D60 Raw, is it necessary

[Jack A. Zucker]

Let's see if I can get some more input here...

I posted this elsewhere and was flamed for asking for comparisons. I know raw is superior but can anyone point me to examples with comparisons? I just got my D60 yesterday and it seems to me that even shooting in jpeg mode, I can interpolate up to 20x30 fairly well...

Thanks again,

Jaz

--
http://www.jackzucker.com

 

[Andy C.]

In simplest terms: If you want an image with no JPEG compression which can leave compression artifacts, then use RAW. Yes, the Fine setting can result in beautiful 20x30 prints, given the right subject. However, I assume that a 20x30 print of a solid blue sky would result better from a RAW exposure than a JPEG exposure.

Also, there are certain disciplines within photography where RAW is preferred, such as astrophotography.

So, it's not a black and white answer. Why don't you take the same photo in both modes, and have them both printed to 20x30 for comparison. Better yet, why not create composite 20x30 images which run the gamut of different shot types, one composite in JPEG and the other in RAW, and print the resulting files. Then you will have a visual resource to go back to in the future to help you decide whether a certain photo should be shot JPEG or RAW.

macnmotion

 

[Jack A. Zucker]

Good suggestions Andy.

Does anyone know what compression level the jpg fine images are on the D60?

Jaz

--
http://www.jackzucker.com

 

[Gino99815]

I like using RAW because I like to have the freedom to change the White Balance, Color, contrast and exposure after I take the image. You lose that when you use JPG.

Given, when I'm testing out... or playing around I may use JPG since you get more images per CF card. Plus you do not need any conversion to view them later. But for all my personal work is RAW or nothing.

I think it is a matter of personal choice. Not a storage issue or convenience one.

Gino Alvarez http://www.cmhphoto.com

 

[DonCohen]

Hi Jack,

Here's my take on this issue (I shoot Raw 100%, starting with a D30 2 years ago, and a 1D, 6 months ago):

I have spent thousands of dollars and hours in a search to get the best quality image. Jpeg, by definition, loses data and information. Raw Format is the "gold standard" in the sense that people claim that in many situations Jpeg is "as good" as Raw. Nobody claims that Jpeg will ever be better than Raw.

There may be situations (good, controlled, constant lighting, easy to meter and expose), where low ISO can be used, and minimal post-processing needs to be done, where there might be little practical difference between a Jpeg and a Raw image. But often this is not the case, or you might get a poorly exposed image by accident, where Raw Format will improve your chances of being able to "save" the image without amplifying the Jpeg artifacts that are inherently present in Jpeg files, get superior color balance, etc.

To me getting a high quality image/print is the result of meticulous attention to detail at each step in the process, rather than any single trick or step. That starts with good shooting technique, intelligent setting of the various camera parameters, on through careful post-processing in your editor, proper setting of printer driver options, etc.

If I want to get the best results I possibly can, I need to use the best in each of these steps, and for me, this means shooting in Raw Format. Others may want to save some time/inconvenience, and get quite acceptable results by shooting Jpeg, and I have no problem with that. But again, for me, in my somewhat perfectionistic approach to things, I want to take a no compromise approach in each step in the process to give me the greatest chance of getting the highest quality images/prints that I can achieve.

My $.02 worth, anyway.

Don
http://www.dlcphotography.net

Let's see if I can get some more input here...

I posted this elsewhere and was flamed for asking for comparisons.
I know raw is superior but can anyone point me to examples with
comparisons? I just got my D60 yesterday and it seems to me that
even shooting in jpeg mode, I can interpolate up to 20x30 fairly
well...

Thanks again,

Jaz

--
http://www.jackzucker.com

 

[Michael Thomas Mitchell]

No flames here, Jack...

The debate over raw vs jpg is best not approached from a qualitative standpoint; a JPG out of the camera simply isn't going to vary signficantly from a raw conversion, provided all else is equal.

What WILL vary is the fliexibility later on that will allow you to make changes to such important factors as sharpening, contrast, and white balance. These things, later on, might make a difference in final image quality. For example, its imporssible to in-camera sharpening completely off in JPG mode. If you like the in-camera sharpening alogortihms, and had the sharpening parameter set properly, then you'll be fine. Change your mind? Oops!

Was your white balance right on? In JPG, you'll have to work in PS to make corrections. Perfectly doable, of course, but potentially destructive. Raw format? No problem.. select another WB or juse click-white.

Blow out some facial highlights in a portrait? If you shot with JPG on medium or high contrast, you're out of luck. With raw format, you can see if low contrast will help out. Or maybe layer use linerar mode to get the largest dynamic range possible.

I won't push you either way, but I'll share these insights. Honestly, I don't really use the options provided by raw format to really warrant continuing to use it. Maybe about 2% of my images receive some sort of change from default during raw conversions. But, those 2% really DO benefit from raw conversion.. mostly in WB.

I understand the hesitation in using raw format with the D30, especially if you shoot alot. In fact, more and more, I'm using my D30 in place of the D60 simply I don't want to loose the raw format "safety net", and the files are much smaller and consume far less time for conversion.

But as I become more familiar with these machines, their output, and with digital photography in general, I'm loosing more and more of that NEED to have the raw files. In SOME cases, you might be more limited by the smaller number of images that can fit on a disc than the by not having the raw data later on.

Just some thoughts...

M

Let's see if I can get some more input here...

I posted this elsewhere and was flamed for asking for comparisons.
I know raw is superior but can anyone point me to examples with
comparisons? I just got my D60 yesterday and it seems to me that
even shooting in jpeg mode, I can interpolate up to 20x30 fairly
well...

Thanks again,

Jaz

--
http://www.jackzucker.com

 

[Jack A. Zucker]

Here's a stupid question for you guys...

Regarding the ability to change white balance, saturation, etc... (after the fact)...

That implies that the raw file is truly raw and does not utilize the camera's settings for those parameters? Furthermore, I would assume that post-processing WB, saturation, color in photoshop at 16 bit should yield superior results to those which the camera would process internally?

Jaz

 

[David Orridge]

In low light situations shooting in RAW picks up colour changes allot better.

if the colour were in a gradient, half the changes would be missing, and it would be streeky. This was especially noticable when trying to shoot the moon.

Let's see if I can get some more input here...

I posted this elsewhere and was flamed for asking for comparisons.
I know raw is superior but can anyone point me to examples with
comparisons? I just got my D60 yesterday and it seems to me that
even shooting in jpeg mode, I can interpolate up to 20x30 fairly
well...

Thanks again,

Jaz

--
http://www.jackzucker.com

 

[Mike Flaherty]

I stated this in response to your post at the other site. Duplicated here for others to see.

At print sizes of 13X19 and smaller, in my own personal experience, there is little visible (I know there is a technical difference) difference between images shot in RAW and Large/Fine JPG's, assuming you post-process them properly. I have no doubt that, at larger sizes, differences become more apparent. That said; I most definately shoot RAW. It gives me the 'edge' if my exposure or composition requires substantial adjustment/retouching. But, if you can expose, focus, and compose an image properly, you'll be totally satisfied with results from JPG's. I shot JPG's exclusively for a couple of years and have some quality "wall hangers" resulting from those JPG's. Shooting RAW definately adds time to the workflow. YMMV, of course - but I doubt it.

Let's see if I can get some more input here...

I posted this elsewhere and was flamed for asking for comparisons.
I know raw is superior but can anyone point me to examples with
comparisons? I just got my D60 yesterday and it seems to me that
even shooting in jpeg mode, I can interpolate up to 20x30 fairly
well...

Thanks again,

Jaz

--
http://www.jackzucker.com

--
Mike Flaherty
http://imageevent.com/mflaherty/mikesgallery

 

[bigbob7777]

How much work is involved in converting, and then working with, raw images in PS7? I've read on robgalbraith.com where others convert through programs like breezebrowser, then through a linear conversion process and then PS7.

This sounds like considerable workfrow especially if you have like 200-300 photos from a wedding shoot.

Am I missing something? Is raw usually preferred for Weddings and Portraits? I don't plan on submitting to magazines, etc.

bob

Let's see if I can get some more input here...

I posted this elsewhere and was flamed for asking for comparisons.
I know raw is superior but can anyone point me to examples with
comparisons? I just got my D60 yesterday and it seems to me that
even shooting in jpeg mode, I can interpolate up to 20x30 fairly
well...

Thanks again,

Jaz

--
http://www.jackzucker.com

 

[Robert F. Tobler]

Like others have pointed out the advantage of
RAW comes into play when you edit the photo on
your computer. As RAW has 12bits per channel
(resulting in 36bits per pixel stored in a
16bit tiff with 48bits per pixel), you do not
incur as much quantization error as with JPG
(8bit per channel/24 bits per pixel). This is
nicely explained in the following article:

http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/7627.html

Greetings,
--
Robert F. Tobler
http://ray.cg.tuwien.ac.at/rft/Photography/

 

[mattlamb #80892]

I find that carefull exposure via "histogram" and changing white balance when needed gives me images that need almost no photoshop manipulation so I dont need the advantage of 12bit .

My next plan is to use a custom "profile".

Mattlamb
----------------------

Like others have pointed out the advantage of
RAW comes into play when you edit the photo on
your computer. As RAW has 12bits per channel
(resulting in 36bits per pixel stored in a
16bit tiff with 48bits per pixel), you do not
incur as much quantization error as with JPG
(8bit per channel/24 bits per pixel). This is
nicely explained in the following article:

http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/7627.html

Greetings,
--
Robert F. Tobler
http://ray.cg.tuwien.ac.at/rft/Photography/

 

[Terry W. Gintz]

Don mentions low ISO as a factor in using jpeg mode. I've been using jpeg mode since buying my D60 and space got below 10GB on my hard drive. But it seems that telephoto/closeup shots taken at ISO 400 were cleaner looking using RAW mode on the D30 and Pro90. Does the same thing hold true with a D60? If so I may have to switch back to RAW mode, get a new 100GB hard drive and a digital wallet for travelling... (I'm not talking about hi-res prints, but just viewing at 1:1 on a computer monitor.)

Here's my take on this issue (I shoot Raw 100%, starting with a D30
2 years ago, and a 1D, 6 months ago):

I have spent thousands of dollars and hours in a search to get the
best quality image. Jpeg, by definition, loses data and
information. Raw Format is the "gold standard" in the sense that
people claim that in many situations Jpeg is "as good" as Raw.
Nobody claims that Jpeg will ever be better than Raw.

There may be situations (good, controlled, constant lighting, easy
to meter and expose), where low ISO can be used, and minimal
post-processing needs to be done, where there might be little
practical difference between a Jpeg and a Raw image. But often
this is not the case, or you might get a poorly exposed image by
accident, where Raw Format will improve your chances of being able
to "save" the image without amplifying the Jpeg artifacts that are
inherently present in Jpeg files, get superior color balance, etc.

To me getting a high quality image/print is the result of
meticulous attention to detail at each step in the process,
rather than any single trick or step. That starts with good
shooting technique, intelligent setting of the various camera
parameters, on through careful post-processing in your editor,
proper setting of printer driver options, etc.

If I want to get the best results I possibly can, I need to use the
best in each of these steps, and for me, this means shooting in
Raw Format. Others may want to save some time/inconvenience, and
get quite acceptable results by shooting Jpeg, and I have no
problem with that. But again, for me, in my somewhat
perfectionistic approach to things, I want to take a no compromise
approach in each step in the process to give me the greatest chance
of getting the highest quality images/prints that I can achieve.

My $.02 worth, anyway.

Don
http://www.dlcphotography.net

Let's see if I can get some more input here...

I posted this elsewhere and was flamed for asking for comparisons.
I know raw is superior but can anyone point me to examples with
comparisons? I just got my D60 yesterday and it seems to me that
even shooting in jpeg mode, I can interpolate up to 20x30 fairly
well...

Thanks again,

Jaz

--
http://www.jackzucker.com

 

[Robert F. Tobler]

I find that carefull exposure via "histogram" and changing white
balance when needed gives me images that need almost no photoshop
manipulation so I dont need the advantage of 12bit .

This is not always possible. In some cases, where you have very
high contrast in the scene, you can expose so that the bright
regions are not overexposed, and then recover information in
the dark regions via adequate editing. With 12 bits you will
have a lot more information in these dark regions.

Greetings,
--
Robert F. Tobler
http://ray.cg.tuwien.ac.at/rft/Photography/

 

[David Behrens]

Jack,

My first 10-15,000 pics were jpeg and I thought they were just fine at the time but once I changed to RAW the advantages quickly convinced me and I've never gone back. To add to the comments already made.

Sooner or later in you quest for ultimate sharpness you will most likely try the upsizing method and with RAW the results can be very worthwhile. If you shoot jpeg the upsizing will quickly bring out the "tolerable" artifacts to intolerable levels. For me this is what initially convinced me to go to RAW.

For RAW, I process about 99% in non-linear and usually in 16bit TIFFs. Going non-linear has a quicker workflow and for me the non-liner just gives a better picture.

One other thing I might add is that there is a lot of advice on white balance. I have also found that black balance in curves gives amazing results and if you shoot a white/black/gray card in similar light conditions, adjust the white/black/gray points in curves, save the profile and then use that for other shots in such light the results are simply amazing.

Brgds,
Dave
http://www.pbase.com/dbehrens/galleries

 

[mattlamb #80892]

In very high contrast conditions I often shoot one under and one over exposed and blend them in photoshop, gives you a very large range

Matt
-------------------------------

I find that carefull exposure via "histogram" and changing white
balance when needed gives me images that need almost no photoshop
manipulation so I dont need the advantage of 12bit .

Robert F. Tobler wrote:
This is not always possible. In some cases, where you have very
high contrast in the scene, you can expose so that the bright
regions are not overexposed, and then recover information in
the dark regions via adequate editing. With 12 bits you will
have a lot more information in these dark regions.

Greetings,
--
Robert F. Tobler
http://ray.cg.tuwien.ac.at/rft/Photography/

 

[Jack O'Neill]

hii David,

I agree completely with your comments and I went through the same things you did, but I found the advantages of raw after about 700 pics in jpeg. I use non-linear to 16 tiff, I have tried linear with fred's and others actions, but I still get the best results with non-linear. Maybe I'm doing something wrong?

Jack
--
http://www.pbase.com/joneill

 

[Steven Noyes]

If you get your exposure right and the white balance set where you
want it, you will be able to tell little (if any) difference between
JPG and TIFF. Especially, if you bump the JPG Fine to 10 on the camera.
I don't know what camera you are using, but on the 1D you can bump the
quality of the JPG to 10. It is not 11, but it is loud enough.

At that level, I have NEVER seen JPG artifacts and when I subtract a
JPG 10 from a RAW converted TIFF, there is data only in the lower 1 bit.
Note that I do edit / save / load edit / save JPG. For the images I
deem as keeper I process in TIFF.

RAW has benefits when:
1) To adjust exposure. But an adjusted RAW will never equal a correctly
exposed JPG.

2) If you don't know what the white balance should be. This is a great use
of RAW.

3) To apply special curves because of extreme contrast in the image.

4) You don't like the supplied curves and have not loaded your preferred
curve into the camera (again a 1D thing I think).

But in 95% of the cases you will be just fine with JPG. The trick is to
understand the scene and say: "I need RAW for this shot."

Steven

Let's see if I can get some more input here...

I posted this elsewhere and was flamed for asking for comparisons.
I know raw is superior but can anyone point me to examples with
comparisons? I just got my D60 yesterday and it seems to me that
even shooting in jpeg mode, I can interpolate up to 20x30 fairly
well...

Thanks again,

Jaz

--
http://www.jackzucker.com

--
---
My really bad Fall Adventures:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/fall_adventures_2002

 

[Steven Noyes]

But that is just me. The camera works in 12 bit mode up to the
point when the image is converted to JPG. Upto that point, it has
dedicated DSP and circuits to do the calculations. WORKING OFF of
the RAW data.

Steven

Here's a stupid question for you guys...

Regarding the ability to change white balance, saturation, etc...
(after the fact)...

That implies that the raw file is truly raw and does not utilize
the camera's settings for those parameters? Furthermore, I would
assume that post-processing WB, saturation, color in photoshop at
16 bit should yield superior results to those which the camera
would process internally?

Jaz

--
---
My really bad Fall Adventures:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/fall_adventures_2002

 

[Steven Noyes]

And still less memory than 1 RAW shot.

Steven

Matt
-------------------------------

I find that carefull exposure via "histogram" and changing white
balance when needed gives me images that need almost no photoshop
manipulation so I dont need the advantage of 12bit .

Robert F. Tobler wrote:
This is not always possible. In some cases, where you have very
high contrast in the scene, you can expose so that the bright
regions are not overexposed, and then recover information in
the dark regions via adequate editing. With 12 bits you will
have a lot more information in these dark regions.

Greetings,
--
Robert F. Tobler
http://ray.cg.tuwien.ac.at/rft/Photography/

--
---
My really bad Fall Adventures:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/fall_adventures_2002