I Will Not Shot in RAW

Started May 19, 2013 | Discussions
Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,219Gear list
Like?
I Will Not Shot in RAW
May 19, 2013

I'm decided to not shot in RAW any more with my Camera SX50, I didn't found any Difference between JPG and RAW and you can see it by your self and tell me what is Difference if there any:

1. JPG Direct from the camera to here

2. RAW of the same shot converted from RAW to TIF by DPP then to JPG

-- hide signature --

Hossam
[Kodak DX7590] {Broken}
[Canon SX50HS]

 Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg's gear list:Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg's gear list
Kodak DX7590 Canon PowerShot SX50 HS
evandijken
Regular MemberPosts: 136Gear list
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg, May 19, 2013

You write it yourself though: both are ultimately JPEGs. Therefore you should see no difference. If you could send us a RAW picture we can show you the difference and tell the difference.

 evandijken's gear list:evandijken's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
wacka2007
Regular MemberPosts: 268
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg, May 19, 2013

Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg wrote:

I'm decided to not shot in RAW any more with my Camera SX50, I didn't found any Difference between JPG and RAW and you can see it by your self and tell me what is Difference if there any:

1. JPG Direct from the camera to here

2. RAW of the same shot converted from RAW to TIF by DPP then to JPG

-- hide signature --

Hossam
[Kodak DX7590] {Broken}
[Canon SX50HS]

we cant see the difference in these 2 photos my friend because they are BOTH jpgs now.

did you EDIT the RAW in DPP , because that is what raw is all about. it gives you more depth to change the photo before you save to jpg.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brianj
Forum ProPosts: 12,994Gear list
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to evandijken, May 19, 2013

evandijken wrote:

You write it yourself though: both are ultimately JPEGs. Therefore you should see no difference. If you could send us a RAW picture we can show you the difference and tell the difference.

I don't bother with raw either, if you shoot your jpg within the jpg limits then the difference if there is any is not worth the trouble.

Edit: meant to place this response under the OP message.

Brian

 brianj's gear list:brianj's gear list
Canon PowerShot ELPH 330 HS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Norman B
Regular MemberPosts: 300
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to wacka2007, May 19, 2013

Hossam,

I use a G12 and have also noticed little difference between RAW and JPEG although there is a slight difference. Shooting RAW does  give more room to adjust exposure in DPP than JPEG does. I don't know how to explain it in technical terms. I think one big reason is the processing unit in the Canon Camera's retains a lot of information in the JPEG.

Competition is catching up but there is a reason why Canon is a leader in the P & S category and I think this is one of them.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Darren N
Regular MemberPosts: 344
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to Norman B, May 19, 2013

I think you are missing the point of what Raw is there for, it's not just to create another jpg the same but it's a digital negative retaining all the data so you can adjust or manipulate it as you desire.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alton (TN)
Contributing MemberPosts: 985
Like?
There is a difference...
In reply to Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg, May 19, 2013

... but it is hard to explain.

An example that happened with me is from back in my 20D days.

Even though I wasn't sure what the implications were, I took the advice to always shoot using RAW and then convert. Just to be safe, I shot with RAW + JPG most of the time so I could decide later. So that is the way I shot, from time to time finding real advantages in adjusting exposure, WB, etc. when I having the raw file to work with.

Several years went by and I finally bought Lightroom. When migrating those old images into LR, I noticed that I was able to "revive" quite a few of them using the tools of LR, Adobe Bridge, and PS. The software had improved greatly over the years and having the original RAW file gave much more latitude to work with than just the old JPGs.

Keep in mind that your camera will adjust the RAW file to a JPG in camera and provide you with only the resulting JPG, discarding some of the information when you just shoot in JPG. When shooting RAW, you will always have "all" of the data if you need to go back and use it later. Sometimes it might do a better job of manipulating the data to suite you than you can, and sometimes it don't. Raw just gives you the option to choose. Over the years, I have had many otherwise ruined photos salvaged using the RAW file it was shot with.

For non critical photos, or some action photography for newsprint, it makes sense to go with JPG to cut down on PP time. For most of the other work, especially critical work, it makes sense to shoot RAW, or at perhaps RAW + JPG, so you have the choice later on if you want to refine the picture further.

Another reason I am a believer in using RAW is that the various training courses I have taken using LR, PS, Bridge, etc. all recommend and demonstrate that RAW is the way to go. Chris Orwig with Lynda.com has some nice examples that explain it much better than I can.

Anyway, RAW works great for me and I hope this helps. Good luck with whatever you choose.

-- hide signature --

Alton

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
VisionLight
Senior MemberPosts: 2,449Gear list
Like?
Re: raw does have its benefits
In reply to Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg, May 19, 2013

Well Hossam, in a great majority of the use of digital images, JPEG is all you really need. But raw does have its benefits, even with the SX50. The 14 bit data in a Canon raw file have a lot more opportunity for correction or creativity than the 8 bit data in a JPEG file. And that can be important when it is the subtleties of the image that attract the lingering gaze of the viewer rather than the quick glance.

Not necessarily that those subtleties will show up in an internet posting, since that is likely to be "dumbed down" anyway by the conversion to JPEG. And most people only have 6 bit (/18 bit) or 8 bit (/24 bit) monitors that do not distinguish those subtleties anyway. But when edited in a color aware 16 bit environment like DPP and Photoshop CS (most people only use 8 bit editors) and presented on the proper medium like my 10 bit (/30 bit) professional monitors or calibrated prints of TIFF files, then raw shows its true strength and is well worth the effort.

Ed

Note: I hope the translator doesn't have too much trouble transcribing this post. My Egyptian friend gave a good effort in trying to teach me your language, but alas, I never became very good at it.

 VisionLight's gear list:VisionLight's gear list
Canon PowerShot S100 Canon PowerShot SX40 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 5D Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Norman B
Regular MemberPosts: 300
Like?
Re: There is a difference...
In reply to Alton (TN), May 19, 2013

Alton (TN) wrote:

... but it is hard to explain.

An example that happened with me is from back in my 20D days.

Even though I wasn't sure what the implications were, I took the advice to always shoot using RAW and then convert. Just to be safe, I shot with RAW + JPG most of the time so I could decide later. So that is the way I shot, from time to time finding real advantages in adjusting exposure, WB, etc. when I having the raw file to work with.

Several years went by and I finally bought Lightroom. When migrating those old images into LR, I noticed that I was able to "revive" quite a few of them using the tools of LR, Adobe Bridge, and PS. The software had improved greatly over the years and having the original RAW file gave much more latitude to work with than just the old JPGs.

Keep in mind that your camera will adjust the RAW file to a JPG in camera and provide you with only the resulting JPG, discarding some of the information when you just shoot in JPG. When shooting RAW, you will always have "all" of the data if you need to go back and use it later. Sometimes it might do a better job of manipulating the data to suite you than you can, and sometimes it don't. Raw just gives you the option to choose. Over the years, I have had many otherwise ruined photos salvaged using the RAW file it was shot with.

For non critical photos, or some action photography for newsprint, it makes sense to go with JPG to cut down on PP time. For most of the other work, especially critical work, it makes sense to shoot RAW, or at perhaps RAW + JPG, so you have the choice later on if you want to refine the picture further.

Another reason I am a believer in using RAW is that the various training courses I have taken using LR, PS, Bridge, etc. all recommend and demonstrate that RAW is the way to go. Chris Orwig with Lynda.com has some nice examples that explain it much better than I can.

Anyway, RAW works great for me and I hope this helps. Good luck with whatever you choose.

-- hide signature --

Alton

Using RAW makes sense in terms of information stored in RAW vs JPEG. It even makes more sense to shoot RAW today for possible use down the road. People will acquire newer and better software/equipment as time goes by along with improved PP skills. A shot taken today cannot be reshot at some point in the future in many cases.

RAW does take up more storage space on an SD card but the cost of a SD card is so cheap now compared to days gone bye. A 32 GB SD Class 10 card is selling around the $30.00 range. I can remember paying $20.00 for a 512 MB card. The storage space use for RAW is really not much of an argument.  I think people could resolve this by being more selective in what they keep.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
toomanycanons
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,415
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg, May 19, 2013

Good for you.  I mostly shoot jpegs my own self.  Guilt free, I might add.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Don_Campbell
Contributing MemberPosts: 955
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg, May 19, 2013

Hi Hossam,

If your camera's JPG is exposed correctly of a scene that is not made difficult by hidden shadow or hightlight detail then shoo9ting raw and doing raw processing will not improve on it very much.

JPG images have colors that are represented by 8 digital bits per color channel. That means 256 different levels for each color. As soon as you adjust brightness or contrast or any other property of the image you will eliminate some of these colors. Small changes do not affect things much but changes of already changed images can reduce too many colors for the best effect.

Raw images in the SX50 are made of 12-bits per color channel. That means these color channels have 4096 different intensities. Manipulating these images to bring out blocked highlights or hidden shadow detail will also reduce the total number of levels in the resulting image but when converted to JPG the final 8-bit image will not show that loss of colors because they will be averaged in the conversion process.

In addition, the greater amount of detail in the raw image permits noise reduction methods to be more effective. The camera probably does this noise reduction during its creation of a JPG making use of the extra information but if you wanted a greater degree of noise reduction you will have less to work with when you only use that noise reduction on the JPG image.

JPG out of camera:

Without tweaking the histogram is continuous (has all levels of "value" with none missing).

JPG from camera tweaked to give a bit more detail to bird's "face:"

After slight tweaking some values have dropped out completely because changing overall brightness.

After changing brightness in raw image and then converting to JPG:

The histogram has changed because of the tweaking, but there are no missing values in the histsogram.

So, in summary: the SX50 makes great JPGs. If you are going to want to tweak your images to compensate for issues in lighting or exposure raw is better than JPG for that.

Regards,

Don

(No effort was made to make the scale of the histograms identical.)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
VisionLight
Senior MemberPosts: 2,449Gear list
Like?
Correction: SX50 raw is 12 bit, not 14 bit (thanks, Don) - NT
In reply to VisionLight, May 19, 2013

NT

 VisionLight's gear list:VisionLight's gear list
Canon PowerShot S100 Canon PowerShot SX40 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 5D Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DonA2
Senior MemberPosts: 2,039Gear list
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to Don_Campbell, May 19, 2013

Very well stated and illustrated Don.  I only shoot JPEG because it is good enough for my use.  Also I only use Picasa which limits editing somewhat.  The main reason for not shooting RAW is that it's just more work for so little gain with a small sensor camera.

-- hide signature --

Don V. Armitage

 DonA2's gear list:DonA2's gear list
Canon PowerShot S2 IS Canon PowerShot SX10 IS Canon PowerShot S100 Canon PowerShot SX40 HS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alton (TN)
Contributing MemberPosts: 985
Like?
Drobo has been my friend
In reply to Norman B, May 19, 2013

Having a Drobo has allowed me to be not nearly so frugal with my file sizes. It would take me the rest of my life to fill mine up, and even if I did you simply buy an extra one.

-- hide signature --

Alton

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MurryG
Senior MemberPosts: 2,621Gear list
Like?
Re: Do what ever works for you
In reply to Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg, May 19, 2013

But I really enjoy shooting RAW and doing the post processing!  It really helps to have the extra real estate if you are serious about doing any extentsive post processing and it is nice to have a digital negative just in case something bad happens to the JPG!  It is a little like buying flood insurance :0)

Murry

-- hide signature --
 MurryG's gear list:MurryG's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX50 HS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Don_Campbell
Contributing MemberPosts: 955
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to DonA2, May 19, 2013

Hi Don,

DonA2 wrote:

Very well stated and illustrated Don.

Thanks for the compliment. i thought that some pictures would help illustrate the issue.

I only shoot JPEG because it is good enough for my use.  Also I only use Picasa which limits editing somewhat.

JPG is good enough for many uses and I shoot JPG-only in particular when I want to have bursts of images to choose among.

The main reason for not shooting RAW is that it's just more work for so little gain with a small sensor camera.

The only thing in this post that I disagree with somewhat. It is exactly some of the limitations of small sensors that can be partially reduced or overcome with raw image processing.

The two greatest limitations of P&S camers are sensor noise and lack of dynamic range. The SX50, with its 12-bit per channel signal gives raws a dynamic range not seen in most other P&S cameras. That permits one the opportunity to get shadow detail and save blown highlights that is not available in most JPGs (although the various advanced shooting modes help in this somewhat).

Regards,

Don

-- hide signature --

Don V. Armitage

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
soapstar
Regular MemberPosts: 237
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg, May 19, 2013

Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg wrote:

I'm decided to not shot in RAW any more with my Camera SX50, I didn't found any Difference between JPG and RAW and you can see it by your self and tell me what is Difference if there any:

1. JPG Direct from the camera to here

2. RAW of the same shot converted from RAW to TIF by DPP then to JPG

-- hide signature --

Hossam
[Kodak DX7590] {Broken}
[Canon SX50HS]

try next time try letting dpp create the jpeg with the shot settings . Set it to full quality (10). Play with the unsharp sliders which will sharpen much better than the incamera sharpening. I think the difference should be obvious, it is for me. For a start i simply cant get a clean looking jpeg from the camera, but i can using dpp.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rmark
Regular MemberPosts: 429Gear list
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg, May 20, 2013

Very nice explanation of the benefits of RAW that appeared in this forum a few months ago. I shot exclusively in JPG until reading this.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50024377

 Rmark's gear list:Rmark's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Olympus E-30 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50mm 1:2.0 Macro Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DonA2
Senior MemberPosts: 2,039Gear list
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to Don_Campbell, May 20, 2013

Don_Campbell wrote:

The only thing in this post that I disagree with somewhat. It is exactly some of the limitations of small sensors that can be partially reduced or overcome with raw image processing.

The two greatest limitations of P&S camers are sensor noise and lack of dynamic range. The SX50, with its 12-bit per channel signal gives raws a dynamic range not seen in most other P&S cameras. That permits one the opportunity to get shadow detail and save blown highlights that is not available in most JPGs (although the various advanced shooting modes help in this somewhat).

Regards,

Don

-- hide signature --

Don V. Armitage

Well, the obvious will no doubt prevail.  However, until I fall into the trap of buying  a large (APSC+) sensor camera I can rest easy that my slightly inferior tiny sensor will fill my limited needs.  Not everyone has a calibrated Ezo monitor or a full frame DSLR nor a desire to spend their free time jacking up a RAW image to perfection.  Come to think of it, I respect Canon's design engineers to get every little bit of IQ out of their JPEGs as that is what 98% will ascend to.   We are mostly creatures of a fast fix.

OK, I will attempt to use RAW when I find a reason to burden myself with Adobe Photoshop and perhaps obtain that mini DSLR so as to blow out less highlights.  Shadows I can live with.  A little noise I can tolerate. There is a point where life will go on without so much perfection.

Don't take this wrong, This is not to criticize RAW disciples.  I have come from SLRs and don't care to return via digital. Life is short and my 80+ years shows.  I have found that a little less is often best.  But hey, that's just me.

-- hide signature --

Don V. Armitage

 DonA2's gear list:DonA2's gear list
Canon PowerShot S2 IS Canon PowerShot SX10 IS Canon PowerShot S100 Canon PowerShot SX40 HS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Marco Nero
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,986Gear list
Like?
What a coincidence...
In reply to Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg, May 20, 2013

This about sums it up...

I don't use RAW either.  Especially with Cameras of today's generation.  The Canon JPEG engine is so good now that you can usually get a VERY clean file out of it.  If you want to raise hidden shadow detail or lower details hidden in the highlights, you can usually do that with the JPEG if you really need to, epsecially on the recent models.  A lot of Canon 5D III users are now shooting in JPEG these days for this reason.

Still, if you shoot weddings or something that risk blown out highlights in direct sunlight, RAW might be useful to you.  Otherwise, I don't see the fuss these days for the average non-pro user unless they just enjoy tinkering with their photographs for pleasure.

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Marco Nero.
www.pbase.com/nero_design

 Marco Nero's gear list:Marco Nero's gear list
Canon PowerShot G11 Canon PowerShot S95 Canon PowerShot G1 X Canon EOS 60D Canon EOS 5D Mark III +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads