Why shoot RAW ??

[thubleau2]

I get a bit confused with this.

Okay I have shot raw and printed raw.

My understanding is this :

Raw has more detail.......but if you print in jpg then aren't you basically throwing away all that extra information that you have gained by shooting raw ?

That's why I am struggling to shoot raw.

They are large file sizes , I have over 18,000 images on my hard discs, mostly jpg and Tiff.

If I used raw than those discs would be full and if I don't print raw than what is the point in capturing raw images in the first place?
--
gear: 20D 5DMK2 Ixus 960i 580ex flash Sunpak 5000 flash

50-500 Sigma 17-40L Canon 100 macro f/2.8 Canon 24-70 EXDG Sigma Canon 70-200L f/4 IS Epson V700 scanner Canon Pro9500 printer HP 9180 Printer Epson 1290 Printer. Canon i9950 printer

 

[AnandaSim]

I get a bit confused with this.

Mate. you sure have heaps of pro quality equipment.

Okay I have shot raw and printed raw.

Bravo!

My understanding is this :
Raw has more detail.......but if you print in jpg then aren't you
basically throwing away all that extra information that you have
gained by shooting raw ?

Yes. You are throwing away data if you print JPEG. But you would in your RAW -> JPEG processing, have chosen which bits of data you throw away...

And you can print better than JPEG if you own printing facilities. You can process RAW to 16 bit TIFF and print 16 bit TIFF. You don't lose so much data then.

If I used raw than those discs would be full and if I don't print raw
than what is the point in capturing raw images in the first place?

Utilmately, the food you eat is gonna end up in some mash inside your body. In which case, why not cut out the middle work procedure of shopping for good, fresh quality veges, cooking and seasoning them delicately with lovely herbs and spices before putting them in your mouth? Why not buy unidentifiable mush in tubes made of anonymous veg? Could be cheaper and more convenient and you could freeze it in bulk, save you all the effort.

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/
http://onepicperpost.blogspot.com/

 

[CeeDave]

First, raw files are smaller than tifs.

Second, because there is more range (bits) in the raw files, you can correct color and exposure to a much greater degree ... then create a jpg (or tif) for printing. There are many possible jpgs lurking within that one tif.

Third, you can make a different sharpening decision at the time you convert your raw to tif/jpg than you had set in the camera at the time of shooting. Sharpening can't be adjusted as well in jpg.

If one doesn't feel the need to correct color and exposure or adjust sharpness from you captured images, then most recent cameras make pretty good jpgs.
--
Chris in Red Stick

 

[Simon97]

JPEG is a just a storage format. It has limited depth to the data and is a "lossy" compression. Only after you have post processed your RAW files should you consider saving the file in JPEG format (at a very high quality setting).

Shooting JPEG is another matter. You are depending on the camera's internal processing to handle some of the work - demosaic process, noise reduction, sharpening, contrast, white balance and so forth. Camera's have to be fast, so their algorithms are streamlined to process the image fast. The JPEG output tends not to be as good as what you can get from RAW - even if you save as JPEG as the final step.

The bit depth from a RAW file as well as the more advanced software for post processing give you more latitude for editing images that results in images that have more fine detail, better dynamic range and you can often recover from exposure errors better.

 

[thubleau2]

I know I have a lot of equipment.....are you jealous ???

Whether i shoot raw or not is the question and i just can't see ant real worl advantage in a 6x4 or 5x7 and as I would be suprised in a real world situation that any non camera buff could see the difference i ponder whether it is actually worth the trouble.

As for processing , i just wonder whether these advantages are that real or theoretical ,as a raw converter surely would remove any advantage if saving to Tiff or jpg ?.
--
gear: 20D 5DMK2 Ixus 960i 580ex flash Sunpak 5000 flash

50-500 Sigma 17-40L Canon 100 macro f/2.8 Canon 24-70 EXDG Sigma Canon 70-200L f/4 IS Epson V700 scanner Canon Pro9500 printer HP 9180 Printer Epson 1290 Printer. Canon i9950 printer

 

[AnandaSim]

I know I have a lot of equipment.....are you jealous ???

No. Envious. I'm not a pro, I don't sell anything that would generate income to buy your sort of equipment. Of course I'm envious. Any reason I shouldn't be?

Whether i shoot raw or not is the question and i just can't see ant
real worl advantage in a 6x4 or 5x7 and as I would be suprised in a
real world situation that any non camera buff could see the
difference i ponder whether it is actually worth the trouble.

You ponder whether it is actually worthwhile? Go ahead ponder away. But this is a public forum. I would say that if you bother to write here, it is expected that some other bod to respond. Yes? Or do you feel you should be left to ponder alone?

As for processing , i just wonder whether these advantages are that
real or theoretical ,as a raw converter surely would remove any
advantage if saving to Tiff or jpg ?.

Huh? If you have been shooting RAW, then you would have experienced that:

a. the WB would have been easier to adjust than JPG. That's not theoretical - just shoot a few in the "wrong" light and it should be obvious.

b. But if one took a shot, did a little bit of cropping, wanted to adjust a little sharpening, tweak a bit of this and that there, RAW's more comfortable.

Sure you can do all this in JPG but RAW's simply easier. Unless of course, if you have got workflow so good for JPG that you feel more comfortable preserving your workflow.

c. Chasing the diminishing return. JPEG should be able to make many people happy. RAW has that little bit extra. Some people are already happy with their JPEG. So they stop there. Some others are the type who want to wring the last cent or drop from anything they are involved in. RAW promises that.

RAW convertor removing advantage saving to TIFF? Huh? TIFF can be 16 bit. Can be non lossy compressed or uncompressed. And you would tweak your RAW before you saved to TIFF. My RAW is only 12 bit. How do you lose data pouring stuff into a bigger container?

Look, if you want to give RAW the heave ho, have a go at shaking the sauce bottle.

Lots of people shoot JPEG purely with no RAW. And they sleep well at night. No harm with that.

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/
http://onepicperpost.blogspot.com/

 

[Patrick T. Kelly]

A. You can't print raw files. Raw files are always converted.

B. If you shoot JPEG, you are allowing the camera with very few options to convert the raw file to JPEG. The option is for you to convert the raw file to JPEG on your desktop computer with many more options and much greater control over the conversion.

C. I enjoy reprocessing some of my better shots in raw with new conversion programs. Over the years, I've changed programs a few times and the new program is always better than the old. I've reprocessed raw files I took five years ago and procesed with Picture Pro using Lightroom and like the newer conversions much better. I suspect, and hope, I've improved, too.

D. I'm sure all 18,000 of your pictures are not only worthy but needed on your hard drive. I'm not so fortunate. So, many of my raw files are archived on CDs and DVDs. I have current photos on my main hard drive and some others on my secondary drive. I also have an external hard drive to use for traveling and temp backups.

What are the advantages of JPEG. There are two. Smaller file size and quicker processing since it's done in the camera. File size isn't an issue for me. Hard drives, blank CDs, and blank DVDs are cheap. If I were a photojournalist, then speed would be a major issue. I'm not. If I were shooting weddings every day with 400+ photos the processing might be an issue. I'm not so it isn't.

So, I shoot raw. I have friends who prefer shooting JPEG. It's your choice.
--
Patrick T. Kelly
Oaxaca, Mexico

 

[MusicDoctorDJ]

Some need RAW . . . others don't!

Now that you've heard many of the excuses (and I'm sure there are lots more to come) for shooting RAW all the time . . .

Just go ahead and shoot JPEG!

I've found I rarely ever need RAW, either.

There are some circumstances where RAW can help, but there really is no reason why RAW has to be used all the time, like many here claim.

In the film days I enjoyed the darkroom work . . .

In the digital days, I hate the digital equivalent of darkrooming (Photoshop).

If you learn and understand your cameras, then RAW is just another tool in the toolbox . . . and not a crutch!

--
J. D.
Colorado



Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and EVERYTHING that came in it!

 

[Denis de Gannes]

The main reason I shoot raw is that raw conversion software is in the development stage and rapid progress and additional tools are being provided on a continous basis. I regularly reconvert raw files from 4 years ago with far superior processing than was available then. This would not be possible if I did not retain the raw files.
--
Denis de Gannes

 

[carl english]

Musicdoctordj is correct, I would like to add a comment.

This Raw v jpg has and will be argued for a long time. If you check old posts you will see that I shoot jpg for Weddings (Now retired) however if i had an assignment that was critical for client and I had no control over lighting then even I would shoot Raw. As an example, if I had the opportunity to photograph a famous person, head of state or President then it would be foolish not to shoot raw. I guess its the % of "guaranteed" results, jpg 85% Raw 95% and that is an experienced photographer for the less experienced I would say Jpg 60% Raw 75%

 

[jrtrent]

I know I have a lot of equipment.....are you jealous ???

No. Envious. I'm not a pro, I don't sell anything that would generate
income to buy your sort of equipment. Of course I'm envious. Any
reason I shouldn't be?

Since you chose a different word, I'm sure you know what it means, but one reason not to be envious is that it's a sin. Interesting article and links; depressing how I manage to commit them all in so many different ways (oops! depression is a sin, too).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins

"Like greed, Envy (Latin, invidia) may be characterized by an insatiable desire; they differ, however, for two main reasons. First, greed is largely associated with material goods, whereas envy may apply more generally. Second, those who commit the sin of envy resent that another person has something they perceive themselves as lacking, and wish the other person to be deprived of it. Dante defined this as "love of one's own good perverted to a desire to deprive other men of theirs." In Dante's Purgatory, the punishment for the envious is to have their eyes sewn shut with wire because they have gained sinful pleasure from seeing others brought low. Aquinas described envy as "sorrow for another's good."

 

[GaryDeM]

the raw vs jpeg thing will be argued forever.

but it boils down to 1 simple idea and question. and only you can answer the question, it does not matter what i or anyone else says. the question-what is the quality level of your field work and how much pp do you NEED to do? i make it a point to shoot in the field so that little or no pp is necessary. i do touchup only. to me pping is equiv to root canal and about the same enjoyment.

if your field work is such that you are supplying youn pc with images that need major exposure and wb work plus much other major pp work to give you an good image, then you should be shooting raw. if on the other hand you use the pc and pp for touchup only and some images get no pp at all except for sharpening then you can get away with the ease of jpeg.

i am a jpeg shooter and have about 5000 images on my ext hard drv. to me any image that i keep is capable of being enlarged to 20x30inches. if it is not it is deleted. i am also very particular about what i shoot, so i limit myself to the images i really want to keep as keepers. even then i am a totally ruthless sorter when i get back to the pc. the 5000 images that i have includes 32yrs of scanned in slides from when i was shooting film/slides. to get the 18000 that you have would take me another 10-15yrs.

i should mention the there are 3 times when i would shoot raw. 1. when the lighting is so untermined or mixed and you have no idea what the wb should. then i would go raw and let the converter do the wb. 2. when you have no time to properly setup the shot. 3. you are correcting for something that is easier done in the converter on every shot.

also, if i ever shot any more weddings i would definately shoot raw because of the changing light.

but it is necessary to know that if you wish to shoot jpeg then YOU MUST SETUP YOU DSLR TO SHOOT THE QUALITY JPEG. the factory settings are definately not the ones to use probably use. my next repy is a howto to setup the dslr for quality jpeg.

and jpegs frankly are harder to shoot if you wish to get a quality image. you must know that you have to get the shot right in the field and not expect that anything wrong can be fixed with pp.

 

[GaryDeM]

to setup for jpeg with new camera-

there are 4 functions that may be adjusted. the color mode(or whatever it is called) saturation contrast and sharpening. i assume you are using a calibrated monitor. simply select a scene immediately outside your house. hopefully it has lights darks and colors. all settings in the camera are at zero or default. adjust color mode first then check the shot on the monitor, decide if ok, if not adjust reshoot and recheck. go on to each of the other adjustment settings. the object is to get the monitor scene as close a possible to the real scene outside. do not be concerned if the finished monitor scene has enough color for your tastes; the amount of color can be adjusted in pp. you are going for accuracy between the 2 scenes. the real and the one on your monitor; when done the 2 scenes should look identical or as close as possible. do not hurry. the adjustment process could take several hours. but once done leave the settings alone. at this point you know that the camera will accurately make the best most accurate pics possible of the scene. after i set my dslr up 3+ yrs ago about, i have not ever moved the settings. It took me 2-3 hours to setup my dslr.

if i needed/wanted more color or whatever that is what pp is for. i also try very hard to do my composing in the camera and not crop heavily in the pc. my thinking is why buy a 10mp camera and crop away 40%. you are then no better that a 6mp that is not cropped. besides which the cropped 10mp is noisier.

i would not adjust the contrast to get more DR. to me you just have to get used to the idea that digital has DR limitations. i shoot slides for 32yrs; the DR in digital(jpeg) and slides is about equal. i never had a problem. While DR limits exposure, lighting should/can be adjusted to compensate. if you want more headroom in your camera for taking jpegs, use adobeRGB color gamut. it gives slightly more headroom.

if you have NOT done this then jpeg vs raw test cannot be valid. and any opinion of the jpeg quality from your camera is not based on what the camera CAN do.

 

[Kuivaamo]

I know I have a lot of equipment.....are you jealous ???

No. Envious. I'm not a pro, I don't sell anything that would generate
income to buy your sort of equipment. Of course I'm envious. Any
reason I shouldn't be?

Since you chose a different word, I'm sure you know what it means,
but one reason not to be envious is that it's a sin. Interesting
article and links; depressing how I manage to commit them all in so
many different ways (oops! depression is a sin, too).

Eating a Big Mac AND a McFlurry is also a sin. Oh, I'm so going to burn.

 

[Don Ellis]

Shoot what you like... but here are three reasons I shoot RAW:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7894

Don

 

[AnandaSim]

Since you chose a different word, I'm sure you know what it means,
but one reason not to be envious is that it's a sin. Interesting
article and links; depressing how I manage to commit them all in so
many different ways (oops! depression is a sin, too).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins

Wow! Heavy man! Thank goodness, I'm not into that interpretation. I looked it up.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2002/08/Jealousy-Covetousness-Nonstealing.aspx

My interpretation is to go ease off it, otherwise it gets in the way of ascendance or getting enough sleep. Oh well, I'll try harder not to, then.

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/
http://onepicperpost.blogspot.com/

 

[JoeDaBassPlayer]

I shoot JPEG but my JPEG engine is Silky Pix. When I shoot RAW, I convert in Silky Pix and get the same results if I use the same settings. ACR, so far, does not cut it.
--
Variance is Evil!

 

[BertIverson]

I use RAW whenever I have little time to adjust exposure and WB. My worst scenario is dark brown horse jumping on full sun day with varying backgrounds (trees/sky). I am in the center of an oval pen so 360 deg shooting with sun coming at me on this picture and right behind me next picture. RAW lets me recover blown highlights and adjust the black horse back to brown (fill light adjustment). Whenever I have time to set things leisurely, I simply shoot JPEG (80% of the time)
Bert

 

[thubleau2]

I downloaded the samples, placed them side by side in Photoshop, sharpened and saved for the web.
On the left is the raw
On the right the jpg

The raw showed a green tinge which you can still see
The jpg shows slightly warmer tone.

the image was flattened and then processed by sharpening and slight levels adjustment applied

Both now jpg images



--
gear: 20D 5DMK2 Ixus 960i 580ex flash Sunpak 5000 flash

50-500 Sigma 17-40L Canon 100 macro f/2.8 Canon 24-70 EXDG Sigma Canon 70-200L f/4 IS Epson V700 scanner Canon Pro9500 printer HP 9180 Printer Epson 1290 Printer. Canon i9950 printer

 

[Don Ellis]

I downloaded the samples, placed them side by side in Photoshop,
sharpened and saved for the web.
On the left is the raw
On the right the jpg

The raw showed a green tinge which you can still see
The jpg shows slightly warmer tone.
the image was flattened and then processed by sharpening and slight
levels adjustment applied

Both now jpg images

Ah, we've gone from discussion to debate... sorry, I don't do that.

You've taken the two closest images, worked to get them looking alike, and posted them in really small sizes to prove some sort of point that escapes me.

Let me repeat what I said about those examples:

"I converted the RAWs to TIFs using Auto in SSP 3.5. Then I brought both TIF and JPG into Photoshop CS4 and hit Auto-Contrast. In the case of the Puddle, I set the white balance for both images. I didn’t sharpen anything."

I didn't do any photo manipulation, including correcting the dreaded "green cast" that so many people like to mention.

Let me repeat what I said in my original message here: "Shoot what you like..."

Don