HELP! JPEG users that now shoot RAW

[TulsaGuy]

I am interested in hearing from JPEG users that have now switched to shooting in RAW only. Is the extra processing involved with RAW worth it?

I always shoot in JPEG at the highest level the camera offers and frankly, I have not been disappointed. However, the more I get into my photography hobby, the more I thinik that maybe I am missing the boat not shooting in RAW. I have two m4/3 camreras, ep1 and gf1. I understand that I can get more out of my photographs if I shoot RAW, however, since I am not that demanding, would I still be better off? As someone that is not disappointed in their JPEG shots, do you think it will be worth the extra processing effort to shoot in RAW? Am I truly MISSING THE BOAT not shooting in RAW? Please give me the scoop....

A big thanks to anyone that will share their experience in going from JPEG shooting to RAW....
--
TulsaGuy

 

[drusus]

Have you ever had a photo where the exposure or color balance were off? If so, raw increases the amount of adjustment you can make to improve the uality of those photos.

Do you take many pictures on a steady basis, or do you have time to spend adjusting pictures on your computer? (and are you curious to try it and see if you enjoy it?)

There are many sides to this debate but I think those questions can get you started in your decision. If you can afford an editing program like Aperture or Lightroom then your workflow should not suffer. I actually find Aperture much more powerful than iPhoto in terms of organization of my photos, so my workflow is better than it was when I was taking JPEGs.

My suggestion is that you download a trial version of Lightroom or Aperture (the latter is Mac only), pick a photo that is underexposed, and try making adjustments in the JPEG and RAW versions and see if you like the greater flexibility that raw gives you.

The answer is not the same for everyone, but I would never go back to jpeg.

Drusus

 

[drusus]

...one more thing: I found web posts like this one useful when I made my decision to switch from Jpeg to Raw:

http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/How_to/o_RAW_workflow/_RAW_workflow.html

drusus

 

[Iforgetwhat8was4]

Something that a lot of people probably don't realize - you can, at least with the Panasonic in-box software, Silky Pix, shoot RAW, dump it into a folder, and run Silky Pix with defaults all turned on. It does the equivalent of in camera processing, but on your PC with pleny of time to optimize the results. You will have longer in camera capture times, and have to wait on down load and processing afterwards, but you don't have to make any other efforts for, on the Pany's, noticably better results.

 

[rezaf_2000]

Yes, went from an absolute JPEG shooter (used to love the "Oly colors" right out of my E-P1) to a complete RAW shooter. Actually what made me switch was lightroom 3. Once you see what can be done with it from RAW, and the fact that the very same things don't work with a JPEG file quite as well, you'll be sold as well.

I'm still wrestling with some things lightroom assumes in its workflow that I wasn't used to, but it's still worth it.

 

[mh2000]

In good light, with good exposure and good WB, there won't be that much difference IMO (the camera is just using it's own raw converter with its own presets... sometimes it has to be right, right?), but with less than perfect exposure, WB or noise levels, being able to do the adjustments yourself using the full data is beneficial...

I mostly shoot raw, but go through stints of shooting jpeg... as a challenge? I don't know, but I always go back to raw... but good technique with jpeg output can turn out excellent photos too...

 

[Landscapephoto99]

I like shooting RAW just because I want the best IQ possible given a particular shot and a good program like Lightroom helps me do that with RAW files. As others have pointed out, you also need a little time and interest in tinkering with files on the PC or MAC. It's not hard, but it does require some investment of time.

 

[Ravncat]

I made the switch, and this is how I did it.

I shot raw+jpg for awhile.

Discovered that with processing, I could not make my JPGs processing look better than my RAW processing. With raw being always equal or better, for my shots and my processing - there wasn't any reason to continue with jpg.

Having learned more and more about raw workflow, processing and tools - I wouldn't ever give up raw. unless I was doing something where I needed a whole lot of images and had no or very little time to process.
--
A poor photographer blames his tools.

 

[Ray Sachs]

I never thought the "extra processing" would be worth it until I realized there's really no "extra processing" involved. With jpegs I imported my files into Iphoto and then Aperture and there it was and there were some small things I could do to tweak it, but not a whole lot. With RAW, I import my files into Aperture, it automatically processes them based on a preset group of settings developed for my camera and I have essentially the same thing I had before in terms of a bunch of photos that look about the same as the jpegs would have. The huge difference being that now there's a world of possibilities open to me for tweaking, changing white balance, chaning color saturation by channel, converting to B&W using any one of many B&W film presets, recovering highlights and pulling up shadows to an extent that will shock you at first, etc.

If it was extra work, I might or might not do it. But to get to essentially the same starting point, there's no "extra processing" involved, other than what the program does automatically on input, which may take a few seconds longer, but that's the only penalty. Any work I do beyond that is purely optional, but being an old darkroom hound, I tend to do some of it, particularly because I prefer B&W to color for most of my work and the tools for converting and manipulating leave the darkroom in the, well, dark ages.

I'm sure Lightroom and other programs are capable of the same type of workflow - Aperture is what I've used and its dead simple.

-Ray

 

[Pesitalia]

I own a GF-1 since several months and started to save Raw+Jpg until I realized that raw pictures processed with LR3 are always superior to jpg ones, beside any tweaking you may want to do:

• color balance is more accurate and realistic especiially in the green/blu balance
• more detalis are captured at pixel level and you actually get sharper images
• you get better dynamic range
• at ISO 800 and above noise reduction using LR3 or specific software like Neat Image is much more efficient than in camera NR processing

So no doubt for me

 

[drusus]

I never thought the "extra processing" would be worth it until I realized there's really no "extra processing" involved. With jpegs I imported my files into Iphoto and then Aperture and there it was and there were some small things I could do to tweak it, but not a whole lot. With RAW, I import my files into Aperture, it automatically processes them based on a preset group of settings developed for my camera and I have essentially the same thing I had before in terms of a bunch of photos that look about the same as the jpegs would have. The huge difference being that now there's a world of possibilities open to me for tweaking, changing white balance, chaning color saturation by channel, converting to B&W using any one of many B&W film presets, recovering highlights and pulling up shadows to an extent that will shock you at first, etc.

If it was extra work, I might or might not do it. But to get to essentially the same starting point, there's no "extra processing" involved, other than what the program does automatically on input, which may take a few seconds longer, but that's the only penalty. Any work I do beyond that is purely optional, but being an old darkroom hound, I tend to do some of it, particularly because I prefer B&W to color for most of my work and the tools for converting and manipulating leave the darkroom in the, well, dark ages.

I'm sure Lightroom and other programs are capable of the same type of workflow - Aperture is what I've used and its dead simple.

-Ray

The same goes for me: processing raw photos is no extra work than what I used to do with JPEGs. There's also one aspect of the workflow that is superior when using powerful programs like Aperture/Lightroom: the changes are entirely and quickly reversible, because they are not applied to the picture file itself (there is a phrase for that which I can't recall). This makes editing much more fun: you can adjust various sliders and then click to quickly alternate between the original and either a single change you just made or all of them at once. It becomes much more rewarding to be able to explore various possible changes without having to commit to them the moment you try them out. This also lets you create different version of the same photo, each with different adjustments (e.g., one in B&W and one in color). All these things can be done in JPEG too, but with less range for the adjustments you can make.

On the more philosophical side, let me chip in with a comment I have seen elsewhere. The distinction between controlling camera settings and post-processing may be more artificial than some purists make it out to be. It's possible to regard the entire photographic process as using machines to capture something visual. Some of the control happens at the time of shooting, and some can happen at the time of "development". A correct white balance, for example, looks the same whether the setting was chosen correctly in camera or adjusted later. So it is possible to regard using RAW and spending time post-processing as a natural part of photography. Assuming, of course, that you are not restricted by having to generate very many photos in little time.

Drusus

 

[mpgxsvcd]

I used to only shoot jpg photos until I decided to give RAW a try. I tried LR3 at first. It is definitely the best program for processing RAW images. Its noise reduction algorithm is light years ahead of everything else.

That being said, I just could not figure out how to process the images quickly with it. It ran extremely slowly on my older computer and it just doesn’t have an intuitive layout. I almost gave up on RAW and went back to .jpg.

Then I discovered a program called ACDSEE PRO. It allows me to do any of the RAW processing I want but it has a simple thumbnail viewer layout that just works better for me.

The bottom line comes down to how much time are you willing to spend on the images before they are in a state where you can post them? If you are expecting to be able to import the images and magically every image will be optimized and ready to upload then I am afraid that won’t happen.

If you have the money and you are able to efficiently use LR3 then that can be a great option if you are willing to put some time in.

If you don’t want to spend hundreds of dollars on a RAW program then give the trial version of ACDSEE a try. I really think it is the best option for those people that want a simple interface but they still want to get better results than in camera.

http://www.acdsee.com/

--
GF1 & ZS3 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
http://vimeo.com/user442745
GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums

 

[photoSmart42]

Once you have a workflow developed for working with RAW files, it's no different than working with JPEGs and you get the higher quality images out of it. If you don't touch your JPEGs at all now, then yes it will be some extra time to learn a good workflow that works for you.

I'd say if you're happy with the JPEGs, then I wouldn't worry about it. You're probably not taking any demanding photos that require additional processing for printing, publishing, etc. JPEGs are fine for most of what users do with these cameras (they'd probably be fine with a fixed zoom or P&S for the most part actually). If you want, at least save your photos as both JPEG and RAW so you have the option later to work with the RAW on some photos you really like. Think of RAW like film negatives, and JPEGs like the printed photos.

 

[Richard Weisgrau]

I switched from Jpeg to Raw in 2004 after doing enough research to determine it to be a worthwhile switch. At first I shot RAW + Jpeg files to see if my processing was consistently better than the cameras. It was. I switched to RAW only in 2005, I have no regrets.

--
Richard Weisgrau
http://www.weisgrau.com
Author of
The Real Business of Photography
The Photographer's Guide to Negotiating
Selling Your Photography
Licensing Photography

 

[Adventsam]

This is amazing for both jpeg and raw and especially good for getting rid of the Panasonic colour noise that sometimes spoils the jpegs.

Honestly, I shoot raw+jpg and I can tell you the detail in the raw file is impressive, however getting a good colour profile can be a "pita" and in many instances the jpeg looks better as an image from a starting point. However, you can tweak a raw image a whole lot more, question is do you want to?

 

[kensim]

This is exactly the info I needed. I have a GF1 & a G1 and using Elements I can see that I can improve most of my pictures with some processing, and now I'm going to experiment with RAW. Now for the stupid newbie question - Once you've processed a RAW photo, do you save it as a jpeg?

 

[JudyN]

I still shoot jpg most of the time. It's not the workflow that keeps me from shooting raw all the time because with LR it doesn't matter which you have. I think it is these two things:

1) I am concerned that any particular variety of RAW files will not be readable in the future. We know jpgs will, or if they won't, everyone will know it. However "old" raw formats are dropped by modern software (TRUE!) and will I know? I doubt it. So I won't even KNOW when I need to go back and convert my raw files to something else.

So I think, hum, maybe I should convert to DNG. DNG hasn't been as widely accepted as I had hoped. Plus I don't like the fact that DNG files are modified like jpgs are -- metadata is stored in the file not a sidecar. To me that is a down side of jpgs. I know the image data isn't modified, but I don't like the frequent rewriting of files.

2) Disk space. Yes, disk is cheap but I take a lot of pictures.

3) Actually, it does affect my workflow. I merge GPS data with my files before loading them into LR. RAW files in the mix make that a bit more complicated, but I think I have that worked out now. To load into LR and have it see the data, I have to create sidecars and have my GPS merger program write to the sidecars for the RAW files. I also munge some other metadata -- making lens information correct and the same for both cameras for the same lens and deleting the nasty caption that Olympus insists on putting in the metadata and LR doesn't handle gracefully.

There are very few cases where I see a difference in RAW and JPG results and yes, I have looked. I know one situation where I could not get the same thing out of the jpgs as the RAW but it was just that particular environment/color and I didn't see it in other situations. I think one issue is with an EVF we are unlikely to get our exposures as bad as with a SLR's OVF. Of course, with a large dynamic range, theoretically you get more out of raw, but I just haven't seen it that much...

So I'm still on the fence here and mostly shoot jpg. If I shoot raw, I shoot raw plus high quality jpg and throw away the raw of most of the images, keeping the raw only for the best ones in case some day I'd like to use it... but keeping the jpg as well...

--
Judy
http://nichollsphoto.com/

 

[TulsaGuy]

Very Interesting and worthwhile to hear from fellow hobbiests about their experience in going from JPEG to RAW. At this point, it makes since to try RAW and really see how it actually measures up and determine its actual reward for myself.

Two years from now, I don't want to find out that I have made a mistake all this time and not shot my pictures in RAW. Perhaps, shooting in both is the way to go and saving the RAW file like a "film negative" is prudent.

Thanks again to all that responded...
--
TulsaGuy

 

[drusus]

This is exactly the info I needed. I have a GF1 & a G1 and using Elements I can see that I can improve most of my pictures with some processing, and now I'm going to experiment with RAW. Now for the stupid newbie question - Once you've processed a RAW photo, do you save it as a jpeg?

My photos stay in RAW format within an Aperture library. When I save individual photos for emailing or for posting, those are converted to JPEG at that time.

To address the concern about possible future obsolescence of my camera's RAW format, I have started doing the following. Every few weeks, I export all or a subset of my photos to JPEG. Aperture gives you the option to export a large group of photos into folders that reflect the name and structure of the "projects" in the library. The result is a set of folder that have the basic organization of my photos but all in JPEG format. I then move these to an external portable drive. The process takes several hours (depending on whether I re-export all the photos or just a subset) so I let my computer do this at night or in the background while I do someting else. So if someday I suddenly cannot read my RAW files, I'll have these JPEGs.

This also accomplishes another goal, i.e. to have a version of my photos available for viewing on another computer at home (with a bigger screen than my laptop) and so that my wife can look through them too. It also serves as a second backup (besides the regular backup of the RAW photos) of my photos.

 

[Charles2]

Let's face it, Adobe products are expensive. I tried some free programs. Raw Therapee was promising, but I spent just under US$100 for Picture Window Pro. It's been great.

I can make much better images from the RAW than the camera JPG (an Olympus E-P1). Once in awhile I can't, so I use the manufacturer's software to make a TIF full-data image that matches the parameters of the JPG, open the TIF in PWP and make it still better.