Should I go RAW only?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
IGotShot
Forum MemberPosts: 77Gear list
Like?
Re: Should I go RAW only?
In reply to Mark Scott Abeln, 3 months ago

At first it's a space issue because I only have 16GB cards (I only use the Sandisk 95MB/s cards and 16GB+ cards are expensive). But now I notice there is something I didn't think of, and that's the higher burst rate. It went from 7 shots for RAW+JPEG to 12 shots on RAW only. I'm going to stick with RAW only.

Cheers

 IGotShot's gear list:IGotShot's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Contributing MemberPosts: 514Gear list
Like?
Re: Should I go RAW only?
In reply to IGotShot, 3 months ago

Are you using burst mode all the time? You can quickly change to different mode when needed. I use raw+jpeg, as i am using both formats. When i need jpeg only setting (burst mode or special features, which only work at jpeg mode, sadly), i quickly change to ot and back afterwards. No need to stick in single mode.
--
· 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 SLT-A65 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris59
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,621
Like?
Re: What?
In reply to knickerhawk, 3 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.

It's not a question of "handicapping" but of priorities. Most, if not all camera JPEG engines are designed to produce an image file from the RAW data quickly and efficiently in deference to frame rate and battery conservation.  The RAW processor software is designed to produce the best image possible, time and energy considerations being largely irrelevant.  Certainly Canon JPEGs are better when processed via software than in camera, even when no adjustments are made.

Although Charles2 is correct in the sense that a camera JPEG is impossible to duplicate exactly, I can't think of a single reason why I would prefer it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Contributing MemberPosts: 514Gear list
Like?
Re: What?
In reply to Chris59, 3 months ago

I can give you reason why to use jpegs (with or without raw). Besides the operation speed and drive space , which is true only without raw. I use jpegs to have good quality in camera corrected jpegs and with good working dynamic range optimizer. I love to send the jpegs on the fly to my mobile with Eye Fi card. And i even switch sometimes to jpeg only to have advanced burst rate and some jpeg only features.
--
· 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 SLT-A65 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Contributing MemberPosts: 514Gear list
Like?
Re: What?
In reply to AlphaTikal, 3 months ago

Sorry for double posting.
Sometimes I am not able to produce better images with raw. Depends on type of photo.
--
· 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 SLT-A65 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
carl english
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,436Gear list
Like?
Re: Should I go RAW only?
In reply to AlphaTikal, 3 months ago

As stated many many times on forums there is not a good argument against using raw BUT and theres always a but, I bet 99% of all the images out there including the ones you drool over wishing you could do the same where taken as jpgs

 carl english's gear list:carl english's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris59
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,621
Like?
Re: What?
In reply to AlphaTikal, 3 months ago

AlphaTikal wrote:

Sorry for double posting.
Sometimes I am not able to produce better images with raw. Depends on type of photo.
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

In response to both your posts:-

There are, in my opinion, only three good reasons to shoot JPEGs in camera.  1.  The increased burst rate which may or may not be important to you.  2.  The ability to send images "on the fly" or in a hurry.  3.  If you are running low on memory cards, have a number of images you need/want to get, and no way of getting more cards.

As for image quality, JPEGs produced from software are superior to those produced in camera for virtually all cameras - even when you do NO post processing.  As for improving your RAW images, you may sometimes be unable to produce better images by making adjustments.  However, even if you can't improve the image via adjustments, the JPEG from post processing your RAW data will still have the better resolution.

Having said this, if you are happy with your JPEGs, then that's fine, but don't expect the images you produce to be as good as your camera and lens can do.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
richardplondon
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,059Gear list
Like?
Re: you got your answer
In reply to canonagain123, 3 months ago

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!

In case anyone does not know, Adobe provide a software tool and downloadable targets that can be printed, allowing highly accurate correction profiles to be built for any lens and camera, shooting in either JPG or Raw, by the end user.

You are not dependent on the availability of profiles made by Adobe or by anyone else.

They also have an online facility for sharing these user-generated profiles within the community, and these apply interchangeably for ACR and for Lightroom.

So that thirty-year-old lens can be corrected in an objective (empirical) way which even reverses any peculiarities of that specific example of the lens. This profiled approach is far more effective than manual adjustments, in that even quite complex non-linear aberrations (such as wavy "moustache" distortion) can be corrected. Manual adjustments assume the simplest form of barrel/pincushion and vignetting only.

Adobe nowadays correct CA programmatically, no longer via the profile.

They do not (yet?) profile sharpness falloff by those means, though I suppose one could approximate that via a radial gradient correction stored in a preset.

 richardplondon's gear list:richardplondon's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1 Pentax K-5 Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
trac63
Regular MemberPosts: 449
Like?
Re: the emperor wears NO clothes
In reply to nunatak, 3 months ago

nunatak wrote:

go RAW, or go cookie cutter.

-- hide signature --

design guy

Go Commando.

Shoot JPEG only, unless there's some compelling reason why you need the RAW files.

If you rarely miss on the exposure and colour balance you don't need RAW.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
knickerhawk
Senior MemberPosts: 2,930
Like?
Re: What?
In reply to Chris59, 3 months ago

Chris59 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.

It's not a question of "handicapping" but of priorities. Most, if not all camera JPEG engines are designed to produce an image file from the RAW data quickly and efficiently in deference to frame rate and battery conservation. The RAW processor software is designed to produce the best image possible, time and energy considerations being largely irrelevant. Certainly Canon JPEGs are better when processed via software than in camera, even when no adjustments are made.

I'm aware of the argument about more processing power allowing for better renderings on a computer, but in practice I haven't seen this to be the case with the standard "free" raw converters that camera manufacturers offer.  That's what I was referring to and what I thought Charles2 was talking about.  I have no doubt that some third party (and perhaps some advanced camera manufacturer) raw converters are superior to the in-camera and freebie camera manufacturer versions.

I also had the impression that Charles2 was implying that in-camera conversions were sometimes better (the "secret sauce" statement).  Like you, I continue to consider that to be unlikely.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Contributing MemberPosts: 514Gear list
Like?
Re: What?
In reply to Chris59, 3 months ago

Chris59 wrote:

Having said this, if you are happy with your JPEGs, then that's fine, but don't expect the images you produce to be as good as your camera and lens can do.

I think, this is an old fact. It depends on the output and what camera and lens you have and the processing. The new JPEG engines are fantastic and doing it right in camera, with almost no intention to post process, there is no reason to use RAW if the scene don't require it. The resolution is the same with both formats. Often, the images aren't better with RAW. But as I said, this depends on scene, setting, camera, processing, style, output... so no generalization is possible.

-- hide signature --

· 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 SLT-A65 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
I did not know that!
In reply to richardplondon, 3 months ago

richardplondon wrote:

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!

In case anyone does not know, Adobe provide a software tool and downloadable targets that can be printed, allowing highly accurate correction profiles to be built for any lens and camera, shooting in either JPG or Raw, by the end user.

You are not dependent on the availability of profiles made by Adobe or by anyone else.

They also have an online facility for sharing these user-generated profiles within the community, and these apply interchangeably for ACR and for Lightroom.

So that thirty-year-old lens can be corrected in an objective (empirical) way which even reverses any peculiarities of that specific example of the lens. This profiled approach is far more effective than manual adjustments, in that even quite complex non-linear aberrations (such as wavy "moustache" distortion) can be corrected. Manual adjustments assume the simplest form of barrel/pincushion and vignetting only.

Adobe nowadays correct CA programmatically, no longer via the profile.

They do not (yet?) profile sharpness falloff by those means, though I suppose one could approximate that via a radial gradient correction stored in a preset.

Thank you so much for sharing that, I didn't know about the downloadable targets! Do you have a link for them? I can look for them myself but if you happen to have the link handy that would be great.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jonrobertp
Forum ProPosts: 10,422Gear list
Like?
Re: Should I go RAW only?...
In reply to IGotShot, 3 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?

No, shoot jpg only. Then you can be happy !

 jonrobertp's gear list:jonrobertp's gear list
Sony RX100 Nikon D5200 Canon EOS 70D
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leonard Migliore
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,450Gear list
Like?
My heart is not pure enough for that
In reply to trac63, 3 months ago

trac63 wrote:

nunatak wrote:

go RAW, or go cookie cutter.

-- hide signature --

design guy

Go Commando.

Shoot JPEG only, unless there's some compelling reason why you need the RAW files.

If you rarely miss on the exposure and colour balance you don't need RAW.

Do you walk on water too?

-- hide signature --

Leonard Migliore

 Leonard Migliore's gear list:Leonard Migliore's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 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 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 10-24mm f/3-5-4.5G ED +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
trac63
Regular MemberPosts: 449
Like?
Re: My heart is not pure enough for that
In reply to Leonard Migliore, 3 months ago

Leonard Migliore wrote:

Go Commando.

Shoot JPEG only, unless there's some compelling reason why you need the RAW files.

If you rarely miss on the exposure and colour balance you don't need RAW.

Do you walk on water too?

Nothing like that.

I used to shoot RAW all the time but my Samsung NX210 has 40MB RAW files with only a handful of applications capable of opening them. My D7100 has 30MB RAW files. Both cameras give you a major boost in operating speed if you turn off RAW. I still shoot RAW sometimes, but only in really difficult lighting. Most of the time though, RAW just slows me down and needlessly quadruples the amount of data I have to deal with.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
richardplondon
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,059Gear list
Like?
Re: I did not know that!
In reply to canonagain123, 3 months ago

First, it's worth checking what is already available online: Adobe Lens Profile downloader

Otherwise, the printable targets are included with the tool:

Adobe Lens Profile creator (Windows)  (Macintosh)

There are quite full instructions included, the only things I would say are that firstly, the selection of the right target to use (they have to be printed at a certain physical size) is a little tricky to work out in terms of focusing distance and field of view. Secondly, you really do have to follow it step by step. Thirdly, attention to getting even, shadowless lighting onto the targets pays off.

In summary, you capture a set of overlapping differently framed / positioned images for a given combination of focal length and aperture, for a given lens. You do this as many or as few times as you wish - varying aperture, focal length - and for absolute rigour, at more than one focus distance, though that is IMO a step beyond what an end user will sensibly contemplate. Differnt targets may be physically feasible in each case.

Whatever sets will more or less suitably characterise the lens for your purposes. In the Adobe online resource, profiles are rated according to how detailed or minimal the profiling has been. If it's a lens that you seldom use except in a very narrow range of apertures, you can get away with profiling just once for that, and of course for a prime lens there is much less to do, than with a zoom.

Then you feed the pictures resulting from those sets of captures, into the software, for each group stating the particular target used (you can have used different targets to suit each set, e.g. due to varying zoom). It analyses all of this, draws / extrapolates some inferences from that, and spits out a lens profile which expresses those inferences as standardised correction data.

RP

 richardplondon's gear list:richardplondon's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1 Pentax K-5 Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
richardplondon
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,059Gear list
Like?
Re: Should I go RAW only?...
In reply to jonrobertp, 3 months ago

jonrobertp wrote:

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?

No, shoot jpg only. Then you can be happy !

I am unhappy with the JPG engine in my camera, and I don't want to buy a different one because (besides the cost), I love both the body and the lenses which fit it, in all other respects.

On the other hand, I am very happy with the Raw data it produces, and find the process of building output from that, both productive and rewarding.

Clearly, according to your post,  I must be deeply confused. Do I need to seek psychological help? 

 richardplondon's gear list:richardplondon's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1 Pentax K-5 Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
carl english
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,436Gear list
Like?
Re: Should I go RAW only?...
In reply to richardplondon, 3 months ago

richardplondon wrote:

jonrobertp wrote:

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?

No, shoot jpg only. Then you can be happy !

I am unhappy with the JPG engine in my camera, and I don't want to buy a different one because (besides the cost), I love both the body and the lenses which fit it, in all other respects.

On the other hand, I am very happy with the Raw data it produces, and find the process of building output from that, both productive and rewarding.

Clearly, according to your post, I must be deeply confused. Do I need to seek psychological help?

No you don't need help, try this, get any modern digital camera switch on (Must do this) point at subject and press shutter button you can repeat this many times, take card to processor or print your own, if you are delighted with results, be happy, you could then check whether or not you were in raw or jpeg mode. At this moment in time most of the best images out there are jpeg and I see no reason why this will change as image quality is improving all the time.

 carl english's gear list:carl english's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
macclesfieldman
Forum MemberPosts: 81Gear list
Like?
Re: Should I go RAW only?...
In reply to carl english, 3 months ago

carl english wrote:

At this moment in time most of the best images out there are jpeg and I see no reason why this will change as image quality is improving all the time.

That is probably because all the good RAWs are converted into JPG! So this argument is not extremely useful at this moment in time.

-- hide signature --

My name is Marc and "what happens inside your mind can happen inside a camera" (Minolta advert)
www.insight-outside-photography.com

 macclesfieldman's gear list:macclesfieldman's gear list
Canon PowerShot S110 Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D Sony SLT-A77 Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dwight3
Senior MemberPosts: 1,752Gear list
Like?
Re: Should I go RAW only?
In reply to IGotShot, 3 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 used to shoot jpg only because I didn't know any better. Then after messing up some WB settings and having a hell of a time trying to correct the images, I started shooting RAW+jpg. That gave me instant jpgs and RAW files when I needed to work on them. I learned to Lightroom to do my editing and found it pretty easy to use.

Eventually I had so many images I was having trouble finding things. LR helped by allowing me to add tags to the images. That made it easier to search for something. But I still had a lot of jpgs that didn't go through LR.

Eventually I decided to shoot RAW only. That forced me to put all my images through LR, and since I can add tags to a block of images at import time, I could be assured that all my images got tags. And by dropping the jpg I saved about 30% of the space on my card by not recording both.

If you use LR (and I recommend it), shoot RAW only and make sure all your images are in the catalog. The amount of time you have to spend is negligible compared to the time you spend trying to find images you took a couple years ago.

If you only take a few images a year, RAW might not be for you. But it's pretty easy to take 10,000 shots in a year. That's only 30 a day. If you shoot a lot less than that, you can probably get by with RAW+jpg. But I recommend NOT dropping the RAW.

 dwight3's gear list:dwight3's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S52c Nikon D200 Nikon D4 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads