POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?

Started May 1, 2014 | Polls
treedood
treedood Regular Member • Posts: 248
Re: Clearly the poll has spoken

kkardster wrote:

I tried to edit my earlier post only 2 minutes after posting it but there's not Edit option this time for some reason. I wanted to add that I'll open a new thread soliciting general batch workflows for RAW processing that RAW rookies might use to hit the ground running.

That would be an awesome "service".  I've been shooting JPG+RAW and am definitely a rookie.  I've been able to use RAW to "rescue" a few problem shots but for the vast majority, the camera JPG's look as good or better than my LR5 processed RAW's.  I'd love to be able to make LR presets that would approximate the camera processing.  Then I'd only need to mess with the ones that needed something extra.

 treedood's gear list:treedood's gear list
Canon PowerShot A590 IS Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 Adobe Photoshop Elements 10 Topaz Adjust Topaz Simplify +9 more
Erik Ohlson
Erik Ohlson Forum Pro • Posts: 18,896
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?

"Jpeg PP'd", when PP is actually  done, 2 keystrokes:

No further comment.

-- hide signature --

"Measure wealth not by things you have but by things for which you would not take money"
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ ohlsonmh@yahoo.com

sherman_levine
sherman_levine Forum Pro • Posts: 10,792
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
1

djddpr wrote:

sherman_levine wrote:

djddpr wrote:

sherman_levine wrote:

Nothing posted in this thread because the advantages are pretty much "old news" for those who (IMHO appropriately) find them useful. Here's one example.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3649040

For your properly-exposed ISO 200 images, the Raw vs JPG discussion is of course moot. Nobody's arguing that one is better than the other in that setting. Indeed, you've chosen in-camera setup values for your JPGs which minimize the camera's processing, precisely for the same reason that some of use Raw. That approach works for your images, but not for others such as the example in my link above

-- hide signature --

Sherm

Sherm,

Thank-you for responding with raw photographic evidence. I remember the thread that you reference, and I have reviewed it again. I agree that, for the exposure that you made, raw processing is obviously beneficial. My question is this: why did you make that exposure? The camera's histogram should have indicated blown-out highlights. If possible, reducing contrast via setting the camera's contrast to its minimum value might/should have resulted in fewer blown-out highs. Perhaps a jpg post-processed to restore dynamic range would then have been about equivalent to post-processing a raw file. My conclusion here is: 1. an unadjusted exposure of a too wide dynamic range is better corrected by post-processing a raw file than a unadjusted jpg. 2. there is no evidence here that a jpg file, that was adjusted to compensate for a too wide dynamic range via in-camera contrast setting plus post-processing, would be deficient to a post-processed raw file.

Thanks for looking.

David Dollevoet

Here's my explanation of the exposure issue, copied from that thread.

"Unfortunately the camera doesn't have an "Expose to keep the highlights from saturating" setting - and the dancers move around a stage of very inconstant brightness. Spot metering seems to be a good start - but even there I get a lot of overexposure. If I deliberately underexpose the set to prevent the occasional hot spots, then the images are on the average quite a bit noisier - and that matters to me."

-- hide signature --

Sherm

Sherm,

Perhaps you would re-read my response?

Of course there is no "Expose to keep highlights from saturating" setting on your camera, nor did I propose such. And your comment "If I deliberately underexpose..." is also not relevant to my response. A proper reading of my response indicates that I recommend, when dynamic range is extremely high, compensating by simply setting CAMERA CONTRAST to its minimum value and post-processing the jpg file to restore some/all of the dynamic range (standard procedure with any editing software that supports multiple transparent layers). For years I have used this procedure to good effect, as the few photos I submitted earlier indicate. And I can submit as photographic evidence hundreds or even thousands of such examples. How much photographic evidence would you like me to submit for your review? In making your decision, please be prepared to respond in kind and amount with your photographic evidence.

David Dollevoet

David,

I'm well aware of the contrast setting, as you can see from this 2007 thread using FZ18.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2124697

FWIW, I've done the same testing with FZ200, and it appears that the contrast setting is much more limited in scope - I could discern some minor differences between +2 and -2, but nowhere as large as the FZ18 effects.

Nonetheless, I do tend to keep contrast at -2, since it appears to do no harm, even though I don't expect it that it will make much difference.

Yes - of course I understood what you wrote, and I responded appropriately: I don't have the time to keep up with the changes in lighting as the dancers move rapidly across the stage, so I need to select an exposure setting which will give me the best results as often as possible. This means that some images will be overexposed, and some underexposed.  I can minimize the number of overexposed images at the cost of more noise in the group as a while, or I can minimize noise at the cost of more frequent overexposure.  Things just move too fast to achieve optimum exposure on every image.

I hope that this is informative to others.  You and I both appear to be happy with what we're doing, and I suspect that will not be changed by additional discussion.

 sherman_levine's gear list:sherman_levine's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon Coolpix P900 Panasonic FZ80/FZ82
kkardster
kkardster Veteran Member • Posts: 8,057
Re: Clearly the poll has spoken

treedood wrote:

kkardster wrote:

I tried to edit my earlier post only 2 minutes after posting it but there's not Edit option this time for some reason. I wanted to add that I'll open a new thread soliciting general batch workflows for RAW processing that RAW rookies might use to hit the ground running.

That would be an awesome "service". I've been shooting JPG+RAW and am definitely a rookie. I've been able to use RAW to "rescue" a few problem shots but for the vast majority, the camera JPG's look as good or better than my LR5 processed RAW's. I'd love to be able to make LR presets that would approximate the camera processing. Then I'd only need to mess with the ones that needed something extra.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3674101#forum-post-53715010

A workable (for me) and beneficial workflow could move me to start shooting RAW or at least RAW+JPEG for those special occasions.  I did shoot RAW+JPEG during a trip to Greece last year but never touched the RAW files. Once I have a better feel for what RAW can do for my FZ200, I might have a few that could be improved.

-- hide signature --

Bruce
You learn something new every time you press the shutter

 kkardster's gear list:kkardster's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Panasonic ZS100 +5 more
djddpr
djddpr Veteran Member • Posts: 7,068
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?

David,

Thank-you for your photographic evidence. I see noticeable differences between the jpg and raw versions: 1. There is more saturation in the post-processed raw and I suspect more natural colors as well. The jpg version appears to have a yellow color cast. 2. The jpg version is out of focus.

Overall, not a fair test. The jpg version should start with focus equivalent to the raw version -- any comparison with one version of obviously worse focus will not be fair. After equalizing on focus, the jpg version should be post-processed with equal vigor as the raw version, includeing removing the yellow color cast

You indicate: "By the way, I haven't noticed any combative RAW proponents in this thread, though there were a couple of combative posts from the "other side."" Really? I have accumulated enough figurative scars over the last 12 months to dispute your claim. For multiple reasons, please read sherman_levine's reply to my post.

I make to you the same offer that I made to Sherman Levine: I use and recommend, when dynamic range is extremely high, compensating by simply setting camera contrast to its minimum value and post-processing the jpg file to restore some/all of the dynamic range (standard procedure with any editing software that supports multiple transparent layers). For years I have used this procedure to good effect, as the few photos I submitted earlier indicate. And I can submit as photographic evidence hundreds or even thousands of such examples. How much photographic evidence would you like me to submit for your review? In making your decision, please be prepared to respond in kind and amount with your photographic evidence.

David Dollevoet

 djddpr's gear list:djddpr's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200
(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 6,192
Re: Clearly the poll has spoken

With jpeg you do not have to use the word workflow. You just copy them to your hard drive and look at them at your leisure.

Also if you are not keeping your RAW originals taking up space on the disc and backup you have to ensure your monitor is accurately calibrated and also that your saved version will print which is expensive. I have had edited images that look OK on the screen but are unprintable.

As a lazy and thoroughly disorganised person I can recommend in camera jpeg's without reservation. The thought of having to have some sort of workflow distresses me greatly.

Sunny Caribe wrote:

HOWEVER, there is one common theme that deserves to be exposed and tossed out: We continually hear people say, "Raw files are too much bother. My workflow is simple. I just import photos [with some cheap/free program], then I open them in [another cheap/free program], then I make some adjustments in [yet another cheap/free program] and, if needed, I'll use [any or all of several cheap/free plugins or standalone apps] and I'm done. Whose got time to mess with raw files???"

djddpr
djddpr Veteran Member • Posts: 7,068
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?

gardenersassistant wrote:

djddpr wrote:

Nick,

Thank-you for your JPG and RAW comparisons. To fully understand the comparisons, I must know how much post processing was performed on the JPG versions. Would you be so kind as to let me know? Thank-you.

David Dollevoet

In my first post , the out of the camera JPEG versions were sent to Lightroom, where on import the Saturation was reduced (I do this as a standard import process for SX240 images.) The only other processing applied to the those two JPEGs was reducing the Highlights as described in the post, in an attempt to recover detail from the blown areas.

In my other post :

  • The JPEG version shown on the left in first two pairs of images was also sent out of the camera to Lightroom, and Saturation reduced.
  • I seem to have posted the wrong image for the third pair - it should have shown the whole images after I tried my best to improve them (JPEG on the left, RAW on the right). However, it seems to be the same as the fourth pair, which shows 100% crops of part of the improved versions. I'm afraid I don't recall what processing I did to the JPEG version.
  • I suspect (but I'm not 100% certain) that the JPEG version shown on the left in the fifth and sixth pairs of images was once more out of the camera, with just Saturation reduced on import to Lightroom and Highlights reduced.

Nick,

Thank-you so much for your kind and vigorous response.  The data that you have provided will be valuable.

David Dollevoet

 djddpr's gear list:djddpr's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200
sherman_levine
sherman_levine Forum Pro • Posts: 10,792
Re: Clearly the poll has spoken

Greynerd wrote:

With jpeg you do not have to use the word workflow. You just copy them to your hard drive and look at them at your leisure.

.RW2 files contain a JPG (created using the in-camera settings), and you can view that directly with Irfanview, Faststone Viewer, and even (if you have the appropriate codecs installed) Windows Explorer.  No workflow needed, unless you want one.

 sherman_levine's gear list:sherman_levine's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon Coolpix P900 Panasonic FZ80/FZ82
kkardster
kkardster Veteran Member • Posts: 8,057
Re: Clearly the poll has spoken

sherman_levine wrote:

kkardster wrote:

I tried to edit my earlier post only 2 minutes after posting it but there's not Edit option this time for some reason. I wanted to add that I'll open a new thread soliciting general batch workflows for RAW processing that RAW rookies might use to hit the ground running.

-- hide signature --

Bruce
You learn something new every time you press the shutter

Yup. Gone for me also.

I've learned that DPR has changed its policy and a post can be edited until a response has been posted. That appears to include any post to the thread, not necessarily in response to the one you'd like to edit.

-- hide signature --

Bruce
You learn something new every time you press the shutter

 kkardster's gear list:kkardster's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Panasonic ZS100 +5 more
phototransformations
phototransformations Senior Member • Posts: 2,829
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
1

Erik Ohlson wrote:

"Jpeg PP'd", when PP is actually done, 2 keystrokes:

No further comment.

-- hide signature --

"Measure wealth not by things you have but by things for which you would not take money"
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ ohlsonmh@yahoo.com

Erik,

Not clear to me how your two keystrokes restored the lost detail in the trees, the water, the and the seaweed. Instead, they added sharpening artifacts. At a very reduced viewing size, that might be fine, but at 100% ... it looks awful. The RAW file (from a RAW+JPEG shot) retains all those details. No need to oversharpen to imitate them. I PP'd the JPEG to try as best I could to match the RAW file without adding artifacts from the post-processing. I couldn't match it, and neither have you.

It's fine to me that you like to shoot JPEGs with a travel zoom. I'm not arguing against that. I've looked at some of your images on Flickr and some of them are quite nice. The point of this example was to illustrate that the RAW file contains more detail than the JPEG. That's it.

David

 phototransformations's gear list:phototransformations's gear list
Samsung TL500 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +24 more
phototransformations
phototransformations Senior Member • Posts: 2,829
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?
1

djddpr wrote:

David,

Thank-you for your photographic evidence. I see noticeable differences between the jpg and raw versions: 1. There is more saturation in the post-processed raw and I suspect more natural colors as well. The jpg version appears to have a yellow color cast. 2. The jpg version is out of focus.

Overall, not a fair test. The jpg version should start with focus equivalent to the raw version -- any comparison with one version of obviously worse focus will not be fair. After equalizing on focus, the jpg version should be post-processed with equal vigor as the raw version, includeing removing the yellow color cast

You indicate: "By the way, I haven't noticed any combative RAW proponents in this thread, though there were a couple of combative posts from the "other side."" Really? I have accumulated enough figurative scars over the last 12 months to dispute your claim. For multiple reasons, please read sherman_levine's reply to my post.

I make to you the same offer that I made to Sherman Levine: I use and recommend, when dynamic range is extremely high, compensating by simply setting camera contrast to its minimum value and post-processing the jpg file to restore some/all of the dynamic range (standard procedure with any editing software that supports multiple transparent layers). For years I have used this procedure to good effect, as the few photos I submitted earlier indicate. And I can submit as photographic evidence hundreds or even thousands of such examples. How much photographic evidence would you like me to submit for your review? In making your decision, please be prepared to respond in kind and amount with your photographic evidence.

David Dollevoet

The file I posted was from a RAW+JPEG set - same exposure, focus, etc. What you are seeing as out of focus is lost detail due to the JPEG engine trying to reduce noise in this ISO 800 file. With the RAW processor, I was able to preserve detail in the bushes, trees, seaweed, and water that I could not preserve in the JPEG. That's what convinced me to "go RAW," though I also keep the JPEGs because they are often sufficient and occasionally have a quality I prefer to the RAW. As for removing color casts, etc., that's not what I was trying to test in this particular sequence; I wanted to see if there was more detail in the RAWs. There is, as others have also illustrated. In both cases, post-processing was limited to trying to get the JPEG to look as much like the RAW as I could. I could bring back the lost saturation, but not the detail.

I'm not interested in making you a RAW convert, David. We have nothing to prove to each other. I am, however, interested in seeing if your claim that simply turning down the contrast, NR, and sharpening gives as workable a file as shooting RAW does and will look into it. Perhaps in the spirit of investigation, you could also shoot a few RAW+JPEG examples of high dynamic range, high ISO images and see if your JPEGs can preserve as much of the dynamic range and fine detail as the RAW files. We might both learn something.

As for combativeness, I see that, in this thread, only from one poster. Except for that poster, this has been a relatively civilized RAW vs JPEG thread compared to others I've read on other forums.

- David

 phototransformations's gear list:phototransformations's gear list
Samsung TL500 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +24 more
phototransformations
phototransformations Senior Member • Posts: 2,829
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?

Erik Ohlson wrote:

"Jpeg PP'd", when PP is actually done, 2 keystrokes:

No further comment.

-- hide signature --

"Measure wealth not by things you have but by things for which you would not take money"
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ ohlsonmh@yahoo.com

Also unclear is what the "actually" in your comment is supposed to mean. What's the implication? And how it that helpful?

I imported the RAW, did a little processing to refine the balance of sharpening and noise, then processed the JPEG to match the RAW as closely as possible.

 phototransformations's gear list:phototransformations's gear list
Samsung TL500 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +24 more
kkardster
kkardster Veteran Member • Posts: 8,057
Re: Clearly the poll has spoken

kkardster wrote:

I've learned that DPR has changed its policy and a post can be edited until a response has been posted. That appears to include any post to the thread, not necessarily in response to the one you'd like to edit.

Also, annoyingly, if someone posts while you're carefully editing your original post to get it right, you won't be able to save your changes.

-- hide signature --

Bruce
You learn something new every time you press the shutter

 kkardster's gear list:kkardster's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Panasonic ZS100 +5 more
cainn24 Senior Member • Posts: 4,892
Re: Clearly the poll has spoken
1

sherman_levine wrote:

Greynerd wrote:

With jpeg you do not have to use the word workflow. You just copy them to your hard drive and look at them at your leisure.

.RW2 files contain a JPG (created using the in-camera settings), and you can view that directly with Irfanview, Faststone Viewer, and even (if you have the appropriate codecs installed) Windows Explorer. No workflow needed, unless you want one.

But more to the point, all of the most outspoken anti-RAW people (in this thread at least) already employ JPEG processing workflows of one sort or another, and that's what Sunny was talking about.  From the perspective being offered by Greynerd here, they are therefore exactly like RAW advocates in that their methodology also runs counter to the prevalent SOOC JPEG preference.

And some of those workflows really are ultimately more complicated than processing from RAW, which is a point you've made before and I agree with.

treedood
treedood Regular Member • Posts: 248
Re: Clearly the poll has spoken

sherman_levine wrote:

.RW2 files contain a JPG (created using the in-camera settings), and you can view that directly with Irfanview, Faststone Viewer, and even (if you have the appropriate codecs installed) Windows Explorer. No workflow needed, unless you want one.

I did not know that!  Anyone know if there is a way to view that in Lightroom?

 treedood's gear list:treedood's gear list
Canon PowerShot A590 IS Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 Adobe Photoshop Elements 10 Topaz Adjust Topaz Simplify +9 more
sherman_levine
sherman_levine Forum Pro • Posts: 10,792
Re: Clearly the poll has spoken

treedood wrote:

sherman_levine wrote:

.RW2 files contain a JPG (created using the in-camera settings), and you can view that directly with Irfanview, Faststone Viewer, and even (if you have the appropriate codecs installed) Windows Explorer. No workflow needed, unless you want one.

I did not know that! Anyone know if there is a way to view that in Lightroom?

I think you mean "Is there a way to see the thumbnail in Windows Explorer instead of some generic icon"?

If so, the most recent (July 2013 ) Windows Codecs do support FZ150.

Alternatively, this product supports a wider range of cameras, including FZ200 and FZ70

http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/codecs/panasonic-rw2-codec/

 sherman_levine's gear list:sherman_levine's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon Coolpix P900 Panasonic FZ80/FZ82
JoePhoto Veteran Member • Posts: 6,916
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?

Tom Axford wrote:

So far, only 3 people never use raw. I'm surprised there aren't more than that!

Probably a reflection of the fact that most who view/comment on this site are more "advanced" than the open public.

I would suggest that the majority of photos on FZ-200 are still jpeg's.  (albeit the RAW capability is one of the reasons I bought it)

-- hide signature --

Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto
( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )

Erik Ohlson
Erik Ohlson Forum Pro • Posts: 18,896
Re: Clearly the poll has spoken

kkardster wrote:

kkardster wrote:

I've learned that DPR has changed its policy and a post can be edited until a response has been posted. That appears to include any post to the thread, not necessarily in response to the one you'd like to edit.

Also, annoyingly, if someone posts while you're carefully editing your original post to get it right, you won't be able to save your changes.

-- hide signature --

Bruce
You learn something new every time you press the shutter

Oh, that's just WONDERFUL !

I don't know about you, but somehow I see more typos & such on the posted copy than when I try to proofread before posting.

I guess it's the old "Win some, Lose some" deal  

-- hide signature --

"Measure wealth not by things you have but by things for which you would not take money"
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ ohlsonmh@yahoo.com

kkardster
kkardster Veteran Member • Posts: 8,057
Re: POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?

JoePhoto wrote:

Tom Axford wrote:

So far, only 3 people never use raw. I'm surprised there aren't more than that!

Probably a reflection of the fact that most who view/comment on this site are more "advanced" than the open public.

I would suggest that the majority of photos on FZ-200 are still jpeg's. (albeit the RAW capability is one of the reasons I bought it)

We're also up to 27 now. Polls take time.

-- hide signature --

Bruce
You learn something new every time you press the shutter

 kkardster's gear list:kkardster's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Panasonic ZS100 +5 more
djddpr
djddpr Veteran Member • Posts: 7,068
Photographic evidence -- part 1 of 3, 2004 thru 2007

In a earlier post I indicated my intention to submit more photographic evidence.  This is part 1 of 3, 2004 thru 2007.  2004 was with a Canon G3.  2005 thru 2007 was with a Olympus C8080.  All were taken as JPG output.  All are edited.  They are among my best results for each year -- in part due to my post-processing.  See photo captions for more information.

David Dollevoet

2004-0267  Bryce National Park  High contrast scene

2004-0337  Zion National Park  High contrast scene

20050911-163904  Chicago Botanic Garden  Some blown-out highs

20051121-162218  A highway rest stop in Arizona  Some blown-out highs

20060916-154642  Chicago Botanic Garden  High contrast scene

20061128-151030  Painted Desert National Park  A few blown-out highs

20070701-153930  Chicago Botanic Garden  High contrast scene, background replaced

20070901-114732  Devil's Lake State Park, Wisconsin  Moderately high contrast scene

 djddpr's gear list:djddpr's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads