Does RAW make in-camera adjustments redundant?

[john_meyer14]

<p>When shooting in RAW, do all the 'fancy' in-camera lighting, colour, and sharpening options become unnecessary and redundant?<br>

Like many people, I've shot jpegs for a while using my Nikon D200 and D40 cameras. I feel I should seriously consider switching to RAW, mainly for the adjustment benefits it should give. I use Lightroom 2 and love it!<br>

Before I do, however, I'd like to better understand what I've called 'fancy' in-camera options, in fact, contribute to the RAW file.<br>

I obviously understand that the lighting and exposure cannot be compromised, but, for example, is it that necessary to be too bothered about setting White Balance correctly if it can be easily adjusted in LR?<br>

And, although I haven't got it in my two cameras, is it worth bothering with Active D-Lighting when, once again, it can be replicated in LR?<br>

I'd really appreciate your comments before I make the 'plunge'.<br>

Kind regards</p>

<p>John</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>No, those in-camera adjustments only apply if the camera is writing out a JPG for you on the fly. OR, if you're using Nikon's software (View NX, Capture NX2) to process the RAW files... since their software can, by default, apply the in-camera settings TO those RAW files, if you want it to, rendering for you the same image the camera <em>would</em> have, if you'd created a JPG at that time. The beauty of that, of course, is that you can after-the-fact (in NX) fiddle with exactly the same in-camera settings, and non-destructively see how changes to them would have created a different looking JPG.</p>

[vrankin]

<p>Matt has made an excellent reply for Nikon users. The same would apply to Sony cameras and their proprietary Image Data Converter SR software. I wonder whether this is true with proprietary RAW conversion software packaged with Canon, Pentax, Olympus cameras. Can anyone comment?</p>

[jackaldridge]

<p>John,<br>

It is always better to make the correct adjustments regarding things like white balance, etc. in the camera before you shoot.<br>

Using processing software to correct mistakes at the time of shooting will likely lead to bad shooting habits.<br>

In the end you will run up against something that should have been done initially and can't be corrected by using software.<br>

In addition, if you are going to shoot large numbers of photographs for commercial use time spent in front of the computer is time lost that could be used for shooting.</p>

<p> </p>

[joe_kr]

<p>John,<br>

By the book , RAW is really for afterworks on a computer and many would advise to do any editing on the computer b/c you get greater variety.<br>

Personally, I'm not a fan of RAW. If you're shooting 20pictures and then want to tweak them - thats one thing. My experience was about 400-500pictures per camera per night and then images had to be ready w/in 12hrs to be sent out to labs for proof print - that is a pain in the ***.<br>

Many photographers "swear by RAW" b/c of its editing abilities and print size (lack of compression). So my question is then how big of a print are you going to make?<br>

I would rather encourage get the camera settings (like white balance) correctly and get the shot right. My reasoning behind this is that the less work you do post shooting, the better your picture was, which means the better you know your equipment and better you understand photography; hence the better photographer you would be.<br>

This is a definition of photography from dictionary.com<em>"the process or art of producing images of objects on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light or of other forms of radiant energy, as x-rays, gamma rays, or cosmic rays." </em><br>

<strong>But</strong> if you really want to RAW your material, start out as Matt said with dual imagine and see how it goes.<br>

Good Luck & Hope That Helps.</p>

<p>~Joe</p>

 

[howard_m]

<p>got to agree, in general. RAW gives you flexibility, often at the price of 'more work'. In many/most scenario's, you're going to end up w/ many many shots and having to process them is a PITA and often not required but when you need the flexibility (difficult lighting, dynamic range, WB, etc), it's a great ace to pull out.</p>

<p>Of course, you could shoot both raw & jpg (at the cost of having to purchase more CF cards) so you have both.</p>

<p>Did you realize that a full size jpg is EMBEDDED in every RAW shot and that you can extract them and use them? rawworkflow.com (the whibal people) have a nice Win & Mac plugin to do that or you can use exiftool. A lot of times, I'll do that so when I pull the .NEF into PS, I jog my memory as to what I think it looked like when the shot was taken as a postprocessing starting point if I dont want to have NX2 grind.</p>

<p>One opinion, YMMV</p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>I can confirm for Howard Vrankin that, at least as far as Canon's Digital Photo Professional is concerned, any in-camera adjustments to RAW files is 'applied' to the image as an overlay. So, for instance, if I bump in-camera sharpness to 7 and saturation to +1 these settings will show in the DPP toolbar as Sharpness=7 and Saturation= +1. If I'm not happy with these settings I can revert to faithful or simply adjust to my heart's content. The RAW file is the RAW file, regardless of the in-camera <em>Picture Style</em> adjustments. As someone else mentioned, knowing what in-camera settings work (even in RAW) is a way to streamline your workflow and minimize the amount of time you have to spend in post. These in-camera settings will NOT appear outside of DPP so if you're using ACR or Lightroom in-camera adjustments of RAW files are not applied.</p>

<p>I shoot RAW because of it's archival qualities and because it gives me the ability to go back and make adjustments when new technology becomes available. For instance, the latest version of Canon DPP was just released and now includes a shadow and highlight recovery tool (which only works on RAW images). I spent four hours going over old photographs that were essentially underexposed crap to find that some of them were now salvageable. Even with CS4, there's only so many times you can do that with a jpeg.</p>

<p>I understand the allure of jpeg and completely agree that in some situations it's the only way to go (although I would most likely shoot both). For me, the demands on my workflow are not those of a photojournalist. There are ways to streamline your post-processing, even with RAW, to the point where there is very little difference in the amount of time it takes to go from camera to finished product. The biggest time consumer is going to be the conversion from RAW to a usable publication format.</p>

[dbcooper]

<blockquote>

<p>When shooting in RAW, do all the 'fancy' in-camera lighting, colour, and sharpening options become unnecessary and redundant?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Short answer: yes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Like many people, I've shot jpegs for a while using my Nikon D200 and D40 cameras. I feel I should seriously consider switching to RAW, mainly for the adjustment benefits it should give.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why not shoot both? I shoot RAW + jpg/small/basic to have something to quickly email or zap into the print kiosk at WalMart if I need to, like if I promised a pic to someone who doesn't care or can't/wouldn't appreciate the difference.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Before I do, however, I'd like to better understand what I've called 'fancy' in-camera options, in fact, contribute to the RAW file.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anything other than WB doesn't contribute to an NEF RAW unless you're processing with Nikon Capture. There may be something else out there somewhere that will pick up the 'fancy stuff' in a NEF/RAW, but I haven't heard of it. As far as anything else goes, the 'fancy' stuff applies to in-camera processing for jpg only. LR <em>will</em> pick up the camera's WB setting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I obviously understand that the lighting and exposure cannot be compromised, but, for example, is it that necessary to be too bothered about setting White Balance correctly if it can be easily adjusted in LR?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Short answer: no. IMO, however, Jack Aldredge makes some valid and important points in his reply (above).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And, although I haven't got it in my two cameras, is it worth bothering with Active D-Lighting when, once again, it can be replicated in LR?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMO, I don't think it's worth bothering with for now, but that's just me. LR isn't really set up to duplicate this Nikon feature. LR + the Viveza component of Nik's Complete Collection for LR might get it done, and I'm about to find that out for myself this weekend, although I'm getting NCC for other reasons. CS3 definitely can do it, and it'll work for me until the successor to the D300 or D700 is announced. Those will likely come with Active D-Lighting or an improved version of it, although I'll be getting a newer DSLR for other reasons. I can't see shelling out for a new DSLR body right now just to get it, as I don't really need it. If I shot weddings, pets, kids, real estate, certain other things, or high volume, I might feel differently. YMMV.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote></blockquote>

 

[steve_davey1]

<p>Are these settings redundant if you shoot RAW? Yes and no! Although sharpening, white balance, saturation etc can be over-ridden in RAW processing, it does help to have them set when you are shooting RAW. These settings are used for creating the JPG preview that is in turn used for the histogram on your camera - even if you are shooting RAW! Having a totally wrong white balance can make an image with blown highlights not appear so overexposed and even fool the flashing overexposure indicator.</p>

<p>Setting a reasonable value for sharpening can really help when you are zooming in to see the image on the back of the camera to check focus.</p>

[john_meyer14]

<p>Hi Guys<br>

Many thanks for all your comments.<br>

I've decided to have a go at shooting RAW. I still find it hard to get my head around such relatively large files sizes, particularly when just shooting family pics.<br>

I've discovered that my D200 can be set to Compressed RAW. This'll save me about 40% in card and storage space. I believe there's possibly a very small quality loss in the highlight area, but, for now, and until I get used to the large file sizes, that's what I'm going with.<br>

Interestingly, even though the camera is set to compressed, the remaining shots indicator still shows uncompressed figures. However, after writing the file to the card, the figure increases slightly. Can't understand why it wouldn't show the correct figure in the first place.<br>

I've also decided to import them into Lightroom as DNG files. This doesn't save any more space (with already comressed files anyway), but I like the idea of the more universal format.<br>

Once again, thanks for all your help.<br>

John</p>