How Important is Shooting in Raw?

[Newbie444]

I am so annoyed shooting in Raw. I don't even know what it does, to be honest. I think it makes editing a lot easier? I just find shooting in Raw is more of an annoyance than a help, because I have to convert to a jpg. anyway, because barely anything is compatible with Raw, I find. So should I just not shoot in Raw?

 

[Michael Fryd]

go ahead and shoot RAW+JPEG

Why are you advocating underexposing raw?

 

[Xasan]

Does changing the WB setting on the camera change the WB preconditioning in any way?

That depends. Adobe recommend to do so, but I never saw Nikon changing those values depending on white balance.

Then, if I'm reading this right, it might well depend on which Raw converter is being used.

Yes. That's why some manufacturers have decided to apply calibration directly, in the camera, to RAW data.

However I never payed much attention to that. With other brands, like Canon, the correction factors depend mostly on the sensor temperature - but Canon do not apply those to raw, they have those in metadata. Actually, this whole thing is a huge topic in itself.

Yes, tangential to the topic at hand, and a proverbial can of worms.

 

[Mark_A]

shoot raw + jpeg

JPEGs are to be exposed for brightness, raws - for, well, dynamic range. You nearly never can have both right with the same exposure

Hi Iliah,

I am used to exposing for jpeg where I usually try to ensure that the brightest part of the image is within the camera's capabilities. What do you recommend I do differently when shooting raw?

Mark_A

Thread for Sunrise & Sunset pictures (part 3!)

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60273364

 

[Marty4650]

There are advantages in shooting jpeg and they are that you have to get into properly exposing your photographs because you have less leeway to edit them in post. I shot jpeg for many years and became quite comfortable with it and with the amount of editing they do permit.

I was also in a camera club and entered lots of images into competitions and never in the years of doing this did anyone say - that would have been better had you shot raw. They simply couldn't tell the difference.

On the other hand, if you want the max from your photography shoot raw and edit your images to maximise your output, you will have the greatest potential to adjust your images and will be getting the most out of your equipment.

Best, shoot raw + jpeg and have the flexibility to chose, if you have the storage space.

.... and storage space is pretty much a non issue today.

Today you can buy a 4TB remote hard drive for $99 . That is enough to hold around a million photos.

Which is more than I could shoot in ten lifetimes.

 

[Mark_A]

There are advantages in shooting jpeg and they are that you have to get into properly exposing your photographs because you have less leeway to edit them in post. I shot jpeg for many years and became quite comfortable with it and with the amount of editing they do permit.

I was also in a camera club and entered lots of images into competitions and never in the years of doing this did anyone say - that would have been better had you shot raw. They simply couldn't tell the difference.

On the other hand, if you want the max from your photography shoot raw and edit your images to maximise your output, you will have the greatest potential to adjust your images and will be getting the most out of your equipment.

Best, shoot raw + jpeg and have the flexibility to chose, if you have the storage space.

.... and storage space is pretty much a non issue today.

Today you can buy a 4TB remote hard drive for $99 . That is enough to hold around a million photos.

Which is more than I could shoot in ten lifetimes.

Wow Marty, 4TB, that is something

I am going to have to look at my equipment throughout now that I have a more modern camera. I need bigger memory cards, more ram (well I probably need a new PC) and I need some bigger hard drives but I think 2x 1tb would probably see me ok for a while.

I would like a backup USB HD. Don't know is my current PC has USB3 ports though.

Did you buy one of those 4tb ones?

Mark_A

Thread for Sunrise & Sunset pictures (part 3!)

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60273364

 

[Michael Fryd]

...

.... and storage space is pretty much a non issue today.

Today you can buy a 4TB remote hard drive for $99 . That is enough to hold around a million photos.

Which is more than I could shoot in ten lifetimes.

-

It depends on what kind of image files you are storing. RAW files from my camera are around 60MB. JPEGs are around 10MB.

If my math is correct, that's about 16 RAW files per GB, or 16,000 per TB. That's only 64,000 on a 4TB drive.

A long day of shooting can easily generate over 100GB of image data.

While drive capacity is going up, so is file size.

 

[Marty4650]

Wow Marty, 4TB, that is something

I am going to have to look at my equipment throughout now that I have a more modern camera. I need bigger memory cards, more ram (well I probably need a new PC) and I need some bigger hard drives but I think 2x 1tb would probably see me ok for a while.

I would like a backup USB HD. Don't know is my current PC has USB3 ports though.

Did you buy one of those 4tb ones?

I currently use a Western Digital MyBook which holds 1TB. And it is around 75% full, so I will probably replace it someday with a drive with a larger capacity.

Incidentally, it is REALLY simple to move files from an old external drive to a new external drive. You just plug both into your computer, and copy from one to paste to the other.

I paid around $149 for that 1TB drive several years ago, so you can see how prices have fallen since you can get 4TB for $99 today. Next time, I may splurge and go for a solid state drive (SSD) since they produce no heat and are very reliable. They have no moving parts, and are pretty much a "huge memory card" that uses flash memory rather than a spinning disk.

I see Amazon has a 4TB SSD external hard drive selling for $195. So, while more expensive these really aren't priced out of my budget.

--
Marty

http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132

Favorites

Explore this photo album by Marty4650 on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/

 

[Mark_A]

It depends on what kind of image files you are storing. RAW files from my camera are around 60MB. JPEGs are around 10MB.

If my math is correct, that's about 16 RAW files per GB, or 16,000 per TB. That's only 64,000 on a 4TB drive.

A long day of shooting can easily generate over 100GB of image data.

While drive capacity is going up, so is file size.

Yes, I am only now coming to terms with the file sizes on my just bought D800. A full size medium jpeg is 10mb, a 12 bit compressed raw is 30mb and 14bit uncompressed raw is 70mb.

On my last camera a jpeg was 2.4mb and a raw 13mb

Some difference I am having to get used to it.

Mark_A

Thread for Sunrise & Sunset pictures (part 3!)

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60273364

 

[Iliah Borg]

go ahead and shoot RAW+JPEG

Why are you advocating underexposing raw?

Are you suggesting that there are no situations where it is appropriate to shoot JPEG, or RAW+JPEG?

Are you suggesting that in all situations underexposing raw is good? Because above you said "go ahead and shoot RAW+JPEG".

I am not suggesting which of the above is "best"

"go ahead and shoot RAW+JPEG" - your words, right above.

Obviously, someone who writes RAW processing software will most likely want to shoot RAW.

Obviously, I first started shooting raw, before starting to write raw processing software.

Obviously, you don't know my reasons to shoot raw.

 

[Iliah Borg]

I am used to exposing for jpeg where I usually try to ensure that the brightest part of the image is within the camera's capabilities. What do you recommend I do differently when shooting raw?

Here is one of the ways:

One Way to Get Spot-On Exposure for Your Shots

Practically every day, one can see threads on photographic forums where members discuss the various different modes of automatic exposure, trying to find the right one. As a rule, these discussions result in the same question – what compensation to automatic metering ought one set to get...

www.fastrawviewer.com

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

You can also shoot in jpeg but if you are prone to blowing the highlights they will be less easy to rectify in post.

This is wrong. Blown highlights are always impossible to recover - that's what being blown means.

If you expose to avoid blowing highlights there's nothing to rectify; if you don't the blown highlights can't be rectified.

What I suspect you are getting at is that when a shot is near to having blown highlights the in-camera conversion to JPG may throw away some of the dynamic range and show blown highlights in the output. But that's a different matter and is why raw and JPG need different exposures to avoid blowing

Well I am new to blinkies but I can see they are a big advantage when checking shots, I gather there are also zebras which might be even more helpful.

They are, but remember they are based on the camera's JPG conversion. In other words, if you shoot raw and completely eliminate blinkies on the review screen you are wasting some DR (usually 1/3-2/3EV but it depends on many things).

Zebras do exactly the same thing so in themselves they are neither more nor less helpful. DSLRs can't show live clipping warnings in the viewfinder, of course, but in live view blinkies/zebras are just two ways of presenting the same information.

Personally, I have a big problem with zebras in the viewfinder. It is this: the stripes are a fixed pattern of stripes on the sensor that shows in areas where highlights are blown. As long as the camera is held steady that's OK but as soon as the camera moves the scene moves with it.

The result is that while the zebras are fixed they appear to move relative to the scene: this gives a flickering effect that - to me, at least - is like stroboscopic light. That makes me feel slightly sick, so that in practice I can't use EVF zebras.

Anyhow sometimes I think it is appropriate to blow the highlights, if the range is just too much or you want to show the brightness of something .... I don't get too stressed about it and for example a lot of my recent images have been landscapes under an overcast sky and the dynamic range is quite low, easily within what the camera can deal with and something I adjust for in levels afterwards, creating an image that actually wasn't there.

That's fair enough but choosing to blow highlights is a different topic from the idea that blown highlights can be recovered.

 

[Mark_A]

I am used to exposing for jpeg where I usually try to ensure that the brightest part of the image is within the camera's capabilities. What do you recommend I do differently when shooting raw?

Here is one of the ways:

https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/spot-meter-exposur

Doesn't seem much different from me using spot metering in manual except spot in manual is probably quicker.

Mark_A

Thread for Sunrise & Sunset pictures (part 3!)

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60273364

 

[Iliah Borg]

I am used to exposing for jpeg where I usually try to ensure that the brightest part of the image is within the camera's capabilities. What do you recommend I do differently when shooting raw?

Here is one of the ways:

https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/spot-meter-exposur

Doesn't seem much different from me using spot metering in manual except spot in manual is probably quicker.

When you shoot JPEGs, what is your target for spot-metering? How do you calculate exposure compensation?

 

[Mark_A]

I am used to exposing for jpeg where I usually try to ensure that the brightest part of the image is within the camera's capabilities. What do you recommend I do differently when shooting raw?

Here is one of the ways:

https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/spot-meter-exposur

Doesn't seem much different from me using spot metering in manual except spot in manual is probably quicker.

When you shoot JPEGs, what is your target for spot-metering? How do you calculate exposure compensation

When I shoot manual I usually spot meter on the brightest part of the image and set fstop and shutterspeed so that that part of the image is bright on the meter, often about as bright as I feel my camera can retain detail.

Because I am setting the exposure that way exposure compensation does not really come into it. And it is quite a quick process, place the spot meter, twiddle fstop / shutter and done. Not quite as quick as using EC in PAS modes, but almost.

Mark_A

Thread for Sunrise & Sunset pictures (part 3!)

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60273364

 

[Iliah Borg]

When I shoot manual I usually spot meter on the brightest part of the image and set fstop and shutterspeed so that that part of the image is bright on the meter, often about as bright as I feel my camera can retain detail.

For example, your in-camera exposure meter goes to +2. For metering in JPEG shooting mode, one may easily need +2.5, and something between +2.5 and +4 when shooting raw. That exceeds "bright on the meter", right?

The same is true when spot-metering from shadows. -2 EV is not quite often enough.

That's where setting exposure compensation comes handy.

--
http://www.libraw.org/

 

[BirdShooter7]

Not nearly as important as many here would have you believe.

 

[Tony Beach]

Does changing the WB setting on the camera change the WB preconditioning in any way?

That depends. Adobe recommend to do so, but I never saw Nikon changing those values depending on white balance.

Then, if I'm reading this right, it might well depend on which Raw converter is being used.

Yes. That's why some manufacturers have decided to apply calibration directly, in the camera, to RAW data.

I have some recollection of weird WB readings with Adobe (ACR) when using UniWB with a WB reference, but not with Capture One.

 

[Tony Beach]

Not nearly as important as many here would have you believe.

More important for some than for others. Nothing wrong with saying it's not important to you, but speaking for myself I consider it very important.

 

[Mark_A]

When I shoot manual I usually spot meter on the brightest part of the image and set fstop and shutterspeed so that that part of the image is bright on the meter, often about as bright as I feel my camera can retain detail.

For example, your in-camera exposure meter goes to +2. For metering in JPEG shooting mode, one may easily need +2.5, and something between +2.5 and +4 when shooting raw. That exceeds "bright on the meter", right?

The same is true when spot-metering from shadows. -2 EV is not quite often enough.

That's where setting exposure compensation comes handy

I don't think EC has any bearing in M mode, if I set the camera to f8 1,200s ISO100 then I am pretty sure that's what I get.

Mark_A

Thread for Sunrise & Sunset pictures (part 3!)

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60273364

 

[Iliah Borg]

When I shoot manual I usually spot meter on the brightest part of the image and set fstop and shutterspeed so that that part of the image is bright on the meter, often about as bright as I feel my camera can retain detail.

For example, your in-camera exposure meter goes to +2. For metering in JPEG shooting mode, one may easily need +2.5, and something between +2.5 and +4 when shooting raw. That exceeds "bright on the meter", right?

The same is true when spot-metering from shadows. -2 EV is not quite often enough.

That's where setting exposure compensation comes handy

I don't think EC has any bearing in M mode

Doesn't it shift the exposure meter on your camera?