Who needs RAW? ;-) (Serious question...)

But I don't think the clarity and colour is a result of RAW

And I do NOT like any sigma lenses, either ;-)

Thanks for sharing

Trevor Ginaus

Terry L said:

It seems to me that the extra detail in a RAW image is on the
limits of visibility but you can improve dynamic range with extra
detail in shadows and highlights.

Click to expand...

Terry L said:

The RAW sceptics can argue, with some validity, that monitors and
printers are such low resolution devices that you won't see much
difference in the final display. There is some truth in that -- but
I still feel that shooting RAW is literally giving it your best
shot.

Click to expand...

http://trevorg.smugmug.com

philzucker said:

Using
JPG is like throwing the negatives away after the print was to ones
liking. Okay with a lot of pics - but a shame for those keepers we
occasionally have ...

Click to expand...

Well put together for end of discussion.

Nice example, very telling! And the "too much hassle"-conclusion of John is exactly how I feel about it.

-- Andreas --

first i shoot jpeg all the time. have tried raw aand got no improvement in my pics, though before my little jpeg vs raw test i thought that there would be a difference. there wasn't FOR ME. the reason i concluded was that my pics as shot in the field require almost zero processing. the great rpt great rpt great advantage of raw is the amount and type of post processing the picture taker does in the pc. for me, i do almost zero, my goal in the field is to shoot the pics so that they are good enough to stand on there own without pp.

the two great areas that raw absolutely shine in is when you have no time to properly set up the shot. the other is when the lighting is so odd or undetermined that you have no idea what it is and you have to rely on pp to give you the proper color and white balance adlustments. a possible third necessity for post-processing would be that if the camera has something that you have to correct for on virtually every picture.

in other words, it all depends on the quality of pictures you are delivering to the pc. if you consistedly shoot pics and they are such that the pc is used for sorting storage and printing, like me, then you can go to the convieniece of jpeg.

but, if you find yourself adjusting correcting or fixing the iso, exposure, white balance, color, and cropping THEN you should be using raw. only you know your photographic abilities and what type of pics you are taking. for this reason, the decision to shoot raw or jpegs is yours alone based on your needs.

why did not raise the iso to 800 or so? that would have taken care of the dim pics and slow shutter speed.

your failure to do so makes the experiment invalid. you pretetermined your own results to get the answer you prefered. i own the *istD and have no problems going to iso 800 or 1600 to get the shot. you should have changed ALL the camera's parameters in an effort to get more light to the sensor. you didn't and you shoulda/coulda, the test was a bust.

Thanks for the example - having shot in churches I know how hard it is to get it all right.

Regards

Trevor Ginaus

John Bean (UK) said:

Many of my exposures
are not mistakes at all yet most people would assume they were
underexposed if they looked at an uncorrected original. I have a
problem with blown highlights - I really, really hate them! So I
always expose with the intention of retaining highlight detail.

Click to expand...

That's exactly how I see exposure, too, so that argument alone has won me over.

I think...I now have to find the best way to set levels since the new silkypix-based pentax software is not as easy to use as my good old ImageFolio.

http://trevorg.smugmug.com

It does not matter at what ISO you shoot two identical pics, one in RAW and one as a JPG.

Even if you shoot at 3200 ISO and they are both under-exposed, it appears that RAW will allow more processing to get the image to look better than you could do with the JPG.

And having just started to read up on the technical aspects of RAW shooting I can see why.

GaryDeM wrote about philzucker's post:

GaryDeM said:

why did not raise the iso to 800 or so? that would have taken care
of the dim pics and slow shutter speed.

your failure to do so makes the experiment invalid. you
pretetermined your own results to get the answer you prefered.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your input

Regards

Trevor Ginaus
http://trevorg.smugmug.com

but the wedding candids I shot showed up some big problems with under-exposure.

I'm going to try RAW for a while to "get the hang of it" and just use JPGs when I think everything will be OK

Maybe.

Thanks for your input

Regards

Trevor Ginaus

GaryDeM said:

first i shoot jpeg all the time. have tried raw aand got no
improvement in my pics, though before my little jpeg vs raw test i
thought that there would be a difference. there wasn't FOR ME.

Click to expand...

http://trevorg.smugmug.com

Hi Trevor,

Trevor G said:

Has anyone got before-and-after RAW images to show how far it can
go with a poor exposure?

Click to expand...

Here is an old post of mine that shows a RAW vs jpgs for a given photo:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=11251531

There are also color versions presented further along in the thread. You can easily see how much highlight detail was recoverable from the RAW shot that would've been irretrievably lost in the jpg as it had been clipped to white.

Kind regards,

--
Brian



Some monochromes:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/spiritmist/SundayBoating/index.htm
Some more monochromes:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/spiritmist/BWWebPage/index.htm
Some older images:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/spiritmist/Brian_G_Digital_Image_Gallery/index.htm

'To quote out of context is the essence of the photographer's craft.' John Szarkowski, The Photographer's Eye

GaryDeM said:

why did not raise the iso to 800 or so? that would have taken care
of the dim pics and slow shutter speed.

Click to expand...

Two reasons. #1: It was simply an experiment - with parameters arbitrarily set to make a comparison possible. I wasn't out for an perfect pic, just wanted to know how much image info could be retained after severe underexposure. #2: The Oly 5050 has max 400 ISO. ;-)

GaryDeM said:

your failure to do so makes the experiment invalid. you
pretetermined your own results to get the answer you prefered.

Click to expand...

I predetermined my results? I didn't prefer any answer - I wasn't convinced myself about RAW that time; I simply was curious and wanted to find out. Not getting your scientific logic here, I'm afraid ...

GaryDeM said:

own the *istD and have no problems going to iso 800 or 1600 to get
the shot. you should have changed ALL the camera's parameters in an
effort to get more light to the sensor.

Click to expand...

If I have the aperture fully open the sensor get's all the light it can get. Upping ISO does not influence that. Longer shutter speeds do, but the point of the experiment was to try to get an unblurred exposure handheld.

GaryDeM said:

you didn't and you
shoulda/coulda, the test was a bust.

Click to expand...

As your prefer. I personally don't think so, but I'm aware that opinions are different. That's okay with me.

--
Phil

GMT +1

Brian G. said:

Hi Trevor,

Here is an old post of mine that shows a RAW vs jpgs for a given
photo:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=11251531

There are also color versions presented further along in the
thread. You can easily see how much highlight detail was
recoverable from the RAW shot that would've been irretrievably lost
in the jpg as it had been clipped to white.

Click to expand...

That's a long and seemingly detailed post - thanks again

Regards

Trevor Ginaus
http://trevorg.smugmug.com

Whenever I print a photo, I am always interested in creating the best possible art image. I'm interested in pouring my creativity into it before AND after the shot. And I never know which image, after weeks or months of review, I will choose for printing. It's always good to have as much of a complete image as possible to work with.

The important thing is to make the choice consciously. Whether you throw away detail/dynamic range at the time you take the shot, or on the "cutting room floor", it should be your decision, consciously made.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/90415862@N00/

you going to have many people argueing both sides of jpeg vs raw.

the key issue in my view is what kind of pics you are bringing to the pc. does it need further processing to attain good pic qualities or not? if the exposure, white balance, iso selection, composition(so cropping is not needed), etc are done correct in the camera then the answer is jpeg. if the pic needs further correction, and its not of a minor nature then raw is the way to go.

the great advantage that raw has is its ability to correct, fix and adjust the picture. if you spending a lot of time making your pics usuable on the pc then raw is for you. jpegs can be adjusted but the range is more limited.

if the pics are coming to the pc for very minor processing(and not all the time), sorting, storage, and printing then you can go jpeg. this is my system. i shoot jpeg because i spend maybe 5% of my time correcting ANYTHING. i have blown up my jpegs to 16x20 and 20x30 with no problems.

the only thing you have to remember when you shoot jpegs and put them on the pc. is that when you are done with the pic you store it as a tiff never never as a jpeg. the only time it is a jpeg is when it comes to the pc.

you never do anything to the jpeg and save it as a jpeg. that keeps the quality intact.

Cool! I love that moon you pulled out from the Raw converter! ;-)
Sorry, just couldn´t help it.

I mix Raw and Jpg depending of importance of images. The advantages that I see in Raw is primarily the easy change in colour temperature and that you get better quality if you want to over or underexpose.

Cheers!
Peter

Tijean said:

This:



began life as this:



Maybe I could do that in jpg, maybe not, but I really don't think
that I could've pulled out nearly as much detail. I just find RAW
adjustments in Adobe Camera Raw to be so much quicker and more
flexible than trying to bend a jpg past its limits.

--
http://www.apt131.com

'This is easy for us Chinese...just look at the pictures, ignore
his comments in English...'

Click to expand...

--
Why not visit my photography homepage?
http://peterlundgren.awardspace.com

What about because when converting the RAW image to JPEG it wipes out any hot pixels.

I know I don't like spending my time cloning out hot pixels.

GaryDeM said:

the only thing you have to remember when you shoot jpegs and put
them on the pc. is that when you are done with the pic you store it
as a tiff never never as a jpeg. the only time it is a jpeg is when
it comes to the pc.

you never do anything to the jpeg and save it as a jpeg. that keeps
the quality intact.

Click to expand...

Now that's good advice! I don't do it, but that sure is good advice.

Thanks

Trevor Ginaus

http://trevorg.smugmug.com