Should I go RAW only?

Started Jan 29, 2014 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
IGotShot
IGotShot OP Forum Member • Posts: 81
Re: Should I go RAW only?

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 M Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 7D Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM +3 more
AlphaTikal
AlphaTikal Senior Member • Posts: 2,044
Re: Should I go RAW only?

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 a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro (F004) Samsung Galaxy S7 edge +11 more
Chris59 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,181
Re: What?
1

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.

 Chris59's gear list:Chris59's gear list
Samsung NX1 Samsung 16-50mm F2.0-2.8
AlphaTikal
AlphaTikal Senior Member • Posts: 2,044
Re: What?

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 a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro (F004) Samsung Galaxy S7 edge +11 more
AlphaTikal
AlphaTikal Senior Member • Posts: 2,044
Re: What?

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 a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro (F004) Samsung Galaxy S7 edge +11 more
carl english
carl english Veteran Member • Posts: 8,060
Re: Should I go RAW only?
1

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 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Nikon D70
Chris59 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,181
Re: What?
1

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.

 Chris59's gear list:Chris59's gear list
Samsung NX1 Samsung 16-50mm F2.0-2.8
richardplondon
richardplondon Veteran Member • Posts: 9,893
Re: you got your answer
2

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-LX100 Pentax K-5 Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +7 more
trac63 Contributing Member • Posts: 615
Re: the emperor wears NO clothes
1

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.

knickerhawk Veteran Member • Posts: 4,473
Re: What?

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.

AlphaTikal
AlphaTikal Senior Member • Posts: 2,044
Re: What?
1

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 a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro (F004) Samsung Galaxy S7 edge +11 more
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 1,324
I did not know that!

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.

jonrobertp Forum Pro • Posts: 12,569
Re: Should I go RAW only?...
2

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
Canon PowerShot G7 X Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX50V Canon PowerShot G3 X Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100 Canon EOS 70D
Leonard Migliore
Leonard Migliore Forum Pro • Posts: 13,224
My heart is not pure enough for that
1

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 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Nikon D300 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 10-24mm f/3-5-4.5G ED Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +8 more
trac63 Contributing Member • Posts: 615
Re: My heart is not pure enough for that
1

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.

richardplondon
richardplondon Veteran Member • Posts: 9,893
Re: I did not know that!

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-LX100 Pentax K-5 Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +7 more
richardplondon
richardplondon Veteran Member • Posts: 9,893
Re: Should I go RAW only?...
1

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-LX100 Pentax K-5 Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +7 more
carl english
carl english Veteran Member • Posts: 8,060
Re: Should I go RAW only?...
1

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 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Nikon D70
macclesfieldman
macclesfieldman Regular Member • Posts: 105
Re: Should I go RAW only?...
1

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
dwight3
dwight3 Senior Member • Posts: 2,377
Re: Should I go RAW only?
1

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 D200 Nikon D4 Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +8 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads