When does shooting RAW help?

<p>I dived into digital less than a year ago. Having 20+ years of film experience I find some of the things daunting.</p>

<p>A freind told me to think of raw vs. jpeg this way. RAW is like working with film. You can tweak it and fine tune it before going to print. Jpeg is like shooting slide film. Color balance and exposure is more critical. The advantage is quick shot to print.</p>

<p>On his advice I spent the first few months shooting raw+jpg. Cardspace is cheap. As I learn more about the conversion tools and workflow I go back and work the raw files. I'm finding that as I learn to use the tools better I like working with the RAW files better. 99% of the time it is just a batch convert but I like the choices I make better than what the camera did. My first attempts at doing raw conversion were lackluster. The camera did a better job.</p>

<p>My advice is the same. Shoot raw+jpg until you learn to use the tools available. You can always go back and work with raw files but only if you have them.</p>

<p>michael h-<br>

"If you like the results of your JPEGs and don't need to postprocess them to get what you're after, it's a case of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." If you have a scene that is going to take some postprocessing to get what you're after (dodging, burning, Curves manipulations), the question becomes "Do I want to perform these adjustments on an 8-bit JPEG file or a 12- or 14-bit RAW file?" The high-bit files will take a lot more tweaking without evidence of posterization, once you've converted them to 8 bits to output for printing."<br>

it is NOT A case of working with files that are 8-10-12-14-16bit. it is a case of doing what you are supposed to do with the dslr-TAKE QUALITY PICS. and that seems to asking a lot of people to do. you should have images that are as good as you can make them from the dslr. this means no excuses and no reasons whatsoever for a srewed up shots, ever. we are supposed to know what we are doing with the dslr and the lenses that we atttached to it. i never mentioned that i do not believe in cropping. that is what all those lenses that we buy from LBA are for. why is it needed to crop if the scene was composed right? it is not. do what you the shooter is supposed to do with dslr and the cropping and pp is just not needed. if you wish to accept a low level of quality images from your dslr, when the camera obviously can do better, go right ahead. I DO NOT.<br>

i expect the very best images that i can make every time, AND THAT MEANS NO EXCUSES EVER. i simply know better. i know how to shoot and i expect that level of excellent images every time i do shoot. and i make no excuses for myself ever. if you wish to accept a level of performance that is less than that go ahead. i do not.</p>

 

<p>Gee, everybody here seems to like their answers so much they've posted them as many as 7 times ;)<br /> <strong>Just a suggestion: If the post doesn't <em>seem</em> to have got posted since the server hasn't got back to you, just pressing the </strong> <strong><em>Submit</em> button over and over will result in what has happened here above. Try opening another window or tab to Photo.net and the forum in question and see if the post has actually "taken," even though you didn't get a response back.</strong></p>

<p>To the question:<br /> 1) There's nothing wrong with taking and using jpg images. Often that is adequate and good enough for now.</p>

<p>2) However, if there is anything in your images that you will want to save--that trip to Timbuktu, for example, if you only shoot jpgs, you will likely come to regret it in future years as your skills in photography grow.<br /> The RAW files preserve so much more information than do jpegs. Even if you only save them and archive them for what you select as your "best" shots, you will be glad to have the enhanced editing and processing potential of RAW files in the future. I'd also say that what you now think is your best work, is not a solid, unchangeable opinion on your part. Ten or fifteen years from now you may be embarrassed by what will come to seem naive, etc. Then, you may find that other images, more subtle, for example, may seem preferable. In fifty years of shooting, I have to confess I've never thrown out a slide that had a recognizable image on it. I did put them away in boxes labeled "rejects" or "seconds" but in a digital age, some of those images, now scanned in and processed, have become some of my favorite shots, especially since I can now recover information out of the slide in digital work that was very hard to get in analog days.</p>

<p>The Answer? Shoot RAW<strong>+</strong> large jpeg. If nothing else, save the RAW to DVDs.</p>

<p>Proposal on submitting thread noted and implemented earlier Weinberg. Another case of you kind of had to be there to understand. In case this ever happens to you, make a note… your suggestion doesn’t work. ; )<br>

As far as combining RAW and JPEG, I couldn’t disagree more. I realize that memory cards are cheap but these photos will make their way to the computer which makes editing that much more difficult. What most people need to come to terms with is whether or not they want point and shoot results from start to finish or do they want something more. Then start photographing and editing accordingly.</p>

<p>Posting: "It couldn't hoit," but it has worked for me and sometimes I have got multiple posts by... well, as I said.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but these photos will make their way to the computer which makes editing that much more difficult</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't understand what you mean. Why don't you just work with the jpgs, as you would otherwise, which is simpler if you're not doing much-- but keep the RAW files also for when you really need them? And you sure don't want to keep them on cards, that's what Terabyte HDs and DVDs are for, and both are cheap. I shot 3.2GB this morning at the lake, some 80 or so images, in large jpg + RAW. It's now backed up on my external HD and on a DVD that I paid less than a buck for. If I weren't using the RAW files on more difficult images, I could just dump them on my main drive, if I were short for space.</p>

<p>I have pictures from a honeymoon trip to wathc grizzly bears in Canada (long way from UK!) and shot JPEG-only for reasons of card space. Even on pictures I am otherwise happy with where the exposure is pretty much spot on there are highlights on the beasts' fur that are blown out. Perfectionist that I am, and now that I have worked a bit in RAW, it irritates me that in RAW I could probably have recovered those highlights and made the shot better. Any one of my family or friends probably would not see the problem, but it bugs me. Ever since then I have shot RAW+JPEG even though in 95% of cases I can't improve on the in-camera JPEG.<br />One other piece of advice I always remember is to use RAW to do something different with the image, not to replicate the in-camera jpeg. For example, you can change the colour balance to enhance the colours of an autumn dawn to refect the feeling you had at the time (rather than be simply photo-realistic). Or you can be more creative still. RAW just offers more options.</p>

<p>mike h-"Even on pictures I am otherwise happy with where the exposure is pretty much spot on there are highlights on the beasts' fur that are blown out. Perfectionist that I am, and now that I have worked a bit in RAW, it irritates me that in RAW I could probably have recovered those highlights and made the shot better." since you did not read what i said- if you have highlights blownout how did you do that when you have the aftershot histogram? it shouod not happen. i do not even remember the last timewhen i got to the pc with blown highlights. it is NOT an issue that raw save the blown highlights. the issue is that the shots were taken with an incorrect exposure. user error, period. which is hard to do when the aftershot histogram will show this. so it not that raw will save blown highlights, the shooter should NOT have to the blown highlights to save, since the exposure is correct.<br>

"One other piece of advice I always remember is to use RAW to do something different with the image, not to replicate the in-camera jpeg." my object in photography is to trecord the scene ad accurately as i kmnow jhow. it mis my memory for fduture yrs. i do not want to be in a position and look at yellowstone np images that have been pped to death and have no idea of what the original scen looked like, since the image does not show this. this is the exacxt reason that i make an allout effort to record the scene asis, as the eye sees it. later if someone wants to do any creative pp work go ahead. but the original accurate scene is still available. if however the scene was never recorded accurately how does the user evewr get back to it? there is no one nimage that is accurate to work from. the only way of gettimng that accurate image of say yellowston is to go back to the np and take the accurate pic that should already be taken with the all the xtra time and money. since few of us live next to yellowstone. likewise a wedding, should be taken as accurately as possible since the only way to redo the pic is to redo the wedding. this is why i have my 2 dslrs setup to take the accurate high quality jpeg. i can be creative later if desired, but the original accurate image must taken first since most times it is very hard to get back to.<br>

in all that is the reason that i practice shooting as well and as accurately as posible to record the original scene. it is just too hard most time to redo that scene. this is of course far different from a lot of the shooters on this and other forums on the web. for them 99% of the job is when they get to the pc. for me 99% of the job is already done when i get to the pc.<br>

attached and the next reply are the original scanned in slide as shot with slide film(slides have a dr of only 4+ stops, which is smaller than jpegs). the second image is my touch upped and sharpened version, about 30 seconds of pp time. this is what expect and get when i shoot. and note that there are no blown highlights. the shot was taken in 1979.</p><div></div>

<p>the touched upped and sharpened slide.</p>

<p>the sharpened slide.</p><div></div>

<p>boy it is really hard to read posts that are all lower case and have everything runon and all in a single paragraph without any breaks or indications of quotations at all. are you texting this from a cell phone? i'm not at all sure what the yourstatement is all about-getting one-time "gems" means you don't need RAW files? </p>

<p>Gary,</p>

 

<p>I think you just posted a perfect demonstration — of how it’s <em>not</em>

possible to recover data that doesn’t exist. Sure, you made some global corrections that

enhanced color balance and exposure…but your highlights and shadows are still featureless. The

shadow on the foremost mountain, in particular, looks like an ink spill instead of a shaded forest.</p>

 

<p>I know from experience that my 5DII in RAW would be able to preserve said shadow detail. I don’t think it could do the trick in JPEG, but I wouldn’t necessarily bet against it.</p>

 

<p>On the other hand, I don’t think I would have bothered unpacking the camera. The light is boring, the clouds are boring, the shrubbery in the foreground is boring, and there mountains and forests in the distance are too far away to be interesting. I’m sure it was a lovely place to sit and admire the view, but there’s nothing worth photographing there that I can see. Better to leave the camera in the bag and simply enjoy the non-photogenic beauty. Or, better yet, look around for something nearby that <em>is</em> worth photographing, or figure out if the light at dawn or dusk will work better, or how to be there as a thunderstorm is brewing, or….</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>ben g- 2 things. thanks for the compliment. that scene looked exactly like that all those yrs ago. and i successfully recorded the scene on the slide film. i believe that my job as the photog is to record the scene and not improve on it, and so that is what occured. it is only in a perfect world that you can wait till the light changes to something great. as it is you shoot what you have when you are there. you cannot sit around and wait for the great light, since there is a motel reservation that you prepaid and have to get to that night. doing it your way and driving the 6000 miles you would end up with extremely few images since they would all have to be taken with perfect light. your example of dawn dusk and thunder storm noted. note i and my wife drove 6500 miles out west in august and never saw a drop of rain. if i waited for a storm to take pics i would have come back with nothing. perhaps that is your desire to take pics under perfect light or none at all. so you end up with a handfull of images.</p>

<p>jdm von weinburg- i type the replys on my pc with paragraphs. but that is not how they show up on the forum. they have also have paragraphs in the confirm or update screen.</p>

<p>glacier np. taken in august 09.</p><div></div>

<p>I have found that to get paragraphs, one must separate the paragraphs with two blank lines:</p>

<p>For example:</p>

<p>Paragraph1 .....</p>

<p>Paragraph2 .....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>if you have highlights blownout how did you do that when you have the aftershot histogram? it should not happen.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>At the time I had had my digital camara for about 4 months so was still learning, especially with reading the histogram. Grizzly bear with dark fur, with a range of ones in the background but sun bouncing off small patches his fur. I could (a) make the highlights safe and risk noise in the critical darker areas or (b) increase exposure slightly to reduce noise. As it turns out I went a little too far.<br>

Now you may be a fantastic photographer with a zillion years' experience (and you may well be right in that 'it should not happen'). But until I reach those aweome levels of experience and skill, what am I supposed to do for the next 20 years? Create imperfect pictures and put up with them until I am 80 and I have the same number of years' experience as you?<br>

Hell with that. I will shoot continue to RAW+JPEG and do two things in parallel: repair photographs in Photoshop where I can and learn at the same time so I do improve my in-camera capture. By all means propose a final skill objective that you think a less experienced person should strive for, but please don't state as irrelevant the ways some people who don't have your skills use their camera purely because they are trying to achieve what they can in a different way in the meantime.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>my object in photography is to trecord the scene ad accurately as i kmnow jhow.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have no problem with that. It is how you prefer to do your photography - that does not mean I am wrong. I don't know if that is what you meant but the way you expressed yourself makes me think it was.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i do not want to be in a position and look at yellowstone np images that have been pped to death</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nor do I. And my view is to have the RAW so I can make an accurate interpretation (as far as I can recall). But it also means I have the option to make an 'alternate' image with more emotional impact if that other image invokes an emotion that <em>I felt at the time</em> if the 'accurate' image does not quite do it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>as the eye sees it</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can't. The eye has greater dynamic range than the camera so accuracy is immediately impossible. So you are immediately in the position where you have to pick your compromises - do you maintain the highlights or the darker elements? Do you include the glare off the lake or do you use a polariser (our eyes do not filter polarised light)? Do you use neutral grad filters and reduce contrast between sky and land? But as RAW has a greater dynamic range than JPEG, surely the RAW is the better source material.<br>

And (here is the biggest problem with your reasoning) the user sets the camera defaults to dictate how the camera turns RAW into JPEG. What is the difference between doing the processing in camera or on a computer? If you can give me a viable answer to that then I would be very interested. I would love to get it perfect in camera so I don't need to spend as much time in front of the computer.<br>

Even film photographers would choose film to suit their preferred output. Some would choose Fujichrome for its greens, others choose Kodacrome for its saturated reds. Or choose certains papers for the final effect desired. None of them are 'accurate' in the way you imply simply because of those biases and it is all about personal interpretation. So any claims about 'fidelity' and 'accuracy' are, in fact, a straw man. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If however the scene was never recorded accurately how does the user evewr get back to it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. But RAW is more accurate than JPEG in that RAW contains more information than JPEG. It is how you interpret the data that is important.</p>

<p>At the end of the day, it is all about the final image (screen, projected or printed) and how you get there is a matter of personal preference.</p>

<p>I almost always shoot RAW. Yes there are a ton of advantages and no you don't have to be a pro to use it. RAW allows you to fix mistakes that you can't fix in Jpeg. For example, if you forget to change your white balance setting from tungtsen light to sunshine for an outdoor landscape, you can fix it flawlessly on the computer. Even if you're not blowing up huge prints, you can clean up your images a lot nicer with RAW. You can adjust exposure after the picture was taken, whereas with Jpeg you can simply brighten or darken photos which just whites them out or blacks them out. I could go on all day. Just take a few shots in RAW and Jpeg and try to change some settings on the computer such as exposure and white balance. See which works better for you when you're done.</p>

<p>nazthan g- it still comes back to some issues. 1. is the dslr accurately setup to take the accurate high quality jpeg? it took me 2+hrs per dslr to do it. who here has done or is going to that? what happens is that users compare the raw image to the jpeg. but the jpeg is the default sttings. this is exactly what the reviewers do, they always use the default setting for the jpeg. even if a couple of setting tweaks would get far better reaults. then the jpeg is then called inferior. it was never given a chance, it had better be inferior under those conditions.</p>

<p>the other issue is how much care is being put into the taking of the image in the field. i, for my images, expect zero mistakes and i shoot with the care time effort that it takes to get that result. i hear about how the raw should and does fix a over/under exposed images of 2 stops. well, how in th world did anybody do such a bad job on the exposure? especially with the after shot lcd image and histogram to look at. next is the matter of the basic setting being wrong. all settings are checked for correctness before EACH SHOT. there simply should not be any errors of that kind. the user has got the dslr in his hands and is responsible for the settings he is about to use. if they are wrong then there is noone to blame but himself. and if there are several or many images that are messed up, then the person doing it is looking back in the mirror. he is simply not putting in the time care and effort it takes to get the good image in the field. but instead relying on the photoshop to give it to him. for me 99% of the job is done the moment the shutter is pushed, for others it is simply the time that the other 99% of the job starts and that is the pping. i spent 3 weeks out west with 2 dslrs in august and took 543 images. how many were off in exposure or wb? zero. i am not going to drive 6500 miles and spend 3 weeks of my time just find that when i get home a large group were shot incorrectly. interestly, i did shoot raw+jpeg at carlbad caverns and antelope canyon. i did not know the lighting and wanted to hedge my bets. however, later of all the raw+jpeg pairs how many raws got used? one. the jpegs were better. this was due to exposure and how the images were pped. the raw actually were exposed so that the histo was already at the right wall or even beyond slightly. and the exposure had to be backed down slightly. creating a darkish image, even with shadow brightening. the jpeg however was dimish, and using a little different touchup technique than normal had the exposure and shadows raised. the result was a more pleasing image than the raws.</p>

<p>another benefit from jpegs is that they force the shooter to shoot right. this is the same as slides, which was how i learned. since there is so little pp room later. the jpeg can be pped, just not the massive amount that a raw can. i spent 32yrs shooting kodak ektachrome 64. with slides they have to shoot right or you throw it out. the headroom for a jpeg is a 1/2stop, with a slide it is zero. when i switched to digital my shooting habits carried over to my jpeg shooting. actually, since with slides you get 4+ stops of dr, i thought that jpeg was great with 6stops. it all depends what you are used to.</p>

<p>i am not saying shoot jpeg. i am saying shoot the shot right in the field. so that when the image gets to pc the user has a already correct image to work with. it makes the pp work far easier. one thing you get shooting raw is time pping the image, you have to. and some people enjoy this. well i am not one of them. to me pp work is as enjoyable as root canal and should be avoided. also tedious boring and time consuming.</p>

<p>also, nathan i have many 16x20 and 20x30 prints , plus some 16x36 and 12x36 and 12x48 panoramas. some of which are hanging in my home as well as other people's homes and businesses. jpegs print large very well. i also have a request to make one of my panos at a 14x54inch size. that pano was shot as a jpeg, 28 images(14 images wide in 2 rows), and made into the pano using PTGuiPro.</p>

<p><em>“I was wondering if the “only incompetent fools who don’t know how to expose an image shoot RAW” trolls were going to make an appearance. Apparently, they have.”</em><br>

<em>“One of said trolls even admitted that, when one shoots RAW, one can recover an image over- or under-exposed by up to two stops.”</em><br>

<em>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</em><br>

I’m a little confused Ben. Are you ranting at the author of this statement because you dispute the content or context? I see that <strong>you do agree</strong> (with reservations) and then it all goes back to name calling. Then you ramble on about “<em>Mastery of one’s tools is essential to mastery of one’s craft, and both are essential to mastery of one’s art</em>.”<br>

Just to add a little validity to the statement that has your hackles up. It was actually a paraphrased excerpt from a book by Bryan Peterson (Understanding photography field guide). I don’t know if you’re familiar with Bryans work but he is a decent photographer and not too shabby a writer as well! But who knows, maybe if he were to apply himself he could master his tools and art. In the meantime, we’ll all wait in breathless anticipation for your next string of pearls!<br>

Cheers!</p>

<p><strong>Moderator's note:</strong><br>

Folks, let's remember this is the Beginner Forum. Unless your response directly addresses the needs of the original poster, the usual photo.net internecine skirmishes between veterans and experience folks should probably be reserved for another forum. Here, it's just digression.</p>

<p>When I first took my DSLR for a spin, I was new to everything and played around with the setting. After some shots indoors, I took it outdoors. Then I went back home.</p>

<p>On the computer, I immediately saw my problem--I made the very rookie mistake of not setting my white balance properly. Everything shot outdoors was too blue. (Quick, guess what WB was set!) I could post-process the images back to something more usable, but the "originals" were completely corrupted (by me). The lesson was learned--jpeg is permanent.</p>

<p>Good thing that was a practice run! I now shoot almost exclusively RAW. And in AWB. :P</p>

<p>Everyone here is so sure they are correct, and they are for themselves, but maybe not for you. Try Raw + JPEG and play with both to see what you want. I have after a year of playing, decided I like the flexibility of Raw. It works for me. See what works for you.</p>