Must I edit RAW images?

[extrapolator]

Hi all! - I don't seem to be able to find an answer to my question, so thought I'd ask it here. First, I've had my Canon 70D for 6-7 years now, was initially kinda overwhelmed by it so barely scratched the surface; ie used auto mode for a while, realized the images were no better than my cell phone so put the DSLR away :-( But now I have a definite need to get competent with it, and the covid I caught a couple months ago gave me a week and a half away from work which I used to do some intensive photography study. I watched A LOT of photography vids, read and took tons of practice images.

So what I need now is to take a full set of thorough images for the sale auction of my collector car; exterior, interior, engine, suspension, trunk, etc. At this point I've recorded hundreds of images of it, all in RAW, and going in to this endeavor I thought it was for sure that I would be editing all the images. Well, to me they're actually looking pretty good straight out of the camera, even in RAW ... not super glamorous, just authentic / accurate ... so I'm starting to think they might actually need little to no editing, instead just saving them straight to JPG as-is.

So my question is: How common is it for a photographer to record images in RAW and not edit them, instead just saving as JPG / PNG?

One thing I planned to try next, when it stops raining every day here in Florida, is to save the images as RAW and JPG, and since I already think the RAW images look good, maybe the JPGs will look even better. Any comments or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

Use your own judgement. Shoot raw if it offers an advantage. Sometimes it doesn't.

Be prepared for some dogmatic religious replies.

 

[JohnSil]

I've had my Canon 70D for 6-7 years now,

So my question is: How common is it for a photographer to record images in RAW and not edit them, instead just saving as JPG / PNG?

Thank you!

Extra, hey while you were scratching the surface your camera has almost past you by!

I think it's actually quite rare for anyone to not at least tweak a Raw at least a little bit. Depending on what you use to process a file may or may not retain any presets you have in the camera which would be effective if your output was in jpeg but it's not.

YES process your Raws!

I suggest you download the Canon Digital Photo Professional(DPP) that comes FREE with your camera and start by using that. it's very simple to use and will give you an idea of what you may want to do in further depth like with Photoshop or LR but those cost money! Good luck

John

 

[bobn2]

Hi all! - I don't seem to be able to find an answer to my question, so thought I'd ask it here. First, I've had my Canon 70D for 6-7 years now, was initially kinda overwhelmed by it so barely scratched the surface; ie used auto mode for a while, realized the images were no better than my cell phone so put the DSLR away :-( But now I have a definite need to get competent with it, and the covid I caught a couple months ago gave me a week and a half away from work which I used to do some intensive photography study. I watched A LOT of photography vids, read and took tons of practice images.

So what I need now is to take a full set of thorough images for the sale auction of my collector car; exterior, interior, engine, suspension, trunk, etc. At this point I've recorded hundreds of images of it, all in RAW, and going in to this endeavor I thought it was for sure that I would be editing all the images. Well, to me they're actually looking pretty good straight out of the camera, even in RAW ... not super glamorous, just authentic / accurate ... so I'm starting to think they might actually need little to no editing, instead just saving them straight to JPG as-is.

So my question is: How common is it for a photographer to record images in RAW and not edit them, instead just saving as JPG / PNG?

One thing I planned to try next, when it stops raining every day here in Florida, is to save the images as RAW and JPG, and since I already think the RAW images look good, maybe the JPGs will look even better. Any comments or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

Quite often this kind of conundrum is caused by misuse of terminology. Let's define two different things, 'processing' and 'editing'. 'Processing', in the context of a raw image, means to 'develop' it into a viewable image. A raw image itself is not directly viewable, since it is just a recording of the light levels captured at the sensor. To be viewable processing needs to be done to translate those levels into a definition of how an observer should see the image. You are not actually seeing the image 'straight out of the camera'. These days most computer operating systems and viewing apps include a processor for most of the common raw formats built-in, so the processing is done automatically.

'Editing' means to make changes. Though raw processing programs are often called 'raw editors' this is not strictly what they are doing. They aren't editing the raw file, they are allowing choices to be made as to how that file should be processed, which includes things like choosing white balance, black and white levels, tone curves and colour space (though mostly through indirect tools).

So, it's not the raw images that look good, it is the default processing applied to the raw images that produces a nice looking JPEG. Further JPEGs produced using that default processing will look exactly the same. It's quite possible that by driving the processing yourself that you can produce images that you like better. Then again. many people find that they can't, and if that's the case, then you might as well stick to JPEGs. The big advantage of saving the raw files is that should you in the future become more adept, or better raw processors be developed, you can reprocess them and get a better result.

 

[AnthonyL]

I've had my Canon 70D for 6-7 years now,

So my question is: How common is it for a photographer to record images in RAW and not edit them, instead just saving as JPG / PNG?

Thank you!

Extra, hey while you were scratching the surface your camera has almost past you by!

I think it's actually quite rare for anyone to not at least tweak a Raw at least a little bit. Depending on what you use to process a file may or may not retain any presets you have in the camera which would be effective if your output was in jpeg but it's not.

YES process your Raws!

I suggest you download the Canon Digital Photo Professional(DPP) that comes FREE with your camera and start by using that. it's very simple to use and will give you an idea of what you may want to do in further depth like with Photoshop or LR but those cost money! Good luck

Plus the fact that DPP automatically starts off with the JPG settings of the camera as a starting point, so if nothing more is done then the result is what the JPG would have done. If something needs adjusting then it can be done, especially White Balance which is harder to adjust in the JPG.

And finally there is the RAW file available for more comprehensive processing as skills develop (the RAW file serves as my backup of my images).

Win Win for me.

 

[Klaus dk]

I save raw+jpeg. If the picture needs tweaking, I use the raw file, if the jpeg is fine, I use it as it is.

Although I agree with bobn2 that processing and editing are conceptually different, I often combine them in one session: lens correction, lifting the shadows, tweaking WB, cropping, removing a zit, straightening the horizon. All this can be done in DPP.

As I've become more proficient and have bought cameras with more Mpix, I also tend to do more of those little tweaks.

For more advanced editing, I've used PhotoShop Elements and lately Affinity Photo.

BTW, raw is a word, not an acronym. These are literaly the raw data from the sensor.

Regarding authenticity/accuracy, one of the reasons phone cameras are so popular is, that the manufacturers are putting a lot of effort into tweaking pictures to look as they think the big public would prefer to see them: bright colours, blue skies, not too deep shadows, etc, while dedicated cameras does not assume as much about your preferences.

Good luck and good light.

 

[Tom Axford]

For several years after I started digital photography I shot only JPEG images and was quite happy with those.

Later, I became dissatisfied with the JPEG images from my cameras and decided that I would try shooting raw images and processing them myself.

I now shoot raw images all the time for two reasons: (1) I prefer the images I get by doing my own processing, and (2) I enjoy doing the processing myself (although it is very time-consuming).

Don't be deceived into thinking that shooting raw is just as easy as shooting JPEGs. It takes considerable time and skill to process all your raw images into JPEGs. Unless you enjoy doing the processing (and are skilled enough to produce good results), stick to using JPEGs straight from the camera.

 

[davidedric]

Well put, Bob.

Personally I think that that raw "interpreter" is a useful way of describing what is happening, but no matter.

One further comment. As a Lightroom user, I had become accustomed to (and quite liked) the rather flat initial representation that it gave.

However, with the huge range of Import presets now bundled, I'm pretty sure that someone such as the OP could find a preset or two that would deliver what s/he needs and get the best of both worlds of a good image and raw flexibility.

I don't know about other "interpreters"

 

[bobn2]

I save raw+jpeg. If the picture needs tweaking, I use the raw file, if the jpeg is fine, I use it as it is.

Although I agree with bobn2 that processing and editing are conceptually different, I often combine them in one session: lens correction, lifting the shadows, tweaking WB, cropping, removing a zit, straightening the horizon. All this can be done in DPP.

That's entirely true. What I'm getting at is that it pays to separate processing and editing in terms of understanding what is going on under the hood. Most tools these days combine operations of both processing and editing. I used to use a technique 'processing for editing', where I'd process the raw file not to be the final image, but to be a good subject for a powerful editor. It's useful when you need to do operations involving multiple layers. Essentially you process to a 16-bit or, better, a FP TIFF with a low black and high white point and a linear tone curve, but set up colour temperature and balance. It's kind of the equivalent of a video log file, designed to be suitable for onward grading.

BTW, raw is a word, not an acronym. These are literaly the raw data from the sensor.

I'm so glad someone else said that, so I didn't have to.

 

[iljitsch]

If you don't feel your images need editing, then don't edit them. The suggestion that all images need at least a bit of tweaking is harmful because editing for editing's sake can only make your images worse.

I shoot raw+JPEG, where I normally use the JPEGs unless I have an image that needs editing and is important enough for me to spend the time. That is exceedingly rare.

I of course try to make sure that the JPEGs straight out of the camera look the way I want them to look. Others do the opposite and for instance set a fixed white balance that will often be wrong for the scene but they change the white balance (and other stuff) in post processing anyway, so why bother paying attention to it during shooting?

To reiterate: if you have to ask, the answer is no.

 

[Doug Haag]

Hi all! - I don't seem to be able to find an answer to my question, so thought I'd ask it here. First, I've had my Canon 70D for 6-7 years now, was initially kinda overwhelmed by it so barely scratched the surface; ie used auto mode for a while, realized the images were no better than my cell phone so put the DSLR away :-( But now I have a definite need to get competent with it, and the covid I caught a couple months ago gave me a week and a half away from work which I used to do some intensive photography study. I watched A LOT of photography vids, read and took tons of practice images.

So what I need now is to take a full set of thorough images for the sale auction of my collector car; exterior, interior, engine, suspension, trunk, etc. At this point I've recorded hundreds of images of it, all in RAW, and going in to this endeavor I thought it was for sure that I would be editing all the images. Well, to me they're actually looking pretty good straight out of the camera, even in RAW ... not super glamorous, just authentic / accurate ... so I'm starting to think they might actually need little to no editing, instead just saving them straight to JPG as-is.

So my question is: How common is it for a photographer to record images in RAW and not edit them, instead just saving as JPG / PNG?

One thing I planned to try next, when it stops raining every day here in Florida, is to save the images as RAW and JPG, and since I already think the RAW images look good, maybe the JPGs will look even better. Any comments or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

Quite often this kind of conundrum is caused by misuse of terminology. Let's define two different things, 'processing' and 'editing'. 'Processing', in the context of a raw image, means to 'develop' it into a viewable image. A raw image itself is not directly viewable, since it is just a recording of the light levels captured at the sensor. To be viewable processing needs to be done to translate those levels into a definition of how an observer should see the image. You are not actually seeing the image 'straight out of the camera'. These days most computer operating systems and viewing apps include a processor for most of the common raw formats built-in, so the processing is done automatically.

'Editing' means to make changes. Though raw processing programs are often called 'raw editors' this is not strictly what they are doing. They aren't editing the raw file, they are allowing choices to be made as to how that file should be processed, which includes things like choosing white balance, black and white levels, tone curves and colour space (though mostly through indirect tools).

So, it's not the raw images that look good, it is the default processing applied to the raw images that produces a nice looking JPEG. Further JPEGs produced using that default processing will look exactly the same. It's quite possible that by driving the processing yourself that you can produce images that you like better. Then again. many people find that they can't, and if that's the case, then you might as well stick to JPEGs. The big advantage of saving the raw files is that should you in the future become more adept, or better raw processors be developed, you can reprocess them and get a better result.

The OP didn't say what software he was using to "view" his raw files. Is it possible that he is using software that displays the embedded jpeg and not the "processed" raw data into a viewable rbg? If so, that could account for why he is pleased with the look without further editing. A lot of people complain about the "flat" look of basic raw processing, but he is not seeing that if he is looking at an embedded jpeg.

He says he shot these images solely in raw. So by not saving raw + jpeg, he would be unaware that there is no visible difference between the actual jpeg and a viewer that displays the embedded jpeg.

Just a thought.

 

[John Crowe]

For your selling purposes you may get away without post processing. I just photographed a boat that I am selling and I did choose to make minor processing changes, but I really did not need to. However, if your car is expensive and you want attention to get top dollar then post processing will help, just like any advertising.

A RAW file lacks contrast and colour vibrancy, so for printing or viewing they look dull and bland. It takes very little processing in a RAW converter to breathe some life into them and then go straight to jpeg.

 

[JustUs7]

Canon applies jpeg settings to raw files opened in their proprietary DPP4 software, as others have mentioned. However, they do come out a bit flat and lacking contrast. For two quick clicks, I can generally edit an acceptable and improved file to process as a jpeg.

First click is auto gamma adjustments. This is a process that I speculate happens in camera on a jpeg. Essentially it automatically tweaks the highlights, shadows, and contrast. Just gives a bit more texture and depth to the images. You can further manually fine tune as desired.

Second click is a plus one to contrast. Based on personal taste, and depends on the subject/scene.

You generally can’t share your raw files and be certain others will see what you want them to see. That will depend on the software they are viewing with. So, no matter what you do on the processing front, you do need to convert the files to jpeg for sharing.

Just a step deeper into editing raws, DPP4 allows you to see what your camera would have done if different settings were chosen. You can toggle through all the White Balance choices, for example. You can also toggle through all the picture styles (landscape, portrait, standard, fine detail, etc) and see how your image would have looked. For example, I set my camera to auto, but when I want a more vivid outcome, I can change to daylight white balance and landscape picture style then publish my jpeg. Below is the difference between AWB-White Priority and Standard picture style vs Daylight / Landscape.


AWB-White Priority / Standard


Daylight/Landscape

This is not intense editing. It’s three or four clicks, then process as jpeg.

 

[JasonTheBirder]

Once I took a shot of a document to send to the government. Shot in in Raw and spent 10 hours editing it. My doctor told me that for the sake of my heart, I should never edit in JPEG.

 

[bobn2]

The OP didn't say what software he was using to "view" his raw files. Is it possible that he is using software that displays the embedded jpeg and not the "processed" raw data into a viewable rbg? If so, that could account for why he is pleased with the look without further editing. A lot of people complain about the "flat" look of basic raw processing, but he is not seeing that if he is looking at an embedded jpeg.

He says he shot these images solely in raw. So by not saving raw + jpeg, he would be unaware that there is no visible difference between the actual jpeg and a viewer that displays the embedded jpeg.

Just a thought.

A good thought. Yes, that's entirely possible.

 

[bobn2]

If you don't feel your images need editing, then don't edit them. The suggestion that all images need at least a bit of tweaking is harmful because editing for editing's sake can only make your images worse.

Absolutely.

I shoot raw+JPEG, where I normally use the JPEGs unless I have an image that needs editing and is important enough for me to spend the time. That is exceedingly rare.

I of course try to make sure that the JPEGs straight out of the camera look the way I want them to look. Others do the opposite and for instance set a fixed white balance that will often be wrong for the scene but they change the white balance (and other stuff) in post processing anyway, so why bother paying attention to it during shooting?

To reiterate: if you have to ask, the answer is no.

I tend to the full raw workflow, but part of the reason for that is that I expose for raw, not to get a well balanced JPEG. I guess I could set up the in-camera processing options to get a workable JPEG along with the raw, but that's too much trouble for me. Added to which, I enjoy processing. I find that once you get the picture up on the screen, you'll see possibilities that weren't apparent when you took the shot.

 

[bobn2]

A RAW file lacks contrast and colour vibrancy,

And everything else. A raw file doesn't nave any 'contrast' or 'colour' until it's processed. What it has after processing depends on how you process it.

 

[iljitsch]

A raw file doesn't nave any 'contrast' or 'colour' until it's processed. What it has after processing depends on how you process it.

Nikon's software will produce the same exact result from a raw file as an out of camera JPEG (if you don't change any settings).

 

[bobn2]

A raw file doesn't nave any 'contrast' or 'colour' until it's processed. What it has after processing depends on how you process it.

Nikon's software will produce the same exact result from a raw file as an out of camera JPEG (if you don't change any settings).

Yes, that's the case with most manufacturer's raw processors, and most independent try to get close as well.

 

[John Crowe]

I was being very restrained. RAW to me is like a b&w negative, but unprocessed they can get a point across, like a quick pencil sketch.