Should I go RAW only?

Started 11 months ago | Discussions
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,544Gear list
Like?
Re: Should I go RAW only?
In reply to IGotShot, 11 months ago

Without knowing details, a recommendation is impossible. To me RAW+JPEG is a must have. I like the ooc jpegs from camera and can work on them. In most cases this is enough. I also sometimes use my Eye Fi to get the jpegs to my smartphone. The processing done in camera is good with incamera corrections. My catalogue program shows both as if it would be a single format. If needed, i ca decide later to work on raw too.

My advice is stay with RAW+JPEG and change to one of the formats only for speed purposes.
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

 AlphaTikal's gear list:AlphaTikal's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro Sony SLT-A65 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
knickerhawk
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,438
Like?
What?
In reply to Charles2, 11 months ago

Charles2 wrote:

Depending on the camera, the camera JPG may be good for many uses yet difficult to duplicate. Even the software from many camera manufacturers does not duplicate the JPG; the camera JPG recipe is apparently regarded as a secret sauce.

Which camera companies and which cameras produce noticeably different jpegs compared to processing the image in their proprietary raw converters (with same settings as in-camera)?  It makes no sense to me that camera companies would deliberately handicap their proprietary raw processing software.  What's the upside to that?

By the way, I can personally attest that it's not true for Nikon and Olympus raw processing software.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
salla30
Senior MemberPosts: 2,452Gear list
Like?
Re: that's only
In reply to mclewis, 11 months ago

Oh, i feel a little foolish. I had assumed the profile would be one selected in the list of profiles. I did not realise its an automatic thing.

I will check further, but assuming you're right, that's my reason for archiving jpg's gone out of the window ,as I export my pp'ed raws to jpg's anyway

-- hide signature --
 salla30's gear list:salla30's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX1 Sony RX100 II Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
knickerhawk
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,438
Like?
The ultimate reason not to shoot both
In reply to IGotShot, 11 months ago

IGotShot wrote:

I've been shooting RAW+JPEG and now after seeing the ability of the Adobe RAW converter, I'm considering whether to just shoot RAW. What do you guys think?

Others can debate the pros and cons of workflow, storage etc., but the ultimate reason why you would migrate away from shooting both is because correct exposure for each format is rarely the same.  Once you understand this (and the associated potential IQ advantages of properly exposing for raw), then the jpeg image usually becomes just an overexposed waste of memory.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
BaldCol
Regular MemberPosts: 239Gear list
Like?
Re: What?
In reply to knickerhawk, 11 months ago

or Canon

 BaldCol's gear list:BaldCol's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5–5.6 IS STM +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,544Gear list
Like?
Re: The ultimate reason not to shoot both
In reply to knickerhawk, 11 months ago

In camera jpeg have same exposure, as the jpeg is developed from raw. In case of jpeg only setting, the raw will just be deleted. Your statement is in correct. It may look to you like different exposure, because your desktop raw developer handles a little bit different.
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

 AlphaTikal's gear list:AlphaTikal's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro Sony SLT-A65 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,544Gear list
Like?
Re: that's only
In reply to salla30, 11 months ago

In the case of RX100 I have read the lns correction data is stores in the raw. It is a new raw version and different from older Sony raws (at least with this ability to hold correction data). The program have to support this. But i cannot prove this, as i only read it in the forums.
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

 AlphaTikal's gear list:AlphaTikal's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro Sony SLT-A65 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dareshooter
Senior MemberPosts: 1,301
Like?
Re: The ultimate reason not to shoot both
In reply to AlphaTikal, 11 months ago

I think Knickerhawk might have been alluding to ETTR which is not optimal for jpeg shooting.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,544Gear list
Like?
Re: The ultimate reason not to shoot both
In reply to Dareshooter, 11 months ago

That includes post process. And with such heavy post, raw is much different than jpeg. Thats right. But his initial posting sounded different (to me).
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

 AlphaTikal's gear list:AlphaTikal's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro Sony SLT-A65 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dareshooter
Senior MemberPosts: 1,301
Like?
Re: The ultimate reason not to shoot both
In reply to AlphaTikal, 11 months ago

AlphaTikal wrote:

That includes post process. And with such heavy post, raw is much different than jpeg. Thats right. But his initial posting sounded different (to me).
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

My take any way is that if your shooting RAW +JPEG some of the jpegs might be compromised regarding highlights etc but the RAW is still available to make up for the odd failure.Nothing to lose I guess but personally I find it unnecessary to shoot both.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
you got your answer
In reply to salla30, 11 months ago

salla30 wrote:

Oh, i feel a little foolish. I had assumed the profile would be one selected in the list of profiles. I did not realise its an automatic thing.

I will check further, but assuming you're right, that's my reason for archiving jpg's gone out of the window ,as I export my pp'ed raws to jpg's anyway

-- hide signature --

already, I started looking for the answer before reading the other replies. hope the automatic correction in LR works for you! In case you ever need it, you can shoot a brick wall at different apertures and focal lengths and create a lens profile yourself by making manual adjustments, but that's really tedious!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
knickerhawk
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,438
Like?
Re: The ultimate reason not to shoot both
In reply to AlphaTikal, 11 months ago

AlphaTikal wrote:

That includes post process. And with such heavy post, raw is much different than jpeg. Thats right. But his initial posting sounded different (to me).
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

No, I was talking about ETTR, which is just another term for setting exposure for optimal raw processing.  For me (and others who shoot raw), there's no point in exposing in a way that may make the in-camera jpeg look properly exposed but at the same time fails to take advantage of what the greater DR lattitude of shooting raw offers.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
BertIverson
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,035Gear list
Like?
YES -- exposure latitude ... Should I go RAW only?
In reply to Colin Franks, 11 months ago

Colin Franks wrote:

The enormous latitude for adjusting exposure alone is reason enough to shoot Raw only (except maybe for fluffy, unimportant quickie shots).

Exactly.
In the heat of shooting a time critical event, I do not want to be fiddling with EV or WB (concentrate on composition and focus).
Example: horse jumping on a sunny day with broken clouds, sun in front of me then sun behind me, white horse - black horse etc.

my 0.01 why I shoot raw,
Bert

 BertIverson's gear list:BertIverson's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,544Gear list
Like?
Re: YES -- exposure latitude ... Should I go RAW only?
In reply to BertIverson, 11 months ago

The question is not To shoot raw or jpeg. The question is raw+jpeg or raw only.
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

 AlphaTikal's gear list:AlphaTikal's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro Sony SLT-A65 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Charles2
Senior MemberPosts: 2,246
Like?
Re: What?
In reply to knickerhawk, 11 months ago

knickerhawk wrote:

Charles2 wrote:

Depending on the camera, the camera JPG may be good for many uses yet difficult to duplicate. Even the software from many camera manufacturers does not duplicate the JPG; the camera JPG recipe is apparently regarded as a secret sauce.

Which camera companies and which cameras produce noticeably different jpegs compared to processing the image in their proprietary raw converters (with same settings as in-camera)? It makes no sense to me that camera companies would deliberately handicap their proprietary raw processing software. What's the upside to that?

By the way, I can personally attest that it's not true for Nikon and Olympus raw processing software.

Pentax, Fuji, Olympus (for an EP1), Sigma.

The computer-based programs from the camera manufacturers are free, so revenue from them is not an issue.

We could speculate why; for example, are techniques hidden in camera firmware that would be easier to disassemble from a computer program? The fact remains that many users note the difference.

The fudge factor is "noticeably different." Agreed, the difference is often not much.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leonard Migliore
Forum ProPosts: 10,593Gear list
Like?
More questions
In reply to AlphaTikal, 11 months ago

AlphaTikal wrote:

The question is not To shoot raw or jpeg. The question is raw+jpeg or raw only.

The question is, "what am I supposed to do with all these jpegs?".

-- hide signature --

Leonard Migliore

 Leonard Migliore's gear list:Leonard Migliore's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Nikon D300 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,544Gear list
Like?
Re: More questions
In reply to Leonard Migliore, 11 months ago

And how can we know the answer for him? It is a personal thing. If you don't have any usage for jpegs, just don't use. It is simple. No need to ask others. For me, I have usage for both. So I do raw+jpegs. Now, is that enough why he should shoot in raw+jpeg too? How can we decide for him, not knowing any detail?
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

 AlphaTikal's gear list:AlphaTikal's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro Sony SLT-A65 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
knickerhawk
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,438
Like?
Re: What?
In reply to Charles2, 11 months ago

Charles2 wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

Charles2 wrote:

Depending on the camera, the camera JPG may be good for many uses yet difficult to duplicate. Even the software from many camera manufacturers does not duplicate the JPG; the camera JPG recipe is apparently regarded as a secret sauce.

Which camera companies and which cameras produce noticeably different jpegs compared to processing the image in their proprietary raw converters (with same settings as in-camera)? It makes no sense to me that camera companies would deliberately handicap their proprietary raw processing software. What's the upside to that?

By the way, I can personally attest that it's not true for Nikon and Olympus raw processing software.

Pentax, Fuji, Olympus (for an EP1), Sigma.

I have an Oly EPL1 and an Oly EM5.  I don't use Olympus Viewer much, but I've used it more than enough to determine that there is no difference in its output compared to straight OOC jpegs (assuming similar settings applied).  I'd be interested in any sources for your conclusion that the EP1 is a different case.

The computer-based programs from the camera manufacturers are free, so revenue from them is not an issue.

It seems like it would be a big issue for any camera manufacturer that promotes the raw shooting and processing option for its cameras, if that option renders images differently from in-camera jpegs.  Would be shooting themselves in the foot to go to the trouble of offering a raw output option, develop the end-user software to support raw conversions but then dumb it down to operate differently from the in-camera processor and especially to offer a lower quality raw alternative to the in-camera jpegs.  Very counterintuitive to me, not something I've ever read about before.

We could speculate why; for example, are techniques hidden in camera firmware that would be easier to disassemble from a computer program? The fact remains that many users note the difference.

Sounds like a stretch to me, but I lack the programming skills to really speculate.

The fudge factor is "noticeably different." Agreed, the difference is often not much.

I think the real likelihood is that inexperienced users have experimented without understanding that their settings in the raw conversion software were different from the settings in the camera and then drew false conclusions from that.  Either that or they're using other raw processors and getting confused by the fact that their images when processed in them look nothing at all like the OOC jpegs.  That's a very common issue that might bleed into the false assumption that ALL raw processors - including the camera manufacturer's own - would render a different look from the OOC jpeg.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Josh152
Senior MemberPosts: 1,258
Like?
Re: The ultimate reason not to shoot both
In reply to knickerhawk, 11 months ago

knickerhawk wrote:

AlphaTikal wrote:

That includes post process. And with such heavy post, raw is much different than jpeg. Thats right. But his initial posting sounded different (to me).
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

No, I was talking about ETTR, which is just another term for setting exposure for optimal raw processing. For me (and others who shoot raw), there's no point in exposing in a way that may make the in-camera jpeg look properly exposed but at the same time fails to take advantage of what the greater DR lattitude of shooting raw offers.

Exactly.  Once you understand that ISO is not part of the exposure and understand the difference between exposure, and final image brightness exposure actually becomes much simpler when shooting raw.  This is because you basically always make sure you have as much light as possible on the sensor while taking into account the highlights you don't want to blow and your aperture and shutter speed constraints.  You no longer have to worry what the image looks like brightness wise until after you have processed it.  You stop chasing the "correct exposure" and start concentrating on more important things.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mark Scott Abeln
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,194Gear list
Like?
Re: Should I go RAW only?
In reply to IGotShot, 11 months ago

IGotShot wrote:

I've been shooting RAW+JPEG and now after seeing the ability of the Adobe RAW converter, I'm considering whether to just shoot RAW. What do you guys think?

I almost always shoot raw.  When I need to capture fast action I’ll switch to JPEG to be able to do high frames per second.

 Mark Scott Abeln's gear list:Mark Scott Abeln's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D7000 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Rokinon 85mm F1.4
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads