensor with such a dynamic range :dunno
But hey, if you find a VC for that - gimme a call, I'd be glad to work on something like this :):

[mercphoto]

You'd have to design your sensor with like 15 (or even 20) f-stops of the range to cover the usual 5 stops of the today's dslrs and +/-5 (or more) stops for possible ISO setting. Which means 2 to the 15 (or 20th) power...

I sure like you to do so, but I'm kinda suspicious if the technology today is capable of creating a sensor with such a dynamic range :dunno
It isn't. Not only that but making an A/D converter accurate to as high as 20 bits, to operate on battery power, and to do so extremely fast (so you can empty the sensor quickly and take another shot), is just not possible. This is why digital backs on medium format cameras are often cooled and are not capable of fast frame rates. This is primarily why Fuji's approach to extending dynamic range involves a second set of photosites that have a neutral density filter fixed above those particular photosites.

[jfriend]

OK, I stand corrected. Glad to know it. When I design a camera, it's raw format will use a representation which will allow ISO adjustment after exposure.

As I understand it, RAW isn't really fully RAW from the sensor. The data coming off the sensor is analog and goes through some signal processing hardware before it's actually turned into a digital value that ends up in the RAW file. The ISO setting is applied as part of this signal processing. As you turn up the ISO, the analog value in the senosr is amplified before turning it into the digital value that ends up in the RAW file. The problem with that amplification process is that it also amplifies noise making noise more visible the more you amplify it.

[colourbox]

It sounds like what we all really want is for those guys in the lab to come up with a fast, affordable sensor that captures the entire dynamic range of human-perceptible vision, from the darkest tones the human eye can see at night to the brightest tones it can see at high noon in the sun, in a single frame and with no perceptible noise down through the darkest tones, and with enough bit depth so that even the darkest tones are not starved of bits like they are today.

If we ever get that, ISO would be unnecessary. All you would need to do is apply one good curve to the data (including black point and white point, of course), and you are done, and happy.

[rutt]

If we ever get that, ISO would be unnecessary. All you would need to do is apply one good curve to the data (including black point and white point, of course), and you are done, and happy.
Not quite. Then we'd need the output device that could display it.

[mercphoto]

As I understand it, RAW isn't really fully RAW from the sensor. The data coming off the sensor is analog and goes through some signal processing hardware before it's actually turned into a digital value that ends up in the RAW file. The ISO setting is applied as part of this signal processing. As you turn up the ISO, the analog value in the senosr is amplified before turning it into the digital value that ends up in the RAW file. The problem with that amplification process is that it also amplifies noise making noise more visible the more you amplify it.
Correct. But there is noise in the photosites themselves that generates the analog signal to begin with. And then the problem of creating a linear analog-to-digital converter of high bit depth. What good is an 18 bit RAW file if your converter is only linear to 11 or 12 bits?

RAW files also have some amount of anti-aliasing applied to them. This whole notion that RAW is 100% unprocessed sensor data just is not accurate.

[Antonio Correia]

The orignal RAW picture is fact the first one: A
Now, I ask you those who voted 75 % :
How did you guess ?
How did you know it was that one ?
So, there is a difference after all ...

:thumb

[dancorder]

The orignal RAW picture is fact the first one: A
Now, I ask you those who voted 75 % :
How did you guess ?
How did you know it was that one ?
So, there is a difference after all ...

:thumb

I guessed that the RAW would have been saved as a better quality JPEG than the one straight out of the camera and A looks (to me) to have a slightly less blocky (compressed) sky.

[Seneca]

Ok this thread totally confused me. :scratch

[pathfinder]

Suddenly I ask myself:
Is is worth, for me, to shoot RAW all the time ?

Antonio,

With the price of Compact Flash continuing to fall, and with large Gb CF available for under $100, why not shoot RAW + Large or Medium jpgs and have the best of both worlds??

You can immediately compare your jpgs to those the camera creates and decide which you prefer. Or you can use the comparison to help fine tune the parameters used in your camera setup to create the direct from camera jpgs.

These are two reasons that I have been shooting RAW + Medium jpgs like rutt suggested. The jpgs are available instantly, and can be helpful in RAW processing also, and gives me insight into exposure accuaracy and WB.

I voted for A also.

[Antonio Correia]

Antonio,

With the price of Compact Flash continuing to fall, and with large Gb CF available for under $100, why not shoot RAW + Large or Medium jpgs and have the best of both worlds??

You can immediately compare your jpgs to those the camera creates and decide which you prefer. Of you can use the comparison to help you fine tune the parameters used in your camera setup to create the direct from camera jpgs.

These are two reasons that I have been shooting RAW + Medium jpgs like rutt suggested. The jpgs are available instantly, and can be helpful in RAW processing also, and gives me insight into exposure accuracy and WB.

I voted for A also. Pathfinder,
Thank you. I can remember Ruth said he was shooting RAW and JPG at the same time. This procedure is space consuming in the cards.
But today, and because of this very thread I shot pictures in RAW and in JPG and here they are.
I came to the conclusion that sometimes RAW is better and sometimes the other way around.
When in sports (http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/2108945) I shot JPG. At least that time. I'll try RAW next time to see what happens ...
May be my CF (Sandisk Extreme III) is not fast enough for the action. May be not. May be it behaves correctly because I shoot by small amounts of pictures, say 4 - 5 - 6 each time. If so, I think the CF eats the files just fine. Unless it takes too long to write in the card ... :dunno
Well, I'll try.
But let us come back to the experience I did today.

1.st picture, 1.st situation (inside a "house" - a working photo)
Strait from RAW with the automatic adjustments in Photoshop
http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/110831382-M.jpg
2.ed picture
JPG direct, no adjustments
http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/110831905-M.jpg
3.ed picture
From RAW with treatment
http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/110832958-M.jpg

QUESTION
Would I achieve this same result using the JPG file ?

ANSWER
Certainly not. A RAW file is much richer, even more if one works in 16 bits, but the computer complains because it is too busy.

__AGAIN but in another place__

1.st picture, 2.st situation
Strait from RAW with the automatic adjustments
http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/110830892-M.jpg

2.ed picture
JPG direct, no adjustments
http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/110831321-M.jpg

3.ed picture
From RAW with treatment
http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/110840340-M.jpg

In this photo I stacked 2 pictures with different treatments: one for the highlights and the other to the low lights. Highlight in the wall at left.

One last thing: My card is only 1 Gb. I want to get a 4 Gb Sandisk Extreme IV one of these days.
The 20 D says the CF only eats

RAW = 108 files
JPG Hight = 255 files

JPG Hight + RAW = 75 files
JPG Medium + RAW = 86 files
JPG Small + RAW = 94 files

Well I've done my home work today haven't I ? :thumb

(While writing this I was listening to Chicago and Blood Sweat and Tears in pandora.com :barb)

All the best Pathfinder. :thumb :D Please comment !! Thank you.:D
http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/110832392-M.jpg http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/110833248-M.jpg http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/110833342-M.jpg With CPFilter !

[pathfinder]

Antonio,

I think your post is a great demonstration of the advantages of shooting in RAW. Your edited RAW images have better highlight detail and better shadow detail than either the straight out of the camera jpgs, or even the straight from RAW conversions.:thumb Nice work!

Jpgs ARE faster and smaller and quicker, no doubt. Just not really better almost all of the time. Sometimes, rarely, faster, smaller, quicker, trumps better. Just not usually, for me, at least.

1 Gb cards are rather small for a 20D these days. I rec 4 Gb for substantially more breathing room. I prefer to be able to shoot for an entire day, and never have to open the door to my CF card on my camera until I return home for the evening.:dunno

[Antonio Correia]

Antonio,

I think your post is a great demonstration of the advantages of shooting in RAW. Your edited RAW images have better highlight detail and better shadow detail than either the straight out of the camera jpgs, or even the straight from RAW conversions.:thumb Nice work!

Jpgs ARE faster and smaller and quicker, no doubt. Just not really better almost all of the time. Sometimes, rarely, faster, smaller, quicker, trumps better. Just not usually, for me, at least.

1 Gb cards are rather small for a 20D these days. I rec 4 Gb for substantially more breathing room. I prefer to be able to shoot for an entire day, and never have to open the door to my CF card on my camera until I return home for the evening.:dunno


Pathfinder.

Thank you for commenting.

I hope this is usefull for others.:D

I'm hopping to buy a better CF in the Emirates on the way to India.
Next year !

All the best ! :thumb

[claudermilk]

Excellent examples of why to shoot RAW. I shoot RAW & didn't really expect to see that kind of difference.

[Antonio Correia]

claudermilk[/left]]Excellent examples of why to shoot RAW. I shoot RAW & didn't really expect to see that kind of difference.

It was a good idea wasn't it ?
Have a nice week end.
:thumb

[Antonio Correia]

Only now I noticed the head of the statue.

In it there is a small pieces of iron to get the pigeons away.

In fact I do remember to see those pieces of iron when I looked at the statue during the day.

I can´t - I could but I would have much trouble - find the photo to re-treat it, but it is obvious that the RAW file has more detail.

Long live RAW !

[Antonio Correia]

Interesting points of view (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=46842&highlight=raw+jpg).
:thumb

[Antonio Correia]

I decided I was not that lazy and found the original photos.
This time the result is here (http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/gallery/2142579/1/111010559) in case you would like to have acloser look.
But here are the photos anyway, smaller size. :thumb

A. This photo is the original JPG file without any treatment.
B. This photo came from the RAW file, White Balance As Shot.
C. This photo came from the RAW file, White Balance as Tungsten.
A. http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/111010264-S.jpg B. http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/111010326-S.jpg C. http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/111010612-S.jpg


__
This photo came from the JPG file and Photoshoped.
A soft blue filter was used to correct the original yellow cast.

http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/111009768-M.jpg http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/photos/111010559-M.jpg This photo came from the RAW file White Balance as Tungsten and Photoshoped.

[LiquidAir]

OK, I stand corrected. Glad to know it. When I design a camera, it's raw format will use a representation which will allow ISO adjustment after exposure.

ISO is actually an analog gain applied to the sensor signal before it is converted to digital which is why it is not part of a RAW capture.

The D/A converters in camera are typically only 10-12 bits. If you shoot RAW all 12 bits end up in the RAW file. When you shoot JPEG there are acually two separate compression process that happen. First your camera applies an S curve to the luminace to compress the 12 bit dynamic range down to the 8 required for JPEG. Just like you would do with curves in Photoshop, the S curves are tweaked on each color channel according to the white balance setting. Then it uses the JPEG compression algorithm to reduce the file size before it stores it on your card. The primary motivation for shooting RAW is so you can contol how the dynamic range compression happens. Features like exposure adustments, hightlight/shadow recovery, white balanace and vibrance/saturation in your RAW converter give you more control over the S curves that are used to compress the 12 bit RAW file to 8 bit dynamic range. Noticable JPEG artifacts are rare on modern cameras when set for high quality JPEG.

However there are limits on what you can do even with the RAW file. The typical 12 bit converter does not have enough dynamic range for 4-6 stops of exposure compensation which is possible with yoru ISO setting. You would need a 16 bit D/A converter in the camera to get the extra dynamic range required to cover ISO 100-1600 and that would make the camera dramatically more expensive, add 33% to the size of RAW files and probably require a significant reduction the resolution of the sensor.

It is possible that in the day when 40MBit full frame sensors are a dime a dozen, the camera manufacturers will start competing on dynamic range by putting 16 bit converters in their cameras. We are not there yet in the technology curve.

[Antonio Correia]

A recent link (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/jpg-follies.shtml) on this matter.
:D:thumb