Still Trying to Convince Myself on RAW

Started Jun 29, 2013 | Photos thread
sensibill Veteran Member • Posts: 5,401
Re: Still Trying to Convince Myself on RAW

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

busch wrote:

Why keep trying? If you are getting the reults you want, don't fight it! Seriously!

I believe a properly exposed shot is the key to good JPEG's. I also think a poorly exposed shot can be better worked on if it is RAW. I shoot almost 100% JPEG. With the a77 and some of the others, there is really not much excuse to not properly expose a shot.

This JPEG vs RAW has been going on for ages and will continue for a long time. JPEG engines get better but some don't seem to take that into consideration.

There are those that swear by RAW and those that swear by JPEG. Simply do what makes you happy.

This isn't a feel good question, it is a technical question. I am not seeking approval or permission to shoot either way, just trying to figure out whether it is possible to outprocess the camera and how to do it.

First off, your original statement appeared to be that OOC JPEG is 'better' because untouched RAW requires manual processing (aka 'work'). That's going to be a nonstarter to those with even a smattering of post experience. Perhaps to the your eye, the simplified, 'all purpose' heavy handed processing in your camera is 'good enough' but don't expect those with more demanding or nuanced needs to feel the same.

Second, busch was being supportive of your 'statement posed as question' that image processing is best left to the camera, if it works for you. So it seems odd that you'd fire off such an entitled, needlessly assertive reply about not 'seeking approval'.

Nobody here is going to hold your hand through every facet of RAW processing to 'prove' how it can yield more exacting, flexible results. YouTube, Google and Lightroom tutorials exist. Utilize them.

As for RAW being like a camera negative, well not completely.

Nobody said RAW is exactly like negative film. But the parallels are significant.

The RAW image still has the ISO amplification in it, and I believe still has the white balance that you put into the settings. In the film days, you shot at the recommended ISO or else had to push process the negative.

Yes, RAW image is boosted and shows noise, grain. The same way higher ISO film did.

In digital you can specify the ISO and the "negative" will be exposed properly. In the film days, the White Balance was either daylight or tungsten, and if the actual light was different the printer would compensate with filters.

You're talking about two entirely different things, ISO and WB. Handling noise, detail retention and dynamic range requires a bit more than a tonal shift.

So the RAW file has some of the corrections already applied but not others. But I can sharpen and set levels and white balsnce and even noise reduction in JPG. Why should I have to attempt to duplicate the camera's noise processing manually before printing?

'Why should I bother doing what the camera does just as well' is not a question.

If you want to ask about specific things, like how to perform tonal adjustments in LR or the most optimal NR approach for chroma noise, then ask. Trying to get people to agree that JPEG output is better than skilled RAW processing is not going to work when you have not made the effort to learn the process.

 sensibill's gear list:sensibill's gear list
Nikon 1 J1 Sony Alpha a7 II
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow