Is RAW overhyped?

[Tim A2]

Please don't think I am anti-RAW. I am just looking for the true specific reality of why it is better than jpegs. I believe in RAW and am learning to use it at least if I need to recover some blown highlights. At this point I think I might shoot RAW + JPEG and delete the RAW image if the exposure and color balance are OK., or if it turns out processing 16 bits truely is significantly better then I can use the RAW data and process 16 bit images in Paint Shop Pro and not shoot jpegs at all.

Here is the way I see it at this point in my learning curve. Please add any true significant advantages that I don't know about.

1) hightlight/shadow recovery. Number 1 advantage, but not needed very often, but when you do, wow what a difference.

2) white balance. I have found very few jpeg images that I couldn't correct with Paint Shop Pro, but my limition is knowing what the colors should look like , so maybe you can take this with a grain of salt. If it matters I let my wife do it.

3) get to process 16 bit images instead of 8 bits. The only advantage of that I have found is that avoids posterization. Is that it and just how big a deal is that really? What advantages should I expect from 16 bits vs 8 bits when using tools like curves, levels, tone control, unsharp mask, noise reduction, etc.?

I say all this not to argue for jpegs, but to provide a basis for you who actually know about this stuff to educate me (and hopefully others) about the true specififc and not vague reality of RAW processing. Maybe I should have posted this in the begineers forum, but I figure the folks who really know the true reality hang out here.

Tim

 

[ernstbk]

Tim A2 wrote:

Please don't think I am anti-RAW. I am just looking for the true specific reality of why it is better than jpegs. I believe in RAW and am learning to use it at least if I need to recover some blown highlights. At this point I think I might shoot RAW + JPEG and delete the RAW image if the exposure and color balance are OK., or if it turns out processing 16 bits truely is significantly better then I can use the RAW data and process 16 bit images in Paint Shop Pro and not shoot jpegs at all.

Here is the way I see it at this point in my learning curve. Please add any true significant advantages that I don't know about.

1) hightlight/shadow recovery. Number 1 advantage, but not needed very often, but when you do, wow what a difference.

2) white balance. I have found very few jpeg images that I couldn't correct with Paint Shop Pro, but my limition is knowing what the colors should look like , so maybe you can take this with a grain of salt. If it matters I let my wife do it.

3) get to process 16 bit images instead of 8 bits. The only advantage of that I have found is that avoids posterization. Is that it and just how big a deal is that really? What advantages should I expect from 16 bits vs 8 bits when using tools like curves, levels, tone control, unsharp mask, noise reduction, etc.?

I say all this not to argue for jpegs, but to provide a basis for you who actually know about this stuff to educate me (and hopefully others) about the true specififc and not vague reality of RAW processing. Maybe I should have posted this in the begineers forum, but I figure the folks who really know the true reality hang out here.

Tim

Is RAW overhyped ? No.

It all depends on a lot of things, but in the end you have to decide which format is sufficient for your needs, experience and intend.

JPEG has been modified by the processor in the camera, because of this processing the resulting photo has lost some "quality" that can not be recovered. If you need speed and your intend is to send photos unprocessed for printing or web publishing then JPEG may suit your requirements.

If your intend is to process (develop) your own photos to try to get a better result (compared to the camera processor), to crop or enlarge to very big sizes, and you have the experience and time for processing then RAW may be an alternative.

If you intend to reprocess your photos some time in the future, when you have been able to get more experience with RAW, then RAW+JPEG is may be a good solution.

It all depends.

RAW and JPEG can be compared to Orange Juice. RAW oranges must pressed out get orange juice which takes time and effort, but you can also buy ready made orange juice made from orange concentrate. The final products are very different due too the processing and do not taste the same. What ever you like depends.

 

[Siege72]

Tim A2 wrote:

Please don't think I am anti-RAW. I am just looking for the true specific reality of why it is better than jpegs. I believe in RAW and am learning to use it at least if I need to recover some blown highlights. At this point I think I might shoot RAW + JPEG and delete the RAW image if the exposure and color balance are OK., or if it turns out processing 16 bits truely is significantly better then I can use the RAW data and process 16 bit images in Paint Shop Pro and not shoot jpegs at all.

Here is the way I see it at this point in my learning curve. Please add any true significant advantages that I don't know about.

1) hightlight/shadow recovery. Number 1 advantage, but not needed very often, but when you do, wow what a difference.

2) white balance. I have found very few jpeg images that I couldn't correct with Paint Shop Pro, but my limition is knowing what the colors should look like , so maybe you can take this with a grain of salt. If it matters I let my wife do it.

3) get to process 16 bit images instead of 8 bits. The only advantage of that I have found is that avoids posterization. Is that it and just how big a deal is that really? What advantages should I expect from 16 bits vs 8 bits when using tools like curves, levels, tone control, unsharp mask, noise reduction, etc.?

I say all this not to argue for jpegs, but to provide a basis for you who actually know about this stuff to educate me (and hopefully others) about the true specififc and not vague reality of RAW processing. Maybe I should have posted this in the begineers forum, but I figure the folks who really know the true reality hang out here.

Tim

Is RAW over-hyped? That depends. If you never post process beyond cropping, then there's no difference. The more processing you do on a single image, the more the increased bit depth helps. JPEG vs RAW is comparable to setting your camera in Auto or Scene mode, versus Aperture or Program mode. But it's not an either-or: most cameras allow you to shoot RAW and JPEG simultaneously.

#4: JPEG is a lossy format. You always lose some data with JPEG; the more times you save a file, the lower the quality. RAW files are better starting point (although some cameras will modify the output slightly)

#5: In-camera JPEG algorithms. The software the camera uses to change the sensor output to JPEGS is rarely upgraded. RAW converters seem to be upgraded every year or two, while my D90 hasn't had an equivalent upgrade in about 5 years. By shooting RAW and using the latest converter, I can use the best-of-breed 2013 software, instead of fastest/least expensive of 2008.

 

[tony brown]

Cheers, Tony.

 

[Jim Hess]

There are all sorts of reasons just about anyone can give for shooting raw. And I won't argue any of them. But I don't think it's necessary to shoot everything in raw. Every picture isn't going to be a masterpiece, and I don't expect them to be. I recently had family here, grandkids and nephews running everywhere, and all I wanted was a picture to remember the events. I shot JPEG, imported them into Lightroom, made a couple of simple exposure adjustments and I was done. The pictures looked fine and I don't recall anyone asking why I didn't shoot them in raw.

A few years ago I took a trip to Alaska and took several hundred pictures, most of which were shot in JPEG. When I got home I had a book printed with a bunch of the pictures from the trip. Everyone commented on how good the pictures were. Nobody asked why I didn't shoot them in raw.

Some people seem to have the opinion that you could almost destroy the camera if you contaminate it with JPEG images. I think JPEG images are suitable for many situations. If I were to take another trip to Alaska I would probably shoot raw. I like that extra flexibility. But for many situations, and I mean many situations, shooting JPEG is really adequate.

 

[Mako2011]

Jim Hess wrote:

There are all sorts of reasons just about anyone can give for shooting raw. And I won't argue any of them. But I don't think it's necessary to shoot everything in raw. Every picture isn't going to be a masterpiece, and I don't expect them to be. I recently had family here, grandkids and nephews running everywhere, and all I wanted was a picture to remember the events. I shot JPEG, imported them into Lightroom, made a couple of simple exposure adjustments and I was done. The pictures looked fine and I don't recall anyone asking why I didn't shoot them in raw.

A few years ago I took a trip to Alaska and took several hundred pictures, most of which were shot in JPEG. When I got home I had a book printed with a bunch of the pictures from the trip. Everyone commented on how good the pictures were. Nobody asked why I didn't shoot them in raw.

Some people seem to have the opinion that you could almost destroy the camera if you contaminate it with JPEG images. I think JPEG images are suitable for many situations. If I were to take another trip to Alaska I would probably shoot raw. I like that extra flexibility. But for many situations, and I mean many situations, shooting JPEG is really adequate.

Understandable points. Software might make a difference though. I use ViewNX2 as my first step so all my Raws can be converted to a JPEG (just as the camera would have produced) with a few clicks. With that in mind, the only reason I have for shooting jpeg is if I need a deeper buffer.

 

[Jim Hess]

Mako2011 wrote:

Understandable points. Software might make a difference though. I use ViewNX2 as my first step so all my Raws can be converted to a JPEG (just as the camera would have produced) with a few clicks. With that in mind, the only reason I have for shooting jpeg is if I need a deeper buffer.

 

[Mako2011]

Jim Hess wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Understandable points. Software might make a difference though. I use ViewNX2 as my first step so all my Raws can be converted to a JPEG (just as the camera would have produced) with a few clicks. With that in mind, the only reason I have for shooting jpeg is if I need a deeper buffer.

--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Of course software will make the difference! But sometimes I just don't wanna be bothered with worrying about all the adjustments.

There are no adjustments if all you want is the in-camera JPEG. You just do a batch convert (takes about 10 secs to start)and poor a cup of coffee.

I have ViewNX, too. But I have yet to find a reason to use it for anything serious. I use Lightroom and Photoshop, I know how to use them, and for me ViewNX just gets in the way.

I find it's conversion from RAW much more accurate than ACR. I also use ADL, from time to time, so that takes LR and Photoshop off the table for RAW conversion.

When I shoot JPEG I appreciate just how quickly I have the image is ready to share.

I feel the same, that's why I don't bother with JPEG in camera and just stay with RAW and ViewNX2 for first strep. I never go straight from camera to file upload to the internet, or such, so that may be a difference as well. Everyone gets comfortable..nothing wrong with that

--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

 

[gwlaw99]

I think about it this way, if you are happy with your OOC jpegs and can edit them without problems caused by information that has been thrown away, then great, use jpegs. If you want more control than you can get from jpegs because no information is thrown out, then use RAW.

For me, I always shoot in RAW because I feel that I can process images better than my camera jpeg engine. I also have the flexibility to process images in completely different ways. Also if a great new raw converter comes out, then I make an even better image. I know a lot of people have been very happy that they have RAW files to reprocess their photos in Photoninja.

 

[Richy6771]

Mako2011 wrote:

Jim Hess wrote:

There are all sorts of reasons just about anyone can give for shooting raw. And I won't argue any of them. But I don't think it's necessary to shoot everything in raw. Every picture isn't going to be a masterpiece, and I don't expect them to be. I recently had family here, grandkids and nephews running everywhere, and all I wanted was a picture to remember the events. I shot JPEG, imported them into Lightroom, made a couple of simple exposure adjustments and I was done. The pictures looked fine and I don't recall anyone asking why I didn't shoot them in raw.

A few years ago I took a trip to Alaska and took several hundred pictures, most of which were shot in JPEG. When I got home I had a book printed with a bunch of the pictures from the trip. Everyone commented on how good the pictures were. Nobody asked why I didn't shoot them in raw.

Some people seem to have the opinion that you could almost destroy the camera if you contaminate it with JPEG images. I think JPEG images are suitable for many situations. If I were to take another trip to Alaska I would probably shoot raw. I like that extra flexibility. But for many situations, and I mean many situations, shooting JPEG is really adequate.

Understandable points. Software might make a difference though. I use ViewNX2 as my first step so all my Raws can be converted to a JPEG (just as the camera would have produced) with a few clicks. With that in mind, the only reason I have for shooting jpeg is if I need a deeper buffer.

 

[Mako2011]

Richy6771 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Jim Hess wrote:

There are all sorts of reasons just about anyone can give for shooting raw. And I won't argue any of them. But I don't think it's necessary to shoot everything in raw. Every picture isn't going to be a masterpiece, and I don't expect them to be. I recently had family here, grandkids and nephews running everywhere, and all I wanted was a picture to remember the events. I shot JPEG, imported them into Lightroom, made a couple of simple exposure adjustments and I was done. The pictures looked fine and I don't recall anyone asking why I didn't shoot them in raw.

A few years ago I took a trip to Alaska and took several hundred pictures, most of which were shot in JPEG. When I got home I had a book printed with a bunch of the pictures from the trip. Everyone commented on how good the pictures were. Nobody asked why I didn't shoot them in raw.

Some people seem to have the opinion that you could almost destroy the camera if you contaminate it with JPEG images. I think JPEG images are suitable for many situations. If I were to take another trip to Alaska I would probably shoot raw. I like that extra flexibility. But for many situations, and I mean many situations, shooting JPEG is really adequate.

Understandable points. Software might make a difference though. I use ViewNX2 as my first step so all my Raws can be converted to a JPEG (just as the camera would have produced) with a few clicks. With that in mind, the only reason I have for shooting jpeg is if I need a deeper buffer.

 

[Tim A2]

tony brown wrote:

Cheers, Tony.

Well Tony I did research RAW and concluded RAW seemed to be overhyped, hence my question, "Is RAW overhyped". Did you read it as "Why shoot RAW" or some variation of that? It seems all but a couple of responders misread it also.

I am going to start taking advantage of RAW, but just don't get all the hype. What can you do that matters besides, highlight/shadow recovery, white balance, and 16 bit processing? The recovery ability is certainly good to have when it is needed, but I don't get all the excitement about the rest.

tim

 

[JPEG Shooter]

"Is RAW overhyped?"

In my opinion... most definitely - yes.

 

[Mako2011]

Tim A2 wrote:

The recovery ability is certainly good to have when it is needed, but I don't get all the excitement about the rest.

JPG = 8 bit file and not very happy with strong edits (artifacts start to show up very early in the adjustment phase, and get very noticeable with strong edits.). The type of processing you do may simply not take advantage of the differences or be that strong in relative terms. Nothing wrong with that. NR, is another place RAW has big benefits but if your not outputting pics where it would show, you might not notice. One is not better or worse than the other, it all depends on your goals. Your goals may not be of the nature that the differences would show readily. Unfortunately, if your goals change, you won't have the RAW file to work with. Not a biggie for most. If speed and convenience outweigh time spent on the computer and your not doing critical work or you are time sensitive with your work, then get really familiar with your "in camera" settings, and take the time to dial them all in. The results can often be very nice, just limiting regards final output in some ways. If highest quality, and even artistic expression are your goals, as well as printing large, or maybe selling your work as art are in your goals, the advantages of RAW really are dramatic and do rise to the "hype" in that case. If you stay at the speed limit...who really needs the "hype" of all that horsepower doesn't mean it not there...just under the hood. : )

 

[Tim A2]

Mako2011 wrote:

Tim A2 wrote:

The recovery ability is certainly good to have when it is needed, but I don't get all the excitement about the rest.

JPG = 8 bit file and not very happy with strong edits (artifacts start to show up very early in the adjustment phase, and get very noticeable with strong edits.). The type of processing you do may simply not take advantage of the differences or be that strong in relative terms. Nothing wrong with that. NR, is another place RAW has big benefits but if your not outputting pics where it would show, you might not notice. One is not better or worse than the other, it all depends on your goals. Your goals may not be of the nature that the differences would show readily. Unfortunately, if your goals change, you won't have the RAW file to work with. Not a biggie for most. If speed and convenience outweigh time spent on the computer and your not doing critical work or you are time sensitive with your work, then get really familiar with your "in camera" settings, and take the time to dial them all in. The results can often be very nice, just limiting regards final output in some ways. If highest quality, and even artistic expression are your goals, as well as printing large, or maybe selling your work as art are in your goals, the advantages of RAW really are dramatic and do rise to the "hype" in that case. If you stay at the speed limit...who really needs the "hype" of all that horsepower doesn't mean it not there...just under the hood. : )

Thank you. That is interesting. The tools I typically use are curves, levels, local tone mapping, clarity, vibrance, USM, noise reduction, and others as needed. Artifacts (posterization?) haven't been a problem, but you know that may be because I haven't used RAW enough yet to see the difference. I have pretty much decided to shoot RAW since I can process the higher bit depth with the same editor I have used for jpegs, so I guess I will see for myself what the fuss is about that aspect of RAW.

tim

 

[Glen Barrington]

Use it or don't use it. Lots of people do, lots of people do not, and they all, every one of them, have good solid reasons.

 

[Mako2011]

Tim A2 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Tim A2 wrote:

The recovery ability is certainly good to have when it is needed, but I don't get all the excitement about the rest.

JPG = 8 bit file and not very happy with strong edits (artifacts start to show up very early in the adjustment phase, and get very noticeable with strong edits.). The type of processing you do may simply not take advantage of the differences or be that strong in relative terms. Nothing wrong with that. NR, is another place RAW has big benefits but if your not outputting pics where it would show, you might not notice. One is not better or worse than the other, it all depends on your goals. Your goals may not be of the nature that the differences would show readily. Unfortunately, if your goals change, you won't have the RAW file to work with. Not a biggie for most. If speed and convenience outweigh time spent on the computer and your not doing critical work or you are time sensitive with your work, then get really familiar with your "in camera" settings, and take the time to dial them all in. The results can often be very nice, just limiting regards final output in some ways. If highest quality, and even artistic expression are your goals, as well as printing large, or maybe selling your work as art are in your goals, the advantages of RAW really are dramatic and do rise to the "hype" in that case. If you stay at the speed limit...who really needs the "hype" of all that horsepower doesn't mean it not there...just under the hood. : )

... I have pretty much decided to shoot RAW since I can process the higher bit depth with the same editor I have used for jpegs, so I guess I will see for myself what the fuss is about that aspect of RAW.

Again, if your edits aren't all that strong (large stops of shadow detail recovery, high ISO noise reduction, large changes in tone compression, changes in exposure, etc. ) You may indeed see little dif. Try this...use ViewNX2 to generate the JPEG, as it would have shot in camera. Then process the raw the way that gives you the desired changes/edits you want. Then go back to that JPEG and make the same edits and changes. Then compare the prints and final results. That comparison, done honestly, is why I no longer shoot JPEG unless the situation absolutely demands it.

 

[Tim A2]

Glen Barrington wrote:

Use it or don't use it. Lots of people do, lots of people do not, and they all, every one of them, have good solid reasons.

They must have good reasons, they sure spend a lot of money and time on it. I guess I am trying to go beyond the typical general vague praise like "good solid reasons" and learn exactely what those reasons are. You have helped me bring all this into focus, but when I got it into focus, I was disappointed to realize the difference between processed jpegs and RAWs may not be all that much. I will be seeing for myself, but want to make sure I take advantage of everything that really matters. Plus I thought it would be worthwhile to talk about specific benefits.

tim

 

[skyglider]

Jim Hess wrote:

There are all sorts of reasons just about anyone can give for shooting raw. And I won't argue any of them. But I don't think it's necessary to shoot everything in raw. Every picture isn't going to be a masterpiece, and I don't expect them to be. I recently had family here, grandkids and nephews running everywhere, and all I wanted was a picture to remember the events. I shot JPEG, imported them into Lightroom, made a couple of simple exposure adjustments and I was done. The pictures looked fine and I don't recall anyone asking why I didn't shoot them in raw.

A few years ago I took a trip to Alaska and took several hundred pictures, most of which were shot in JPEG. When I got home I had a book printed with a bunch of the pictures from the trip. Everyone commented on how good the pictures were. Nobody asked why I didn't shoot them in raw.

Some people seem to have the opinion that you could almost destroy the camera if you contaminate it with JPEG images. I think JPEG images are suitable for many situations. If I were to take another trip to Alaska I would probably shoot raw. I like that extra flexibility. But for many situations, and I mean many situations, shooting JPEG is really adequate.

Agree about shooting in jpg for personal use.

Setting white balance correctly, focusing properly on the subject, setting proper exposure and composing the image for interest will yield jpg images that no one will ask why they weren't shot in raw. In fact, the images will probably be better than most people shoot to the point that they will ask what kind of camera was used.

Also, editing jpg images and saving them even 3 times at best quality (least compression) will not result in any noticeable image degradation. I've done tests doing 10 open, save, open save series on a jpg test target image saving at Photoshop's best quality and any image degradation was only visible viewing pixels magnified at 900% zoom so individual pixels were large and visible on the screen. The degradation of the 10th save was not evident compared to the original when viewing at actual pixel levels (100% zoom) on the computer screen. Here's a link to my post on this test:

• http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3059713

In side-by-side comparisons of properly shot jpg images compared to raw images, differences may be evident but will be small. Even if the differences are not so small, the viewers of the jpg images will not have the side-by-side comparison to make judgements by. They are more interested in the content than the technicalities anyway.

For professional use, there is no question that shooting raw is the way to go.

$.02,
Sky

 

[Tim A2]

Mako2011 wrote:

Tim A2 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Tim A2 wrote:

The recovery ability is certainly good to have when it is needed, but I don't get all the excitement about the rest.

JPG = 8 bit file and not very happy with strong edits (artifacts start to show up very early in the adjustment phase, and get very noticeable with strong edits.). The type of processing you do may simply not take advantage of the differences or be that strong in relative terms. Nothing wrong with that. NR, is another place RAW has big benefits but if your not outputting pics where it would show, you might not notice. One is not better or worse than the other, it all depends on your goals. Your goals may not be of the nature that the differences would show readily. Unfortunately, if your goals change, you won't have the RAW file to work with. Not a biggie for most. If speed and convenience outweigh time spent on the computer and your not doing critical work or you are time sensitive with your work, then get really familiar with your "in camera" settings, and take the time to dial them all in. The results can often be very nice, just limiting regards final output in some ways. If highest quality, and even artistic expression are your goals, as well as printing large, or maybe selling your work as art are in your goals, the advantages of RAW really are dramatic and do rise to the "hype" in that case. If you stay at the speed limit...who really needs the "hype" of all that horsepower doesn't mean it not there...just under the hood. : )

... I have pretty much decided to shoot RAW since I can process the higher bit depth with the same editor I have used for jpegs, so I guess I will see for myself what the fuss is about that aspect of RAW.

Again, if your edits aren't all that strong (large stops of shadow detail recovery, high ISO noise reduction, large changes in tone compression, changes in exposure, etc. ) You may indeed see little dif. Try this...use ViewNX2 to generate the JPEG, as it would have shot in camera. Then process the raw the way that gives you the desired changes/edits you want. Then go back to that JPEG and make the same edits and changes. Then compare the prints and final results. That comparison, done honestly, is why I no longer shoot JPEG unless the situation absolutely demands it.

Thanks for the clarification. It sounds like it takes 16 bits to stand up to the rigors of RAW processing, but probably not so much with jpeg processing from my experience.

Can software not supplied by the camera maker generate a jpeg that is the same as that from the camera? Would this work as well? Either shoot RAW plus jpeg or after downloading the RAW images put the card back in the camera and have it convert them to jpegs. My plan is to do something that will let me compare the finished products with each other. Sounds like a great learning tool.