I Will Not Shot in RAW

Started May 19, 2013 | Discussions
brianj
Forum ProPosts: 12,983Gear list
Like?
Re: Pushed jpg PP
In reply to kelpdiver, May 20, 2013

kelpdiver wrote:

Brian, what is saved by accepting any of these limitations?

I shoot raw+jpeg most of the time.  I have the digic5 processed jpeg available immediately, and then the raw image if I want to polish an excellent image, or recover a flawed (but subject wise excellent) shot.  The only price I pay is a hit to double digit burst shooting, and needing to carry bigger CF cards.   (They're cheap)

I still have a small percentage of jpg only shots (nature of camera, or changed modes, or most common: got from someone else) and it's a bit aggravating how many LR/CS functions get greyed out because there's no data to work with.  It's as bad as getting a second generation copy of a print.

I guess I am not a fanatic, you should stick to what you enjoy, but I am only a hobbyist and after the fun of taking a photo and mucking around with it, I will probably put it into storage with the 10s or thousands of other ones that will never be seen again.

By the way, nothing is grayed out when adjusting a jpg in PSP9, I am beginning to understand why some people think you cannot adequately adjust a jpg, I didn't know that some software prevents you from doing so by graying things out.

You learn something every day.

Brian

 brianj's gear list:brianj's gear list
Canon PowerShot ELPH 330 HS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
toomanycanons
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,406
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to ata3001, May 20, 2013

ata3001 wrote:

toomanycanons wrote:

ata3001 wrote:

Just in reading these responses, there are a vast number of people who just don't have a clue & I'm not about to argue with them. If you're happy with your images, that's fine with me. I happen to shoot EVERYTHING as raw & that should be fine with you. See, we're both happy now...

Another "I only shoot raw" photog.  Who of course believes that those who shoot in jpegs "just don't have a clue".  I bet you have a tee shirt with "I only shoot raw" on it so everyone will know that, well, you only shoot in raw.

I shoot in raw only to get the best out of an image as is possible. Reading these responsed just tells me that many who totally believe jpgs are the answer & can see no reason to shoot raw and some totally not understanding what exactly a raw file really is. Converting a finished raw file to a jpg does NOT give you what a camera jpg will give you. Those that believe this really don't understand it at all.

No I do not own a shirt with stupid little sayings such as you suggest. Your response just proves you are one of those that "haven't a clue"

No, I shoot raw + jpeg.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lee Jay
Forum ProPosts: 44,043Gear list
Like?
SX50 raw versus JPEG
In reply to Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg, May 21, 2013

Click on the original to see the comparison between the raw and the JPEG.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon ELPH 500 HS Canon PowerShot SX260 HS Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 550D +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jonrobertp
Forum ProPosts: 10,710Gear list
Like?
Re: :)
In reply to Augustin Man, May 21, 2013

Augustin Man wrote:

jonrobertp wrote:

I'd be willing to bet that many raw only ppl would be very surprised how many images have been sold that were shot in jpg.  lol...'cause I know about that too.  And a photog with a large studio I know ...shoots in jpg...yep.   (that sound you now hear is raw only guys falling off their chairs.    )

It's not that ppl can't do as they wish, it's the projected /pretended superiority of the minds of some ppl that are annoying.  Oh well, as I said before, it also happens in just about every other area of life.  ....nothing new under the sun.

You're dead right! It's just as simple as that: when I'll have the skill and time to pp shots BETTER than the camera processor, then I'll do RAW. Otherwise I'm striving to learn how to shoot correctly (meaning settings, composition, POV, DOF, etc...).

I also know someone who states "I only shoot RAW" holiday images with friends, without any photographic value, but they are RAW   ! I call this the "non-professional complex", i.e. amateurs that like to think about themselves as professionals by superficially imitating professional actions.

All the best,

Augustin

Exactly !!

 jonrobertp's gear list:jonrobertp's gear list
Sony RX100 G1 X II Canon EOS 70D
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
new boyz
Regular MemberPosts: 180Gear list
Like?
Re: :)
In reply to jonrobertp, May 21, 2013

Well, that is true. In ideal lighting(studio for example), the benefits of RAW are not significant, if any. But lighting is not always ideal. Sometimes you have to pull detail from shadows or recover clipped highlight. This where raw shines. The biggest advantage of raw lies in its larger databit (12 or 14 vs 8-bit jpeg). Very useful for exposure adjustment. In fact I only use raw for exposure  related adjustment only.

Some people shoot raw + jpg. If picture come out okay, they delete the raw file for storage saving purpose. Not so okay, the open the raw file, push the exposure up to 3 stops, then delete the raw file.

 new boyz's gear list:new boyz's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Sony 50mm F1.4 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kriekira
Senior MemberPosts: 2,188Gear list
Like?
I Will Not live under a bridge.
In reply to Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg, May 21, 2013

fwiw.

-- hide signature --

-- Kirby Krieger.

 Kriekira's gear list:Kriekira's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Sony RX1R Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 Sony SLT-A77 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brianj
Forum ProPosts: 12,983Gear list
Like?
Re: SX50 raw versus JPEG
In reply to Lee Jay, May 21, 2013

ljfinger wrote:

Click on the original to see the comparison between the raw and the JPEG.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Clearly you did not have you jpg in camera settings correct.  It would be no different to having the raw editor settings wrong.

Brian

 brianj's gear list:brianj's gear list
Canon PowerShot ELPH 330 HS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mfait
Contributing MemberPosts: 551Gear list
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to HDR junkie, May 21, 2013

HDR junkie wrote:

Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg wrote:

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]

Well, I like raw, but sometimes it takes a little time and it is easy to make mistakes.
I tested your RAW file, the way I often process
RAW files. But this is my interpretation, not yours! (quick and easy)

Mats

Good example of the improvements that can be made to RAW files.

I shoot RAW so that I don't need to:

  • Get the exposure bang on.
  • Get the WB right.  If you change it and forget to adjust as lighting changes you end up with worse results when shooting JPGs.

These are the main things I tweak, which is quick and easy, as you said regarding tweaks you made to the OP's image.  I don't need to worry about these for every shot, I can just focus on capturing the images, instead of missing opportunities by tweaking settings in order to get perfect JPGs.

Those that "only shoot JPG", have you ever played with RAW to see its benefits.

If the issue is with the amount of space the RAW files take up, then tweak the RAW images, convert to JPGs, and delete the RAW images.  Viola, you now have better JPGs then you would out of the camera.

 mfait's gear list:mfait's gear list
Canon PowerShot S100 Canon EOS 450D
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lee Jay
Forum ProPosts: 44,043Gear list
Like?
Re: SX50 raw versus JPEG
In reply to brianj, May 21, 2013

Defaults, minimum ISO, ec=0. Lighting changes quickly as the move across the sky - no time to make ec changes.
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon ELPH 500 HS Canon PowerShot SX260 HS Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 550D +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
brianj
Forum ProPosts: 12,983Gear list
Like?
Re: SX50 raw versus JPEG
In reply to Lee Jay, May 21, 2013

ljfinger wrote:

Defaults, minimum ISO, ec=0. Lighting changes quickly as the move across the sky - no time to make ec changes.
--

Fair enough, although makers defaults generally overexpose, but I follow your reason for raw when trying to take such difficult shots.

Brian

 brianj's gear list:brianj's gear list
Canon PowerShot ELPH 330 HS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chato
Forum ProPosts: 43,621Gear list
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to mfait, May 21, 2013

mfait wrote:

HDR junkie wrote:

Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg wrote:

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]

Well, I like raw, but sometimes it takes a little time and it is easy to make mistakes.
I tested your RAW file, the way I often process
RAW files. But this is my interpretation, not yours! (quick and easy)

Mats

Good example of the improvements that can be made to RAW files.

I shoot RAW so that I don't need to:

  • Get the exposure bang on.
  • Get the WB right.  If you change it and forget to adjust as lighting changes you end up with worse results when shooting JPGs.

These are the main things I tweak, which is quick and easy, as you said regarding tweaks you made to the OP's image.  I don't need to worry about these for every shot, I can just focus on capturing the images, instead of missing opportunities by tweaking settings in order to get perfect JPGs.

Those that "only shoot JPG", have you ever played with RAW to see its benefits.

If the issue is with the amount of space the RAW files take up, then tweak the RAW images, convert to JPGs, and delete the RAW images.  Viola, you now have better JPGs then you would out of the camera.

Yup, he got rid of the green cast, and the image is sharper. I got very similar results.

But this was a perfectly exposed JPG, even the white on the Baboons head was not blown.

The real advantage to Raw is when you take a shot like this one, where I DID blow the highlights...

And by using RAW, saved the image...

-- hide signature --

"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Augustin Man
Senior MemberPosts: 3,396Gear list
Like?
Re: SX50 raw versus JPEG
In reply to Lee Jay, May 21, 2013

ljfinger wrote:

Click on the original to see the comparison between the raw and the JPEG.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

I'm sorry, but your example is not good: as a hobbyist with passion to shoot airliners, NOT in taking off, but cruising at 12000m with 900km/h, I'd like to remark that you should set a -0.3 correction and focus Spot.

Here is an example:

And here more:

https://picasaweb.google.com/106913078899624028286/PlanesFlyingOverMyHead

All the best,

Augustin

 Augustin Man's gear list:Augustin Man's gear list
Olympus SP-810 UZ Nikon Coolpix P510 Canon PowerShot SX50 HS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SpeedyGonzalys
Regular MemberPosts: 355Gear list
Like?
I shoot RAW plus JPG in tough situations
In reply to Lee Jay, May 21, 2013

ljfinger wrote:

Defaults, minimum ISO, ec=0. Lighting changes quickly as the move across the sky - no time to make ec changes.
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

I agree with you and your clear example,  well done.

I love all kind of challenging picture circumstances, a.e.  i like fast moving / chassing spitfires, mustangs etc etc where you only have a split second to respond on there movements.

Highlight/lowlight chassing each other even faster, and some ppl think the cam would know excatly what YOU want to be exposed properly?   lol NO WAY...  you are going to be happy with a FULL FRAME (focused!) warhawk on your screen, and i can alomst guarrantee you that the exposure will NOT be 100%  or 90%  or 80%   ....  unless you got yourself a realy expensive-girlfriend-chassing-away- DSLR cam plus lenses 

Not enough challenging??  take a 12FPS warhawk  passing by at 200mtrs.... set, 12 frames and see if thát will be close to 100% well exposure

So yes, if its a "easy sitting cripple duck" than you have all the time in the world to take that pic, and stay with JPG,

Personaly??  i shoot "challenging" situations RAW plus JPG, i like to eat my hamburger NOT the way the fastfood kitchen made it how THEY would like it...  i want it MY taste

 SpeedyGonzalys's gear list:SpeedyGonzalys's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Barry Pearson
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,591Gear list
Like?
Everyone shoots raw!
In reply to Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg, May 21, 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:

To be a bit pedantic, everyone shoots raw. You do.

This discussion is about whether the raw to JPEG processing is done in-camera or later. Done according to someone else's parameters or to your parameters. Frozen at the time of capture or able to be re-done later, perhaps with better or later software.

(I'll ignore the fact that many of my photos are destined for printing, not as a JPEGs).

 Barry Pearson's gear list:Barry Pearson's gear list
Pentax K-7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Pentax K-5 Pentax Q Pentax K-5 IIs +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Marco Nero
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,986Gear list
Like?
Delicious JPEGS Vs unthawed RAW
In reply to SpeedyGonzalys, May 21, 2013

SpeedyGonzalys wrote:

Personaly??  i shoot "challenging" situations RAW plus JPG, i like to eat my hamburger NOT the way the fastfood kitchen made it how THEY would like it...  i want it MY taste

And yet we chose to pay for a 5-star Culinary Chef (DiGiC Processor) to cook our meal (Convert RAW to JPEG in-camera).  Are you a Professional Chef  (Professional Digital Image Editor) ?  If not, you'll burn that RAW file when your get around to processing it.  Or you might undercook it in the eyes of your peers.
If you are slightly color blind, if you have an incorrectly calibrated monitor, if your monitor is calibrated for print but not internet, if your camera settings are inappropriate or if your skills as a photographer are lacking, then all your abilities as an image editor are essentially affected. And ultimately, your images may suffer in the eyes of others.

There's still room to edit a JPEG image further, to enhance the colors, to sharpen the image further and to lighten hidden details concealed in the shadows... or to lower the highlights to reveal hidden details.  How is it that people think they can take great pictures without accurate exposures and reasonable subject framing?  Get it right in-camera rather than try to "fix" your pictures later in editing programs and you might be happier with the results.

Since Modern cameras can retain considerable details inside the shadows and highlights of an image, RAW becomes more redundant for the non-industry semi-pro photographer.  Accurate color capture and image processing combined with advances in lens technology has resulted in very clean and well-processed photographs processed internally with the camera's JPEG engine.  All the award-winning photographs that I saw at exhibition recently were shot in JPEG.

-- 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
Chris59
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,240Gear list
Like?
Re: Everyone shoots raw!
In reply to Barry Pearson, May 21, 2013

Barry Pearson wrote:

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:

To be a bit pedantic, everyone shoots raw. You do.

This discussion is about whether the raw to JPEG processing is done in-camera or later. Done according to someone else's parameters or to your parameters. Frozen at the time of capture or able to be re-done later, perhaps with better or later software.

(I'll ignore the fact that many of my photos are destined for printing, not as a JPEGs).

Excellent reply.  Unfortunately, it will probably fall on deaf ears judging by the original post.  It seems that some people are simply incapable of understanding that making a post as silly as that is only parading their ignorance for all to see.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Barry Pearson
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,591Gear list
Like?
Re: Delicious JPEGS Vs unthawed RAW
In reply to Marco Nero, May 21, 2013

Marco Nero wrote:

Since Modern cameras can retain considerable details inside the shadows and highlights of an image, RAW becomes more redundant for the non-industry semi-pro photographer.  Accurate color capture and image processing combined with advances in lens technology has resulted in very clean and well-processed photographs processed internally with the camera's JPEG engine.  All the award-winning photographs that I saw at exhibition recently were shot in JPEG.

Some of the top competitions require the winners to supply their raw files so that the judges can check the degree of processing. This especially applies to natural history, but also to travel and sometimes landscapes competitions.

Most serious club photographers in the UK shoot raw. With products like Lightroom making raw processing at least as easy as JPEG processing, why not shoot raw? (Or raw + JPEG?)

(I'm an amateur photographer).

 Barry Pearson's gear list:Barry Pearson's gear list
Pentax K-7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Pentax K-5 Pentax Q Pentax K-5 IIs +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SpeedyGonzalys
Regular MemberPosts: 355Gear list
Like?
Re: Delicious JPEGS Vs unthawed RAW
In reply to Marco Nero, May 21, 2013

Marco Nero wrote:

SpeedyGonzalys wrote:

Personaly??  i shoot "challenging" situations RAW plus JPG, i like to eat my hamburger NOT the way the fastfood kitchen made it how THEY would like it...  i want it MY taste

There's still room to edit a JPEG image further, to enhance the colors, to sharpen the image further and to lighten hidden details concealed in the shadows... or to lower the highlights to reveal hidden details.

IF...   you like to do the above work.... ( and i agree here on all your points like calibration etc etc..) than why start with a already well-done overcooked prime beef??  and work your way down, instead of a RAW prime beef?

Sure i understand, if you hate that "work"  you can trust JPG nowadays much better than before, but a under exposed Spitfire will be treated the same "way" as a overexposed Spitfire in the fabrics JPG setting, and that is WRONG, but its NOT there "mistake" its just how it is... average settings for Beef, minceadmeat, chicken wings IF.. you have to work on a not perfect exposed picture, your better off with the RAW,  if its a perfect exposed picture,  DONT FIX IT, IF IT AINT BROKEN 

How is it that people think they can take great pictures without accurate exposures and reasonable subject framing?

totaly agree, you can only do some damage-control afterwards

Get it right in-camera rather than try to "fix" your pictures later in editing programs and you might be happier with the results.

I agree, pls tel the pilots of the warhawks to fly sloooower, closer, not with the sun in there back, and SMILE when i take a picture ;), ohhh, forgot... i need a FOG (natural fog ánd colored  fog from stunting planes)  remover 

-- hide signature --

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

 SpeedyGonzalys's gear list:SpeedyGonzalys's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Greg in London
New MemberPosts: 7Gear list
Like?
Re: Raw...finally a sensinble reply
In reply to Chris59, May 21, 2013

Oh bliss a sensible reply,

 Greg in London's gear list:Greg in London's gear list
Apple Aperture +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Barry Pearson
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,591Gear list
Like?
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
In reply to Norman B, May 21, 2013

Norman B wrote:

For sure and I understand that. The easiest way I can explain it is to use the old film days as an analogy. The RAW image is like the negative and the JPEG is like the final print that was returned from wherever when the the film was developed. An image shot in JPEG is the cameras processor's version of what information is needed in the image. The camera discards what information if feels is not needed and it is gone from the JPEG. The JPEG is now the equivelant of a print returned from developing That usually leaves little room for major changes in PP. A RAW image leaves all of the information intact and a person can PP with all of the information that is available and make his own JPEG.

Analogies run out of steam!

Raw is certainly not like a processed negative. Perhaps closer to an undeveloped negative. You get the chance to develop it various ways (for years to come). Printing comes later.

The camera is incapable of reliably making all the decisions about what information is needed in the image. But I accept that it gets it right often enough for many people.

 Barry Pearson's gear list:Barry Pearson's gear list
Pentax K-7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Pentax K-5 Pentax Q Pentax K-5 IIs +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads