Must I edit RAW images?

Michael Fryd said:

Mark B. said:

extrapolator said:

...

Click to expand...

If you don’t make any edits to your raw images there’s really no advantage to shooting raw to begin with. You still have to convert at least to jpg before it can be printed or posted/viewed anywhere on the web. I would say it’s very uncommon to shoot raw and convert straight to jpg with zero edits.

Click to expand...

You don't have to convert to a JPEG file. JPEG uses a lossy compression algorithm. You do lose some image data with JPEG compression. The beauty of JPEG is that it is designed such that the loss should not be noticeable (unless you compress too much).

If you shoot raw, you can process to RGB, and then save to a file that does not lose data (such as uncompressed TIFF). You also have the option of converting to RGB at more than 8 bits per channel.

So, even if you are not editing, and are using the default conversion options, there can be advantages to shooting raw.

Whether or not these advantages are significant to you, is a different question.

Click to expand...

Well it will need to be converted to something for most anything else other than viewing it through a editor.

extrapolator said:

I'm using this Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/ef-s-17-55-f-2-8-is-usm

OK, I'll install DPP. At this point I was just starting to get accustomed to PhotoScape, but not so committed that it bothers me to switch.

By the way, here are some of the images showing how they're coming out. Feel free to comment, everybody, I can take it ... I'm wanting to learn!


Zero editing of the raw file, just reduced file size to 2304 x 1536 and saved as jpeg at 95% quality. In this one I think the car looks really good, but the walls are more yellow than in person. The garage door is open, so there's a mix of indirect sunlight and overhead 4' fluorescent tubes.


Zero editing of the raw file, no healing (as you can see a lil dirt on the mat), nothing, just reduced file size to 2304 x 1536 and saved as jpeg at 95% quality. One thing that does bother me is that the red looks somewhat orange-y. The car is a very red, maybe a little lighter than blood red, in person.


Zero editing of the raw file, no healing, nothing, just reduced file size to 2304 x 1536 and saved as jpeg at 95% quality. One thing that does bother me is that the red looks somewhat orange-y. The car is a very red, maybe a little lighter than blood red, in person.


Zero editing of the raw file, just reduced file size to 2304 x 1536 and saved as jpeg at 95% quality. This one look good to me, but if you think it needs something, please feel free to say.

Let me know of any questions about these. And, do you think they're junk, and I'm way off base (and I need mental help!), and should throw in the towel, give up on photography, and hire a pro?? Or do you think these are OK? Do you look at these and right away know you'd do this, this and this?

Should I process jpegs at 100% quality?

Thanks again ... !

Click to expand...

These look fine to me. I would just check that you are using the full range of values from 0 to 255 in the jpeg file. I didn't check it, and you are probably pretty close. There's no reason you can't edit these jpeg files if you choose, but I wouldn't touch them. You could even correct the color balance if you needed to.

You can get by just fine with never editing RAW images. I have my camera set to save RAW and JPG files, and I almost always edit the JPG version, and I edit the JPG of almost every image that I want to keep. Depending on your camera and settings you might be good with the out of camera images or you might like to edit them a little bit. You can try editing and see if there is an improvement. Editing doesn't have to be long and cumbersome and doesn't have to use expensive software.

Having said that, there are occasionally things that happen when making an image that require working with the RAW file to get the best results. For sure if you have color temperature problems then it is best to make corrections to the RAW file. If you have big errors in exposure then it is best to make corrections to the RAW file.

You said your RAW image looks good out of the camera, but what this is is a conversion of the RAW to JPG either by the camera or by your viewing software. You aren't actually viewing the RAW image, you might be viewing a small JPG image that is embedded in the RAW file.

bjn70 said:

You can get by just fine with never editing RAW images. I have my camera set to save RAW and JPG files, and I almost always edit the JPG version, and I edit the JPG of almost every image that I want to keep. Depending on your camera and settings you might be good with the out of camera images or you might like to edit them a little bit. You can try editing and see if there is an improvement. Editing doesn't have to be long and cumbersome and doesn't have to use expensive software.

Having said that, there are occasionally things that happen when making an image that require working with the RAW file to get the best results. For sure if you have color temperature problems then it is best to make corrections to the RAW file. If you have big errors in exposure then it is best to make corrections to the RAW file.

You said your RAW image looks good out of the camera, but what this is is a conversion of the RAW to JPG either by the camera or by your viewing software. You aren't actually viewing the RAW image, you might be viewing a small JPG image that is embedded in the RAW file.

Click to expand...

If you are making adjustments, it is better to make them when processing the raw, rather than making them to the JPEG.

However, if you are making small adjustments, the difference in quality between adjusting the JPEG and adjusting the raw, may be small enough that it is not significant to you.

extrapolator said:

AnthonyL said:

JohnSil said:

extrapolator said:

I've had my Canon 70D for 6-7 years now,

So my question is: How common is it for a photographer to record images in RAW and not edit them, instead just saving as JPG / PNG?

Thank you!

Click to expand...

Extra, hey while you were scratching the surface your camera has almost past you by!

I think it's actually quite rare for anyone to not at least tweak a Raw at least a little bit. Depending on what you use to process a file may or may not retain any presets you have in the camera which would be effective if your output was in jpeg but it's not.

YES process your Raws!

I suggest you download the Canon Digital Photo Professional(DPP) that comes FREE with your camera and start by using that. it's very simple to use and will give you an idea of what you may want to do in further depth like with Photoshop or LR but those cost money! Good luck

Click to expand...

Plus the fact that DPP automatically starts off with the JPG settings of the camera as a starting point, so if nothing more is done then the result is what the JPG would have done. If something needs adjusting then it can be done, especially White Balance which is harder to adjust in the JPG.

And finally there is the RAW file available for more comprehensive processing as skills develop (the RAW file serves as my backup of my images).

Win Win for me.

Click to expand...

OK, same question for you: Should I switch from PhotoScape X to DPP now, even though I have, I dunno, 10 hours of time with PhotoScape?

Click to expand...

Extra, I’m not sure how to answer that but only because I don’t know Photoscape at all so can’t comment on it in any way. But I do know DPP. DPP is a Canon Raw engine but I t’s almost useless for Jpeg. So if you’re gonna be working in Jpeg, DPP is not it. For Raws it’s very limited having only global adjustments but has a pretty good cloning tool. If your Raws are good enough as you say then just convert them straight to Jpegs and use them. BUT there are usually small tweeker you can make to one representative shot an just paste those changes to all and convert.
Should you learn DPP? It has a very easy learning curve so pretty easy to learn. You can make presets in the camera like Picture Styles and sharpening etc. and it will apply those to the Raws and keep those when you convert the Raws.
As to Photoscape, if it has a steep learning curve you’ll need to decide. Ask here how it compares to PS. If it’s competitive and it’s free or way cheaper than the $100 that PS costs maybe continue with it. For me PS is the professional std and most photographers know it and all labs use it. It’s the universal pro std. if Photoscape is hard to learn I personally would put that energy int PS!

John

Another thought about whether or not to shoot in RAW or RAW + JPG. I have only been getting serious about photography for the last 3 years. My wife used to be the photographer and although she used a camera that could shoot both she only saved as jpg's.

I am now trying to edit some of our old jpg's and find what I can do to be limiting. As others have pointed out there is much more latitude with RAW's. Also she did some minor editing and sometimes did multiple saves further reducing the quality.

My suggestion is to shoot in RAW + JPG. For many of your photos the JPG's are probably fine. But for those that might be stars you will be very happy to have the RAW to work with. Now that I'm more knowledgeable and have software that only could have been dreamed about 15-20 years ago I sure wish she had shot in both.

Have fun!

nwboater33 said:

Another thought about whether or not to shoot in RAW or RAW + JPG. I have only been getting serious about photography for the last 3 years. My wife used to be the photographer and although she used a camera that could shoot both she only saved as jpg's.

I am now trying to edit some of our old jpg's and find what I can do to be limiting. As others have pointed out there is much more latitude with RAW's. Also she did some minor editing and sometimes did multiple saves further reducing the quality.

My suggestion is to shoot in RAW + JPG. For many of your photos the JPG's are probably fine. But for those that might be stars you will be very happy to have the RAW to work with. Now that I'm more knowledgeable and have software that only could have been dreamed about 15-20 years ago I sure wish she had shot in both.

Have fun!

Click to expand...

Although I shoot and process raw almost exclusively, I save raw + Jpeg and have done so for many years. I sometimes wonder why I save the jpeg. Very recently, I stumbled on another reason to do so and will continue this habit.

I shot an event which will use the images in the brochure that is published to promote the following year's event. So I didn't immediately get around to culling and editing the photos. When I finally got around to doing so, I discovered that three of the raw files (out of nearly 200) were corrupted. Don't know if they didn't download properly (the memory card has long since been reformatted) or if it occurred after being downloaded. Probably the former since they were also corrupt on the backup drive. Unfortunately, one of the three images was a keeper. Fortunately, the jpegs were OK.

Mark S Abeln said:

extrapolator said:

So my question is: How common is it for a photographer to record images in RAW and not edit them, instead just saving as JPG / PNG?

Click to expand...

I've known of photographers who shoot raw, but then batch process the image images with the manufacturer's own raw processor, getting what is very likely be exact duplicates of out-of-camera JPEGs. This seems a bit pointless for me.

The whole purpose of raw is to get images that don't match out-of-camera JPEGs.

There is some seriously powerful image processing technology available today, and for sure, you can use these advancements in a batch mode to process your images the way you want them. For example, I almost always use Highlight Priority metering, to avoid blowing out blue skies and such, but this will make the foreground material rather dark, so I'll boost shadow detail as well, as a basic edit for most of my photos, and not all cameras have JPEG settings that will do this.

Click to expand...

Not arguing with you, but as someone who does this I thought I'd like to explain why.

For me, I find this workflow very simple (and I like simple ;-) )

1. Shoot RAW
2. Import into DPP
3. Edit shots I feel need or warrant it
4. Batch process the lot into JPGs

In a nutshell, I find it conceptually easier to treat all shots the same, apart from the fact that some I edit, some I don't.

This avoids having duplicate files off the camera (RAW+JPG) which I personally would find confusing to manage (I realise other people manage this just fine, but I'm explaining from my perspective). It also means that, whilst I might not edit every RAW file initially, I could always go back and edit it later if I want.

I agree with you that if I never edited any shots, nor planned to in future, then I may as well just shoot in JPG.

OK, I feel like an idiot! ... several in this discussion have mentioned PhotoShop ... I actually have PhotoShop CS6 ... have had it for years ... but somehow it never occurred to me that it might be able to deal with raw files! DUH.

So now I've been fiddling around with it, and Wow even just using the Auto button improves the images ... the ones I felt were only "OK", that is. Some are still pretty good right out of the camera, to me, but with plenty of others the PS Auto button sorta brings them to life.

This isn't the best example since I already thought this previously posted version was pretty good, but I def prefer the PS Auto version:


This is the no-edit version I posted yesterday, which I thought was pretty good.


On this version I clicked Auto in PhotoShop and spot healed a few concrete stains. The tires, wheels and wheel wells don't look so dark anymore. And while I think the red in the above first version is 'richer', after looking at this PS Auto version I think the red looks more accurate.

This, however, amazes me: I just clicked Auto on one of the darkest images that I thought was not usable, just to see how well the PS Auto button does, and boy I'm impressed. Looks like I will be editing my images after all


No edits.


Just clicked PhotoShop's auto button.

OK, I know none of what I'm going thru here is new to any of you, but thanks a lot for the help, all the replies and guidance. Those edited images prob still aren't great, but I have some things to work on

extrapolator said:

OK, I feel like an idiot! ... several in this discussion have mentioned PhotoShop ... I actually have PhotoShop CS6 ... have had it for years ... but somehow it never occurred to me that it might be able to deal with raw files! DUH.

So now I've been fiddling around with it, and Wow even just using the Auto button improves the images ... the ones I felt were only "OK", that is. Some are still pretty good right out of the camera, to me, but with plenty of others the PS Auto button sorta brings them to life.

This isn't the best example since I already thought this previously posted version was pretty good, but I def prefer the PS Auto version:


This is the no-edit version I posted yesterday, which I thought was pretty good.


On this version I clicked Auto in PhotoShop and spot healed a few concrete stains. The tires, wheels and wheel wells don't look so dark anymore. And while I think the red in the above first version is 'richer', after looking at this PS Auto version I think the red looks more accurate.

Click to expand...

It's good that you have discovered editing, but are you sure about this photo? I am looking at it with an uncalibrated monitor at the moment. Nevertheless, the original looks better to me. The rich red is gone. The car looks just a bit washed out. The red color did look a little muddy before, but now it's washed out. Personally, I would play with the contrast a little in the red paint areas, but maybe not increase the brightness.

And yes, I can now see the tire treads better, but is that really what interests you? I don't know, maybe this is a tire ad or something.

One of the mantras at DPR has been "raise the shadows". Really? Is there something you want to see in the shadows? My favorite story about that was a mountain landscape photo that someone posted. Someone said "raise the shadows", and shadows were raised, to great acclaim. And what did the shadows show? A weedy lawn with broken concrete and other junk. Sometimes shadows are best left as shadows.

There is one rule of thumb that I often use. Often, the display cannot show the full range of contrast of the original scene. Consequently, the contrast must be reduced so both light and dark areas of the image can be seen. So the rule of thumb is to display at least a little bit of pure white (or close) and a little pure black (or close). It's not a real rule because it isn't always appropriate, but it's often worth considering.

One problem that often occurs is that the print looks perfect on the monitor but too dark on paper, under the most likely display conditions. That's a technical problem to overcome. The only thing that matters is the final appearance.

Now, if it looks perfect on the display device(s) that will be used, that's what really matters, regardless of what anyone writes about it. Sometimes the Auto button works, and sometimes it doesn't. You have to decide. Happy editing.

I admit to using a bit of hyperbole.

I’m sure we all know those kind of people who always insist on using the best, and because they use the best, their results must be the best. The same goes with technique.

But for sure, your method is solid.

There is another really good reason, and that’s when using a third party raw processor, and want a consistent look different from your camera. Nikon Studio NX offers to older cameras settings that are only found on newer cameras.

iljitsch said:

If you don't feel your images need editing, then don't edit them. The suggestion that all images need at least a bit of tweaking is harmful because editing for editing's sake can only make your images worse.

Click to expand...

I pretty much edit almost everything, but I just make small tweaks and I edit the JPG files. I will normally make a levels correction and for many of my images I like to raise the shadows a little bit. That plus cropping, I usually need to crop a little bit.

Sometimes I travel with my daughter and get her photos from her Google Pixel phone. I find that these files have been monkeyed with so much by the phone that I can't do much with them.

ThrillaMozilla said:

It's good that you have discovered editing, but are you sure about this photo?

Click to expand...

Ha. No!

J Peters said:

Mark S Abeln said:

extrapolator said:

...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

This avoids having duplicate files off the camera (RAW+JPG) which I personally would find confusing to manage (I realise other people manage this just fine, but I'm explaining from my perspective). ...

Click to expand...

It all depends on what tools you are using. For instance Photo Mechanic can present the JPEG and raw together as a single image. You don't see double files, and it is just as easy to work with RAW+JPEG, as JPEG only or RAW only.

extrapolator said:

OK, I feel like an idiot! ... several in this discussion have mentioned PhotoShop ... I actually have PhotoShop CS6 ... have had it for years ... but somehow it never occurred to me that it might be able to deal with raw files! DUH.

So now I've been fiddling around with it, and Wow even just using the Auto button improves the images ... the ones I felt were only "OK", that is. Some are still pretty good right out of the camera, to me, but with plenty of others the PS Auto button sorta brings them to life.

This isn't the best example since I already thought this previously posted version was pretty good, but I def prefer the PS Auto version:


This is the no-edit version I posted yesterday, which I thought was pretty good.


On this version I clicked Auto in PhotoShop and spot healed a few concrete stains. The tires, wheels and wheel wells don't look so dark anymore. And while I think the red in the above first version is 'richer', after looking at this PS Auto version I think the red looks more accurate.

This, however, amazes me: I just clicked Auto on one of the darkest images that I thought was not usable, just to see how well the PS Auto button does, and boy I'm impressed. Looks like I will be editing my images after all


No edits.


Just clicked PhotoShop's auto button.

OK, I know none of what I'm going thru here is new to any of you, but thanks a lot for the help, all the replies and guidance. Those edited images prob still aren't great, but I have some things to work on

Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said here. Looks like you may have answered your own question now!!!

When I shoot Cyclocross professionally, I shoot in both Jpeg and Raw. As soon as a pro event is over My editor is expecting maybe 10 pics almost instantly That's just how it is today. I load all the Jpegs and go through them very fast, I already pretty much know which are the shots I'll use. They all get a quick Lightroom tweak, rarely use them SOOC. I know they will be viewed by millions so that have to look professional. If a shot merits it, I chase down the Raw and work on it. It's fast since I already have the file number. I know I have at least a 1/2 hour to work because the story still has to be written!!!

John

you do have to edit raw files,

but you may not have to much once you get a preset for them.

a raw file is more like a negative than a complete file for viewing.

It's not the RAW images that look good, but the default processing applied to the raw images that produce a nice-looking JPG/JPEG.

All raw files require subsequent editing so, unless you want to edit your digital images, there is little point in shooting raw files. Editing raw files is a two-stage process because raw files must first be converted into an editable format (either JpeG or TIFF).

Ellinor William said:

It's not the RAW images that look good, but the default processing applied to the raw images that produce a nice-looking JPG/JPEG.

All raw files require subsequent editing so, unless you want to edit your digital images, there is little point in shooting raw files. Editing raw files is a two-stage process because raw files must first be converted into an editable format (either JpeG or TIFF).

Click to expand...

Software is improving Year over Year. So why not have the best possible data saved, RAW, which one can view an or output very easily without much processing. Unless one doesn't want to spend a dime on the storage by comparison.

BackToNature1 said:

Ellinor William said:

It's not the RAW images that look good, but the default processing applied to the raw images that produce a nice-looking JPG/JPEG.

All raw files require subsequent editing so, unless you want to edit your digital images, there is little point in shooting raw files. Editing raw files is a two-stage process because raw files must first be converted into an editable format (either JpeG or TIFF).

Click to expand...

Software is improving Year over Year. So why not have the best possible data saved, RAW, which one can view an or output very easily without much processing. Unless one doesn't want to spend a dime on the storage by comparison.

Click to expand...

Some people would prefer to take new photos, instead of spending time going back to re-process old photos.

But this is a matter of personal preference, and the needs of your situation.

If you are taking photos of your kids growing up, you may enjoy going back and improving older photos that you took when they were younger.

If you are an event photographer, there may never be a need or desire to go back and reprocess images from years ago.

.

Storage is not always trivial. I've had days where we have had grueling shoots of models in swimwear for online web sales. We have about 2 to 4 minutes for each product to shoot the model in multiple views for the Amazon listing. We use two models, so one can change while the other is being shot. We shoot in high resolution as some of the shots will be used in printed catalogs. We can easily generate over 100GB of raw files in a single day. I have no desire to go back and rework images from this sort of shoot. Storing and keeping track of all those images costs a bot more than a dime.

I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with keeping all your raw files. I am merely suggesting that different photographers are in different situations and have different needs. Some photographers really don't need to store every image forever.

Michael Fryd said:

BackToNature1 said:

Ellinor William said:

It's not the RAW images that look good, but the default processing applied to the raw images that produce a nice-looking JPG/JPEG.

All raw files require subsequent editing so, unless you want to edit your digital images, there is little point in shooting raw files. Editing raw files is a two-stage process because raw files must first be converted into an editable format (either JpeG or TIFF).

Click to expand...

Software is improving Year over Year. So why not have the best possible data saved, RAW, which one can view an or output very easily without much processing. Unless one doesn't want to spend a dime on the storage by comparison.

Click to expand...

Some people would prefer to take new photos, instead of spending time going back to re-process old photos.

But this is a matter of personal preference, and the needs of your situation.

If you are taking photos of your kids growing up, you may enjoy going back and improving older photos that you took when they were younger.

If you are an event photographer, there may never be a need or desire to go back and reprocess images from years ago.

.

Storage is not always trivial. I've had days where we have had grueling shoots of models in swimwear for online web sales. We have about 2 to 4 minutes for each product to shoot the model in multiple views for the Amazon listing. We use two models, so one can change while the other is being shot. We shoot in high resolution as some of the shots will be used in printed catalogs. We can easily generate over 100GB of raw files in a single day. I have no desire to go back and rework images from this sort of shoot. Storing and keeping track of all those images costs a bot more than a dime.

I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with keeping all your raw files. I am merely suggesting that different photographers are in different situations and have different needs. Some photographers really don't need to store every image forever.

Click to expand...

Spend a dime by comparison is an expression. I closely follow the cost of storage and I would say for most, it's really not that expensive. I tried to keep it simple as opposed to muddying the waters and trying to address every single case usage.

I can shoot well over 10GB of raw data in less than an hour in my normal early morning walkabouts . But I don't get paid a dime for doing so. So folks actually getting paid, might be able to actually find time to keep and store, everything. If that's what they actually want to do. Of course, your mileage may vary.