JudyN
Senior Member
Yes
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is RAW overhyped?
- Thread starter Tim A2
- Start date
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
That's What I do with Nikon Cameras. Pretty easy so little reason to shoot JPEG unless you need more buffer or must pass a Jpeg immediately.
One Option
Yes, but gets complicated to do it in camera...very simply out.
With Nikon, ViewNX2. Don't know about the others, sorry and Good Luck
brucet
Senior Member
Raw is a pain in the butt. But if you want to go that extra yard, or mile, then Raw gives you options that don't exist with jpegs.
regards
regards
Tim A2
Senior Member
brucet, I am trying to find out what those options are to see if the hype is justified. So far all I really have is the highlight/shadow recovery. Color can be corrected with jpegs and it looks like 16 bit processing is not an advantage, it is necessary for processing RAW data.
tim
Last edited:
- Messages
- 30,186
- Solutions
- 112
- Reaction score
- 12,428
If you think 16 bit is not an advantage, then you're simply not doing any processing that requires much change that might produce artifacts. Color can be affected in JPEG but not WB.
momo246197
Leading Member
here's some info on jpeg and raw...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml
i'd say we each have to work in a manner that makes sense to us, camera in hand something that makes for the best shooting experience, gives the results we want and need for screen/web or print, follow a work flow that gives you what you want...
nothing speaks louder than testing for yourself...if shooting jpeg makes you happy and you find raw a waste, shoot jpeg...so many options these days...
i like to shoot raw because it helps me in post processing when i've made bad/wrong choices for white balance, exposure, etc...i get distracted easily and often forget to change settings from one environment to the next while out shooting...i do my best to get it right in camera, but like to be able to fall back and correct later, if necessary to a big degree...also, i used to love dark room work so pp work via digital is a breeze for me, i expect to rework my images, i love to rework my images...
one last thing...having a raw file enables you to re-work files with all the info intact a few years down the line as software gets better and better over time...i saw a big improvement in my old Canon D60 raw files when processing with Lightroom...I used the canon software at first because there was no Lightroom...
--
“All photographs are memento mori. To take a photograph is to participate in another person’s mortality, vulnerability, mutability. Precisely by slicing out this moment and freezing it, all photographs testify to time’s relentless melt.”
- Susan Sontag
http://www.morristaubphotography.com
http://variationslumineuse.aminus3.com
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml
i'd say we each have to work in a manner that makes sense to us, camera in hand something that makes for the best shooting experience, gives the results we want and need for screen/web or print, follow a work flow that gives you what you want...
nothing speaks louder than testing for yourself...if shooting jpeg makes you happy and you find raw a waste, shoot jpeg...so many options these days...
i like to shoot raw because it helps me in post processing when i've made bad/wrong choices for white balance, exposure, etc...i get distracted easily and often forget to change settings from one environment to the next while out shooting...i do my best to get it right in camera, but like to be able to fall back and correct later, if necessary to a big degree...also, i used to love dark room work so pp work via digital is a breeze for me, i expect to rework my images, i love to rework my images...
one last thing...having a raw file enables you to re-work files with all the info intact a few years down the line as software gets better and better over time...i saw a big improvement in my old Canon D60 raw files when processing with Lightroom...I used the canon software at first because there was no Lightroom...
--
“All photographs are memento mori. To take a photograph is to participate in another person’s mortality, vulnerability, mutability. Precisely by slicing out this moment and freezing it, all photographs testify to time’s relentless melt.”
- Susan Sontag
http://www.morristaubphotography.com
http://variationslumineuse.aminus3.com
Last edited:
In the style of your list, I would add only the following:
4) the ability to downstream process in as close as possible to your camera sensor's full native colour gamut.
5) RAW is lossless, so when you start your workflow, everything is there that the sensor captured.
6) No camera settings (like contrast, saturation, sharpening, noise-reduction, and any scene enhancements like "Sunset", "Autumn colors", or crop formats, etc.,) are already baked-in - so you have complete flexibility on how you start, and you are always starting from the beginning of the image processing chain in the camera (i.e. the sensor data itself). You can go back and re-start from this zero-processed reference at any time.
.
I would then say your 1) and 3) are both coming from the same root benefit - i.e. it is from using more bits of precision off your camera sensor's digital convertors (typically nowadays 12- or 14-bit. In 1), that gives you the ability to get more from the portions of the sensor's dynamic range covering the scene's shadows and/or highlights (thereby allowing you to in effect extend the dynamic range in the image in PP). Carrying that higher precision then through in 3) into 16-bits downstream workflow means that all and every luminance and colour-related adjustment can be controlled more finely - particularly in a wide-gamut color-space. More finely means less visible effect of binning/banding/posterization/halos/etc - i.e. any algorithmic pixel-level mathematical operations.
[ There is a similar thread now just below. This is obviously a very common and repeat discussion in every forum on DPR as trying to understand the relative merits (of RAW and JPEG) is the most common dilemma in digital photography alongside which camera brand to use. This article on RAW vs JPEG compared is linked in the other thread:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml
That is good technical comparison.
There are pros and cons in both RAW and OOC JPEG, depending on your purpose and intent - which may well vary per shooting occasion and subject. It really isn't an 100% one-way-or-the-other either/or debate. It is more your choice of which you think is best for you to use and when and where based on the relative merits in your own circumstances - and of course what you wish to achieve in your photography and potential post-processing vision with that shoot.
To learn that you need to try each. The only caveat I would give is that to really really get the best from PP in RAW in 16-bit in a color-space like ProPhotoRGB, you really need a high-res color-cal'ed wide-gamut high bit-depth monitor (you did not tell us if you do printing). That in effect means what you are doing often can end up being for your enjoyment only, since when you share it, that means low-res 8-bit sRGB JPEG and it getting viewed on an un'caled laptop or tablet monitor.
For your needs:
Is RAW over-hyped? Yes - by those that say you should shoot in it all the time without talking to you about what you want to achieve and what PP gear (monitors and printers primarily, but also storage capacity and of course applications) you have or intend to get.
Is JPEG over-hyped? Yes - by those that say you should shoot in it all the time without talking to you about your entire photographic intent and what you want to achieve in it. ]
--
Mark W.
http://500px.com/Mark_Wycherley
4) the ability to downstream process in as close as possible to your camera sensor's full native colour gamut.
5) RAW is lossless, so when you start your workflow, everything is there that the sensor captured.
6) No camera settings (like contrast, saturation, sharpening, noise-reduction, and any scene enhancements like "Sunset", "Autumn colors", or crop formats, etc.,) are already baked-in - so you have complete flexibility on how you start, and you are always starting from the beginning of the image processing chain in the camera (i.e. the sensor data itself). You can go back and re-start from this zero-processed reference at any time.
.
I would then say your 1) and 3) are both coming from the same root benefit - i.e. it is from using more bits of precision off your camera sensor's digital convertors (typically nowadays 12- or 14-bit. In 1), that gives you the ability to get more from the portions of the sensor's dynamic range covering the scene's shadows and/or highlights (thereby allowing you to in effect extend the dynamic range in the image in PP). Carrying that higher precision then through in 3) into 16-bits downstream workflow means that all and every luminance and colour-related adjustment can be controlled more finely - particularly in a wide-gamut color-space. More finely means less visible effect of binning/banding/posterization/halos/etc - i.e. any algorithmic pixel-level mathematical operations.
[ There is a similar thread now just below. This is obviously a very common and repeat discussion in every forum on DPR as trying to understand the relative merits (of RAW and JPEG) is the most common dilemma in digital photography alongside which camera brand to use. This article on RAW vs JPEG compared is linked in the other thread:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml
That is good technical comparison.
There are pros and cons in both RAW and OOC JPEG, depending on your purpose and intent - which may well vary per shooting occasion and subject. It really isn't an 100% one-way-or-the-other either/or debate. It is more your choice of which you think is best for you to use and when and where based on the relative merits in your own circumstances - and of course what you wish to achieve in your photography and potential post-processing vision with that shoot.
To learn that you need to try each. The only caveat I would give is that to really really get the best from PP in RAW in 16-bit in a color-space like ProPhotoRGB, you really need a high-res color-cal'ed wide-gamut high bit-depth monitor (you did not tell us if you do printing). That in effect means what you are doing often can end up being for your enjoyment only, since when you share it, that means low-res 8-bit sRGB JPEG and it getting viewed on an un'caled laptop or tablet monitor.
For your needs:
Is RAW over-hyped? Yes - by those that say you should shoot in it all the time without talking to you about what you want to achieve and what PP gear (monitors and printers primarily, but also storage capacity and of course applications) you have or intend to get.
Is JPEG over-hyped? Yes - by those that say you should shoot in it all the time without talking to you about your entire photographic intent and what you want to achieve in it. ]
--
Mark W.
http://500px.com/Mark_Wycherley
Last edited:
digital ed
Senior Member
Jim,
My first reaction (emotional) was how could anyone who is serious about photography not shoot RAW. But after reading your comments I calmed down and thought more rationally.
I can see where there are some situations where for me there is essentially no advantage in shooting RAW as compared to jpg. Quick family snap shots are only one example.
I shoot 100% RAW and only convert when necessary to jpg. I also recently returned from a trip to Alaska. It was mainly cloudy and grey. Many photos required much adjustment to get the look I wanted, as opposed to the actual look of the scene. RAW allowed me to create some good prints (to my taste) that I believe I could not have gotten with jpg originals.
You added to my aged understanding.
If for no other reason, the reason to collect a RAW image with every shot is just in case you need to tap into the technical advantages that RAW offers over JPEG. The idea of hopping back and forth between RAW and JPEG based on every shot pre-assessment is too much for me to remember, so I leave in RAW.
As an example, I was at an auto race and in advance of the race start we were buzzed by a plane to fire up the crowd. It all happened very quickly so little time to make adjustments and shooting into the bright sky wreaked havoc on my subject. Because I had taken in RAW I could work with what was a mediocre ruined picture:
... and make something interesting of it:
I doubt I could extract the same result from a jpg file.
As an example, I was at an auto race and in advance of the race start we were buzzed by a plane to fire up the crowd. It all happened very quickly so little time to make adjustments and shooting into the bright sky wreaked havoc on my subject. Because I had taken in RAW I could work with what was a mediocre ruined picture:
... and make something interesting of it:
I doubt I could extract the same result from a jpg file.
Last edited:
tko
Forum Pro
There are a billions discussions on this. If you don't believe them, try it for yourself. And don't leading and sensationalistic post titles if you want an open discussion, and then ask people to justify RAW, why carefully stating that you're not anti-RAW. So, what we have before is a big list of why RAW doesn't work for you. We're supposed to change your mind for you?
RAW may not be for you. That's fine. But it's a lot of work to type up explanations for RAW about a billion times for people either can't do a forum search or refuse to experiment on their own.
Photography, art, and science is vague. Find out what works for you. You may not find any advantage in this stage of your photographic journey.
RAW may not be for you. That's fine. But it's a lot of work to type up explanations for RAW about a billion times for people either can't do a forum search or refuse to experiment on their own.
Photography, art, and science is vague. Find out what works for you. You may not find any advantage in this stage of your photographic journey.
Mako and others have given you some excellent reasons as to why recording RAW in camera offers benefits. There is one very big benefit to recording RAW and then auto-converting to JPG in computer using the manufacturer's - or suitable 3rd party - postprocessing software: the conversions are better.
The CPU and JPG rendering firmware in the camera, as good as it is, represents a compromise between quality and power drain. For example, the in-camera sharpening algorithms are usually simplified and do not allow the adjustability of the postprocessing algorithms. This has implications for, notably, today's high resolution imaging chains.
If you're trying to get by with a 7-year-old computer, I applaud you, but unfortunately that's not a realistic mode of operation with a modern camera. A suitably powerful computer needs to accompany your camera purchase, because in the digital era we are now both the photographer and the developing lab. In the film era, we could just snap away and send the negatives to the developer and enjoy the results. JPG in-camera is the equivalent of that workflow, and it involves similar compromises for the convenience. Our advantage today is that we can auto-convert on the computer with a simple click, or work an image file as we see fit. As long as you don't perceive being dependent on a 2nd device to obtain your rendered images, our lot is a far more flexible one.
It has been said, and I'll repeat, that shooting in RAW is the digital equivalent of keeping your film negatives (or slides). You can always go back to the maximal quality source for duplicates or future needs. JPG is keeping the prints and throwing away the negatives. Not only have you eliminated data, you've made it more difficult to preserve quality going forward. At least JPGs don't fade...
JPG works well for most people's purposes because 1) most folks don't tweak their images, and 2) modern viewing media (TVs, computer monitors, AND prints) don't support huge image dynamic range. We're now entering the era of super-wide DR viewing media (OLED displays, for example) that will start revealing the limitations of JPG. Having the RAWs around future-proofs us.
Richy6771
Leading Member
Tim A2
Senior Member
teseg, this is a good example of shadow detail recovery, but I am looking for specific advantages beyond highlight and shadow detail recovery. Thanks for posting.
F
f8BeThereToo
Guest
I've never seen any reason to shoot JPEG instead of RAW. And since it is so quick and easy to create JPEGs from RAW shooting both doesn't make any sense either...
Coming from many years of shooting slides and demanding subjects in B&W, I tend to get things right in the camera. So even though I shoot RAW my post-processing needs are negligible; I use the camera settings or quickly batch-process an entire shoot. My Mac Mini easily handles it. When I do need to do more intensive PP I'm glad that I have the RAW files available so I can get the best possible results.
If you are a beginner photographer RAW is a no brainer... When I think of all the slides I trashed because they were improperly exposed I envy newbies in the 21st century who can easily fix exposure problems in post-processing. Even seasoned pros make mistakes; some years back I got some under-exposed fill-flash shots when my flash recycling using alkaline batteries couldn't keep up with my shooting speed while I was doing personal work. (I'd left my Quantum Turbo at home when my back was giving my grief and I hadn't upgraded to Eneloops...) A minute of PP saved the images.
I'm all for getting the most out of my computer hardware/software investment but cutting corners in order to keep a 7 year old computer going is penny-wise and pound-foolish. Been There/Done That. I've found that upgrading my hardware on a three-year cycle gives me the best performance bang for my buck. Since I often buy my new Macs at a significant discount I recoup most of my purchase price when I resell my computers. Now that I have switched from iMacs to the Mini, hardware upgrades are even easier and more cost-effective...
The Luminous Landscape article says it all. Unfortunately, the link provided earlier doesn't work for me; let's try again: http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml.
Coming from many years of shooting slides and demanding subjects in B&W, I tend to get things right in the camera. So even though I shoot RAW my post-processing needs are negligible; I use the camera settings or quickly batch-process an entire shoot. My Mac Mini easily handles it. When I do need to do more intensive PP I'm glad that I have the RAW files available so I can get the best possible results.
If you are a beginner photographer RAW is a no brainer... When I think of all the slides I trashed because they were improperly exposed I envy newbies in the 21st century who can easily fix exposure problems in post-processing. Even seasoned pros make mistakes; some years back I got some under-exposed fill-flash shots when my flash recycling using alkaline batteries couldn't keep up with my shooting speed while I was doing personal work. (I'd left my Quantum Turbo at home when my back was giving my grief and I hadn't upgraded to Eneloops...) A minute of PP saved the images.
I'm all for getting the most out of my computer hardware/software investment but cutting corners in order to keep a 7 year old computer going is penny-wise and pound-foolish. Been There/Done That. I've found that upgrading my hardware on a three-year cycle gives me the best performance bang for my buck. Since I often buy my new Macs at a significant discount I recoup most of my purchase price when I resell my computers. Now that I have switched from iMacs to the Mini, hardware upgrades are even easier and more cost-effective...
The Luminous Landscape article says it all. Unfortunately, the link provided earlier doesn't work for me; let's try again: http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml.
Last edited:
Toermalijn
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 17,446
- Solutions
- 6
- Reaction score
- 1,573
While that is true, sometimes jpegs are all you need. Extracted jpegs from raw can be sublime.
Tim A2
Senior Member
I am trying to sort through all the garbage about raw on the internet. I assume I just need to find the search terms that work. I have no doubt what I am looking for is out there. I am experimenting on my own, but so far haven't beat my processed jpeg. I assume that is because I am still learning how to process raw images. Some things I do probably do more harm than good. I do pretty good when I simply recover highlights and then finish with the editor I use for jpegs, because I am familiar with it. It does make me wonder how many folks are happily cranking out jpegs from raw blissfully unaware their skills with raw processing don't even match what their camera can do.
You actually lost me when you said science is vague. I am looking for specific support for raw based on science.
Tim
Last edited:
digital ed
Senior Member
F
f8BeThereToo
Guest
Then read the Luminous Landscape article... The technical advantages of RAW and JPEG are spelled-out in easily understandable terms. If you don't personally need the advantages RAW offers then stick with JEPG.
Last edited:
digital ed
Senior Member
This has summarized your attitude regarding RAW processing.
Richy6771
Leading Member
Tim, shadow detail recovery was all that was needed to make this an acceptable image.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum