New Lens, Old Camera Question

Incredible that there are still discussions on JPEG vs RAW. While I understand that there are scenarios where shooting JPEG can be considered a "must", none of those apply to anything I am doing. The QUAL button on my Nikons or the menu setting for the selection of RAW in other cameras gets used EXACTLY once: when I acquire the camera and set it format to RAW. I wish I could re-program QUAL - because now it only serves one purpose - to accidentally change the setting from RAW.

Post a photo, ffs

What would be the point? JPEG gives quote reasonable results when the settings are optimised prior to taking the shot. RAW shooters don't do this for controls like WB so a RAW shooters SOOC JPEG will be inferior to a good JPEG shooters one.

 

There are certainly times when RAW is a huge benefit. Fortunately they are pretty rare as I'm rubbish at developing RAW, while my camera is quite good at it when given the right starting settings.

RAW is for number crunchers not artists

Paint is for chemists, not artists.

 

How foolish can you get? Look no further that PNet troll Ludmilla.

But whatever can be said about her, she does post samples. Repeatedly. Kudos!

Then again, who needs RAW anymore.

Just meant as a little comedy relief, still a sensitive subject I see.

Working with RAW means you have so much more to choose from when converting to B&W or pretty much any other kind of post processing.

 

The true "digital negative" is RAW.

 

Even in non-RAW images such as jpg, having color in the original gives more options than a B&W image has to work with.

Just meant as a little comedy relief, still a sensitive subject I see

touched a RAW nerve, I guess

Eh? This debate has nothing to do with SOOC JPEGs. Most people who shoot JPEGs do post process their images as do RAW shooters. The debate is whether the effort of shooting RAW is worth it. De Bakker thinks so but won’t post examples

Yes we also post process but getting good results from processing a JPEG file requires it to be fairly good to begin with. RAW can allow a little more recovery from mistakes when shooting.

If the exposure was out by 2 stops & the wrong WB selected it will show in an edited JPEG. While RAW stands a much better chance of dealing with it.

 

A comparison between a well edited image from a good JPEG against a developed one from the same RAW data might be of some use, but it would often just show difference in artistic interpretation.

Most people who shoot JPEGs do post process their images as do RAW shooters. The debate is whether the effort of shooting RAW is worth it.

Thanks for clarifying that point. But if you post-process a JPEG, why not start with a RAW to begin with that gives you more leeway? What exactly is the additional effort with RAW in that case? Don't both involve adjusting some sliders in some post-processing software until the image looks the way you want it to? A blown highlight or lost shadow detail in a JPEG is unrecoverable in post; there's substantial leeway in the RAW file to deal with both.

 

This debate has nothing to do with SOOC JPEGs.

Good. I know exactly no one who would select among different picture control settings for each shot (the Nikon D500 offers standard, neutral, vivid, monochrome, portrait, landscape and flat) and then modify the settings for sharpening, clarify, contrast, brightness, saturation, hue and WB on a small LCD screen that isn't even color-calibrated. Shoot RAW and all those (and more) parameters are under your control in post.

why not start with a RAW to begin with that gives you more leeway?

Time, its all about time. Sometimes you just do have the time to mess around trying to save bad photos.

Sometimes you just do have the time to mess around trying to save bad photos.

To me, processing RAW is not at all trying to save bad photos - it is part of the process of creating an image. Just like it was in the "good old days" working up a negative to create the final print. All under my control - which was hard and expensive to do with color negative film if one wanted to create one's own prints. I try to avoid saving bad photos - a polished turd is still a turd.

 

I come from shooting slide film almost exclusively - so getting things right at the moment of exposure was mandatory as almost nothing could be changed after the fact. Shooting SOOC JPEG thus should come natural to me - but I very much prefer shooting RAW and preserving my options for later. As David pointed out, for a wildlife photographer it isn't uncommon to come home with 1000 images and process only a carefully selected 10. When I shoot anything but wildlife, I don't produce nearly as many images - so the workload processing RAW isn't high then either.

 

Time, its all about time.

Nope. To me it's about the process and having control. I can view all my images without processing any - and in many cases that's exactly what I do. Then I select a few to process - to post and share on some websites or for sale/prints. It's like having my cake and eating it too.

Eh? This debate has nothing to do with SOOC JPEGs. Most people who shoot JPEGs do post process their images as do RAW shooters. The debate is whether the effort of shooting RAW is worth it. De Bakker thinks so but won’t post examples

It gets sillier. I f you think you need to do something to the image to make it right, it makes a lot of sense to begin with an image that allows you to do that without the limits JPEG imposes. The rest, as Dieter mentioned, is the same.

I do not know why that is so difficult. But hey...

Time, its all about time. Sometimes you just do have the time to mess around trying to save bad photos.

Using Raw instead of JPEG is not about messing around to save a bad photo. Another red herring, nonsense argument.

Yes, getting exactly what you want takes time. A JPEG as provided by the camera can always be improved upon. So you're saving time by making do with, instead of saving, a bad photo.

Just a quick addition to the above conversation: extra effort at the time of exposure saves you from having to make adjustments later. Having said that, RAW does provide insurance.

 

I'm a JPEG shooter, even when I'm getting paid. BUT - when I do get paid I'm shooting RAW as well, just in case. It did save my butt once or twice, let me tell you.

 

Bonus: underexposing RAW is often better than baking in ISO on a JPEG. ISO invariance comes into it, but that depends on the sensor.

Leaving aside all the jpeg vs RAW debate, did @Ricochetrider ever get to the bottom of his settings issue?

"Leaving aside all the jpeg vs RAW debate, did @Ricochetrider ever get to the bottom of his settings issue?"

I am also curious whether or not the OP found a solution, but why worry about that when having a good old fashioned pissing match about something else is a time honored Photo.net tradition.

"Leaving aside all the jpeg vs RAW debate, did @Ricochetrider ever get to the bottom of his settings issue?"

I am also curious whether or not the OP found a solution, but why worry about that when having a good old fashioned pissing match about something else is a time honored Photo.net tradition.

I have been a photo.net member longer than you and I don't like RAW. How about that!?

Maybe I should have put an emoji after above?

Which oil should I use in my new car?

Which oil should I use in my new car?

The lubricating kind.

Howdy. I have a 1st generation Olympus OMD EM1. I had the camera set up for RAW only images. Recently I got a new lens, a 7-14mm Pro. Using it yesterday, It turns out the camera is now set to JPEG and I cannot for the life of me find a way to reset it to RAW.

 

I wonder if the 7-14mm lens might restrict the allowable amount of data captured in camera?

 

Since you were using the super-wide 7-14mm, would it be possible that you turned on "Keystone Compensation" to reduce distortion? If so, the camera would gray out the "Raw Only" selection, but you can still select Raw + Jpg. Turn Keystone off and "Raw Only" would be available again. This restriction is applicable to all lenses. Not sure why, but it is what it is.

 

Maybe this is not the reason why you cannot access Raw-Only. But this is one of the few reasons. Good luck!

Edited February 25, 2021 by Mary Doo

Re Raw and Jpeg: I select this setting most of the time and admit to just using the Jpg version that looks good enough. But Raw is important when the exposure is less than ideal - e.g., too bright or too dark or, worse, partially too dark and partially too bright. Raw makes it easier to recover these bad areas, if they can be recovered at all, without introducing too much artifacts. In general, it is always good practice to shoot raw or at least include this option.

Enabling distortion/vignetting or other correction for the lens would probably disable RAW saving, since those corrections can only be applied to a JPEG..

No, you get a corrected JPEG and an uncorrected RAW, at least with Olympus, Panasonic and Fujifilm.

I don't think that it's actually possible to disable the lens corrections for the JPEG on Olympus/micro four thirds?

(I am catching up on this thread..) Think this is probably what happened - either OP had turned on "Keystone Compensation" or the super-wide automatically turns it on. Thus the camera disables "Raw-Only".

 

I would be interested to hear from OP.

 

@Ricochetrider, I hope the prior "discussions" about Raw vs Jpg had not scared you away?. :D

Time, its all about time. Sometimes you just do have the time to mess around trying to save bad photos.

Jeez. What would you have done back in the film era when negatives had to be developed and then printed in the darkroom before you could get a decent image? RAW processing is lightning fast in comparison.

 

@ Ludmilla. Shooting RAW has nothing to do with number-crunching or pixel peeping. The benefits of decent colour and improved dynamic range are obvious on the macro scale. Just by looking at the entire picture.

 

This is a SOOC Jpeg:

 

And this is the shadow detail I could recover from a RAW file:

The manipulated RAW picture is how I saw the scene.

No single JPEG exposure would have got me the result I visualised and wanted. Not without bracketing and involving a lot more time and p*ssing about, both at the scene and in post.

What would you have done back in the film era

I shot slides.

I shot slides.

And then waited for the lab to process them.

So why the hurry these days?

You have managed to polish a turd. Well done.

I don't see a lot of illustrations coming from you to support JPEG use!