Why you should shoot RAW: an example

Started Feb 13, 2009 | Discussions
Bart7D
Bart7D Veteran Member • Posts: 4,459
RE: scanning

Interesting points, Barry. I assume that - besides the torture of opening wormcans - you enjoy the results of these procedures?

I'm not into negative or diap scanning, but at some point I'll have to face the hassle: in a cupboard waiting are about 800 big 6x6 diapositives I inherited from my father. Ever since he passed away relatives ask for a print from this or that event / situation / location they remember he photographed with his Rolleicord (now mine)...

Thanks -
Bart
--
x700 - 7xi - 7 - 7D - A700... two more 7s to go...

 Bart7D's gear list:Bart7D's gear list
Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Sony SLT-A77 Sony Alpha a99 Sony a77 II +22 more
WaltKnapp Forum Pro • Posts: 13,857
RE: "Silly debate..."

Bart7D wrote:

it's like Ken said: discarding RAW is throwing away half the
potential of your expensive equipment.

Ken is flat out wrong on that by a bunch of orders of magnitude. Assuming you shoot with the appropriate settings for that shot at best occasionally RAW shooters might be able to claim 0.01% or less, not 50%. For all the extra time it takes to individually process each shot. If you process your RAWs with a batch process on the same setting for all, it's probably negative on the average improvement.

Especially as RAW shooters tend to learn more and more bad shooting habits the longer they shoot RAW. Because "I can fix it in RAW"

Walt

WaltKnapp Forum Pro • Posts: 13,857
Re: Congratulations about your finding and decision

DaddyBit wrote:

The debate about RAW vs JPG has no sense. RAW is the way to go for
the serious work. Period.

And if you are shooting hundreds to thousands of shots a day in your pro work making a living at it? Then you do shoot jpeg, shot exactly right to feed the printer.

Yes the debate makes no sense, especially as it's 99% ego. Guess what I respect someone who cannot shoot quality jpegs right out of the camera and has to rely on RAW to rescue them far less. I respect the artists who shoot perfect jpegs all the time a whole lot.

In my lib I have RAWs made in early 2006. Still return to some of
them to make JPG conversion using modern sophisticated conversion
algorithms and my improved PP skills. So I am happy that I started
shooting RAW from the very first digital frame.

Fifteen years ago when I started with DSLR I shot only RAW, because that's all there was. I'm now working my way through the first ten years of my shooting converting those RAWs to a workable format while Minolta's software still works. I will not be caught like that again.

And guess what? For a good ten years before I shot DSLR I scanned slides. The scans were never RAW, but I learned in depth how to use Photoshop to improve them. The same thing works with jpegs, they do not have to be a final product out of the camera, though unlike RAW they can be. So you can archive the original jpegs too, and return to them over and over with new software toys. It's really foolish to think you cannot pp jpegs.

Walt

WaltKnapp Forum Pro • Posts: 13,857
Re: Nope...

Docno wrote:

The jpeg is Fine. See p108 of the manual.

But a preview jpeg, not a production jpeg. And that's also in your manual.

Walt

WaltKnapp Forum Pro • Posts: 13,857
Re: RAW is good but not sure about example

ledgars wrote:

You will only get the DR of your display or printer, nothing more counts as you cannot see it.

Walt

Alpha Jeff Regular Member • Posts: 187
Re: Walt

Its no use. They are obsessed with raw. I wish you luck here. I would hate to think that I had to shoot raw all the time to get my photos the way I wanted them to look.
--
Jeff.. enjoying my a700

WaltKnapp Forum Pro • Posts: 13,857
Re: Walt

Alpha Jeff wrote:

Its no use. They are obsessed with raw. I wish you luck here. I would
hate to think that I had to shoot raw all the time to get my photos
the way I wanted them to look.

I'm well aware. But it's fun to poke holes in balloons. Well, sometimes anyway. More important is to tell beginners that these guys are not telling them the whole story. I don't expect them to all follow me by any means. But if they will just think for themselves and question things....

I've been in whole pro seminars on how to shoot jpeg so you don't have to shoot raw. The results have been fantastic in those seminars and I'm gradually assimulating it all. For a pro, time is money, and one of the quick ways to cut your time spent on each shot is to shoot jpeg properly. All those pros are not there because they have time to waste. They think it's worthwhile.

I work on learning my camera, all my camera with all I paid for. Making it a box with a sensor in it, which is about all of the camera that raw shooters use is not using all the camera you paid for. And really is not learning photography either.

Walt

OP Docno Veteran Member • Posts: 4,874
Huh? What do you mean, Walt?

My comment was that the jpeg in the cRAW+jpeg setting is Fine, not standard as someone else suggested. Where does it say that the jpeg is a 'preview' rather than 'production' jpeg? What do these terms even mean?

I just took two shots. One cRAW+jpeg and one Fine jpeg. The 2 jpegs were identical in size (9.52MB). This suggests that they are being processed within camera in the same way (ie same compression). Try it yourself.

WaltKnapp wrote:

Docno wrote:

The jpeg is Fine. See p108 of the manual.

But a preview jpeg, not a production jpeg. And that's also in your
manual.

Walt

-- hide signature --

Galleries: http://picasaweb.google.com.au/glennjude
Sony A700, KM 11-18mm, CZ16-80mm, SAL70-300mm G, SAL18-250mm, 50mm F1.4

 Docno's gear list:Docno's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony RX100 IV Sony a7R II Sony 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G SSM Sony 135mm F1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* +6 more
OP Docno Veteran Member • Posts: 4,874
Re: RAW is good but not sure about example

WaltKnapp wrote:

You will only get the DR of your display or printer, nothing more
counts as you cannot see it.

Walt

But you do agree that dslrs have yet to reach the DR limits of print/display and that RAW offers better DR?

-- hide signature --

Galleries: http://picasaweb.google.com.au/glennjude
Sony A700, KM 11-18mm, CZ16-80mm, SAL70-300mm G, SAL18-250mm, 50mm F1.4

 Docno's gear list:Docno's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony RX100 IV Sony a7R II Sony 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G SSM Sony 135mm F1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* +6 more
OP Docno Veteran Member • Posts: 4,874
RE: "Silly debate..."

I'm not sure it's that simple, Walt. On my A700, I found that the RAWs batched in Bibble were perceptibly superior to in-camera jpegs, esp before the v4 firmware for that camera. Also, one of the big 'complaints' of the a900 is about the jpeg engine, especially what it does at high ISOs. I would bet -- though I haven't tried it -- that batched jpegs in a RAW converter would give you better output (also consider that Bibble, for instance, has noise-ninja built in). And don't forget, if you batch process, you can go back to tweak any conversions that didn't work out to your satisfaction (eg if there was something unusual about the photo in terms of lighting or you want to achieve a special effect).

WaltKnapp wrote:

Ken is flat out wrong on that by a bunch of orders of magnitude.
Assuming you shoot with the appropriate settings for that shot at
best occasionally RAW shooters might be able to claim 0.01% or less,
not 50%. For all the extra time it takes to individually process each
shot. If you process your RAWs with a batch process on the same
setting for all, it's probably negative on the average improvement.

Especially as RAW shooters tend to learn more and more bad shooting
habits the longer they shoot RAW. Because "I can fix it in RAW"

Walt

-- hide signature --

Galleries: http://picasaweb.google.com.au/glennjude
Sony A700, KM 11-18mm, CZ16-80mm, SAL70-300mm G, SAL18-250mm, 50mm F1.4

 Docno's gear list:Docno's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony RX100 IV Sony a7R II Sony 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G SSM Sony 135mm F1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* +6 more
OP Docno Veteran Member • Posts: 4,874
Re: Mostly agree, except...

On X-Fine vs Fine, make the comparison based on jpeg only shots.
Sony has said the Fine shot with RAW is a preview shot.

Walt

I wrote this above, but it may get lost in the thread, so I'll repeat it here:

"...Where does it say that the jpeg is a 'preview' rather than 'production' jpeg? What do these terms even mean?

I just took two shots. One cRAW+jpeg and one Fine jpeg. The 2 jpegs were identical in size (9.52MB). This suggests that they are being processed within camera in the same way (ie same compression). Try it yourself. "

-- hide signature --

Galleries: http://picasaweb.google.com.au/glennjude
Sony A700, KM 11-18mm, CZ16-80mm, SAL70-300mm G, SAL18-250mm, 50mm F1.4

 Docno's gear list:Docno's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony RX100 IV Sony a7R II Sony 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G SSM Sony 135mm F1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* +6 more
OP Docno Veteran Member • Posts: 4,874
(Walt) Re: Mostly agree, except...

As I explained elsewhere, this was a 'photo of opportunity' and I didn't luxury of set-up time or taking multiple preview shows or using intelligent preview. That said, anything you see in the in-camera jpeg can be recreated from the RAW (w the possible exception of advanced DRO). I could have spent more time playing with curves in the conversion, granted. But if I did a straight change of exposure (or exp compensation), the shadows on the wall would have disappeared, as they indeed do in the in-camera jpeg. Do you see the shadows I'm referring to?

I also want to say that I'm not a RAW zealot. I've gone back and forth from RAW to jpeg shooting over the years. My whole point with this thread was to say that I 'rediscovered' the value of RAW with this shot of the mosque. In a few months, I may be seduced by jpeg convenience (and DRO) again.

I think that the RAW example shown ruined the window compared to the
jpeg. Dark and muddy looking, where the jpeg got that far closer to
right.

The shot would have been better in jpeg with DRO+, probably about +3.
If it was metered on the window I'd suggest metering either center
weighted or full rather than just off the window. Combined with DRO+
that would get both the window and the wall "right". It might need a
1/3 stop exp comp too.

On X-Fine vs Fine, make the comparison based on jpeg only shots.
Sony has said the Fine shot with RAW is a preview shot.

Walt

-- hide signature --

Galleries: http://picasaweb.google.com.au/glennjude
Sony A700, KM 11-18mm, CZ16-80mm, SAL70-300mm G, SAL18-250mm, 50mm F1.4

 Docno's gear list:Docno's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony RX100 IV Sony a7R II Sony 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G SSM Sony 135mm F1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* +6 more
Dayo Senior Member • Posts: 2,837
Re: Rich

RichV wrote:

Dayo wrote:

I think you are missing the big picture of what I was showing.

I'm open to that being quite true! I tried having some fun with
Glenn's JPEG, and agree there's always some kind of lattitude (I'd
just rather work with RAW):

Actually, so do I. Mainly for workflow reasons where it is more convenient to use NEFs in Capture NX. I save shots originally shot as jpegs as NEFs during processing for this workflow reason.

But I don't think you'd debate that you can get more out of an
in-camera JPEG than from a RAW, would you?

No, as reading my posts in this thread will show. However, I don't buy into the "you should only use RAW" position or that the example shown is a particularly good reason for shooting RAW.

What we have is a shot straight out of the camera being compared to a post processed shot. It shows a few areas blown out which can be recovered easily as I showed. There has been some suggestion about extra shadows on walls which I can't see in the first place but assuming they are there as claimed I wouldn't pin the RAW argument on them.

Anyway, as someone has already pointed out, debating this is actually pointless. People can, and should, use whatever fits. Jpegs makes sense for many event shooters in particular and many of us "general shoot anything that catches our fancy" types as well.

-- hide signature --

http://dakanji.com

'I make statements based on fact not predictions.'
KMSEA: 12:33:17 PM, Saturday, November 12, 2005 (GMT)

dennismullen
dennismullen Veteran Member • Posts: 9,019
Real men shoot only jpg!

Well Walt, I wondered how long it would be before you showed up with your twisted logic about Raw vrs. jpg

Talking points:

If you are taking thousands of shots a day...
You are not using the tools in the camera you payed for...
If you can't get it right in the first place...
Raw will become obsolete...

-- hide signature --

You can see larger versions of my pictures at http://www.dennismullen.com .

“Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Ben Franklin.

OP Docno Veteran Member • Posts: 4,874
Dayo...

Dayo wrote:

What we have is a shot straight out of the camera being compared to a
post processed shot. It shows a few areas blown out which can be
recovered easily as I showed. There has been some suggestion about
extra shadows on walls which I can't see in the first place but
assuming they are there as claimed I wouldn't pin the RAW argument on
them.

Very strange that you cannot see the shadows that I'm referring to... Here is the same converted shot with the shadow edges outlined. Below it, for your convenience, is the converted shot with no outlines. The shadows are pretty obvious on my screen in the converted shot, but almost completely gone in the in-camera jpeg.

Let me also state that the shadows in this case are not critical for this image (I started out by saying this was just some shooting about with a new camera/lens combo, and I recognise it is not an 'artistic' shot). But if an irretrievable difference can be seen here, it will also apply to more impressive shots. -Glenn

-- hide signature --

Galleries: http://picasaweb.google.com.au/glennjude
Sony A700, KM 11-18mm, CZ16-80mm, SAL70-300mm G, SAL18-250mm, 50mm F1.4

 Docno's gear list:Docno's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony RX100 IV Sony a7R II Sony 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G SSM Sony 135mm F1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* +6 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads