Reading mode: Light Dark

Do you think Raw is only for people with too much time on there hands

Go to last post
(It seems my first attempt at replying to this post disappeared, so I'm trying again. If two replies show up I apologize)
stevetog said:
because its only 8 bits, compared to 16 of RAW.
Click to expand...
That is a best a very misleading half-truth. While RAW formats are capable of holding 16 bits of colour information, very few camera sensors are capable of capturing 16 bits of colour. Most cameras only capture 10-12 bits. Also RAW files are linear while jpegs are non-linear so it's not actually that simple to compare how much colour data is in each. Another aspect is that the accuracy of the color information in the high bits aren't always great. So while RAW can offer more texture detail, that detail often doesn't come with accurate colour detail.

So while RAW files offer a number of advantages, colour information isn't really one of them.
 
dagw said:
So while RAW files offer a number of advantages, colour information
isn't really one of them.
Click to expand...
Everything else you said was true, but that one isn't. The reason raw holds much more color data than JPEGs has nothing to do with bit depth as you said, but with the fact that JPEGs are nearly always in sRGB, while raws capture a gamut far larger than sRGB.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
ljfinger said:
Everything else you said was true, but that one isn't. The reason
raw holds much more color data than JPEGs has nothing to do with bit
depth as you said, but with the fact that JPEGs are nearly always in
sRGB, while raws capture a gamut far larger than sRGB.
Click to expand...
But that isn't a limitation of jpeg. I don't have my G10 handy, but certainly on my DSLR I can choose if I want to save my jpegs as Adobe RGB or sRGB. I'm sure the G10 has the same option (I generally shoot RAW, so I've never bothered to check). But yea, if your camera only allows you to save jpegs as sRGB, then that is certainly another argument in favour of RAW.
 
dagw said:
ljfinger said:
Everything else you said was true, but that one isn't. The reason
raw holds much more color data than JPEGs has nothing to do with bit
depth as you said, but with the fact that JPEGs are nearly always in
sRGB, while raws capture a gamut far larger than sRGB.
Click to expand...
But that isn't a limitation of jpeg. I don't have my G10 handy, but
certainly on my DSLR I can choose if I want to save my jpegs as Adobe
RGB or sRGB.
Click to expand...
Adobe RGB is still greatly smaller than the gamut the sensor is capable of producing.

Check out figure 3:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Betarover said:
I would love to be convinced that my 11"x14" razor sharp landscape
images could be even better if RAW. But I have yet to see any images
posted (full file size) that prove RAW produces improvements that can
be seen in a print. The dpreview of the G10 says:

"Overall the G10 has a little more headroom in the shadows and
highlights available in RAW compared to JPEG, making some of those
over and under exposed files actually usable - for those users
willing to put in the time during post processing."
Click to expand...
That is evidence from a purported authority source that yes, RAW is better. The consensus of the entire photographic world is that RAW is better. It WILL improve your output. It just may not be worth the extra work to you, that's all.
Betarover said:
Is the purpose of RAW to fix bad exposures? i would rather take a
good exposure. Or bracket. Or watch for the blinking highlights in
the review image.
Click to expand...
Much RAW software has recovery sliders, which allow you to recover over exposed areas. The G10 has relatively poor dynamic range, so this is a definite advantage! Even properly exposed images may have areas where RAW can provide recovery = more information for your image. This also means that you can increase your local contrasts more in RAW and still maintain detail. So, you can get more detail and more punch for your images.

Another advantage of RAW is the ability to change the Kelvin white balance of your images very easily. This produces not just color balance correction, but subtle special effects which are impossible to duplicate using PP on jpgs. This alone, IMO, is worth the price of admission.
Betarover said:
If you are good at avoiding blown highlights, or bracket, or check
for blinking highlights after taking an image, what is the advantage
of RAW? If it is sharper, which the Steve's images do not show, the
increased sharpness cannot be seen in a print by the human eyeball so
what is its benefit to the final product?
Click to expand...
Steve's images are not going to help your evaluation of image sharpness. They were not taken under similar circumstances. I can guarantee you that your images can, in almost all cases, have better detail retention using RAW vs jpg. Unfortunately, how large this advantage can be is dependent on which RAW developer software you use, however.
Betarover said:
Also, when I take a trip I take thousands of images. When I fill a
card I transfer them to a portable drive and also to a laptop as a
double backup. Those huge RAW files would quickly fill these up.
Click to expand...
True, but the fact that the RAW files are indeed larger should warm your heart, because a larger file is a file with more information.
Betarover said:
If you know of a site that has both a RAW converted to JPG, and the
same scene in JPG in full file size please post it and I will make
11"x14" prints to see if there is a difference. Or could you please
post a comparison.
Click to expand...
Seriously, you should do it yourself for confirmation. Otherwise, you are going to have to believe the overwhelming consensus of thousands of ordinary people, and many hundreds of photography experts who have done this type of comparison over the years. :)
Betarover said:
Maybe I am missing something. Look at the dpreview G10 review, the
page showing RAW compared to JPEG.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong10/page11.asp
Click to expand...
Again, this is a bad reference source. Better would be an actual photo of a real tree, not a miniscule crop from a bottle label. Also, remember that the jpg image benefits from in-camera sharpening, etc, which the RAW conversion may not enjoy.

Gingerbaker

http://www.pbase.com/gingerbaker/galleries
 
It's fine to have an opinion that you don't want to spend time processing a raw file. It becomes a put-down when you claim people that do have no life - surely you see that could be taken as an insult.

Opinions are great, but you've chosen a poor way of expressing it.

Mark
 
for pros = No, they need RAW to produce best result for sale.
for the rest of us = Yes. JPEG is enough.
 
I soppose if one could shoot in perfect conditions, all the time and every time one could consider shooting raw for people with way to much time on there hands, truth is we can't.

One of the biggest advantages I see with shooting raw is it captures more directly what the sensor see's, it holds more information. Another advantage would be it increases your options for more adjustments.
 
Do you use ProPhoto RGB? If so, in what situations? What if you only intend to post on the web?
ljfinger said:
dagw said:
ljfinger said:
Everything else you said was true, but that one isn't. The reason
raw holds much more color data than JPEGs has nothing to do with bit
depth as you said, but with the fact that JPEGs are nearly always in
sRGB, while raws capture a gamut far larger than sRGB.
Click to expand...
But that isn't a limitation of jpeg. I don't have my G10 handy, but
certainly on my DSLR I can choose if I want to save my jpegs as Adobe
RGB or sRGB.
Click to expand...
Adobe RGB is still greatly smaller than the gamut the sensor is
capable of producing.

Check out figure 3:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
Click to expand...
--
Jeremy
 
Jeremy said:
Do you use ProPhoto RGB?
Click to expand...
I use Lightroom, so yes.
Jeremy said:
If so, in what situations?
Click to expand...
All shots taken in raw.
Jeremy said:
What if you
only intend to post on the web?
Click to expand...
This is a misunderstanding. If I shoot in raw, process in ProPhoto, and export in sRGB, I can still get much more color range than if I had shot in JPEG and sRGB on the camera. This is because the colors captured in the raw file can be remapped to fit into the sRGB space instead of clipped by the in-camera processing.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
I gather from your post that the Develop module in LR uses the ProPhoto RGG color space? I always shoot solely in RAW with my 40d, and do all my PP in LR. However, since I do so little printing and a majority of my shots are for the web only, I export everything in sRGB.

To clarify my initial question, what color space do you usually use when you export in LR and why.

I have a 15" MBP late '08 with no external monitor. I'd love to get something like this though:

http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product/?product=8899a96d-28dc-484f-a4de-14309a636738

Having an accurate monitor seems important in this regard!
ljfinger said:
Jeremy said:
Do you use ProPhoto RGB?
Click to expand...
I use Lightroom, so yes.
Lee Jay said:
If so, in what situations?
Click to expand...
All shots taken in raw.
Lee Jay said:
What if you
only intend to post on the web?
Click to expand...
This is a misunderstanding. If I shoot in raw, process in ProPhoto,
and export in sRGB, I can still get much more color range than if I
had shot in JPEG and sRGB on the camera. This is because the colors
captured in the raw file can be remapped to fit into the sRGB space
instead of clipped by the in-camera processing.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
Click to expand...
--
Jeremy
 
CAMMASTER said:
Raw on proper DSLR cameras, and even Raw on teeny sensor noisy
compact cameras, G10 G9 come to mind . So do you think its worth the
time or not worth it ! or is it just for people with far too much
time on there hands, seems like that to me, but just my point of view
.
Click to expand...
What's "RAW"?

--
Brown Bag It
 
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