Beginners Advice: Shoot RAW !

Mackiesback · Aug 28, 2018

Ipkiss2nd said:
I might not be a pro photografer or pro at LightRoom... But i do have a deg. in Computer science...

Someone here says... "well my camera produces good JPG" and someone says "you can edit a JPG as well as you can edit a RAW"

BUT...

A RAW file contains 100% of the data about the photo, while a JPG is a compressed file...

Why work on a compressed file when you can work on the one that has 100% of the data ?

Im not sure about this, but even if you save/export a JPG file at 100% quality ratio.... IT IS STILL a compressed file format, unlike you RAW with 100% data on the photo.

U might say...well you end up with a JPG as well when exporting files in LightRoom. But i can say regarding my own camera that the LightRoom exports are of much higher quality than the JPG my camera produces.

That's great, you may print billboards or have the highest quality monitor or whatever demands you might have may require 100% of the data. But not everybody needs 100% of the data.

If you can tell by looking at a final image whether it was originally shot in RAW vs jpg, well, you have a skillset very few have.

I have been shooting jpg for years. When I shot raw, I found I spent way too much time fiddling with images in LR, trying to get them to look as good as the jpg I captured at the same time. With my D70s, shooting raw was worth it. With my D700, less so. With my D810 and Df and Coolpix A, for my use, it's a waste of time.

sluggy_warrior · Aug 28, 2018

Mackiesback said:
That's great, you may print billboards or have the highest quality monitor or whatever demands you might have may require 100% of the data. But not everybody needs 100% of the data.

If you can tell by looking at a final image whether it was originally shot in RAW vs jpg, well, you have a skillset very few have.

I have been shooting jpg for years. When I shot raw, I found I spent way too much time fiddling with images in LR, trying to get them to look as good as the jpg I captured at the same time. With my D70s, shooting raw was worth it. With my D700, less so. With my D810 and Df and Coolpix A, for my use, it's a waste of time.

I used to shoot in JPG for years with various Canon S-series, and even with my D40 (following the advice of Ken Rockwell). It was the D5100 that I started realizing that the SOOC JPG has much less dynamic range comparing to RAW, and NR of a desktop software is much more powerful, especially at high ISO.

Another reason for the slow switching is it took times for me to find my style. Looking back at the images in the past, my photos were mostly high contrast, bold, and vivid, very eye-catching but loses shadows and lots of highlight clipping. The recent images developed from RAW have smoothing gradients, still have enough contrast and micro-contrast but with lots of shadows and highlights compressed in.

Here's an example of an SOOC JPG since 2010:

D40, SOOC JPG

And a recent shot with the X-T20, from RAW:

X-T20, from RAW exported in darktable

Both were in harsh sunlight, but I was able to compress more DR into the final JPG from RAW, closer to how our eyes see the scene.

Another reason for the switching is white balance. The camera doesn't always nail WB, and even calibrated with a gray card, I often change my opinion later. So, since the D5500, I've shot RAW only with Basic JPG as backup and hi-res review. Processing them in darktable is pretty easy and fast with many settings can be applied automatically (NR, sharpening, ...) and some settings can be copied to the whole set (WB, exposure, ...). I can cull and process a set of 300 shots in two nights (about 4-5 hours), with about 100 final shots. It takes extra time, but the post-processing is where the fun is as I can play around with a tiny bit of creativity in me.

I also shoot at indoor events quite a lot, and the dynamic range is crazy. To capture both the speakers under the spot light and the audiences in the dark, I usually have to set EC to -2EV/-3EV to not clip the speaker's details, and bring the audiences from complete blackness out in post. Yes, the shadows will be noisy, but recent cameras are mostly ISOless, so it's not any different than shooting at higher ISO. Here's an example from last year:

.

Here is another example of how you can bring shadows from complete blackness out in RAW. In the shot below, I tried not to clip the bright window, so the room is underexposed.

SOOC JPG, with max DR

darktable export from RAW

sluggy_warrior · Aug 28, 2018

Ipkiss2nd said:
I might not be a pro photografer or pro at LightRoom... But i do have a deg. in Computer science...

Someone here says... "well my camera produces good JPG" and someone says "you can edit a JPG as well as you can edit a RAW"

BUT...

A RAW file contains 100% of the data about the photo, while a JPG is a compressed file...

Why work on a compressed file when you can work on the one that has 100% of the data ?

Im not sure about this, but even if you save/export a JPG file at 100% quality ratio.... IT IS STILL a compressed file format, unlike you RAW with 100% data on the photo.

U might say...well you end up with a JPG as well when exporting files in LightRoom. But i can say regarding my own camera that the LightRoom exports are of much higher quality than the JPG my camera produces.

Duh, it doesn't take a deg. in Computer Science to realize that

Sorry, sorry, just kidding, another CS here. In this digital age, it's helpful to have background in Computer Science. It's much easier to understand bit depth, input vs output colorspace, compression, lossy vs lossless, noise reduction, ...

While RAW files are many times larger in size vs JPG, storage are getting cheaper, and with 100% data in the RAW files, who know what future software can do with them. There are occasion where I looked for a picture in the past and wished I had its RAW. I don't keep all the RAWs though, only the one survived culling, the remaining are just SOOC JPG.

Bobthearch · Aug 28, 2018

Mackiesback said:
Bobthearch said:

bjn70 said:

Mackiesback said:

when i export my RAW files into JPG i got alot more detail and sharpness than i got with the JPG files my camera created

Click to expand...

There might be a problem with your camera or with the settings.

There are several differences between RAW files and JPG but image detail shouldn't be that much different.

Click to expand...

There are a dozen or more different camera settings that are locked in when a jpeg is created. Color, white balance, shadow, detail, etc.

Knowing that makes the "Jpeg vs raw" question easier to put forth:

If you want the settings locked in at the time you press the shutter, shoot jpeg.

If you want to choose the settings later, change settings in the future, or develop the image multiple times with various settings, then shoot RAW.

To me, that's a no-brainer; I shoot raw. Someone else might read the same premise and come to a different conclusion.

Click to expand...

To be fair, all those setting are adjustable in jpg as well, just not with the same level of range, especially in shadow detail and WB

Yeah, it's really not the same thing at all. Especially changing the camera settings directly, the powerful Nikon Picture Control options for example.

Changing from Landscape to Vivid or any other preset, or manually adjusting any of the settings that make up the Picture Control presets - as long as you have the Nikon RAW file you can change any of it later using the Nikon desktop software, and it's the exact same as if you had set it in-camera.

The Active-D Lighting is another. When using that, I want to select the amount of the effect while viewing the image on a decent-sized monitor.

Mackiesback · Aug 28, 2018

sluggy_warrior said:
Mackiesback said:

That's great, you may print billboards or have the highest quality monitor or whatever demands you might have may require 100% of the data. But not everybody needs 100% of the data.

If you can tell by looking at a final image whether it was originally shot in RAW vs jpg, well, you have a skillset very few have.

I have been shooting jpg for years. When I shot raw, I found I spent way too much time fiddling with images in LR, trying to get them to look as good as the jpg I captured at the same time. With my D70s, shooting raw was worth it. With my D700, less so. With my D810 and Df and Coolpix A, for my use, it's a waste of time.

Click to expand...

I used to shoot in JPG for years with various Canon S-series, and even with my D40 (following the advice of Ken Rockwell). It was the D5100 that I started realizing that the SOOC JPG has much less dynamic range comparing to RAW, and NR of a desktop software is much more powerful, especially at high ISO.

Another reason for the slow switching is it took times for me to find my style. Looking back at the images in the past, my photos were mostly high contrast, bold, and vivid, very eye-catching but loses shadows and lots of highlight clipping. The recent images developed from RAW have smoothing gradients, still have enough contrast and micro-contrast but with lots of shadows and highlights compressed in.

Here's an example of an SOOC JPG since 2010:

D40, SOOC JPG

And a recent shot with the X-T20, from RAW:

X-T20, from RAW exported in darktable

Both were in harsh sunlight, but I was able to compress more DR into the final JPG from RAW, closer to how our eyes see the scene.

Another reason for the switching is white balance. The camera doesn't always nail WB, and even calibrated with a gray card, I often change my opinion later. So, since the D5500, I've shot RAW only with Basic JPG as backup and hi-res review. Processing them in darktable is pretty easy and fast with many settings can be applied automatically (NR, sharpening, ...) and some settings can be copied to the whole set (WB, exposure, ...). I can cull and process a set of 300 shots in two nights (about 4-5 hours), with about 100 final shots. It takes extra time, but the post-processing is where the fun is as I can play around with a tiny bit of creativity in me.

I also shoot at indoor events quite a lot, and the dynamic range is crazy. To capture both the speakers under the spot light and the audiences in the dark, I usually have to set EC to -2EV/-3EV to not clip the speaker's details, and bring the audiences from complete blackness out in post. Yes, the shadows will be noisy, but recent cameras are mostly ISOless, so it's not any different than shooting at higher ISO. Here's an example from last year:

.

Here is another example of how you can bring shadows from complete blackness out in RAW. In the shot below, I tried not to clip the bright window, so the room is underexposed.

SOOC JPG, with max DR

darktable export from RAW

I understand the benefits of RAW, I think most of us here do. I don't need to be sold on it. I still use it from time to time, mostly in situations where I know I am going to be using DXO Prime for noise reduction, which does not work in jpg. Example: I was in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, taking random snaps of the exhibits with my Coolpix A. Nothing really challenging there, just shot for memories of the trip, not for publication. Got to the Frank Lloyd Wright exhibit, which is an entire room from one of his houses, and it is very dimly lit with lamps using the typical alabaster shades as was his style. Quickly flipped to RAW and shot it, went back out to the bright courtyard, switched back to jpg. Got home, edited the 6 images shot in RAW to jpg in LR, and done, rather than editing about 100 images. That's how I use RAW.

I understand the benefits, but I am not afraid of a little shadow here and there, I think people are a little obsessed with shadow detail here, and for what I shoot and what I shoot with, I just don't need it most of the time. I would rather be out shooting more than post processing every single image I shoot, which RAW would require. It's just not worth it to me.

YMMV.

photolando · Aug 28, 2018

Didn’t read all the responses but I don’t agree. If your just starting out, you have NO post production skills at all. Just learn how to use the camera first. Learn how to control exposure. Learn composition. Learn how different lenses work. Learn white balance and how to control it and also do custom white balance.

In other words, learn how to use the camera first. The camera will do a better job processing the image then a beginner trying to use Lightroom or Photoshop or any other editing software.

I’m pretty skilled at post processing and yet I still shoot jpeg most of the time. I enjoy shooting. Not post processing. When I shot film, mostly transparency film, usually 4x5, I shot and dropped off at the lab and picked up later. Kind of equal to shooting jpeg today. In a round about way.

sluggy_warrior · Aug 28, 2018

photolando said:
Didn’t read all the responses but I don’t agree. If your just starting out, you have NO post production skills at all. Just learn how to use the camera first. Learn how to control exposure. Learn composition. Learn how different lenses work. Learn white balance and how to control it and also do custom white balance.

In other words, learn how to use the camera first. The camera will do a better job processing the image then a beginner trying to use Lightroom or Photoshop or any other editing software.

Totally agree on this. Learn to be comfortable with the camera and photography concepts (ISO, SS, aperture, WB, ...) first.

photolando said:
I’m pretty skilled at post processing and yet I still shoot jpeg most of the time. I enjoy shooting. Not post processing. When I shot film, mostly transparency film, usually 4x5, I shot and dropped off at the lab and picked up later. Kind of equal to shooting jpeg today. In a round about way.

I have to disagree on this, though. As soon as you feel comfortable with the camera, try to learn a post-processing software, it'll give you a better understanding of the limitation of JPG as well as the camera. You might not be able to come up with your style or how to express yourself through all the options/settings yet, but at least you'll have a better overview of the big picture.

In stead of treating the dark room like a black box, it's actually was the most fun process back then. Spending the whole weekend in the dark room to do the "ritual dance" to get rid of bubbles trapped in the film canister, countless guessing/adjustment with exposure time and filters, the smell of chemicals, ... It's great to have a good understanding and being able to tweak the final output yourself, ... and you can do it for free now comfortably on a computer, why not?

LordKOTL · Aug 28, 2018

sluggy_warrior said:
photolando said:

Didn’t read all the responses but I don’t agree. If your just starting out, you have NO post production skills at all. Just learn how to use the camera first. Learn how to control exposure. Learn composition. Learn how different lenses work. Learn white balance and how to control it and also do custom white balance.

In other words, learn how to use the camera first. The camera will do a better job processing the image then a beginner trying to use Lightroom or Photoshop or any other editing software.

Click to expand...

Totally agree on this. Learn to be comfortable with the camera and photography concepts (ISO, SS, aperture, WB, ...) first.

sluggy_warrior said:

I’m pretty skilled at post processing and yet I still shoot jpeg most of the time. I enjoy shooting. Not post processing. When I shot film, mostly transparency film, usually 4x5, I shot and dropped off at the lab and picked up later. Kind of equal to shooting jpeg today. In a round about way.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree on this, though. As soon as you feel comfortable with the camera, try to learn a post-processing software, it'll give you a better understanding of the limitation of JPG as well as the camera. You might not be able to come up with your style or how to express yourself through all the options/settings yet, but at least you'll have a better overview of the big picture.

In stead of treating the dark room like a black box, it's actually was the most fun process back then. Spending the whole weekend in the dark room to do the "ritual dance" to get rid of bubbles trapped in the film canister, countless guessing/adjustment with exposure time and filters, the smell of chemicals, ... It's great to have a good understanding and being able to tweak the final output yourself, ... and you can do it for free now comfortably on a computer, why not?

This is why I say for beginners to shoot RAW + JPG.

To use a film-era analogy: Some say shooting .jpg is like taking your film to the local drugstore and having them develop it, while shooting RAW is like developing it yourself in your own darkroom.

Not quite. Shooting .jpg+RAW is like taking your film to the local drugstore--you get the developed negatives back. Shooting .jpg is like the drugstore shredding your negatives when done--or shooting a polaroid/Instamatic.

Disk space is cheap. While I think there is a lot to be said about learning the camrea and learning how to use it and composition, you don't want to preemptively hamstring yourself in the future--at least not too much. A some point a beginner will decide whether or not RAW or SOOC .jpg is the way to go, but until that time they should always keep their options open. They might end up with a photo as a beginner that, with the right TLC in raw processing can be be made even better. So why should they set themselves back from the get-go? I know in my case there have been a few times where learned something and was like, "oh yeah, that image from way back then can benefit from me doing that!"

You can always go back and delete unneeded RAW files.

Bobthearch · Aug 28, 2018

I don't get the while RAW+jpeg thing. If you have the raw file, there's no reason to also have a jpeg from the camera. Make the jpegs on the computer where you can move the adjustment sliders and see the effect in real time on the screen before exporting.

And I would never delete raw files unless the image was totally botched. Jpegs are for using, raw files are for archiving. In much the same way that photographers have always saved their negatives.

Bobthearch · Aug 28, 2018

The film analogy is much like you described. Having the camera create a jpeg is analogous to shooting a Polaroid.

Shooting RAW and then creating jpegs from that raw file is akin to shooting with negative film and then developing prints.

Bobthearch · Aug 28, 2018

And even if you have no interest whatsoever in moving sliders to customize the image development, you can batch convert an entire folder of raw files into jpegs all at once with the press of a single button.

And if you're using software provided by the camera manufacturer, the jpeg output will include all of the in-camera settings you used for each individual photo.

And you have the raw files in case any of the images need fine-tuning, or if you wish to change any of the in-camera settings after-the-fact, or you wish to develop the same image multiple times for multiple purposes, or you wish to revisit the photo later to apply different software or improved techniques...

sluggy_warrior · Aug 28, 2018

Bobthearch said:
I don't get the while RAW+jpeg thing. If you have the raw file, there's no reason to also have a jpeg from the camera. Make the jpegs on the computer where you can move the adjustment sliders and see the effect in real time on the screen before exporting.

The SOOC JPG is useful for culling as you can zoom in at full res to check focus. The RAW only has a low-res preview embedded in it.

I don't care about the photos I didn't choose during culling, but I don't want to purge them completely neither, so I kept the SOOC JPG, saved me conversion time. There are a few times my family wondered about a past event, it's useful to be able to dig in all the photos to confirm one small detail

Jonsi · Aug 28, 2018

sluggy_warrior said:
Bobthearch said:

I don't get the while RAW+jpeg thing. If you have the raw file, there's no reason to also have a jpeg from the camera. Make the jpegs on the computer where you can move the adjustment sliders and see the effect in real time on the screen before exporting.

Click to expand...

The SOOC JPG is useful for culling as you can zoom in at full res to check focus. The RAW only has a low-res preview embedded in it.

I don't care about the photos I didn't choose during culling, but I don't want to purge them completely neither, so I kept the SOOC JPG, saved me conversion time. There are a few times my family wondered about a past event, it's useful to be able to dig in all the photos to confirm one small detail

Absolutely.

I shoot RAW/jpg so I have RAW for those I want to finish, and jpeg for record.

Jonsi · Aug 28, 2018

Bobthearch said:
I don't get the while RAW+jpeg thing. If you have the raw file, there's no reason to also have a jpeg

Unless you want to flip through a bunch images for any reason and don't want to have to open them in a RAW converter just to view them.. which is literally the slowest way to open an image.

bjn70 · Aug 28, 2018

I'm more like you. I've read all about this many times. My camera produces very good JPGs but occasionally I have an exposure problem in which case it helps me to start with the RAW file instead of the JPG. Otherwise I just put the RAW files on the hard drive and ignore them. But the OP didn't say anything about fixing exposure problems or fixing white balance or recovering shadows or whatever else people do with RAW files, he said he got more detail and sharpness by working with RAW files. The only explanations I can see for this are if his camera does really bad JPG conversions, or if his camera has high amounts of noise reduction.

Bobthearch · Aug 28, 2018

Jonsi said:
Bobthearch said:

I don't get the while RAW+jpeg thing. If you have the raw file, there's no reason to also have a jpeg

Click to expand...

Unless you want to flip through a bunch images for any reason and don't want to have to open them in a RAW converter just to view them.. which is literally the slowest way to open an image.

Who would install a raw converter just to view raw images? Raw files display directly within Windows Explorer, and no slower than jpegs. You might have to install the codec, which is free and takes an one-time investment of fifteen seconds.

Personally though I use Nikon's View NX-i. I haven't noticed a speed difference between jpegs and raw files with that program either. And having double the amount of files, jpegs plus raw, certainly wouldn't make the folder of images display faster.

???

Bobthearch · Aug 28, 2018

bjn70 said:
I'm more like you. I've read all about this many times. My camera produces very good JPGs but occasionally I have an exposure problem in which case it helps me to start with the RAW file instead of the JPG. Otherwise I just put the RAW files on the hard drive and ignore them. But the OP didn't say anything about fixing exposure problems or fixing white balance or recovering shadows or whatever else people do with RAW files, he said he got more detail and sharpness by working with RAW files. The only explanations I can see for this are if his camera does really bad JPG conversions, or if his camera has high amounts of noise reduction.

Detain and sharpness... those are just like white balance and shadow recovery in that they're locked in at the time of capture if you shoot jpeg. Jpeg is fine if that's your preference, but there's a long-ish list of settings that must be customized in the camera menu to get the image you want every time.

With a raw file, any of those settings can be selected after-the-fact, and while viewing the image on something other than a 3" camera back screen.

Mackiesback · Aug 28, 2018

Bobthearch said:
The film analogy is much like you described. Having the camera create a jpeg is analogous to shooting a Polaroid.

Shooting RAW and then creating jpegs from that raw file is akin to shooting with negative film and then developing prints.

Jonsi · Aug 29, 2018

Bobthearch said:
Jonsi said:

Bobthearch said:

I don't get the while RAW+jpeg thing. If you have the raw file, there's no reason to also have a jpeg

Click to expand...

Unless you want to flip through a bunch images for any reason and don't want to have to open them in a RAW converter just to view them.. which is literally the slowest way to open an image.

Click to expand...

Who would install a raw converter just to view raw images?

No one.

Not sure why you inferred that from what I said.

Bobthearch said:
Raw files display directly within Windows Explorer, and no slower than jpegs.

Ok, for those who use windows, and don't want to do side-by-side-by-side culling. Still slower.

Bobthearch said:
Personally though I use Nikon's View NX-i.

Not everyone here shoots Nikon. Actually less and less do according to market share.

Anyway, you do you man.

photolando · Aug 29, 2018

Bobthearch said:
bjn70 said:

I'm more like you. I've read all about this many times. My camera produces very good JPGs but occasionally I have an exposure problem in which case it helps me to start with the RAW file instead of the JPG. Otherwise I just put the RAW files on the hard drive and ignore them. But the OP didn't say anything about fixing exposure problems or fixing white balance or recovering shadows or whatever else people do with RAW files, he said he got more detail and sharpness by working with RAW files. The only explanations I can see for this are if his camera does really bad JPG conversions, or if his camera has high amounts of noise reduction.

Click to expand...

Detain and sharpness... those are just like white balance and shadow recovery in that they're locked in at the time of capture if you shoot jpeg. Jpeg is fine if that's your preference, but there's a long-ish list of settings that must be customized in the camera menu to get the image you want every time.

With a raw file, any of those settings can be selected after-the-fact, and while viewing the image on something other than a 3" camera back screen.

Actually, your reasons are exactly why they should should first shoot jpeg. Learn those controls of the camera. What your saying is “Eh, don’t worry about wb. Don’t worry about sharpness. Don’t worry about anything. Just shoot raw and fix it in post.

Again, the topic is “beginners”. They are not familiar with post production yet. And they may have no desire to learn it at all.

If you wanted to work with the studios I work for, you better know how to deliver me as good of a jpeg as you can. That is what we shoot 98% of the time. We shoot corporate events and a lot of times need to give clients the images as soon as the day’s events are done. We also do so many events we don’t have time to process each raw file.

This post really isn’t what format isn’t better. Yes agree, raw will give you more to work with in post. But learn how to shoot as if raw didn’t exist. If anything it will make you an even better raw shooter.

Beginners Advice: Shoot RAW !

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts