Reading mode: Light Dark

Survey, raw, or jpeg?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steve Mason
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
Hi Herb,

My feeling is that for higher ISO shots, or any shots that will require significant editing, shots with difficult lighting, white balance, etc., you'll have much greater flexibility and better results if you shoot Raw. Jpeg artifacts get "amplified" the more editing that is needed.

It is a pain, relatively speaking, but once you commit to it, and get used to the workflow, it isn't a big deal. And I believe your results will be better. I decided shortly after getting my D30 to force myself to use Raw, and get used to it, and now it's just not an issue.

I have a page devoted to Raw-related issues at my website:

http://www.dlcphotography.net/RawFormatWorkflow/RawFormatWorkflow.htm

Hopefully it'll give you a broader perspective, and some detailed help on dealing with Raw files.

Good luck.

Don

http://www.dlcphotography.net
Herb said:
I proceeded to shoot yesterday in jpeg......so now after reading
this I have the sense that maybe at higher ISO, where I do shoot a
lot there might be better shots awaiting me.....so...tonight I will
try that and see what I come up with.

I keep trying and trying to get better quality photos and I know
that there is a good part of it that is me that is holding success
at bay.

I see some of the pictures on line and wonder why I can't do that
kind of quality and then every now and then I get real lucky and I
come up with one.

Suggestions in understanding when RAW will really work for me and
when it won't would be appreciated!

regards, Herb
Steve Mason said:
I don't really want to start another long survey thread, but I'm
curious, how many here shoot raw? and any particular reason why?

I'm shooting jpeg right now, simply because I don't have enough
memory yet. I sometimes have trouble sharpening, as I seem to be
sharpening jpeg artifacts (or is it noise? hmm not sure)
I think I'll probably get a microdrive, and startshooting raw.

Steve
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
thanks Don....there are several of you that post to this forum tha tI respect their opinions...you happen to be one of them....I want to make the jump...but the work flow and the storage requirements are also demanding.....ugh.....still undecided.......best regards, Herb
DonCohen said:
My feeling is that for higher ISO shots, or any shots that will
require significant editing, shots with difficult lighting, white
balance, etc., you'll have much greater flexibility and better
results if you shoot Raw. Jpeg artifacts get "amplified" the more
editing that is needed.

It is a pain, relatively speaking, but once you commit to it, and
get used to the workflow, it isn't a big deal. And I believe your
results will be better. I decided shortly after getting my D30 to
force myself to use Raw, and get used to it, and now it's just not
an issue.

I have a page devoted to Raw-related issues at my website:

http://www.dlcphotography.net/RawFormatWorkflow/RawFormatWorkflow.htm

Hopefully it'll give you a broader perspective, and some detailed
help on dealing with Raw files.

Good luck.

Don

http://www.dlcphotography.net
Herb said:
I proceeded to shoot yesterday in jpeg......so now after reading
this I have the sense that maybe at higher ISO, where I do shoot a
lot there might be better shots awaiting me.....so...tonight I will
try that and see what I come up with.

I keep trying and trying to get better quality photos and I know
that there is a good part of it that is me that is holding success
at bay.

I see some of the pictures on line and wonder why I can't do that
kind of quality and then every now and then I get real lucky and I
come up with one.

Suggestions in understanding when RAW will really work for me and
when it won't would be appreciated!

regards, Herb
Steve Mason said:
I don't really want to start another long survey thread, but I'm
curious, how many here shoot raw? and any particular reason why?

I'm shooting jpeg right now, simply because I don't have enough
memory yet. I sometimes have trouble sharpening, as I seem to be
sharpening jpeg artifacts (or is it noise? hmm not sure)
I think I'll probably get a microdrive, and startshooting raw.

Steve
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The workflow really isn't that demanding. The storage requirements are greater though. If you are still testing to help you decide shoot your test shots at high ISO or under exposed or in high contrast situations. Try mixed lighting also.

What do you do now if the white balance is off for your images.
Herb said:
DonCohen said:
My feeling is that for higher ISO shots, or any shots that will
require significant editing, shots with difficult lighting, white
balance, etc., you'll have much greater flexibility and better
results if you shoot Raw. Jpeg artifacts get "amplified" the more
editing that is needed.

It is a pain, relatively speaking, but once you commit to it, and
get used to the workflow, it isn't a big deal. And I believe your
results will be better. I decided shortly after getting my D30 to
force myself to use Raw, and get used to it, and now it's just not
an issue.

I have a page devoted to Raw-related issues at my website:

http://www.dlcphotography.net/RawFormatWorkflow/RawFormatWorkflow.htm

Hopefully it'll give you a broader perspective, and some detailed
help on dealing with Raw files.

Good luck.

Don

http://www.dlcphotography.net
Herb said:
I proceeded to shoot yesterday in jpeg......so now after reading
this I have the sense that maybe at higher ISO, where I do shoot a
lot there might be better shots awaiting me.....so...tonight I will
try that and see what I come up with.

I keep trying and trying to get better quality photos and I know
that there is a good part of it that is me that is holding success
at bay.

I see some of the pictures on line and wonder why I can't do that
kind of quality and then every now and then I get real lucky and I
come up with one.

Suggestions in understanding when RAW will really work for me and
when it won't would be appreciated!

regards, Herb
Steve Mason said:
I don't really want to start another long survey thread, but I'm
curious, how many here shoot raw? and any particular reason why?

I'm shooting jpeg right now, simply because I don't have enough
memory yet. I sometimes have trouble sharpening, as I seem to be
sharpening jpeg artifacts (or is it noise? hmm not sure)
I think I'll probably get a microdrive, and startshooting raw.

Steve
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You're welcome, Herb.

And Andrew is right - it really sounds complex, but in actuality, it's no big deal. It's like trying to give a step-by-step itemized description of how to fry an egg to someone who hasn't cooked before, trying to make sure you don't leave anything out. It will sound horrible, with many steps to follow. But that's just because it takes a lot of words to describe a simple action.

Really, once you understand the steps, the extra time in the workflow is quite minimal. The things that do take time are the conversion process itself (I just set it to convert my files, go do something else, and come back when they're finished), and the editing of each image. The editing can take some time, depending on your experience and the image, but that's where a lot of the fun is in really making your picture come to life. And the editing needs to be done even if you shoot Jpeg to begin with and avoid the conversion step, so shooting Raw doesn't change that.

The storage is a relatively minor problem if you're using CDR. I get about 220 Raw files per CDR, which isn't that bad. And I don't archive the TIF files, just the eventual Jpegs produced after all editing is done. And I can then get probably 600 or so of these on one CDR.

And I'm not saying that you "should" shoot Raw, just that it isn't the pain that it seems like at the beginning.

Good luck with whatever you do!

Don

http://www.dlcphotography.net
Herb said:
thanks Don....there are several of you that post to this forum tha
tI respect their opinions...you happen to be one of them....I want
to make the jump...but the work flow and the storage requirements
are also demanding.....ugh.....still undecided.......best regards,
Herb
Click to expand...
 
I shoot only RAW, but don't use a microdrive. I have an 80MB card, 2 64MB cards, and a couple of 32MB cards. I do alot of card swapping, but I don't like the idea of a microdrive, I don't like shooting jpeg, and I don't have enough money for a high capacity Lexar card right now. I just bought a 70-200mm f/2.8 L lens so I'll be broke for months to come.

Ben
 
Andrew Grant said:
What do you do now if the white balance is off for your images.

Many (not all) white balance problems can be improved/fixed using the BLACK/WHITE/GREY eyedroppers in CURVES or LEVELS (Photoshop). Experimentation with these (especially the GREY) gives a broad pseudo-WP range of choices.
Click to expand...
 
Neil Wallis-Tennant said:
Greetiings from England.

This is most probably the incorrect place to raise this, perhaps
deseving a thread of its own, and if so please advise and I'll
repost.

Since you've mentioned it, I do think that tangential or off-the-point "replies" are a disservice to other readers who are trying to follow the main point of the thread. It's easy enough to start a new thread with appropriate subject noted.
Click to expand...
Enjoy the camera.
 
Andrew...you are assuming that I know the white balance is off....I set it for auto and it is what it is....

Maybe someday I will be able to deal better with that.....
Andrew Grant said:
What do you do now if the white balance is off for your images.
Click to expand...
 
thanks Don and all....ran an interesting test tonight....probably a dumb one but I was checking out the noise on 400, 800 and 1600 ISO in RAW as compared to JPEG......the richness of the colors was far more dramatic with the RAW than the JPEG....the amount of noise was certainly less when I applied unmask from PS......but then I applied the same amount for a comparison.

I need to do some more work with it before I come to any conclusion...but lets just say the RAW has me intrigued when I get to 400 or more ISO, below that I really didnt see any difference in the simple tests I did.

Stay tuned......regards, Herb
DonCohen said:
And Andrew is right - it really sounds complex, but in actuality,
it's no big deal. It's like trying to give a step-by-step itemized
description of how to fry an egg to someone who hasn't cooked
before, trying to make sure you don't leave anything out. It will
sound horrible, with many steps to follow. But that's just because
it takes a lot of words to describe a simple action.

Really, once you understand the steps, the extra time in the
workflow is quite minimal. The things that do take time are the
conversion process itself (I just set it to convert my files, go do
something else, and come back when they're finished), and the
editing of each image. The editing can take some time, depending
on your experience and the image, but that's where a lot of the fun
is in really making your picture come to life. And the editing
needs to be done even if you shoot Jpeg to begin with and avoid the
conversion step, so shooting Raw doesn't change that.

The storage is a relatively minor problem if you're using CDR. I
get about 220 Raw files per CDR, which isn't that bad. And I don't
archive the TIF files, just the eventual Jpegs produced after all
editing is done. And I can then get probably 600 or so of these on
one CDR.

And I'm not saying that you "should" shoot Raw, just that it isn't
the pain that it seems like at the beginning.

Good luck with whatever you do!

Don

http://www.dlcphotography.net
Herb said:
thanks Don....there are several of you that post to this forum tha
tI respect their opinions...you happen to be one of them....I want
to make the jump...but the work flow and the storage requirements
are also demanding.....ugh.....still undecided.......best regards,
Herb
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
This is wrong. The statement is "I'm a Professional so I don't have time to deal with RAW." Not changing your words, just including them in a Quote of what you state. I would certainly think that a (Quote) "Professional" (Unquote) would have time to deal with the best quality Photo he can get out of his Camera! Tony
Al Goldis said:
With as much shooting as I do, I don't have time to deal with RAW
files and I don't really need to triple my storage requirements.

Besides, I'm a professional; if I couldn't get the WB and exposure
right in the first place then I wouldn't be worth a damn anyway.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the 'tough talk' Mike. I use CompuPic now but it crashes when the index gets above 2-3000 on a PC, and on the Mac version when it crashes, it will not even re-boot without removing the power cord. I guess it's time to get a program that does the job.
Mike Kelley said:
Stan,

You absolutely must get a thumbnail program -- I use (and love)
Thumbsplus, but othere here swear by ACDsee. Either way, you'll be
able to catalog hundreds of CDs and find your image by name,
category, keyword, date or comment in a matter of seconds.

I have 6K+ RAW images cataloged this way, and I can find anything I
want instantly. Archival storage size is no excuse for not
shooting RAW.
Click to expand...
 
Greetings Again.

Appologies for my last post.

Another question. OK I admit Jpeg is a lossy format. however, I would attempt to argue on the current survey - lossy from what? your recording the image direct from the CMOS so therefore presumably theres no loss.

Its only when you start "saving as" in whatever paint program you use that the format is compressed further by removing some of the pixels from the image to compress the size.

Is my current thinking incorrect? oh, rather than go over old ground - I agree the RAW format is more useful as this stores so much more information for a relatively small increase in size and the adaptability.

Look forward to hearing some of your replies.

Kind regards

Neil Wallis-Tennant (SirToU)
 
DonCohen said:
And Andrew is right - it really sounds complex, but in actuality,
it's no big deal. It's like trying to give a step-by-step itemized
description of how to fry an egg to someone who hasn't cooked
before, trying to make sure you don't leave anything out. It will
sound horrible, with many steps to follow. But that's just because
it takes a lot of words to describe a simple action.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is simpler than it sounds, but I can't help noticing that you have to use no less than FOUR separate programs (CRW Extract, ThumbsPlus, Thumber, and PhotoPaint) to deal with RAW files. I certainly hope that Canon and ACDSee come up with a fast and high-quality, all-in-one solution.

JCDoss
 
JCDoss said:
DonCohen said:
And Andrew is right - it really sounds complex, but in actuality,
it's no big deal. It's like trying to give a step-by-step itemized
description of how to fry an egg to someone who hasn't cooked
before, trying to make sure you don't leave anything out. It will
sound horrible, with many steps to follow. But that's just because
it takes a lot of words to describe a simple action.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is simpler than it sounds, but I can't help noticing
that you have to use no less than FOUR separate programs (CRW
Extract, ThumbsPlus, Thumber, and PhotoPaint) to deal with RAW
files. I certainly hope that Canon and ACDSee come up with a fast
and high-quality, all-in-one solution.
Click to expand...
Don's process is complicated because he wants top rename the files and generate JPEGS with EXIF info as the final result. If you want Tiff files wioth the same name as the RAW it can be done in one step using one program e.g. Yarc. It can be as simple as clickiing one icon on a desktop. The problems comes when you want to change the "As Shot" White Balance.
 
Hi Neil,
Neil Wallis-Tennant said:
Another question. OK I admit Jpeg is a lossy format. however, I
would attempt to argue on the current survey - lossy from what?
your recording the image direct from the CMOS so therefore
presumably theres no loss.

Its only when you start "saving as" in whatever paint program you
use that the format is compressed further by removing some of the
pixels from the image to compress the size.

Is my current thinking incorrect? oh, rather than go over old
ground - I agree the RAW format is more useful as this stores so
much more information for a relatively small increase in size and
the adaptability.
Click to expand...
Not exactly correct. The best way to think about it that the sensor is seeing 9 megabytes worth of information (or actually more considering that it uses 12-bits/color). If you get a jpeg that is 1 to 3 megabytes in size, that's where the "loss" is coming in. In order to get 9 megabytes worth of data into a 1 to 3 megabyte file, you're using an algorithm which estimates what some of the pixel values would be, and is throwing away original data.

When you edit and resave, you further aggravate the situation as the algorithm is now creating artifacts upon artifacts already there.

So this is part of the reasoning why many of us choose to use Raw files.

Hope this helps.

Don

http://www.dlcphotography.net
 
Hi JC,
Member said:
Perhaps it is simpler than it sounds, but I can't help noticing
that you have to use no less than FOUR separate programs (CRW
Extract, ThumbsPlus, Thumber, and PhotoPaint) to deal with RAW
files. I certainly hope that Canon and ACDSee come up with a fast
and high-quality, all-in-one solution.
Click to expand...
True, but I'd be using two of them anyway (ThumbsPlus and PhotoPaint) even if I were shooting in Jpeg, so it's really 2 extra programs.

The CRW Bridge or CRW Extract is just a quick, handy way of sorting through files, deciding which ones to keep, which ones to delete, which is something I'd be doing anyway one way or the other if I were shooting Jpeg. And I use Thumber to reinsert the EXIF data into my eventual Jpeg files - this is not a necessary step, and can be omitted, but I just find it personally handy to be able to access the EXIF data in these files, without having to go back to the Raw files for the information.

Again, not trying to convince anybody this is a "better" way to go, but just explaining why I do what I do, and that it's not really a hassle.

Don

http://www.dlcphotography.net
 
Pixel for pixel, the D30 already has the best image quality of any hand-held digital camera.

And a bunch of people just got done saying there is no discernible quality difference between raw and jpeg at lower ISOs.

There is such a thing as overkill.

Not everything I do is for a full-bleed magazine double-truck page. And if it were, then I wouldn't be shooting digital anyway--or even 35mm for that matter.

I came from older Kodak digital SLRs which only produce raw files so I'm familiar with the benefits. However, the difference in the software between Kodak and Canon is like night and day. Kodak files open almost instantaneously. Everything is much more refined with Kodak software--actually I use Photo Mechanic Pro. With the D30 and Canon's software, when you shoot a lot, dealing with raw files for a (possible--or not) small gain in quality is just not worth it for everyday work.

The less time I spend sitting in front of a computer converting files or burning CDs, the more time I have to make pictures--or to enjoy life.

But I guess you know more about this stuff and how I should do my work than I do because I'm only a (Quote) "Professional" (Unquote).
Tony said:
Al Goldis said:
With as much shooting as I do, I don't have time to deal with RAW
files and I don't really need to triple my storage requirements.

Besides, I'm a professional; if I couldn't get the WB and exposure
right in the first place then I wouldn't be worth a damn anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
sigh...I need someones help...I must be doing something wrong.....took some shots last night ALL in RAW at the Indians game...sigh....they aren't really what I was hoping they would be....I have obtained much better shots in jpeg....I am not sure if it is my workflow....but here is an example....the guy behind me wanted me to take a picture of his son...I used the pop up flash, after all I wasn't thinking of using a flash at all.....put on my 28-70L lens and this is what I got from about 10 feet away....the guy wanted to give me $10 to do it, but I told him no, I would just take the shot and email it to him....I am glad I didnt charge for it....not the quality I would have expected.

I donw loaded through zoom browser and then went into Bibble to convert it to TIFF, then to Photoshop5.5 to adjust.....not real happy....comments? suggestions? I would like to use RAW, but every time I do...it is UGLY!!!! For instance, when I zoom in I find that the picture is blotchy.....

thanks, Herb

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1422366&a=12421466&p=50392890
Herb said:
I need to do some more work with it before I come to any
conclusion...but lets just say the RAW has me intrigued when I get
to 400 or more ISO, below that I really didnt see any difference in
the simple tests I did.

Stay tuned......regards, Herb
DonCohen said:
And Andrew is right - it really sounds complex, but in actuality,
it's no big deal. It's like trying to give a step-by-step itemized
description of how to fry an egg to someone who hasn't cooked
before, trying to make sure you don't leave anything out. It will
sound horrible, with many steps to follow. But that's just because
it takes a lot of words to describe a simple action.

Really, once you understand the steps, the extra time in the
workflow is quite minimal. The things that do take time are the
conversion process itself (I just set it to convert my files, go do
something else, and come back when they're finished), and the
editing of each image. The editing can take some time, depending
on your experience and the image, but that's where a lot of the fun
is in really making your picture come to life. And the editing
needs to be done even if you shoot Jpeg to begin with and avoid the
conversion step, so shooting Raw doesn't change that.

The storage is a relatively minor problem if you're using CDR. I
get about 220 Raw files per CDR, which isn't that bad. And I don't
archive the TIF files, just the eventual Jpegs produced after all
editing is done. And I can then get probably 600 or so of these on
one CDR.

And I'm not saying that you "should" shoot Raw, just that it isn't
the pain that it seems like at the beginning.

Good luck with whatever you do!

Don

http://www.dlcphotography.net
Herb said:
thanks Don....there are several of you that post to this forum tha
tI respect their opinions...you happen to be one of them....I want
to make the jump...but the work flow and the storage requirements
are also demanding.....ugh.....still undecided.......best regards,
Herb
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top