Reading mode: Light Dark

For those who still don't believe in RAW...

Go to last post
The ability adjust WB and exposure with a slider and its quick.

M
Mark Gillett said:
The extracted jpeg is axactly the same as a jpeg taken out of RAW
mode and will have all the compression of a normal jpeg.

Have I missed the plot somewhere?

MArk
Zack Schildhorn said:
I've been following these forums for a while, and recently made the
switch over to shooting in RAW mode. I am extremely satisfied with
the results. The ability to tweak exposure and select white balance
out-of-camera makes a world of difference. Post processing for
saturation and sharpening always yields better results than what
comes straight from the camera.
Below is an example of just how much a difference shooting RAW and
doing a little post-processing work can make.

Extracted JPEG, straight from camera (saturation: 0, sharpness: 0,
AWB)



Post-processed (Fred Miranda 10DLPbatch profile, PS levels, unsharp
mask)



I took this photo a few days ago.
You can see a bunch more shots I've taken at Cornell here:
http://www.pbase.com/chill105/cornell/

Enjoy!
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/markgillett
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/markgillett
 
Exactly. If I adjust exposure, I just use one slider instead of
correcting JPGs histogram, gamma and colour saturation. WB is
simple too.

Marko
Mark Gillett said:
M
Mark Gillett said:
The extracted jpeg is axactly the same as a jpeg taken out of RAW
mode and will have all the compression of a normal jpeg.

Have I missed the plot somewhere?

MArk
Zack Schildhorn said:
I've been following these forums for a while, and recently made the
switch over to shooting in RAW mode. I am extremely satisfied with
the results. The ability to tweak exposure and select white balance
out-of-camera makes a world of difference. Post processing for
saturation and sharpening always yields better results than what
comes straight from the camera.
Below is an example of just how much a difference shooting RAW and
doing a little post-processing work can make.

Extracted JPEG, straight from camera (saturation: 0, sharpness: 0,
AWB)



Post-processed (Fred Miranda 10DLPbatch profile, PS levels, unsharp
mask)



I took this photo a few days ago.
You can see a bunch more shots I've taken at Cornell here:
http://www.pbase.com/chill105/cornell/

Enjoy!
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/markgillett
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/markgillett
Click to expand...
 
Mark Gillett said:
Mark Gillett wrote:
Have I missed the plot somewhere?

MArk
Click to expand...
Mark Gillett said:
Mark Gillett said:
Zack Schildhorn wrote:
Below is an example of just how much a difference shooting RAW and
doing a little post-processing work can make.

Extracted JPEG, straight from camera (saturation: 0, sharpness: 0,
AWB)
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/chill105/preprocess.jpg

Post-processed (Fred Miranda 10DLPbatch profile, PS levels, unsharp
mask)
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/chill105/postprocess.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I read that to mean the first image is the extracted .jpg.

The second is the processed RAW image.

--
Clicker
 
I don't think Todd's example can be compaired to the original since he edited a heavily compressed web JPEG, not a high quality JPEG from the camera. Those artifacts would not be nearly as prevalent if he edited the original JPEG.

That said, I still think RAW is a far superior starting point for post processing, which all DSLR images need in order to achieve their full potential IMO. I, nor the camera, ever get the shot exactly right at the time of capture and I'm glad I have RAW to get me where I want to go with minimal loss of quality and maximal flexibility.

Michael
Tim C. said:
I'll have to agree with you.

Not only I see your point, but I also saw some color cast (or
blending/shifting?) in the trees.

Tim C.
Click to expand...
--
Equipment list in my profile
http://www.morpheusmultimedia.com/gallery
 
You should post-process the JPEG as well.

That being said I shoot exclusively in raw for the following reasons:

1. More dynamic range. This is a biggy. You get 12-bits per color with raw and only 8 with JPEG. I do a lot of landscape stuff and the dynamic range will easily overwhelm JPEG when there is water and sky etc.

2. No need to worry about correct WB. I just leave it on auto and snap away. Then I adjust it later.

3. Few artifacts and less noise after sharpening. I do all my processing at 16-bits whenever possible. Sharpening an 8-bit file creates a lot more noise than 16-bit.

4. More leeway during post-processing. Those 4 bits that get tossed away in JPEG contain a lot of information. If your exposure isn't perfect (and admit it, sometimes we make exposure mistakes) then you have more room to push and recover.

Yes, it takes a lot more storage space but storage is cheap. I've got an 80-gig hard-disk and a DVD writer for backup that I use for my files. They practically give these away now.

CC
 
. I just want to show that RAW isn't necessary to rescue a bad
Todd Walker said:
image. This one was just underexposed and needed a little work. I
have found that RAW is great for correcting a wrong WB setting or
for pulling detail out of highlights. Other than that, it's just a
waste of space on your memory card for most types of shots
Click to expand...
I also believe Raw has become somewhat of a faith-based religion complete with a minority of fanatics. It is not magic. nevertheless the two advantages you mention are enough for me to always shoot in RAW, the WB issue itself is enough. many of us forget or dont want to bother with figuring out WB, for each shot, setting custom WB over and over. and although minor problems with WB can be fixed in PS, terrible casts like shooting flash with a tungten setting are nearly impossible to get good fix in PS (often resulting in a destroyed blue channel), but very easy and clean with RAW conversion.

in addition, unless you have PS CS, much of PS7's power is limited to 8bit mode, which causes posterization and other degradation that doesnt occur in RAW conversion, and becomes a problem when printing heavily cropped or enlarged images.

feivel
 
Hard drives and DVD's are going down in price, but 2Gig flash cards are still kinda up there; not to mention having so much on one vehicle. Same goes for the digital wallet, they just seem to be too iffy to me even though I do have the SuperDigibin. It hasn't let me down yet, but I can't seem to shake the jitters I get everytime I use it!
To each thier own,
Michael
Cliff Chase said:
You should post-process the JPEG as well.

That being said I shoot exclusively in raw for the following reasons:

1. More dynamic range. This is a biggy. You get 12-bits per color
with raw and only 8 with JPEG. I do a lot of landscape stuff and
the dynamic range will easily overwhelm JPEG when there is water
and sky etc.

2. No need to worry about correct WB. I just leave it on auto and
snap away. Then I adjust it later.

3. Few artifacts and less noise after sharpening. I do all my
processing at 16-bits whenever possible. Sharpening an 8-bit file
creates a lot more noise than 16-bit.

4. More leeway during post-processing. Those 4 bits that get
tossed away in JPEG contain a lot of information. If your exposure
isn't perfect (and admit it, sometimes we make exposure mistakes)
then you have more room to push and recover.

Yes, it takes a lot more storage space but storage is cheap. I've
got an 80-gig hard-disk and a DVD writer for backup that I use for
my files. They practically give these away now.

CC
Click to expand...
 
I see what you mean but the FredMiranda patch os a photoshop action. I understood the second pic to be the action he ran on the first. I am obviously wrong but that;'s how I saw it. It would have helped if he had left it as a CRW filename so we could see that it was a RAW pic not a jpeg processed.

M
Clicker said:
Clicker said:
Mark Gillett wrote:
Have I missed the plot somewhere?

MArk
Click to expand...
Clicker said:
Clicker said:
Zack Schildhorn wrote:
Below is an example of just how much a difference shooting RAW and
doing a little post-processing work can make.

Extracted JPEG, straight from camera (saturation: 0, sharpness: 0,
AWB)
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/chill105/preprocess.jpg

Post-processed (Fred Miranda 10DLPbatch profile, PS levels, unsharp
mask)
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/chill105/postprocess.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I read that to mean the first image is the extracted .jpg.

The second is the processed RAW image.

--
Clicker
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/markgillett
 
if he did the EXACT post processing on the JPEG as he did to the Raw and let us compare the difference. Comparing the Processed Raw with UNprocessed JPEG doesn't seem fair.
Michael
Mark Gillett said:
M
Clicker said:
Mark Gillett said:
Mark Gillett wrote:
Have I missed the plot somewhere?

MArk
Click to expand...
Mark Gillett said:
Mark Gillett said:
Zack Schildhorn wrote:
Below is an example of just how much a difference shooting RAW and
doing a little post-processing work can make.

Extracted JPEG, straight from camera (saturation: 0, sharpness: 0,
AWB)
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/chill105/preprocess.jpg

Post-processed (Fred Miranda 10DLPbatch profile, PS levels, unsharp
mask)
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/chill105/postprocess.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I read that to mean the first image is the extracted .jpg.

The second is the processed RAW image.

--
Clicker
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/markgillett
Click to expand...
 
--
RAW files exist, I have seen them, therefore I believe.

However I don't use them often - overheads in time too much for the increase in quality for 95% of the jobs I do.

Paul
 
Many have commented, but I haven't seen what I think is the best feature of shooting RAW, and that's blended exposures. With RAW, I can process the same capture, with one version to keep nice detail in the shadows, and the other to keep detail in the highlights, and then blend them later in PS. This approximates, or maybe exceeds, the dynamic range of color negative film.

To be sure, there's not a LOT of scenes where the dynamic range exceeds what I can capture with one exposure, but it DOES happen from time to time.

The other benefits already mention, do help also, such as the 12-bit/8-bit fact, but these I have to admit are of secondary importance to me.

My .02........

Mark
 
I guess Tim C. already mentioned this. Smart guy, that Tim C.

Mark
MarkMcCombs said:
Many have commented, but I haven't seen what I think is the best
feature of shooting RAW, and that's blended exposures. With RAW, I
can process the same capture, with one version to keep nice detail
in the shadows, and the other to keep detail in the highlights, and
then blend them later in PS. This approximates, or maybe exceeds,
the dynamic range of color negative film.

To be sure, there's not a LOT of scenes where the dynamic range
exceeds what I can capture with one exposure, but it DOES happen
from time to time.

The other benefits already mention, do help also, such as the
12-bit/8-bit fact, but these I have to admit are of secondary
importance to me.

My .02........

Mark
Click to expand...
 
cant give you any proof
but i believe this is a very common misconception about raw

just because you call the darker and lighter conversions "exposures" doesnt make them different exposures.i believe there is some optimistic self-delusion here

there are advantages to raw over jpeg (i always shoot in raw) but the dynamic range is essentially the same

you can take a high res jpeg, make a lighter and a darker image from it and combine them and get just the same results as with raw (with perhaps a touch of almost nil jpeg artifacts)
this has been done in this forum and more than once in the retouching forum

some people claimed they could tell the difference (and still admitted it was minimal) i couldnt see any difference
 
Agree, all objective data demonstrate a negligible increase in dynamic range.

The real question is what is the cost benefit ratio of RAW vs JPEG? I belive that when this is factored into the decision that the scales are tipped HEAVILY in favor of JPEG. But, to each his own.

Whenever I attempt to operate at the edge of the curve, in ANY endeavor, I've rarely discovered that the effort is justified.
feivel said:
cant give you any proof
but i believe this is a very common misconception about raw
just because you call the darker and lighter conversions
"exposures" doesnt make them different exposures.i believe there is
some optimistic self-delusion here
there are advantages to raw over jpeg (i always shoot in raw) but
the dynamic range is essentially the same
you can take a high res jpeg, make a lighter and a darker image
from it and combine them and get just the same results as with raw
(with perhaps a touch of almost nil jpeg artifacts)
this has been done in this forum and more than once in the
retouching forum
some people claimed they could tell the difference (and still
admitted it was minimal) i couldnt see any difference
Click to expand...
 
bobtyrell said:
Agree, all objective data demonstrate a negligible increase in
dynamic range.

The real question is what is the cost benefit ratio of RAW vs JPEG?
I belive that when this is factored into the decision that the
scales are tipped HEAVILY in favor of JPEG. But, to each his own.

Whenever I attempt to operate at the edge of the curve, in ANY
endeavor, I've rarely discovered that the effort is justified.
Click to expand...
i find the same is true for me

however since i am constantly forgetting to set my WB, and im not always happy with AWB, i use raw, also the adobe conversion process is really nice and i find i dont need any further adjustments in PS other than fooling around
 
DonP.2 said:
How big is the RAW file for a 10D ?
Click to expand...
I have 14,185 10D RAW files here. The smallest is 1,988 KB, and the largest is 14,027 KB. The mean is 8,415 KB, and the median is 8,195 KB.

Most of those are with the highest quality JPEG embedded. The biggest ones are ISO 3200 and a detailed scene; the smallest ones are "overexposed", washed-out images at ISO 100 with the small JPEG embedded.

--
John
 
Cliff Chase said:
4. More leeway during post-processing. Those 4 bits that get
tossed away in JPEG contain a lot of information. If your exposure
isn't perfect (and admit it, sometimes we make exposure mistakes)
then you have more room to push and recover.
Click to expand...
Not only does RAW have more precision, but it has a greater dynamic range, as well. Shooting a JPEG with normal contrast, and daylight white balance, the 10D maps only the lowest 1400 levels or so of the 4096 levels recorded in the red channel to the 256 levels in the JPEG. The green channel uses about 2000, and the blue channel uses about 2100.

Any levels above these are clipped and become 255 in the JPEG

--
John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top