It worked with Firefox but not with IE8.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is RAW much better?
- Thread starter Darkroomdude
- Start date
SteveJL
Leading Member
While not specifically answering anything you wrote, I would recommend what some others have also: use hi-capacity cards and shoot Highest Quality Raw + JPEG. I do this and use the RAW files for PP when the pic has problems or I want to get creative with the picture, but quite often the OOC JPEG looks fine.
Bottom line is: most definitely use RAW but be aware that you will have to work harder and learn new (post processing) skills to fully exploit the potential of shooting RAW, but as stated above, you can choose to shoot both and exploit each to it's potential. JPEG gives instant output, RAW gives options to play.
MikeFromMesa
Veteran Member
I thought I should specifically mention that you must save your RAW file as a jpg and not just do a save or you MIGHT over-write your RAW file depending upon the software you use.
I don't know what software you use so I cannot give any specific details. For example my dxo software is set to automatically generate jpgs as outputs after processing. In Photoshop I do a Save As and select jpg. I don't much use dpp and I use ZoomBrowser only to triage my photos.
I don't know what software you use so I cannot give any specific details. For example my dxo software is set to automatically generate jpgs as outputs after processing. In Photoshop I do a Save As and select jpg. I don't much use dpp and I use ZoomBrowser only to triage my photos.
SelNZ
Veteran Member
Hi Sacsentre
When you set the camera to take both formats, that is what you get. One raw and one jpg file. If you look at the raw file in the camera you see a jpg file. When you download to your computer you get both a raw and a jpg file.
If you take just raw, you see a jpg on the camera but the file you download is a true raw file.
I'm afraid that it has become the in thing to take raw because it is easy to do and is the fashion at the moment. The truth is that very little pp is done to most photos taken in raw and what is could just as easily be done in jpg.
( Wait for the flaming to start )
Most of the pros I know use jpg to get the job done. Even wedding and portrait photogs. They know their gear so well that they know what they are going to get when the button is pressed and don't rely on pp.
My advice is that you use what you are happy with
Regards,
--
Sel ................
To me, PC means personal computer, not politically correct.
http://flickr.com/photos/selsphotos/
http://sel.photosales.co.nz
birdbrain
Veteran Member
If I had answered this question a week ago I would of said use DPP and convert to TIFF to pass to PS for further processing. But since then I have been using Photoshop CS5 and ACR 6.1 and I have had to alter my ideas.
I am now finding that I am getting much better results using ACR 6.1, it's noise reduction is simply amazing and the sharpening is well wow.
I don't know if it is ACR 6.1 or wether I have just now worked out how to use it but PP RAW in ACR just got a whole lot easier for me
If you have PS CS5 and ACR 6.1 I would strongly recommend trying converting your RAW images with it.
On the other hand if you haven't got CS5 and ACR 6.1 then DPP will do a very good job and you can pass the images across to PS via 16 bit tiffs for extra processing.
I am even going back to images I originally processed in DPP and trying them in CS5 with ACR 6.1 and I am liking the results.
It was well worth the punt on trying an upgrade for my CS4.
Phil
Let me be the first.
The comment that you make shows that you do not understand what a RAW file is.Most professional drivers in NYC (are taxi drivers and) drive Fords. Therefore, that particular Ford is the best car for enthusiasts.
jhatha
Well-known member
I have noticed as I start to read this string re: RAW that converting from RAW to TIFF is mentioned several times. Does that have to be done or can you convert to Jpeg? Why TIFF? which I know nothing about.
Thanks,
Jim
--
Jim Hathaway
Gold Canyon, Arizona
Thanks,
Jim
--
Jim Hathaway
Gold Canyon, Arizona
Chris59
Veteran Member
Absolutely correct. The fact of the matter is that a TIFF from the RAW file even with no post processing will produce a better, more detailed image with better colour and greater dynamic range than a JPEG created in-camera.
The advantage of RAW is therefore twofold. You get a better quality image straight from the RAW file and have much greater latitude to change settings, exposure etc without degrading the image than with JPEGs.
If you want to produce the best images your camera is capable of, shoot RAW and use DPP to change camera settings as required (exposure, picture style, white balance, saturation, contrast etc), convert to TIFF and then use your favourite post processing programme for any further work if required.
Some people may tell you that JPEG is "good enough" and that the degradation to image quality only marginal when making adjustments in post processing, and they would be right - if good enough is enough for you. For me, it isn't for any number of reasons including the fact that RAW conversion software is always being upgraded allowing me to produce genuinely better images and/or prints than when I took the photo.
Your best bet is to shoot RAW + JPEG and compare. Have fun!
The advantage of RAW is therefore twofold. You get a better quality image straight from the RAW file and have much greater latitude to change settings, exposure etc without degrading the image than with JPEGs.
If you want to produce the best images your camera is capable of, shoot RAW and use DPP to change camera settings as required (exposure, picture style, white balance, saturation, contrast etc), convert to TIFF and then use your favourite post processing programme for any further work if required.
Some people may tell you that JPEG is "good enough" and that the degradation to image quality only marginal when making adjustments in post processing, and they would be right - if good enough is enough for you. For me, it isn't for any number of reasons including the fact that RAW conversion software is always being upgraded allowing me to produce genuinely better images and/or prints than when I took the photo.
Your best bet is to shoot RAW + JPEG and compare. Have fun!
jhatha
Well-known member
selNZ - Now that is what I call an outstanding answer. It is a personal thing and I agree that "shooting RAW" is an "In Thing" or what the "Big Boys" do. Thanks to you selNZ
--
Jim Hathaway
Gold Canyon, Arizona
--
Jim Hathaway
Gold Canyon, Arizona
Well, here is my attempt with LR3:
100% crop
your original DPP crop
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39169343@N04/
100% crop
your original DPP crop
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39169343@N04/
Verena
New member
I agree with you using DPP should be one's first choice.
TIFF is lossless, while JPG uses lossy compression (loses information to save space).
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39169343@N04/
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39169343@N04/
SelNZ
Veteran Member
Ah, someone gets it.
Thank you Jim
--
Sel ................
To me, PC means personal computer, not politically correct.
http://flickr.com/photos/selsphotos/
http://sel.photosales.co.nz
SelNZ
Veteran Member
Oh, I'm sure I doLet me be the first.
Thank you for biting.
Don't be silly. No points for you
--
Sel ................
To me, PC means personal computer, not politically correct.
http://flickr.com/photos/selsphotos/
http://sel.photosales.co.nz
Luke Kaven
Veteran Member
Do you have some examples to share?
It seems you want to tell people all about the road you never traveled down. Don't bother you say, there's nothing down that road. But anyone who's been down it knows otherwise. Having a good 12-13 bits of usable image data yields enormous benefits in post. Pop on over to retouchpro or Luminous Landscape and see how working photographers work. You can't shoot Vogue covers in JPEG, and you can't earn your way into that league without the skills to process RAW files to the utmost.
Make your own personal choices, but I've got to call you on it when you give people advice that will limit their future potential. I'm sorry to go so hard on you.
It seems you want to tell people all about the road you never traveled down. Don't bother you say, there's nothing down that road. But anyone who's been down it knows otherwise. Having a good 12-13 bits of usable image data yields enormous benefits in post. Pop on over to retouchpro or Luminous Landscape and see how working photographers work. You can't shoot Vogue covers in JPEG, and you can't earn your way into that league without the skills to process RAW files to the utmost.
Make your own personal choices, but I've got to call you on it when you give people advice that will limit their future potential. I'm sorry to go so hard on you.
Luke Kaven
Veteran Member
Not only is TIF lossless, but it accommodates up to 16 bits, whereas JPEG only accommodates 8. A 16 bit TIF will preserve the full range of values from a RAW capture and the JPEG will truncate.
Luke Kaven
Veteran Member
Some detail is preserved in downsampling. I would rather downsample 24.5MP from the D3x to 12MP than shoot 12MP native using the D3s, all else being equal. The benefits are obvious.
No, it will not (most of the time). It will preserve finer tonal gradations but the same part of the DR will be gone, as with the 8 bit TIFF. Some converters have the option to fit much larger DR in the converted image, if you want.
Luke Kaven
Veteran Member
Note that I used the term "RAW capture" and not "RAW". The RAW is a Bayer matrix, and the RAW Capture is an RGB matrix. The RAW Capture does not necessarily preserve all of the information in the RAW, but it preserves all of the information in the RGB matrix produced during capture.
I'm puzzled where you supposed dynamic range is getting smuggled out of the picture? There are no cameras made that can produce more than 14 bits of image.
Images are not measured in bits. The bits in a 14 bit RAW and an 16 bit TIFF have differet roles.
A 16 bit TIFF has the same DR as the 8 bit TIFF produced form the same RAW in the same way; and in general much lower DR than contained in the 12/14 bit RAW.
If you do not believe me - take any image with overexposed parts, and lower the exposure compensation by 1 stop. You will see detail in the highlight that was clipped before.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum