Raw versus Jpeg

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by blades, Jun 17, 2008.

  1. Hi there,

    Heading off to europe in 2.5 weeks (16 sleeps but who's counting) will be using my new D80 with standard glass
    135 and a 50mm 1.8f that ive just bought at a great price, ive started shooting using JPEG, but after reading a
    article on bythom im thinking maybe i should shoot raw?? then again on another site, this chap bags raw??.
    into account im so new ill probably not shoot as well as i would hope and i wont be able to afford Photoshop until
    get back, then there is the issue of learning to drive it, so is there an advantage in shooting raw...maybe i should
    keep it simple? Is ther a huge difference in size? as you can imagine ill be snap happy when away.

    Your thoughts please
    Many thanks in advance
  2. there is some size difference, although jpg at fine res can become rather large too. i love to shoot raw, but when coming back from your travels will you feel like spending considerable time converting all that work to jpg for sharing? i recently went off for a few days to nearby mountains and faced this dilemma. i chose jpg, and it wasn't so bad. i still prefer raw because of the post-processing possibilities. but for someone in your position i'd go for jpg now. you'll have time later to work with raw and see what the differences are.
  3. Mark, if you search through the site you'll probably find more info here than you can digest in a day or two. i'm sure you'll
    get the answers you want from the collected wisdom here in photo,net.
  4. I think it's a very obvious choice. If you shoot RAW you can change the ISO, white balance and a number of
    other settings after the fact, and save shots that would otherwise be lost. If you shoot jpg, you're stuck with what
    you shot. If you're really good at judging exposure and other settings and nail them on every shot, you may never
    need to take advantage of RAW. But why give up that option, especially on a big, expensive trip where you may
    never have the chance to go back and reshoot? The biggest argument against RAW is that the files are larger --
    maybe 15mb for a RAW file on my D200 compared to 4 mb for jpg. But the answer to that is simply larger
    memory cards and more of them. I bought a 2 GB card the other day for $30 and prices are dropping all the time.
    That's 120 frames of reusable image storage for the price of two 36 exposure rolls of film with processing. The
    other downside of RAW is that you need to convert it to TIF or JPG before sending it to friends/cleints/labs. If
    you're tweaking each individual frame that can be time consuming. But for files that don't need any work (which
    should be most of them) you can do a batch conversion where you just start Nikon Capture (or PhotoShop)
    running and go do something else while it does the work. Bottom line is that no you don't always need RAW but
    it can save you when you've screwed up and the advantages -- in my opinion -- outweigh the disadvantages.
  5. Considering the magnitude and importance of your trip, combined with your being "so new", makes me strongly suggest shooting RAW. Not only do you get more information, but you can also cover some mistakes (like White Balance and Color Settings) after you get home. The only downside is file size, but memory is cheap now (or perhaps you can borrow some cards from a friend). You can probably count on 100 NEF files for each GB. I averaged 110 on my D200.

    I shoot everything as NEFs in my D300, then convert the snapshots and casual shots to JPEGs for permanent storage. Nikon View or View NX are free downloads from Nikon. I would ONLY use Nikon View or Nikon Capture to convert NEFs. Adobe Camera Raw, which is the program that converts for Photoshop, loses some of the shooting parameters so the JPEGs it "makes" don't always look like the original NEF does.
  6. Man, you guys are just an amazing amount of "years" of knowledge, thanks so so much, i want to eventually specialize in photographing children, However, i love real life everyday street shots, can't wait to snap cafe scenes etc in Paris etc, which of my to lenses would you recommend for cafe's etc, 50mm 1.8 or my 18-135 f3.5
    regards...thanks again
  7. Craig, How do you adjust ISO after the fact in RAW? I don't think that's possible. Also, Mark may not have Nikon Capture to batch convert his RAW files. However, I still think RAW would be the way to go because it gives more room for error and fixing. Mark may just have to wait till he has a better application that Nikon View to do the fixing, but Nikon View can do the RAW conversion and produce JPGs just as the camera would have made them.
  8. I am no Nikon user, but here are some of my thoughts.

    Size of Raw is considerably bigger than JPEG, but kind of control you get for post processing is amazing. For e.g I keep my white balance setting in 'Auto White balance' mode, and if needed I will fix them on raw during processing, similarly I do for the Picture Styles, exposure compensation. This will kind of save you time while you are shooting.

    Obvious disadvantages are space and post-processing software. Raw is 12bit in case of D80, and JPEG is 8bit, Raw is going to take more space. These days for 20+USD you can get a decent 2gb card. Worst case I would shoot JPEG on the last 1gb of memory card.

    D80 does not come with a Raw converter, so you may have to invest about 80+$ to buy one. Some of the popular one's I know are Adobe Camera Raw, Bibble. They may work for you, you can always evaluate them and then buy.
  9. thanks guys, i have A trial version of Nikon NX Capture, can that convert? havent loaded yet ta
  10. Raw doesn't have to be complicated. At its simplest, all you have to do is fire up Nikon's View NX software (free download), select all your files, and go to File->Convert. You're then no worse off than if you'd shot jpeg, and you have the raw files to go back to if you need to do something more sophisticated (for which there are many options in advanced raw converters like Nikon's Capture NX and Adobe Camera Raw). The only real disadvantages are the size of the files (yes, NEFs are significantly bigger) and the extra time required to handle and convert them.

    One thing to bear in mind is that different raw converters will (at least by default) give rather different results when used on the same file. Nikon's converters give similar results to the in-camera jpegs unless you choose to change something (they use Nikon's own colour profiles and read all the in-camera settings), but 3rd party converters (which use their own profiles and ignore most camera settings) will give you a different 'rendering' of the raw file, and may require more extensive tweaking of the settings to give the result you want. Quite a few people are put off raw altogether when the first converter they try (typically Adobe Camera Raw with the default settings) gives 'worse' images than the in-camera jpegs (and unfortunately some of them write articles about it!).
  11. Mark, I shoot RAW but there is another thing to consider. Since RAW files are so much larger, you need to either have quite a few memory cards or have a way to download your images as you go along. The good news, SD cards are pretty inexpensive.

    I took a laptop and portable HD to Europe so saving files was easy. Most people don't want to bother with that. Fine, but remember your only source of images might be your cards so consider this beforehand.

    That said, RAW definitely preserves more options for you. Perhaps a year or two from now you become proficient in post processing. You will definitely wish you had a RAW image to work from.

    OTOH, if you are okay with the tradeoffs and know that image changes will deteriorate some of the quality, just go with JPEG. If you do this, read the manual carefully and check images as you go along. You don't want to find your images over/underexposed three days into the trip.
  12. My advice is to shoot in RAW, download your images to a Hyperdrive, and process them in Nikon Capture NX or NX2 when you get home. If you want to see the images as you download them, get the Colorspace model. If you do not need to see the images, get the Space model. If you believe in double backups, get the hyperdrive and a laptop or two hyperdrives.

    Joe Smith
  13. Shoot RAW for all the reasons given above and other advice from the "ole man."

    A couple of things. If you do have a laptop, you probably should bring it to offload your RAW shot as they eat cards. It is also great to backup your shots in case of card failure.

    I hope you have light camera bag that is functional such as a toploader bag for your camera and lenses at http://www.lowepro.com/. Nothing worse than fighting a bag on a long day out.

    Format your empty cards in your D80 every time before you shoot. Don't format cards with images on them, you will lose them.

    www.bibblelabs.com has software you can afford for post. It's RAW converter rivals Nikon's (in some ways I like it better) and the software has great tools allowing you for post as well as batching out photos. I use the pro version, and per PhotoShop, it integrates well when you are ready to buy PS, which I would.

    However, my lovely wife of 29 years shoots a D40 with an 18-135mm on "Green" -- automatic mode (jpg) and produces stunning results. She is a great photographer, but a bit of a techno-phobe. Yes, I do at times have to clean up her work in post, but, many times we miss shots fooling around trying to figure out how our gear works.

    Which leaves me this last point, practice all you can before you go taking notes.

    Mainly, have a seriously fun time.
  14. I agree with everyone above...shoot in RAW and take enough cards or back-up to a laptop. There is just so much more that you can do to manipulate your images in post processing with RAW files, and you are not likely to get back to take another shot. So, RAW will give you the most flexibility. Have a great trip, enjoy your camera, and plan to spend a LOT of time when you get home reviewing and playing with your images!
  15. Everybody seems to glorify RAW vs Jpeg...the way I look at this " problem " is simple: you rather be driver and drive a car or fix it - fixer ---become " mechanic" ...you rather take pictures and enjoy it or spend hours fixing them or improving....why cheat.??? ..I see adventage of shooting RAW where there are challenging lighting conditions, maybe even shooting special events (wedding) and you dont want to screw up anything, but try to shoot sports in Cont.Mode or other fast pace events.....I play with Photoshop, and it takes some time to " fix" --ONE picture...so now try to do this 100s times if not more...Why not get exposure right first time.???--How about the times ,when there wasnt Photoshop???
    Did people took nice pictures???
    Unless you are graphic designer, working for magazines, real PRO and so on ---you really better off look at RAW seriously, thats why "normal" people dont even bother with TIFF, thanks God no one yet recommend that....
    Bottom line I am not saying do not shoot in RAW, I do sometimes myself, --with Jpeg you will be fine !!!
    Let somebody else play with computer - you play with your camera and enjoy photography !!!--raf
  16. I believe that a photograph should convey a message or an emotion or captures a moment, or whatever photographer is trying show others, its not about getting it perfect/right the moment its captured, so there is no cheating in changing the photograph after capture. Its all about what a photographer wants show in his/her photograph.

    I can't get everything right at the first time. Moreover, when I capture, I wont even have so much time to sit and think/rethink every aspect how photograph will eventually be, when I take a print. I am no Professional photographer.

    I generally don't spend more than few clicks (5-10) on a single Raw image to get the picture I want. I don't do any special effects or change colors or anything. Working on photoshop (photo editing), is a different deal than working Raw images.

    Raw is just a tool which can make life easier. If one can get exposure perfect, even then there is nothing wrong in shooting Raw, as you can capture more details than JPEG. Eventually you can convert to a 16bit TIFF or so and print it.
  17. Shoot both. Take some shoots in RAW, and some in JPEG. Then you get to decide whether you want to play around with ViewNX/CaptureNX and the like in order to get some flexibility, or just hit the send/print/upload button.

    Now I'm going off-topic. Why is it David, that you should format the empty cards before you shoot? I just plug the cards fresh off the camera in my computer card reader, hit the transfer button (with the Erase after copy option checked) eject the cards and presto! Cards come out empty and ready to be filled again. Am I doing something wrong?
  18. hbs


    "I just plug the cards fresh off the camera in my computer card reader, hit the transfer button (with the Erase after copy option checked) eject the cards and presto! Cards come out empty and ready to be filled again. Am I doing something wrong?"

    By erasing the cards this way you run the risk of possibly not being able to write or read files in the future. It's always preferable to format the card in the camera you're using each time you want to erase. It's also easy -- just press and hold the two red buttons.
  19. Raw and JPEG. No question.
  20. After you download your images to your pc, with a card reader, format the card in the camera. Never format the card in your pc. It is always risky to place any camera card into your pc. That is why they teach you that the safe way to download is with a card reader. And the only safe way to format your card is to put it back into your camera and reformat it. Joe Smith
  21. Mark, if you are an excellent slide film photographer capable of producing a perfect exposure every time you trip the shutter, than you might be able to produce a perfect JPEG image with your new D 80. That means you fully understand its features and how it comapres to your film camera and film so you can capture those perfect images each time you take the image.

    Even expert slide shooters bracketed a lot of their shots for different exposures and still threw a lot of them away. If you shoot JPEG, that is what you will have to do. If you shoot RAW, if your are smart, you will still try and take that one "perfect" shot to minimize post processing time and trouble. Set the camera for the conditions present to get the right image capture. But if you have to tweak your exposure compensation a little, or make other little minor adustments, you can still produce a great image from one NEF file. You will not be able to do that with your one JPEG image. If you shoot anything indoors in Europe, you better shoot RAW. Lighting is so mixed you have to tweak white balance no matter what you set on the camera. Joe Smith
  22. thanks guys, great responses as usual
  23. Harvey and the rest: To clarify the format the card note, What Joseph Smith said. Much better put than my quick info. And, having shot Europe many times, he is absolutely right about lighting being mixed. It is extremely variable. Good point.

    Mostly again, have a blast and shoot all you can.
  24. Post-processing is not 'cheating'.

    If you're willing to make the minor effort/investment in RAW converting software (some are free, like FastStone) then shoot RAW and don't look back. Bring extra storage cards, they're pretty cheap now.

    I initially thought that RAW+JPEG was a good idea but I got tired of it quickly and now shoot only RAW. I found it much easier to deal with just one copy of each image during post processing rather than two--I don't want to have to set metadata (caption, description, tags, etc.) for both the JPEG and the RAW! Additionally, they take up even more space that way on the card (and probably later on your hard disk too). Better to set it on the RAW, then any JPEGs I end up producing will inherit the metadata. Furthermore, most of the time I don't want a full-size JPEG--if it's going via e-mail or the web it will be downsized. Again, I don't need the +JPEG as it will normally be full-sized.

    Even if shooting RAW you still want to get the exposure as 'correct' as possible in-camera.

    I don't see any distinction between putting a storage card "in a pc" and "in a card reader", not sure why Joe Smith calls it "risky". The 'internal' card readers are no different than external USB-connected card readers. That being said, I do recommend transferring the images to PC with a card reader, but formatting the cards (after transfer) in-camera.

    And MOST importantly, have a great trip. You'll probably like using that 50 f/1.8 at night, no flash, you'll probably end up raising ISO anyway. The zoom should be a great daylight lens. I'm not completely familiar with the D80 + 18-135 combination but bear in mind that it is possible that the lens or lens hood may cast a shadow with the built-in flash so perhaps use the 50 or go hoodless if that's the case. Look for a dark shadow at the bottom center of your images.
  25. The easy way to explain RAW: Instead of your little camera to process your photos... you use the big computer.

    Dude, when you go overseas, shoot in JPEG and RAW. Because, down the road when you learn RAW, you will
    be kicking [yourself] that you didn't use it when you were there. Believe me, I know... too many trips shot in
    JPEG (before I learned RAW)... wish it would have been in RAW now.

  26. Shooting RAW is not for everyone. In fact I think a lot of people shoot RAW and know very little of why they are doing so. I shoot mainly RAW now, but for the first two years when I got into photography I shot only JPEG. Looking back at the several thousands of photos, I can count on one hand where I wished I had shot in RAW. Even then, the images are still usable. Whilst there are numerous good reasons for shooting RAW, the best reason for most people for shooting JPEG is if you are basically a beginner - behind the camera as well as in Photoshop. So, if you consider yourself a beginner, forget all the hype and shoot JPEG. (That's not so say that some pros don't shoot JPEG)
  27. Great points guys, Great shot Andy..thanks
  28. Mark,

    The best advice I can give you is that until you know what works best for you, you should set up your D80 to shoot in
    NEF(RAW)+JPEG Fine mode. That way, every time your press the shutter, the D80 will record your image in both
    RAW and JPEG (Fine quality) formats SIMULTANEOUSLY! No need to choose one over the other.

    Then when you have downloaded your RAW and JPEG files onto your computer, you can decided if the JPEG is good
    enough to print as is, or if you should manipulate the image (using the RAW file) to get better results.

    You can set your D80 to shoot in 'NEF(RAW)+JPEG Fine' mode by changing your Image Quality setting on your D80.
    This is explained in detail on page 34 of your Nikon D80 User's Manual.
  29. I shoot in raw and can convert hundreds of photos to jpeg in a very short time by creating an action in photoshop, for the driver not the fixer, I am glad that he nails it all the time, especially when there is light combinations and light changes, cloudy to day, to shade, to indoors, to flourscent, etc, two years to discover the beauty of raw seems like a long time. If you want pictures take the photos in jpeg, if you want to create photographs take them in raw.
  30. What is basic difference in RAW and JPG? If I scan a negative in RAW and same in JPG, after that I will do some posprocessing than what I can or cannot do perfectly in JPG/RAW ....?

    I too want to know

    After much experiments I am still unable to find any diffrence.

    Tell me how can I test the difference....?
  31. When I travel I can't be bothered carrying a notebook but like to shoot RAW+JPEG. Some SD cards come with a mini USB reader. I go to an internet cafe, or one of a million hostels with free internet, and back my photos up onto two DVDs. I also have an MP3 player as a back up option and I might email my favourites to gmail which allows 20meg files, enough for RAW. Besides a slow burst rate, which means nothing to me, I can't see any advantage to shooting JPEG only.

    Most of my travelling has been in Asia though so I'm not sure what it costs to burn a DVD in Europe but it'll be cheaper than an SD card.

    Btw, I wonder if the chap who bags RAW is Ken Rockwell. You only have to google his name to hear what people think of him, but that's another thread altogether.
  32. As far as the claimed advantage of adjusting the white balance after the fact in Raw, iPhoto allows you to adjust the color temperature and does
    it on JPEGS, Photoshop does the same. You can also adjust the sharpness, etc., on JPEGS in both. So what's the difference? Why shoot RAW?
  33. For what it's worth...mine is another vote for shooting both. I am not a pro-shooter, but I often will shoot hundreds of shots when I go out and I shoot both, I shoot mostly in Program mode so 9 times out of 10 everything works pretty well and the JPG comes out just fine. For the 10th time that something is wrong, or the colors are not as vivid as I would like or are too vivid for my tastes, or there is a spot of sun in an otherwize shaded picture or vice-versa, I love being able to go to that single NEF file, fix it and re-export it, and yes re-apply the tags, etc.

    Yes, you will want to keep more memory cards on hand during the trip but memory cards are cheap.

    The only disadvantage I have found to shooting both is that you need to manually sort out the NEF and JPG files when moving them to you computer. I find this to be more than outweighed by the flexibility of just using the JPGs when I can and fixing the NEF when I need to.
  34. once i tried raw i never went back to jpeg.

    my camera allows to take both formats simultaneously. raw is time consuming for certain. i would definitely think about purchasing something like an Epson photofine portable storage device for traveling. Then you will be worry free.

    RAW allows you to post process your photo before making it a jpeg. It is non destructive. Editing jpegs will result in a lower resolution image from what i understand. If this is any concern to you.
  35. "...How about the times ,when there wasnt Photoshop??? Did people took nice pictures???..."
    Yes - the lab color corrected and corrected exposure if necessary when they printed the images.
  36. Wayne, the difference shows up first in the Histogram. When you first open a properly exposed JPEG the Histogram is a nice full 'mountain' of information hopefully with no spikes at either end. After adjusting levels, contrast and/or color balance -but before resaving- the refreshed Hisrogram looks like a pocket comb laying on its back. If you are planning on printing the image to anything larger than 4X6 those gaps in the Histogram will be filled in by the whatever software you're using and appear as flat, posterized areas without any gradual tonal transition. Not pretty. If you are only shooting for the Web or review on a Monitor you may never notice the posterization.
  37. Mark - you probably want to try shooting only JPG for a day, then ONLY raw for a day, and compare using a good raw converter. I think that your camera should come with some software to deal with raw...??

    Here's the deal. If you are a serious shooter, raw gives you a TON of flexibility that simply isn't there when you are shooting. It comes at the expense of larger files and more time at the computer. As a pro, this tradeoff is 100% worth it, and I haven't shot JPG since trying show.

    You might find raw useful or just too complicated. Try both for a day and see how you like them.
  38. When I shot Nikon (D-70) I found it best to shoot in both RAW and Jpeg. Look at the results side by side. The Jpeg files
    are very
    compressed as opposed to RAW files. Getting a true black or true white is next to impossible with Jpeg format.

    As to the "cheating" aspect, I look upon post-processing as doing in minutes on a computer what I used take
    hours to do in a
    dark room.

    Yes, The RAW-Jpeg format will eat up memory on a card, but extra memory cards are cheap as compared to loss of
    being able to
    produce the image you want. If you spend several thousand dollars to get to and from your destination, what's an extra
    $50 for another
    memory card?
  39. Just to add a
    different view point
    on re- formatting
    the card in the
    camera after you
    offload the
    images... This is
    an unnecessary
    step... Now, it may
    not do any harm, but
    it is not doing any

    The only thing that
    is changed on the
    card when you
    'erase' the images
    after download is
    that the file
    directory is reset
    to show the card as
    empty... The image
    storage areas of the
    card are unchanged
    and still contains
    the 1s and 0s of
    your picture data...
    That data will be
    overwritten when you
    use the card in the
    camera again... That
    data will be
    overwritten if you
    reformat leaving 1s
    and 0s on the card
    ... There is nothing
    to be gained by
    reformatting a known
    good card...

    The best analogy I
    can use is the C:
    drive on your
    computer... You
    certainly don't
    'reformat' that
    every time you erase
    some pictures!

  40. Shoot Raw. I took a two month, 10 country tour of Europe two years ago. All images were shot in jpeg and now wish I had shot RAW. I was inexperienced and didn't know any better. Take the advice here and shoot RAW. You can get nice images in jpeg but you will see artifacts and other annoyances and wish you had shot RAW.
    So where are ya going?
  41. Formatting is a great deal faster than deleting the files, that's why people do it. Also, doing it in the camera makes sure the card bookkeeping structures are compatible with the particular camera. It is commonly reported that if you format in the PC, the card may not work in a particular camera.
  42. Please tell me a test to do, so I can judge the difference

    Tell, what filter, adjust or anything else I would apply on both file and will find a difference.........?

  43. cd


    If you have no workflow experience (Photoshop Capture NX etc..) you are wasting your time shooting & valuable space on your memory card shooting RAW.
  44. I understand Carlos' thinking but one day you may be proficient with the software and wish you had the RAW files. You can't undo JPEG compression.......
  45. If you have Lightroom you can shoot in jpeg and make changes to WB etc non destructively then export the
    files. Otherwise if you save an original JPEG file; make changes and only save once you will not have significant
    deterioration. I have been doing this with Fuji cameras for years. I have experimented with RAW but using an
    S5Pro the Jpeg images are so good that RAW is an irrelevance given the size of files.

    Nikon and Canon users have more need for RAW as the JPEG files are inferior to start with.

    If you are happy with the JPEGs with your camera and are not photographing professionally then I wouldn�t
    waste my time and effort. If you are shooting under difficult high contrast lighting conditions then I would advise
    using both JPEG and RAW but not all the time.

    Don�t get so hung up on the technicalities if you are shooting for fun. If you are planning to sell images or exhibit
    them; then RAW format makes a lot of sense.
  46. b&w


    I shot RAW mostly, but find that disk space is so cheap I now just shoot both (i.e RAW and JPG high) its a setting on my camera.

    I I find that it does not really effect your shooting speed unless you go for sports.

    Workflow becomes easier as well.

    An extra 4G card is not that expensive.

    Why choose?
  47. first i shoot jpeg all the time. i use a pentax *istD dslr. have tried raw and got no improvement in my pics, though before my little jpeg vs raw test i thought that there would be a difference. there wasn't FOR ME. the reason i concluded was that my pics as shot in the field require almost zero processing. the great rpt great rpt great advantage of raw is the amount and type of post processing the picture taker does in the pc. for me, i do almost zero, my goal in the field is to shoot the pics so that they are good enough to stand on there own without any pp. i am currently pp about 5% of all jpegs i shoot. also, i currently crop in the pc 0% of what i shoot. i do it in the camera, its called composition.
    the two great areas that raw absolutely shine in is when you have no time to properly set up the shot. the other is when the lighting is so odd or undetermined that you have no idea what it is and you have to rely on pp to give you the proper color and white balance adjustments. a possible third necessity for post-processing would be that if the camera or scene has something that you have to correct for on virtually every picture.
    in other words, it all depends on the quality of pictures you are delivering to the pc. if you consistently shoot pics and they are such that the pc is used for sorting storage and printing, like me, then you can go to the convenience of jpeg.
    but, if you find yourself adjusting correcting or fixing the iso, exposure, white balance, color, and cropping THEN you should be using raw. only you know your photographic abilities and what type of pics you are taking. for this reason, the decision to shoot raw or jpegs is yours alone based on your needs.
    for me jpegs work, BUT that might not work for others. raw for others could be the way to go.
    the ONLY rpt only rpt only time the shot is a jpeg is when it is brought to the computer. it is either discarded or changed(i tend to have small tweaks) on the pc in some way, then it "save as" a tiff. the jpeg is never "save" or "save as" a jpeg ever. the original jpeg is stored in a jpeg folder that is a holdall.
    this keeps the as shot quality intact.

    with a raw file you have to convert the file to jpeg or tiff to use it for any other purpose. you cannot print a raw file, for example. with jpegs they can be used immediately as soon as they are downloaded into the pc.
    as far as batch processing is concerned, yes it speeds up the raw conversion process, but it eliminates one of the advantages of the raw process. this is the individual care and effort an individual raw pic gets when it is not batch processed. the individual raw file gets the maxium care it needs to give its best picture. with batch processing this is gone, you are not achieving the max from each shot. and this is the reason you are shooting raw in the first place. to me if you are batch processing, you might as well go with jpeg.
    yes, i have pe6 and cs2 and can use both.

    my view. gary
  48. "...you cannot print a raw file..."
    Not correct. I print RAW files from Capture NX all the time.
  49. Buy more cards, they are cheap.
    Shoot RAW.
    Buy Lightroom for adjustments, catalog, creating JPG, etc.

    You will never regret it.
  50. Mark, you already got a bunch of replies. Mine won't ad much, but go for RAW. I had moreless the same worries you have now, but when I switched to RAW I found it outsmarted JPG. have a nice trip. Marco
  51. Raw is the way to go!
    Get you RAW converter software (Adobe converter/CAPTURE NX) and you will see the advantages of it.
    Since you are fairly new in photography (As I am) most likly you are going to "miss" the correct exposure/white balance etc. in some of your shots, Fix your "miss shots" with the Raw software until you feel confortable with it, And learning the use of software and manipulation of images are another things you LEARNED in your trip to Europe.

    Good luck!!

    By the way, somebody has mentioned that you can change your ISO with a software? How is that posible? I dont think it is...DOES anybody have a comment about this????

    "I think it's a very obvious choice. If you shoot RAW you can change the ISO, white balance and a number of other settings after the fact, and save shots that would otherwise be lost."


    Best regards and good look in Europe!!

  52. I don't get it. I have been shooting jpg for years and occasionally shot RAW because so many people say it is the way to go. When I do shoot it, I find I am limited so much by the adjustments I can make in CaptureNX compared to the fine tuning I can do to JPGs in Photoshop. In PS, I can adjust exposure, contrast, white balance, color correction, noise reduction, lens distortion, chromatic abborition, dodge and burn with layers, and the list goes on...
    I still shoot RAW on a lot of stuff because so many people say it is the way to go and maybe one day when I find out why, I will have my RAW files to come back to. For now, I just batch convert my RAW files into JPGs in CaptureNX and go to town in Photoshop with fine tuning adjustments not possible with RAW files in Capture.
    I'm open to suggestions, please convince me otherwise so I can reap the benefits of shooting RAW.

  53. I'm for raw! The quality is high and the colours are way better than jpg. The raw is the negative and you can start from that point. There's not much to change or to edit when you start from jpg. This is my opinion. I might be wrong.
  54. I also shoot both simultaneously.
  55. If you follow the advice of all of these people voting for RAW, I hope that:
    1. You have a good RAW converter that saves your in-camera settings, or your RAW images will look very flat
    2. You know what you're doing with post processing
    3. You have LOTS of time to post process all of those images.

    As a D70, iPhoto and Aperture 2.1 user, I still don't see what all of the hoopla over RAW is about. My jpegs look as good
    or better. And I can do any of the adjustments mentioned above to jpegs, in iPhoto and Aperture.
  56. As anyone can see, this has become mostly a matter of personal preference.
  57. On second thought, I think there are a couple advantages in RAW. One option is in changing the color space from sRGB to the others if you have a printer that supports the additional colors. Another, I guess is saving to TIFF to have a wider range of bits to work with (those options are mostly utilized by professioanls).
    I'm still not getting rid of Phototshop, the number of photos I've saved using the healing brush and clone tool are alone worth the price of admission.

  58. "... I find I am limited so much by the adjustments I can make in CaptureNX ..."
    Start using the white and black control points in Capture. Simply amazing results with just one click!
    Additionally - the latest version (Capture NX - 2.0) now has a healing brush that actually does a better job than the one in Photoshop.
  59. "1. You have a good RAW converter that saves your in-camera settings, or your RAW images will look very flat"
    Capture NX does it perfectly!
    "2. You know what you're doing with post processing"
    The learning curve with Capture is not bad at all - actually much easier to learn than Photoshop!
    "3. You have LOTS of time to post process all of those images."
    I normally will sort and process 1000 to 1200 wedding images down to 300 to 400 images for the bride and groom using Capture NX for about 95% of all the necessary adjustments in under 12 hours. MUCH faster than using Photoshop or any other program I have tried.
  60. "By the way, somebody has mentioned that you can change your ISO with a software? How is that posible? I dont think it is...DOES anybody have a comment about this???? "

    You cannot change your ISO setting by editing a raw file. Maybe he was referring to high ISO images yielding noise, which can be reduced with software? I dont know. At any rate, you cannot change your ISO setting.
  61. I suppose I will throw my two cents into the pile. First, note that I am a beginner. So, take that into consideration I guess.

    Please note that these are my feelings on the raw vs. jpeg issue. I am offering them in hopes that they help you, but this really is an individual choice. And your choice may change at some point - nothing wrong with that at all! What works for one person may not work for you. Experiment with both formats by shooting raw + jpeg and see which you prefer. Maybe you want to keep shooting in both. That is fine too. Just have fun!

    I take my photos in raw format, not jpeg. I use raw mainly because I enjoy flexibility. There are adjustments I can make in raw, that I cannot make in jpeg, whereas the reverse is not true. Given my inability to capture exactly what I want each and every time I take a photo, I feel that raw really helps me.

    There has been mention of some drawbacks that using raw entails. I will try to address them all individually. If I missed something and you want me to comment on it, just let me know. Or if something is not clear and requires a followup, just let me know. Oh and if I say something that is flat out wrong, hopefully somebody will correct me. :)

    (1) File Space Concerns.

    File space is not much of a concern to me. On my d70, I can fit ~700 photos on my 4gig card. That is plenty for one outing. When I get home, I just import the photos to my computer and then reformat the card, ready to go for the next trip.

    (2) Need for a raw converter that applies your in-camera settings

    I use Adobe Lightroom as my photo software. It does not apply in-camera settings. If you want your photo to immediately look like it did on your camera's LCD screen, you should shoot in jpeg or use Capture NX as your raw processor.

    Basically a raw file is "raw" in the sense that it is a collection of information that you get to work with and make adjustments to. Nothing has been done to it (unless in-camera settings were applied of course). jpegs are processed by your camera. What you see on the LCD is a photo that has already been processed in-camera. With raw, you do the processing on your computer. Either way, you are making the choices. Either you choose 'vivid' in your camera options or you adjust the colors on your computer in your raw photo editor.

    With any raw file you can get the photo to look like the processed jpeg. However, if that were all that you could do, I dont think the format would be so popular. You can go beyond that and make additional changes, i.e. exposure adjustments.

    Now, getting back on track, not having in-camera adjustments applied by Lightroom doesnt impact me. I have a few presets that I use to get around that. I have basic adjustments that I make every time and that I apply on import to all my photos. When I am reviewing the photos, if I dont like the look of the photo with that preset, I just click 'reset' and it is back to the unadjusted raw file. Or I just make further adjustments, whatever I see fit. No big deal - no huge time investment. Note: I do sharpening and noise reduction at the very end.

    (3) Amount of time required to post-process raw files

    I already mentioned presets. I use them frequently. It is one of many timesavers in most professional photo software applications. Another tool I use frequently is Lightroom's 'sync' button which lets me apply changes from one photograph to many other photographs of my choice. Basically, post processing does not have to take a long time. It can if you want it to, but if you dont, it can take only minutes.

    (4) Necessity of experience with post processing

    I have never used Aperture, so I cannot speak to that program. I used Capture NX a little, but not extensively. I found it's user interface less intuitive than Lightroom's, but choosing your software is mainly personal preference. I like Lightroom's user interface. I dont think you really need any experience with photo editing software to get going. The manual is good and there are dozens of online tutorials (for all software options), video as well as text, to help you out. If you know what terms such as white balance, exposure, noise, sharpening, contrast, etc. are, then I dont think you will have problems. You adjust sliders to your liking. Nothing more complicated than that.

    (5) Using raw is cheating

    Hopefully this wont open up a can of worms. My feeling is that post processing in software is no different than making adjustments in the darkroom, or having a photo lab correct your film. But, hey, to each his own.

    (6) Price of software

    Lightroom's education discount brings the price to $100. That is pretty cheap. Some software costs more. Education discounts help, if you are eligible of course. I certainly dont regret spending the $100.

    Photoshop costs one heck of a lot more, is more difficult to learn (in my opinion), and doesnt have the management capabilities that Lightroom has. You can do some things in Photoshop that you cannot do in Lightroom, but for me, Lightroom does everything I need.

    So while I am on the subject of software and price, please dont buy anything without trying the FREE trial versions of the major software options - Capture NX, Lightroom, Aperture, Bibble, DxO, and I suppose Photoshop. Find out which one fits you best and go with that!

    (7) Post processing is a chore

    I am sure it is for some people. For me, it is not. I dont spend too long post processing, but I ENJOY it. It gives me an opportunity to closely examine my photos and make adjustments as I see fit. I feel more connected to my photos after I post process them. Maybe I'm just the oddball in the group? I dont think anybody else said they enjoyed post-processing. :|

    I guess that it is about it. Hopefully that helped. I know I rambled quite a bit haha. By way of closing, just experiment with the formats, but dont get hung up on it. The most important thing is to have fun taking photographs.
  62. "Craig, How do you adjust ISO after the fact in RAW? I don't think that's possible." -- It doesn't show up as changing the ISO as such but you can vary the exposure by plus or minus a couple of stops. That gives you the exposure equivalent of changing the ISO after the fact. Whether it affects noise levels commensurate with the ISO setting I'm not sure. But it's still more flexibility than raw.
  63. I would shoot JPEG, but use JPEG + RAW when unsure of the exposure situation. I think RAW can sometimes be an asset, but that high-quality JPEG use is often under rated. Quality can be excellent, and even some degree of touch up work can be successful. One reason I believe some people have found RAW to provide clearly superior imag quality, is that for them it is true. I have found tests indicating that many camera models, some of the best, in fact, have out of camera JPEG quality that is rather soft. The D200 is a case in point. So then it makes sense to shoot RAW, then batch process to JPEG. Fortunately, the D80 provides uncommonly high JPEG quality right from the camera. In fact, even better than the very good JPEGs from the D300, from what I've seen. I'm an old film shooter with plenty of slide film experience. Shooting JPEGs with a DSLR is similar. Fortunately, I also have a DSLR that produces excellent JPEG images. But I do go to RAW when I may want to do more in the way of extensive "dark room" efforts, or encounter a very high-contrast situation- very bright areas and very white whites. Otherwise, I spend little time at the computer with 95% of my images. I just get the shot right in JPEG and enjoy the results- just like film! I still have many advantages a DSLR offers- instant preview, digital storage, easy sharing, deletion of rejects with no cost, etc. Your D80 also has some very nice in-camera touch-up features. I know for JPEG use, but I don't know if that works with RAW. Shoot some of both before your trip and see how well you are served according to your own experience. Good luck, and enjoy your trip!
  64. BTW, to examine a very detailed and thorough review of your D80, check dpreview.com under reviews/previews. go down to "more", then to alphabetical listing to find your model. You can use the drop down page menu at the top to bring up any page. I think on page 15, "features" they outline available in-camera touchup capabilities, and provide a fine example of the D-lighting feature. You can open up shadow exposure without affecting highlight areas. Remarkable, and potentially very useful.

    I have seen other sites providing even more info as to visual image assessments.
  65. Russ, I've used the White/Black/Grey pointers and often get extreme results, I just began fooling with the opacity of those selections and have not gotten the hang of moving points and the like. I just got the most current version of NX.

    David, I think I have a gap in my understanding of RAW displaying in editing software. I hear of the camera making adjustments for the JPG version and CaptureNX making an adjusted image for display in its working space and then about RAW images being just data in Lightroom. How does that look? Are the files one big white or black image or a bunch of multi-colored dots that change and take shape as you adjust settings? I would think editing software would have to make some assumptions in order to display the image for you to view and have a place to jump off. Even a negative is an image albiet, opposite. Does my lack of understanding make sense?

  66. Unless you are used to editing raw files i would be tempted to shoot in jpeg. You state that you are new to photography, so my advice is shoot jpeg for the trip and get used to editing raw files when the shots are not as important.
  67. Hopefully this will clear things up for you Kirk.

    (1) You push the button, the shutter fires, and the photograph is taken.
    (2) Your file is recorded. If you have chosen for it to be recorded in jpeg, that is is what it will be recorded in. The same holds true for raw and raw+jpeg.
    (3) The camera processes the image using your in-camera settings. (The raw file is the same image, just unprocessed.)
    (4) You see the in-camera processed image on your lcd. This is basically what the JPEG will look like.

    Your raw files are NEF's (that is the format name, .NEF). Capture NX, made by Nikon, applies -to the raw file- those same in camera settings that were applied to the jpeg. Other programs do not do that. So Capture NX processed raw files will look most like your JPEG initially.

    In lightroom, those in-camera settings are NOT applied automatically, BUT you still have an image. You just have the image without the, for example, in-camera-set custom sharpening levels. You will apply the sharpening yourself to your tastes. Note, you can of course adjust sharpening in Capture NX - just the in-camera choice of sharpening is automatically applied to start with.

    So, as an example, I take a photo of a garden with colors set to 'vivid.' Assume I have no other in-camera settings.
    ----In a jpeg, that 'vivid' setting is applied and the camera's processor automatically makes other adjustments to the photo.
    ----In a raw file processed by Capture NX, that same 'vivid' setting is applied. You make further adjustments as you process the photo on your computer.
    ----In another raw processor, e.g. Lightroom, you still have the photo, but without the 'vivid' setting applied. You cannot apply a 'vivid' setting identical to the one in your camera. You adjust the colors and make other adjustments as you process the photo yourself.

    Did that make sense?

    I recommend trying an experiment. Take a photo with the 'vivid' setting on. Take it in RAW + jpeg. Open on your computer (1) the jpeg, (2) the raw file in Capture NX, (3) the raw file in Lightroom. Look at them side by side. You can use the free trials for the programs. That should help you understand what I said (in case it did not make sense).
  68. That makes plenty sense; finally, I see! I forgot about the camera doing auto sharpening and possibly other things.

    Funny of you not to take anything for granted and start at the beginning so as to not underestimate my lack of knowledge by starting off with "push button, shutter fires, picture taken".

    I wonder if Lightroom gives the education discount to teachers...thinking out loud.

    Thanks David,

  69. Raw processing in the computer after you've gotten home is no different than having the camera's on board computers do the raw to JPEG processing --except that you have a lot more control and you come home with more real information.

    Post processing (manipulation in Photoshop or other digital darkroom programs) is another thing entirely andnot all the same thing as raw processing.

    Shooting JPEGs + raw files, unless you are an extremely tight deadline, is inefficient and wasteful of memory space on the media you record on. It also wastes your time too.
  70. Raw does offer some advantages as many posters have said. But the trade off is much more storage space required and more time in post processing. When I'm on vacation, as I was last week in Charleston SC, walking the streets, I shoot jpegs. I'm pretty good at nailing exposure, but if I'm not sure, I'll bracket +- 1 stop using the AEB feature. The three jpeg files are about the same size as one RAW file, in my camera at least. Finally, I like the look of jpegs out of the camera better than my post-processed RAWs into jpegs. Perhaps my post skills are lacking.

    Now, when exposure gets tricky or the white balance is weird, I'll switch to RAW.

    RAW files do contain more information, but unless you convert them to 16 bit tiff files (huge!) that extra information is lost in the conversion to 8 bit jpeg. From my own experience, I can't tell the difference between a print that started off as a RAW file on one that started as a jpeg.
  71. Kirk-

    Glad I could help. I started at the beginning to help anybody reading this thread now, or five years from now. :)

    "I wonder if Lightroom gives the education discount to teachers...thinking out loud."
    ^^You just have to meet this requirement: "A full- or part-time faculty or staff member employed by an accredited K-12 or
    accredited higher education institution." (adobe.com)
  72. David, I kind of figured that was your approach. Thanks for the tip for educators and you and all for the RAW education.

  73. Pankaj Purohit , Jun 18, 2008; 05:29 a.m.

    I want to know too....

    What is basic difference in RAW and JPG? If I scan a negative in RAW and same in JPG, after that I will do some posprocessing than what I can or cannot do perfectly in JPG/RAW ....?

    I too want to know

    After much experiments I am still unable to find any diffrence.

    Tell me how can I test the difference....?

    Ellis, do you know the link to Andrew Rodney's test between jpg and raw. It's a good article for anyone not understanding raw, and I'd recommend anyone whose confused by raw to read it. Sorry, I can't remember the link, but if you do a search for 'digital dog' on photonet look at anything he has posted about raw, as it will be spot on.

    Wayne Campbell , Jun 18, 2008; 08:10 a.m.

    As far as the claimed advantage of adjusting the white balance after the fact in Raw, iPhoto allows you to adjust the color temperature and does it on JPEGS, Photoshop does the same. You can also adjust the sharpness, etc., on JPEGS in both. So what's the difference? Why shoot RAW?

    White balance adjustments aren't as accurate when done on jpg's. Jpegs are demosaiced gamma corrected files. Raw adjustments are performed on the linear un-demosaiced data, and hence the linear white balance scaling is 100% accurate. The other aspect of jpgs is that one or more channels may be clipped, whereas in reality in the raw data they may not. Adjusting white balance on jpgs in this case will give a strange result as the clipped channel can't be scaled correctly. In the raw file, this problem doesn't exist. The other issue, of couse, is that raw works on the native 12 or 14 bit data (in fact converted to 16-bit space), and jpg only 8 bit. Therefore, any large adjustments to whitebalance or exposure etc can start to leave holes in your histogram in jpg.

    Craig Shearman , Jun 18, 2008; 03:59 p.m.

    "Craig, How do you adjust ISO after the fact in RAW? I don't think that's possible." -- It doesn't show up as changing the ISO as such but you can vary the exposure by plus or minus a couple of stops. That gives you the exposure equivalent of changing the ISO after the fact. Whether it affects noise levels commensurate with the ISO setting I'm not sure. But it's still more flexibility than raw.

    These are different things. ISO changed in-camera via boosting the CONTINUOUS analogue signal the appropriate amount. If you boost the signal after capture (ie. in raw convertor or photoshop), you are boosting DISCRETE digital data. Because it is discrete, any change to that data will lead to rounding errors. It will always be more noisy boosting exposure in post-processing as opposed to at image capture (although, we had a discussion a few weeks back about this and there was a suggestion that after a certain ISO, there is no gain to be had by doing it in-camera vs in post-processing. This point is probably near the highest iso of the camera).

    In my opinion, the main benefit of raw for the non-professional is the wider margin of error it allows. If you don't nail exposure, or if you accidently have flourescent white balance set, you can recover some of these mistakes to various extents using raw. You can do the same in jpg, but not nearly as good. The most important one is over-exposure. Images that are blown in jpg, may not neccessarily be blown in raw. Once they are gone in jpg, there is no getting them back. And for me, who doesn't nail exposure everytime, this is the greatest benefit to raw. Following is an image captured in jpg and raw. The jpg is blown, and lost. But with raw, i saved the image.
  74. here's the raw recovered version
  75. the solution is to take advantage of the capabilities of the camera and switch between modes whenever you need to. So, for instance, if you are taking shots of a very touristy nature and do not intend to have it be an art piece,then fine quality JPEG is all you'll need. If you are shooting something especially inspiring and can see you will want to frame it, then RAW will provide the better quality. And if you are wrong, then a fine quality JPEG will still get you there.

    Be flexible, and take advantage of the features of the camera. and have fun!
  76. Mark,
    I have another suggestion for your dilemma... (Although I would suggest RAW for it's tweakability) I also am going to Europe (Italy), leaving Saturday. I recently bought what is called a hyperdrive. A small blackberry size device, that has a laptop hard drive in it. See it here: http://www.hyperdrive.com/HyperDrive-COLORSPACE-O-80GB-p/hdcso-080.htm
    (This is the one I bought) It works well and there are several different types to meet your budget. 25MB/s backup.
    Backup 1GB in 1 minute. 32-bit copy verification and ECC Error Correction Coding.
    It is also file format independent.It will handle files from 11 different card types.
    No card adapters required. They plug right into the device. It will even scan and repair memory cards. On the unit I bought it also displays the photos as they are downloaded. Then some of the money you would have spent on a bunch of cards, can go toward the device.
    Sorry to ramble... Have a great trip...
  77. There is a freeware (for home users) software called FastStone Viewer. It can view and edit raw images and convert to jpeg. It works with Canon and Nikon raw image files (as well as Adobe, Fuji, Olympus, Sony, Minolta and Pentax raw files). It has batch conversion as well. It is quite good and also a very fast raw viewer as well. www.faststone.org is the website.

  78. Nice....but should you have used graduated ND filter you wouldnt have had to do your improvments in Photoshop, correct??? So if one likes to take or takes mostly landscapes should invest also in filters, polarizers, ND and so on-- instead of " correct" this in PS, using " filters"....Again it is nice to have last option to correct something, as I said above, --but we cannot look at PS like some type of magic pill...
    BTW, the more picture is manipulated, the more noise will occur???-raf
  79. When i say " magic pill" i refer to PS and RAW converters... :), raf
  80. It's true, an graduated ND filter would have helped here. But they can be fiddly and you don't always want a straight graduation. The good thing about digital editing is the ability to create almost perfect masks from the image itself. I should point out, the majority of the work in the corrected image was done in Lightroom. At the end I exported a 16 bit tiff to photoshop, and gave the sky a bit more density.
  81. Mark:

    I just started shooting RAW myself with my D70 and do like the range of possibilities for post production. I use Photoshop Elements 5.0 for processing. However I do agree with William that it takes a considerable amount of time to convert the files to be shared. I recently shot 340 pictures at a local bike race on 06/05/08 and am still going through the conversion process. So my answer would be for speed from shutter release to sharing use JPEG. If you have the time and want more options post shutter release then use RAW. Hope this helps.

    Enjoy your trip

  82. "Russ Konrad [Frequent poster] , Jun 18, 2008; 12:22 p.m. Not correct. I print RAW files from Capture NX all the time."

    No, you're incorrect. It's impossible to print raws. There isn't a printer in the world that supports the bit depth of raw as they're all 8 bit. Printing raw from NX just process it to 8 bit before hand, the same as saving as a jpg.
  83. There are two different arguments going on here. Some people say it is time consuming to convert raws to jpgs, and other say it isn't.

    Here's the reality: If you've got your camera manufacturer's raw converting software, you can capture raw only and produce jpgs on your computer at home that are identical to those that could be captured in-camera in no more than about 5 or 10 seconds an image. This is all batch processed (ie. you start it running, and then go get yourself a cup of tea, and by the time you drink your tea, they are all converted). Simple! You don't have to treat images individually, and you will get exactly the same jpgs as you would have if you set your camera to capture jpgs in the first place. The great benefit of this is that you will still have the raw data should you need to do anything extra to certain images (ie. like the blown sky example I posted).

    The people who are arguing that it is time consuming are not distinguishing between the raw conversion process and any EXTRA post processing work that is necessary. Setting you camera to capture in-camera jpgs WON'T magically eliminate any extra post processing your images may require.
  84. One small factor is that RAW processing is more demanding on your PC, both in terms of storage space and processing power. I find RAW a joy with a fast machine & Adobe Lightroom. Using ACDSee Pro on my old (4-5 years old) PC worked great for JPEG but once I switched to RAW, I found that the slower processing speed was distracting and held me back. I haven't tried any other RAW processors on my old PC so I don't know how much to blame ACDSee for the slowness but I will vouch for RAW + Lightroom + fast computer.
  85. I think RAW gives you more flexibility thanks to post processing, but jpeg is small size file format, and whatメs more important it saves your time (no need to be converted). I think if you have large memory card it's never bad to use raw + jpg mode. You'll have ready to share jpg file and best possible quality capabilities of raw.
  86. My opinion is, if you want something more from your images go .nef. You can always visit any internet caffe,
    download your images and burn them to DVD bought in any store. If you have laptop with you, you can download
    NikonView for free from their page. You can convert your nefs to jpgs easily (let it works overnight).
    I would always use Nikon converter (or Canon if I am Canon user )... the simple thing you doesn't fix your Toyota
    at Honda mechanics. If you visited Thom Hogan's page you could see there are some differences in nef conversion
    (color shifts - especially reds) regarding to software for conversion (Capture or Photoshop). But Nikon provides
    you the closest what you took whether you like it or not, but it depends on your skills (which is another issues).
    And of course, when you decided to by DSLR you have decided to become a "mule". A bit more equipment is necessary
    here (card reader, extra CF cards at least).
  87. My Word !!!! That was just an amazing read...thank you so much for your efforts, some of those repies would have took a huge amount of time and thought, i really appreciate this fact. Thanks.
    So what will i do? a pocket full of sd cards...RAW here i come !!! the main reason is i would love to learn how to process my images well at some point, so why not keep the data until i can? I have so much to learn, that im sure i will be seeking advice again.

    We leave New Zealand on the 5th July, Land in Paris, few days there, meeting some family from my home town of Newcastle upon Tyne(howay the lads) in A small village 45mins out of Nice, one week there, then through Italy taken in Florence, Venice, Milan, Lake Como, Rome, Fly out from Pisa to home Newcastle (see me mam and dad and Family) two weeks then back to NZ where ive been for 20 years. Travelling with wife, 22 year old son and his Fiance.

    Hopefully my friends i may have a coupl eof pics for you to critique.......be gentle im new :]

    Thanks again
  88. Raw is not at all hard to learn. It's just having the right program to convert it with is the question. I can honestley say I will no longer use JPEG to capture images with. I am RAW all the time. It is not hard to learn, it makes me feel better to use RAW because, of the flexibility it has.

    RAW completley rocks! no more disscussion.

  89. There's really no need to shoot raw+jpeg. Shoot raw only and then use Capture NX to convert shots to jpeg. Keep the good ones and fix the ones that need fixing... simple as that. If you have series of underexposed shots, running a batch is how you can apply same changes to multiple shots. Same goes for adjusting WB, etc.
  90. Nikon D80 gives you an option of shooting RAW with a copy of JPG. You will need more space or more cards of course but the you can decide which pictures need post processing and which not. Then erase the raw pictures that are perfect and keep the jpg copy. Then you just post process the one you are not too happy with. (I am sorry about my english) I hope it helps. That is what I do. I have 3 memory cards og 2g each. I also have the Nikon D80
  91. contributing nothing but to mention one of the best discussion on photo.net that I have had the pleasure to read
  92. more raw vs jpeg. for me, and i shoot jpegs all the time, if get the pics back to my pc and look through them and find ANY MORE THAT 5% that are off in exposure or wb. my conclusion is very simple- i messed up in the field, period. i expect that when the camera and i go intot the field all rpt all pic are correctly exposed and wb if fine. if not then i did not apply the knowledge skill care and effort to accomplish what i should have done right. and, i give myself no excuses whatsoever. i should get them right when shot. when people defend their use of raw one of the most common examples is one like bernie west's up above. in it he says the shot was 2 fstops off look at what was recovered. i say why was the shot so screwed up when it was taken? i want to know why the shot was taken so improperly when shot. did the user not know how to use the meter or camera? the meter is broken, and if it is why is the camnera not going to the repair shop? the camera is not broken and that is how it shoots. well, why did the owner ever buy a camera that has a metereing system that does not work? the metering system is design flawed or was built wrong or is just a lemon or what? ( bernie, no personal offense, i am using your pics as an example). the simple fact is that jpeg can deliver quality shots for any purpose that one wishes. people tell each other look at how poor the jpegs are from my camera in comparion to the raw shots. fine, did you spend the time necessary to properly setup the camera to make the max quality jpegs that i did as soon as i got my dslr. it took me 2 1/2 hrs, how long did it take you? you didn't! oh. so you are really comparing a raw shot to a jpeg that is still in factory default. how do you expect to get a good jpeg that way? your test was invalid before you even did it. the jpeg can deliver a quality pic if the user puts the skill knowledge time and effort into each shot when taken. and the camera is already setup. because of the way i shoot my jpegs they are very good. i am currently doing 5% or less pp at all on my shots with NO cropping. i do my cropping in the camera with lenses and zoom and changing position to get the shot i want when shot. all that i am really using my pc for is sorting storing and printing at this time. any pp, i usually use pe6 though i have cs2 and can use it, is confined to auto level auto focus and auto sharpen. 3 buttons and sometimes i do not even use them though all pics get sharpened. i spent 32yrs shooting film slides. with slides it is definately what you shoot is what you get. pp and photoshop was not even thought of. you did it right in the camera or you threw the slide and the money out. you learned how to take good quality pics without any pp because you had to, or you went broke buying and processing and mounting the slides that you were throwing out. in simple terms i learned how to shoot pics because i couldn't see my money just being thrown out. that has carried over to my digital shooting. to me slides is just like digital; there is nor headroom margin for error in either way. and the DR is the same. you might be interested in the following- you might be interested in this; which i posted a while back. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=23677257 for a difference that i cannot see, i am supposed to use raw. someone is kidding.
  93. Gary, what if the scene has higher contrast than can be recorded in 8 bits per channel, and you want to burn and dodge it so that the final print looks as good as it can? Many subjects in photography lead to situations where the dynamic range of the capture system is inadequate. To solve this, some people use graduated ND filters - but that only works if you need a consistent gradient along one axis. People merge images taken at several exposures to one, to obtain HDR images, but movement in the scene between the exposures can compromise the effort, just as with stitched panoramas. So that there is enough good data for local adjustments, the system dynamic range should be maximized in the capture process. JPG throws away good data in hopes of saving a bit of card space and post-processing time. I call it like it is: the JPG photographer is lazy, instead of aiming for the highest quality they go for the "usually good enough". I have no sympathy for people who take short-cuts like this, basically leaving half of the photography process (and IMO the artistically more demanding part) of post-processing to the camera manufacturer's algorithms with the limited in-camera settings available. How do you know that the image could not be improved with a tone curve twist, or a burn or a dodge? I frequently shoot in situations where there are multiple people in high-contrast natural light, and I must balance the exposures between the people. Why should I throw away data which can help do this with a higher quality end result? No, flash is not the solution (although pros frequently use it, delivering what they think is "good enough" with all sorts of unnatural glare and effects that come with it).

    Post-processing is an integral part of photography. By doing it with the limited in-camera settings you're closing your eyes and ears from having to actually learn how to make a good image with all the tools available.
  94. Garrison, Epson has 16-bit drivers:


    "These Epson Leopard drivers are all new. They are being designed to take advantage of the latest technologies introduced with the Leopard OS. One major feature is the 16-bit printing path. We are designing the drivers to function so that if you are printing 16-bit files from 16-bit capable printing applications, the data remains untouched in native 16-bit form as it arrives into the Epson printer driver for color and screening processing."

    I also noticed that when I print from Capture NX the file which is spooled, appears to be a 16-bit TIFF-like image based on the file size. It's certainly much bigger than what is submitted from the same raw file converted into TIFF and sent to the print driver by Photoshop.
  95. Most of the time, I shoot RAW. Sometimes I use to modify them to pseudo-HDR.
    I choose the pictures for HDR conversion in the beginning and leave them as RAW.
    The other pictures are batch converted to JPEG.
  96. Wow!

    I guess that I am not as "perfect" as Gary!

    And unless you are as "perfect" as Gary and you shoot critical once-in-a-lifetime shots (like a wedding - or a TRIP TO EUROPE!) - you might want to give yourself some added insurance and shoot RAW.

    Yes - I have shot slides for many years as well but I am not so arrogant to claim that I NEVER make a mistake. My customers just want the shot captured beautifully and in a fast paced wedding in mixed lighting it is always best to use every tool available to make sure that happens.
  97. Gary here is a link to some photos I took in raw this past Friday, I took about 300 photos and had them posted by midday the following day, two-three hours post processing, most of it selecting the photos to use. Raw does not take that long, if the exposure is correct, but there are times when most of us mess up and then it comes in handy. Some of the photos were taken by my daughter who did not follow my instructions but since I set the camera to raw, using exposure compensation I was able to salvage some of those photos. http://www.pbase.com/memejr1949/souls_of_my_sisters
  98. Mark, most DSLRs have option to shoot RAW+JPG.
  99. 'I call it like it is: the JPG photographer is lazy, instead of aiming for the highest quality they go for the "usually good enough". I have no sympathy for people who take short-cuts like this,"----- to say something like this , makes me to say that you dont know how to take pictures, thats why the only hope for you is to manipulate them in PS, or RAW.....We already stated that there are times when RAW is more advised and times that Jpegs... End of story ! Try my friend take fast action shots , sports or car races or similiar in 6fps or more in a RAW...SO ALL THOSE PROS ARE LAZY AND UNSKILLFULL, because thay take those pics in Jpgs...ask them why I dont want waste my time...lol-- raf
  100. There is only one choice and thats yours: if your comfortable with JPEG then shoot that way But if your uncertain then go with RAW and get Lightroom of some other raw file converter; and since CF cards are cheap and SD cards are low at this time stock up and have fun: enjoy your trip :
    And for heavens sake just do not take one shot of some thing take four or five and then you will some choices to edit later:
  101. Can anyone here BTW define what " perfect" picture is ...I think what photographer should worry the most is to capture "moment" in time...vs is this picture "perfect" or " artistic"....maybe we should rename this site painters.net ???? vs photo.net????.... lol , raf
  102. If you post-process a significant amount of your pictures and really know how to use Photoshop (curves, levels, layers, etc.), then shoot RAW. Otherwise just shoot JPG.

    I shoot RAW-only. 85% of the time I don't need it. I'm glad I have the RAW data for the 15%.
  103. Always go with RAW if you can. RAW is the negative film in digital photography. And you want the negative to be the highest quality.
    For post processing like converting and optimizing RAW to JPEG, there are lots of options. From the free one like Irvan View or the expensive one like Image Compressor.
  104. "No, you're incorrect. It's impossible to print raws. There isn't a printer in the world that supports the bit depth of raw as they're all 8 bit. Printing raw from NX just process it to 8 bit before hand, the same as saving as a jpg."

    This seems like a meaningless distinction to me. Any program has to convert whatever image it has to print on a printer. I doubt it being RAW makes a difference here.

    I shoot in raw myself because I don't see any reason why I shouldn't avail myself of all the data the camera captured. Not shooting raw seems like shooting color print film and throwing away the negatives because the prints are "good enough". That said, it seems to me that ex-slide photographers who are capable of (and who pride themselves in having) exposure perfection tend to like JPEG because it's more like what they're used to (and don't we all like what we're used to).

    Those of us who never acquired that level of perfection who make an occasional mistake, like to have the tools we need to optimize the final product, even at the expense of a few extra minutes (or longer) of post processing.

    I guess it's up to you which way to go.
  105. to i nissila. the number of bits does not have anything to do with the DR. if it did it would be like saying that if i cut a loaf of bread into 24 slices it is bigger than the same loaf of bread cut into 16 slices. as for a scene that has more DR than the sensor can handle-that is what hdr and exposure blending is for. besides when digital did not exist what do you think the photogs used to get all the scenes that exceeded the dr of the film in use? as for jpegers being lazy, hogwash. we have to put more effort into the shots because we cannot rely on photoshop to to save and make the picture and correct for our mistakes. we have to get it right inthe first place. "post processing is an intergal part of photography" not true. pp is compouter talent and software, not photography. photography is being able to get the shot in the camera at the time of the shot, with no excuses. and not even care what pp is going to do later because you don't need it. r konrad. i am an not perfect either. but i most definately know what i am capable of with a camera, and i certainly expect that level of performance under any and all condition. with no excuse. like i did not get the shot because "___________". fill in the blank. and i do not think that you read my far above reply. in which i said that i shoot jpeg and it works for me and why. also it may not work for other people. if i was the op of this thread i would be shooting raw on the trip and anywhere else. he cannot affords to do anything else. i never said that i never make a mistake. what are you reading? i said i was getting about 95% right in terms of exposure and wb. that is not perfect. m barrera. you said that you took 3hrs to pp the shots. in june of 06 i and my wife went to nigara falls and i took 200 shot over 2 days. i threw out about half, not becuase anything was wrong but the compsoition was better on the others. i take shots of the same scene with different zoom setting and different lenses and moving postion slightly/ also portrait versus landscape. of the 200 i think i missed 3. the rest i get. pp was auto level auto contrast and auto sharpen in pe6. i was done and printing in less than i hr. raw simply takes more time, i wopuld rather be shooting. i fully realize that some people LIKE VERY MUCH PP. i do not. so i make sure that i do as little as possible. one reason is that before i retired in 2005, i had been using computers since 1978, frankly that is enough. that was in the days when you had to wire with plugin cables your own boards before every use to configure the computers. yuck. not fun. i was doing this 8-10hrs a day. i kniow that many of the photogs who got into photography since digtal went mainstream do not know that in the "old days" you had to get it as right as possible inthe camera since you simply did not have much choice. especially if you were shooting slides as i did. you cannot fix a slide. you simply put it on the screen and saw how well did or not did. if bad it was thrown out and your money with it. when i went digital my shooting habits transferred to the my dslr. so my background in making it possible to shoot jpegs and do it well. many people do not have my background, which is do it right or else you loose your money. everyone knows that of the shots were not done right there is always pp. and raw can fix a lot of messed up exposes. but i never learned that way. the way i learned was to get it right when shot. as a small help for anyone who wants to saetup the dslror p&s to shoot good jpoegs, i offer the following prewritten how to- 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 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.
  106. "Garrison, Epson has 16-bit drivers:"

    Illka, no printer prints the 65,000 bits of info that the raw or 16-bit tif file contains. Many hope we can one day, as the advantages are as clear as shooting in raw vs jpg, higher dynamic range, wider color gamut, etc. For the time being, all printers print 256 bits of info (8-bit) and hence the statement "I print raw files" that I initially responded to, is false.

    16-bit drivers are just a convenience for those working in 16-bit. But just like sharpening or re-sizing, I'm uncertain if I'd let an epson driver "process" my 16-bit file before it spits out an 8-bit print.
  107. "..."post processing is an intergal part of photography" not true..."
    So do you think that the lab that processes your film never made any adjustments or corrections while developing to the print and/or the slide?
  108. Epson also say "This highly precise driver technology overcomes previous driver limitations and enables extremely accurate transitions and gradations in the final prints." If you have access to technical information which disproves what Epson says about their own products, I would be glad to read it.

    In any case, the driver processes the image in the way it sees fit, no way around it unless you write your own device driver.
  109. Illka, again you're contesting topics I did not bring up. I corrected the miss-information that one can print a
    raw file. One can not. If you'd rather have the inferior epson driver convert from 16 bit to 8 bit over
    Photoshop, go for it! This is exactly what they mean by "extremely accurate transitions and gradations".

    I however prefer to do the re-sizing, sharpening, colour space, and down sampling to 8-bit in PS and by-pass the
    epson driver all together.

    If you wish to inform me that you can somehow print a raw file or 65,000 bits, while the rest of the world can
    not, I'll continue bantering with you.
  110. Indeed, the raw file is first converted into an RGB image, which is then sent to the driver. You're claiming that it's converted to 8 bits per color before printing. I am just pointing out that there are drivers available which use more than 8 bits, to obtain smoother tones [as per Epson's claims].
    In any case you're always using a driver if you're printing something. The driver will take an RGB image, whether 16-bit or 8-bit, and apply various image processing algorithms, resampling, sharpening, dithering etc. and there's nothing you can do to avoid it, if you don't use a hand-written driver to by pass Epson's. If you print 8-bit files, you'll get your output faster but lose tonality compared to 16-bit files printed with Epson's new Mac drivers.
    I am not sure why you're contesting something which is clearly described in Epson's web page. Is it that you said something initially ("There isn't a printer in the world that supports the bit depth of raw as they're all 8 bit.) and cannot admit to having been proven wrong. Or do I need to get a mac, print 16-bit and 8-bit, and scan the prints to show that Epson's claims are true?
    Discussions online can be extremely tiring. Show me the evidence which proves that Epson is lying, and in reality you only get 256 tones, as you said.
  111. I suppose all printers are ultimately 1-bit per color, there is ink at a point or there is not. So I don't get where the 8 bits comes from.
  112. "... Show me the evidence which proves that Epson is lying, and in reality you only get 256 tones, as you said..."
    You will find that Garrison K. frequently makes claims and assertions on photo.net that he refuses to backup with any evidence of any sort.
    As you said - it becomes very tiring in carrying on a discussion with that type of individual.
  113. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Hi Garrison, Ilkka and Russ: what you are debating about printing has little to do with the original topic. Could you take it off line via e-mail?
  114. Rafal, there is really no "perfect" picture - image quality is subjective. What I meant by perfect is that the image is the way I want it to be. Choosing a moment is just a small part of what is called photography. I recommend reading the literature about photography and its history. You will see that the idea of an image which is captured by the camera and then printed "as is" is a misundestanding. The concept, I believe, came about in the 1970s when the general population took a lot of color pictures and had the manipulation to make prints done for them by the labs that made the prints. Since they were unaware of what was needed to make a decent print, they assumed there was nothing more to photography than snapping the picture. With digital we finally can do for color what earlier photographers did in the darkroom. Make images which are personal rather than random photons captured. I would recommend reading the classic series by Ansel Adams for information about what more is in traditional photography than snapping the picture.
    The slide, while it may look good in projection, cannot be printed without manipulation either. Your eyes and the brain adopt to the projected image, correct some of the color biases, and exposure errors that you made. It will look good and it's more forgiving that you might think. Then when you print it, you'll realize that sometimes a great deal of adjustments are needed to make it look decent in print. And the adjustments will be different for images in different light. Again, most slide photographers never saw this happen, since they didn't do it themselves. The idea of an unmanipulated print is ... well, it's just a theoretical possibility. In reality, photography doesn't work like that. It takes judgment to make a good print.
    pp was auto level auto contrast and auto sharpen in pe6. i was done and printing in less than i hr.
    If that's the quality level that you're looking for, great for you, an easy life.
    the number of bits does not have anything to do with the DR.
    Do you live near a bookstore or a university library?
    as for jpegers being lazy, hogwash. we have to put more effort into the shots because we cannot rely on photoshop to to save and make the picture and correct for our mistakes. we have to get it right inthe first place.
    It doesn't matter how much "effort" you put into making the shots. If you don't post-process them individually, they will never look as good as they would if you put the time into making the images personal. They're just pictures from a machine, drawn by the light that happened to be where you were when you pushed the button. The selection of camera point, angle of view, direction and timing is nowhere near enough to produce consistently good photography.
  115. dear Gary please post your shots of niagra, I would love to see them, did I mention that they were also posted for the whole world to see if they so desired. two camera four different lens, 3 of which were prime lens. I would love to see your work.
  116. notice some dust on the photo posted, I don't think that should have occurred, a little post processing to remove would make a much better photo.
  117. "Discussions online can be extremely tiring."

    Yes, Illka, I'm confused where we are going, too. All printers print in 8-bit. How one choose to
    get there, with drivers or PS, is up to them.

    "If you print 8-bit files, you'll get your output faster but lose tonality compared to 16-bit files printed with
    Epson's new Mac drivers."

    I doubt that doing all your corrections (size, changing bit depth from 16 to 8) in PS and using the PS math, with
    yield poorer results than relying on Epson to do the same converting. I'd have to do a side-by-side comparison.
    But history shows PS has the most elaborate math and produces better results than drivers. Maybe things have changed.

    "You will find that Garrison K. frequently makes claims and assertions on photo.net that he refuses to backup
    with any evidence of any sort."

    Russ Russ Russ. Big words from someone that can't prove you can print a raw file. By this statement, I guess
    you can prove one can print a raw file?

    Russ is just sore over my critique of his average formal photo and the quick and lazy method he executed to do so.
  118. "Hi Garrison, Ilkka and Russ: what you are debating about printing has little to do with the original topic. Could you take it off line via e-mail?"

    Sorry Shun, didn't refresh and see your post before I hit 'submit'. Delete away.
  119. In the images above with the JPEG blown sky and the other saved through RAW process is a good example of what can be done with RAW imaging. It is worth learning at least the basics.

    But OTOH, here it is saving that which is the result of poor photographic technique. Any of us can get distracted and careless enough to make an obvious mistake, to be sure. And having a screen preview available to check up on ourselves is a useful advantage of digital photography. But pointing ones camera into a darker shaded area, in full auto mode, without some compensation, and expecting the well lit areas of the frame not to be blown out, then taking the time and effort to correct such a thing later with post process, is ridiculous!! I mean, not to insult anyone here, but this is photography 101, in this situation. While it is a very good thing to learn RAW post processing, perhaps the above also serves as an example of how it can possibly lead to our relying too much on that, and our matrix meters, compensating for what we should know on the spot. In the above example, I would have probably switched to spot meter, metered off a mid-tone area, and if not in M mode, hit the exposure lock button, then recomposed the shot to the above frame. The JPEG would have been fine. Bracket if not sure. That process takes seconds compared to a LOT more time in post process.

    The nice thing about getting a screen preview, and the D80's D-lighting in-camera feature, is that this kind of situation can be evaluated and balanced on the spot. One can expose correctly for the water and sky here, which would probably over-darken the shadows of the embankment to some degree, but then the D-lighting feature could open those shadows while leaving the water/sky exposure intact. A great feature IMO, since we can see how we got it done right at the scene, and with very little time spent.
  120. m barrera-
    my photbucket page. not all are digital, some are scanned in slides that go back to the 1970s. also some were put online for other purposes.


    email me if you wish.
  121. Ilkka,
    "Choosing a moment is just a small part of what is called photography. I recommend reading the literature about photography and its history. You will see that the idea of an image which is captured by the camera and then printed "as is" is a misundestanding"....WELL , as a analogy we can use NASCAR as a whole, ---all depends what part of the "whole thing"- you wanna be: "small"- driver or "big": mechanics, sponsors,judges,fans and so on....... and --

    "I would recommend reading the classic series by Ansel Adams for information about what more is in traditional photography than snapping the picture. "...

    Well Instead of coming up with " Socrates type" speaches about photograhpy, why you simply avoid to answer above, above , above :) -- question :-
    WHY most ,if not all PROs-- sport photographers and people that shot action (many f/s) prefer to shot in Jpegs than RAW ? ???-- Do you belive they can afford $ 1000s worth of photo equipment, but they cannot afford 16G/ 200G/ 400G CF cards :)))).....-- and thats why they are using Jpegs.???
    As far as A.Adams is concern--- him, like you has a lot to say about RAWs and Photoshop.....
    I guess, especially that Mr.Adams was using it very often....:), -raf

Share This Page