I Will Not Shot in RAW

Started May 19, 2013 | Discussions
Don_Campbell
Senior MemberPosts: 1,092
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to DonA2, May 20, 2013

DonA2 wrote:

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

Gad. Heaven forbid. Photoshop is for graphic designers and way overburdened for photo tweaking. I use Canon's quite capable raw converter DPP (those engineers who designed the converter inside the camera have likely had a hand in the one on the desktop). I make more adjustments in freeware (Rawtherapee--terrible name great free/open source software). The process doesn't take long and I only do it for images I really like and want to bring out the best in. Snapshots of grandchildren are another thing entirely--lots of fun and not much work because there are always more the next time they/we visit.

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.

I generally let noise be handled mostly by default with DPP and sharpening be handled with a default setting in GIMP. Neither takes any toil at all.

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.

I have no problem with that approach. The SX50's in-camera JPG is terrific most of the time. I have spent most of my 58 years of photography  with tedious darkroom work and the digital darkroom seems refreshing,  light weight and powerful to me by comparison. Perhaps when I get closer to 80 I'll be closer to your approach. It won't be that long if I make it.

Regards,

Don

-- hide signature --

Don V. Armitage

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,219Gear list
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to evandijken, May 20, 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.

ok evandijke, this is the RAW:

Do you have a website allow elevation of RAW
Here I can not upload the RAW file

-- 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
Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Kodak DX7590
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,219Gear list
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to evandijken, May 20, 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 finally found a place to raise RAW
http://sharesend.com/onwoi2x6 - IMG_8591.CR2

-- 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
Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Kodak DX7590
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JJ Rodin
Contributing MemberPosts: 790
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg, May 20, 2013

This is a fundamental answer for ALL the raw vs jpeg questions:

With 'raw' you will have the entire sensor data to use if not NOW, then in the future!

The future software may be able to do WONDERFULLY new things and 'raw' gives you the MOST data to do that new thing, with the highest possible quality.

I personally can not predict the future, but I am SURE there will be truly astounding things that will be done with photos, and with  80-90% of all sensor data thrown away, there will be MUCH less to work with a jpeg.

Think of the future, not just now!!

PS: I can ALWAYS get a better pic from raw than from cam jpg, most of us can, but you may not care for the differences.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
soapstar
Regular MemberPosts: 237
Like?
Re: What a coincidence...
In reply to Marco Nero, May 20, 2013

Marco Nero wrote:

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

i just dont understand this. If i use the camera jpeg there is always jpeg artifacts and halos clearly visible. The only way to get a clean image for me is via raw.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Marco Nero
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,062Gear list
Like?
RAW is not Future Proof...
In reply to JJ Rodin, May 20, 2013

JJ Rodin wrote:

This is a fundamental answer for ALL the raw vs jpeg questions:

With 'raw' you will have the entire sensor data to use if not NOW, then in the future!

Think of the future, not just now!!

Ah, I'm not soiling for a JPEG Vs RAW argument but I'd like to raise a few observations for those interested in the (apparently ongoing) JPEG Vs RAW debate.

To quote another website: "Having so many different versions of raw files out on the market today could doom the file type(s) to obsolescence. Unfortunately, this could also mean the loss of millions of photographs, as standards and manufacturers change, and most of these varieties of raw files can no longer be read by the machines and applications of the near-future. It is possible that the camera and photo industry will one day soon come to an agreement on a standard raw file format, and have that standard established by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). There also exists the possibility that Adobe’s .DNG format can play a role in becoming the common format for raw files."

Many point out that UNLESS you open and convert all your RAW files NOW, you may find someday that you will never be able to open them again because RAW is not "Future Proof".

Ten years ago I would argue that RAW would be the superior file for capturing certain types of images but not now.

What we are trying to do is capture what we can see with our eyes... using a digital camera.  Our eyes have more Dynamic Range than any camera available today although

With cameras producing accurate JPEG images that closely resemble what we see, there's no need to worry about "what might be lost" if you choose not to photograph in RAW.  If your JPEG is missing information, you'll know about it because your images will be lacking in some way visually.  If you can't tell, then you won't miss anything shooting in JPEG.

Technically speaking, a RAW image is simply a filetype and is NOT a photograph or even an Image file.  The scary thing about RAW is that each camera manufacturer has its own propriety native RAW File and camera software from one manufacturer will often not be able to read RAW files from another camera brand.  In the past Adobe and other software companies have elected to completely discontinue access and service to some of the now defunct types of RAW files.  It has happened before so we know it may happen again.  How many times do we see threads by people here complaining that their version of Photoshop or Lightroom doesn't support the RAW files from their new camera?  Eventually, these companies will allow you to access your camera's RAW files but you need to wait for RAW pluggins and conversion software to become available first.

JPEG and TIF, on the other hand, are considered to be "universal" image formats. Sure, JPEG is a lossy file that is compressed... but most people saving a RAW file to work on it later will use PSD (Photoshop Document) or TIF (Tagged Image Format) to store their "works in progress" for archiving processes.

There are over 254 types of RAW image format files in existence with many of them being subset formats of the same type.  RAW may even be abandoned some day and there's ample evident to support this hypothesis.  So be careful in the format you choose to save, use or capture your images in.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with capturing or storing your photographs as RAW files.  But it would be prudent to edit every single picture and convert them all into TIFs if you are trying to archive your photography.  Plenty of photographers believe they need to shoot RAW but don't know how to make the most of converting their files.  Even less people have the correctly calibrated professional monitors or the eye and professional skills to manipulate their images correctly in the first place.  On such people, shooting in RAW is almost certainly a waste of time.

Today's JPEG Engines from the modern Canon digital cameras make the most of the RAW information before converting the image into a JPEG image file. All that Dynamic Range and subtle detail hidden in shadows and highlights is carefully extracted and introduced into the final image.  The modern camera's Image Processor is much more capable than the collective skills of the vast majority of budding photography enthusiasts out there.

Enjoy your photography, no matter what format you shoot in.

-- hide signature --

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

 Marco Nero's gear list:Marco Nero's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Canon PowerShot S95 Canon EOS M Canon EOS 60D Canon EOS 5D Mark III +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Marco Nero
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,062Gear list
Like?
Re: What a coincidence...
In reply to soapstar, May 20, 2013

i just dont understand this. If i use the camera jpeg there is always jpeg artifacts and halos clearly visible. The only way to get a clean image for me is via raw.

If your camera is an older model, the JPEG engines weren't particularly effective.  A high quality JPEG image today ought to be quite clean.  The image below shows a JPEG image from Canon compact digital cameras that are over 12 years apart.  The older camera has lost details in the bright light and has JPEG artifacts all over the image.  The other image shows a building captured in broad daylight by a modern digital camera.  It's much better - in just about every possible way.

Even comparing a modern Compact to a DSLR offers varying results:

But they say the best way to compare image in JEPG is to look at the BLACKS in the pictures taken.  Have a look at the noise in these three JPEGS... the G1X with the larger sensor and modern processor and JPEG engine produces the best results:

JPEG Vs Raw will continue to be debated but you should be able to save copies of your processed images in a high quality JPEG without any noticeable loss of visual information.

-- hide signature --

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

 Marco Nero's gear list:Marco Nero's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Canon PowerShot S95 Canon EOS M Canon EOS 60D Canon EOS 5D Mark III +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brianj
Forum ProPosts: 13,705Gear list
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to JJ Rodin, May 20, 2013

JJ Rodin wrote:

This is a fundamental answer for ALL the raw vs jpeg questions:

With 'raw' you will have the entire sensor data to use if not NOW, then in the future!

The future software may be able to do WONDERFULLY new things and 'raw' gives you the MOST data to do that new thing, with the highest possible quality.

I personally can not predict the future, but I am SURE there will be truly astounding things that will be done with photos, and with  80-90% of all sensor data thrown away, there will be MUCH less to work with a jpeg.

Think of the future, not just now!!

PS: I can ALWAYS get a better pic from raw than from cam jpg, most of us can, but you may not care for the differences.

But the OP of this thread is demonstrating that he can get the same picture with his jpg output, and I can always get an excellent picture with jpg, can you say what is wrong with this jpg image that was delivered from the camera without PP.

Wreck in the Morning

Brian

 brianj's gear list:brianj's gear list
Canon PowerShot ELPH 330 HS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
afterswish1
Contributing MemberPosts: 694
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg, May 20, 2013

Hi Hossam,

If you shoot in RAW then convert on your computer using similar parameters to the camera's own JPEG engine, then you will get similar results as just shooting JPEG in the first place. Is that really so surprising?

Where you'll notice the difference is shooting in situations that confuse the auto white balance (there are many), or in situations with a high dynamic range. In those cases you'll really also need a decent RAW converter to realise the benefits, some of which are discussed here:

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

It is an excellent article, but I've just noticed one error on the page (he says, 'while balance' instead of 'white balance'.) Anyway, it's certainly not impossible to use a JPEG in your editing process. However, if an image needs adjustment, would you rather have an 8-bit file or a 14-bit one to work from?

Your own eyes and brain are far superior imaging devices than any camera ever invented in my opinion. Shooting in RAW allows you to make decisions that are otherwise imposed on you by the camera. Do you really want such relatively dumb devices telling you how your pictures ought to look?

-- hide signature --

Gravity will make you crazy until you get the hang of it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JayFromSA
New MemberPosts: 14
Like?
The point of RAW is...
In reply to Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg, May 20, 2013

...producing photo's, onscreen, prints or otherwise, that reflects your own taste and not that of some or other Japanese programmer that wrote the firmware for your camera. Your photo of a baboon is probably not a good example, because it seems to be well exposed and you can't really improve on the image produced by the jpeg engine in your camera (that is, if you posted an unmanipulated image of the RAW file).

Sometimes you take a reaction shot of something that happens before you with the wrong settings on your camera... it happens if you do photography for long enough... and then you'll be glad to have a RAW file and the skills to use it, to get the best possible image out of the RAW file. The in-camera jpeg engine is much, much more limited that what you can produce in post on your computer with modern software.

-- hide signature --

Jay

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
flektogon
Senior MemberPosts: 1,300
Like?
Re: The point of RAW is...
In reply to JayFromSA, May 20, 2013

JayFromSA wrote:

...producing photo's, onscreen, prints or otherwise, that reflects your own taste and not that of some or other Japanese programmer that wrote the firmware for your camera. Your photo of a baboon is probably not a good example, because it seems to be well exposed and you can't really improve on the image produced by the jpeg engine in your camera (that is, if you posted an unmanipulated image of the RAW file).

Sometimes you take a reaction shot of something that happens before you with the wrong settings on your camera... it happens if you do photography for long enough... and then you'll be glad to have a RAW file and the skills to use it, to get the best possible image out of the RAW file. The in-camera jpeg engine is much, much more limited that what you can produce in post on your computer with modern software.

-- hide signature --

Jay

Those Japanese programmers are much smarter than you think. I have three cameras, one 7 years old (only JPEG), and two 3 years old (both with the RAW option) and frankly speaking, except occasional exposure correction I didn’t have to do any other adjustments. So, I’ve completely abandoned shooting RAW.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
th3_n3wb13
Senior MemberPosts: 1,476
Like?
There's a huge difference
In reply to Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg, May 20, 2013

between jpg and raw files. JPEGS are processed images. They can be pp'd but there are areas that are very hard to recover. With RAW, you have a big chance of recovering those lost areas. If I'm taking shots of just parties/get-togethers, I set my camera to jpg. I also set it to AV mode. I don't process them a lot. When I'm capturing landscapes, that's when I set it RAW. It's because I love landscapes.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JayFromSA
New MemberPosts: 14
Like?
Re: The point of RAW is...
In reply to flektogon, May 20, 2013

flektogon wrote:

JayFromSA wrote:

...producing photo's, onscreen, prints or otherwise, that reflects your own taste and not that of some or other Japanese programmer that wrote the firmware for your camera. Your photo of a baboon is probably not a good example, because it seems to be well exposed and you can't really improve on the image produced by the jpeg engine in your camera (that is, if you posted an unmanipulated image of the RAW file).

Sometimes you take a reaction shot of something that happens before you with the wrong settings on your camera... it happens if you do photography for long enough... and then you'll be glad to have a RAW file and the skills to use it, to get the best possible image out of the RAW file. The in-camera jpeg engine is much, much more limited that what you can produce in post on your computer with modern software.

-- hide signature --

Jay

Those Japanese programmers are much smarter than you think. I have three cameras, one 7 years old (only JPEG), and two 3 years old (both with the RAW option) and frankly speaking, except occasional exposure correction I didn’t have to do any other adjustments. So, I’ve completely abandoned shooting RAW.

They may be smart, but it's not about their brains, it's about their taste. I use RAW+jpeg and more often than not, I make jpegs (for on-screen use) that look different than the jpegs my camera produced. Aditionally, I can get far more details out the shadows and the highlights than the in-camera jpeg gives me. Anyway, as I said, it's a matter of taste. If you like are happy with the ooc jpeg images, great stuff, you have more time to shoot more photo's 

-- hide signature --

Jay

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tarpon6
Contributing MemberPosts: 944
Like?
Re: Now You've Done It
In reply to Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg, May 20, 2013

You've upset all of those that think because they shoot in RAW you should to.  Everyone should just shoot to format that fits them best. If you are getting good results, who cares.   I've tried RAW several times it just isn't worth it to me.  The files are huge and it adds another step to post.  I'm not telling anyone they should not shoot RAW- try both.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cgarrard
Forum ProPosts: 14,499Gear list
Like?
I say do whatever you are comfortable with
In reply to Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg, May 20, 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]

The difference may not be all that obvious to you, but there is indeed a major difference.

The difference is that raw gives you the ability to completely process the image to your own preferences instead of Canons. You are allowing yourself to retain more exposure latitude as well (preservation of highlights and shadows), all the while of course you sacrifice the time and convienence of an in camera JPEG.

I find myself using Raw more than Jpeg, almost exclusively now. I like being in control of the output.

Just imagine shooting film and not having a negative, being stuck with whatever the lab prints out. Not for me, but certainly not trying to sway you, just having an open dialog about the advantages and disadvantages.

Good thing is that Canon has a decent Jpeg engine for well lit scenes at base ISO, so if you shoot in those conditions, that's probably fine for most general photography.

I say get the most for your dollar though, raw gives you that.

C

http://www.photographic-central.blogspot.com
Also formerly AlphaMountWorld.com (now off the web)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg, May 20, 2013

I will  use a mannual transmisAgain again.

I will not listen to music in AIFF format.

I will not take photos with anything but my Smart phone.

The list goes on and on.

 wchutt's gear list:wchutt's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tko
tko
Forum ProPosts: 10,454
Like?
I will not drive a Corvette
In reply to Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg, May 20, 2013

I drove a Corvette to the grocery store. I drove my Honda Civic. I got there in the same time.

Here are my times. Can anyone see a difference?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DJF77
Regular MemberPosts: 384Gear list
Like?
Re: I will not drive a Corvette
In reply to tko, May 20, 2013

There is definitely alot of snobbery when it comes to RAW, its like the 'I shoot in manual mode only' rubbish that people use without fully understanding why or how Av or Tv can give you the same control.

Raw has its uses but is only really necessary for critical work, even then as a back-up to a Jpeg... Todays Jpegs are very malleable & if you have to push a file so hard that a Jpeg isnt sufficient then you should probably pay a little more attention when you shoot. Raw does have its uses but I would bet 90% of us dont really need to be using it solely.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jonrobertp
Forum ProPosts: 11,245Gear list
Like?
Raw...why?
In reply to DJF77, May 20, 2013

I used to shoot raw.  Lately I get a ton more images with jpg in newer cams.  Shooting 4-600 at an event is not unusual at all.  And the clients love the images...If I need a bit more PP, camera raw helps out.  It's the moment...the content/expression...that's more NB.

Snobbery ?  oh of course.  Ditto with nearly everything else...so why wouldn't it be also with photo gear and processing.  Just learn to ignore them...do what works for yourself.

 jonrobertp's gear list:jonrobertp's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X II Canon PowerShot G7 X Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V Canon EOS 70D
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
thomasw333
Regular MemberPosts: 495Gear list
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg, May 20, 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]

I will only shoot RAW with my Canon SX50HS. Look at the second picture, there is so much more life in the animals face. I do not like my Canon SX50, but I have it, and from my time with it, I get better results shooting raw. But everyone should do what they want. This is a forum, forum being a place for public discussion, and so I gave my personal view on using my Canon SX50. Emphasis on my and me, and not about what other people should be doing.

 thomasw333's gear list:thomasw333's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PM2 Canon EOS 100D Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads