I think RAW is better!!

[lynn_smith6]

<p>I posted about a week ago asking about raw. I have been shooting in RAW and been setting to TV (of course.....sometimes I get a BIT nervous so I set my SS to 125) which seems to be perfect for me. The pictures have been coming out soooo much more to my liking! Even though I have to tweak the colors and converting to raw...well also using curves........the pictures are like OMG......beautiful!!! I just wanted to thank all of you that responded!! I LOVE this site!!!!!</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>RAW is good. You could also experiment with resetting and customizing how your jpgs come out too, to get effects closer to what you are pulling out the RAW now.</p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>Damn, we're good. ;-)</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>Damn, we're good. ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You sure are. Seriously, from a moderator's perspective, the Beginner's Forum has been a pleasure. The amount and quality of helpful responses from experienced photographers willing to patiently share their time to mentor new photographers, no matter how basic the questions, has made this forum a real success.</p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>Lynn, I usually shoot RAW + JPEG (which most all digital SLRs will allow you to do). That way, I have a RAW image to tweak and a JPEG image if I need a quick print without Photoshopping.</p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>I'm sorry, just so I was clear, shooting RAW + JPEG makes two of the same image every time you take a photo- one RAW version and one JPEG version. </p>

[mbh]

<p>Isn't it great Lynn? I finally switched to shooting RAW in June (<em>sadly </em>after my last China trip). And I love it. The reality is, I'm not good enough to shoot JPG. I need the extra lattitude RAW provides in terms of error correction. The only time I would consider going back to JPG is later this year when the wrestling season starts. I'm taking a lot of shots in a row and I've heard JPGs write to disc faster, because they're smaller files. But I don't know if it would justify giving up the flexibility and beauty of shooting RAW. It's just something I'll explore when the time comes.</p>

<p>Congratulations on finding out that RAW is right for you. </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Large JPEG works fine for me, under 85% of situations. Faster download time for sports, more room on my hard-drive and my external drive. Of course if I wanted to make an A3 print, then RAW would be the way to go. I have been shooting Digital now for 4+ years and I just don't see that much of dramatic difference between L-Jpeg and RAW. It could be monitor though. </p>

[sknowles]

<p>I shoot (large) jpeg, 90+% of the time and then raw+jpeg. Not that raw isn't better, it is when you have the need for the image and want to do a lot of work, but jpeg can hit the mark, make processing easier and offer shooting a lot more when you get the settings right. Get them wrong and yeah, either a lot of work or a lot of toast. I shoot digital like I shot and still shoot film, work to get the image right in the field while you're standing there, and jpeg let's me see if I've done well or not.</p>

<p>Raw seems to me it doesn't really matter how good and knowledgeable you are, just how good you can fix them in the photo editor. Does that make you a photographer? I'm being the devil's advocate here, but it often hints at the truth too. I don't mind shooting a lot of jpegs in the studio testing the light and flash settings to get the one jpeg that works and then put the 4x5 (sheet film) to get the same results.</p>

[josh_phoenix]

<p>To Scott. I dont know what your expertise is on digital(I see you do have an extensive analog background). I think we should clear a few things up here. Shooting in jpg is far far far less quality than keeping the image as a raw file. When your camera converts the image off the sensor to a jpg file it has to compress the image to a smaller more manageable format and losses its quality. As far as capturing what you truly saw when you were photographing your subject; RAw format is the closest thing to what was present(ie the lighting, tones,textures). RAW format is the truest most "real" way to interpret what you saw with your camera. Its not about doing a ton of editing later to get the photo right, its about the fact that if you do want to edit the photo you can edit it non-destructively(this does not degrade the photo)</p>

<p>p.s</p>

<p>Raw is called this beacuse it is the RAW image (meaning no tone curve or effects applied)being the actual "real" digital negative.</p>

<p>check this link http://www.photo.net/learn/raw/</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>There's some really bad information here.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Shooting in jpg is far far far less quality than keeping the image as a raw file.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A maximum quality jpeg is similar in quality to a processed raw file used to generate a web image or a print. The advantage of raw files in not in basic quality but in processing capability.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>When your camera converts the image off the sensor to a jpg file it has to compress the image to a smaller more manageable format and losses its quality.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>A maximum quality jpeg is close to lossless, and you should think about this especially when printing or preparing for the web. It's easy to see this just by testing, which you should do rather than take the opinion of someone with no way of providing their credibility on this topic.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>RAw format is the closest thing to what was present(ie the lighting, tones,textures).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Quite the opposite. RAW is useless until processed into something you want. RAW is "raw," it's what comes off the sensor without any kind of attempt to make it look like something. It is analogous to unprocessed film, i.e., useless without more processing.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Raw is called this beacuse it is the RAW image (meaning no tone curve or effects applied)being the actual "real" digital negative.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No, raw is called raw because it is what comes off the sensor. Useless without processing. Kind of like meat (excepting tartare), it's not what you are going to serve to anyone else.</p>

<p>I highly recommend checking out what people do with photos before taking their advice. It will help sort the better advice.</p>

[matthijs]

<blockquote>

<p>A maximum quality jpeg is close to lossless.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I could be mistaking but I think that though a max-q JPEG uses practically lossless compression it does have less bits for color values. RAW has -depending on your camera- 12 or 14 bits while JPEG has only 8. This difference is not as extreme as it looks because of the way light and sensors behave but as I understand it RAW does have 1 EV of dynamic range extra over JPEG.</p>

<p>This is however as far as my layman's knowledge extends. I'd love to hear from someone who really knows this stuff.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>When in doubt, test for yourself. Some cameras handle ready-to-go JPEGs better than others. I get enough loss of image integrity with maximum resolution JPEGs from my Nikon D2H that I will shoot raw in certain specific conditions.</p>

<p>A good test is a blue sky. Just photograph any scenic with a large expanse of blue sky. Shoot maximum quality JPEGs and raw side by side. Compare 'em side by side. Is the sky butter-smooth in your JPEGs? Perfect gradations, no noise or odd nearly translucent speckles? If so, you're good to go. If not, you've found one specific condition in which raw beats maximum quality in-camera JPEGs.</p>

<p>That's the test that shows up the limitations of my D2H's in-camera processing. I get better results from fine gradation of large expanses of color when I shoot raw and process my own JPEGs in post.</p>

<p>Compare the skies and gradation around the moon in these two pics. Open 'em in separate windows or browser tabs to compare:<br>

<a href="../photo/8391568&size=lg">Test photo, 12/12/08 lunar event, prepped from NEF</a><br>

<a href="../photo/8391466&size=lg">Test photo, 12/12/08 lunar event, prepped from JPEG</a></p>

<p>Notice the slight loss of fine gradation and odd, almost translucent speckles in the version prepped from an in-camera JPEG? That's why I will occasionally shoot raw in demanding situations.</p>

<p>But in most conditions, such as candid photos of people? Nah, not much difference between my D2H in-camera JPEGs and the JPEGs I painstakingly prep from raw.</p>

<p>Your in-camera JPEGs may be perfectly capable of matching JPEGs carefully prepped in post from raw. Only way to find out - test for yourself. Also, if your camera has a TIFF option, try it and compare the in-camera JPEGs vs. TIFFs. My old Olympus P&S digicams didn't offer raw, so I'd shoot TIFFs for maximum quality scenics. Otherwise, for snapshots, just JPEGs.</p>

[josh_phoenix]

<p>you are correct(google search Christian Blochs book HDR handbook)he discusses this in depth(this guy really knows his stuff. I would also check Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS3 - Industrial strenght production techniques" by Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe. Alot of <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19592">Jeff Spirer</a> s arguements are based on semantics and not facts. Im sorry that I did not use the correct language to explain how a raw image works(and yes many refer to the raw file as the digital negative, and no there is no tone curve applied so i dont know where your argument is there. A raw is useless until its processed huh???? Well I seem to be able to view them and edit them non-destructively in camera raw before I save them to tiffs. Try doing some HDR with 9-15 exposures with jpg and Id love to see what you come out with. I spend about 8 hours a day in photoshop, and what I acomplish with Raw files would just not be possible with jpg files. That being said I think most people (9 out of 10) would be fine shooting in jpeg. I personally dont like all the extra settings my camera makes to my images without me knowing it. Sure you set it for the correct white balance, but alot of the time camera manufacturers apply sharpening,contrast, and other things that you did not intend to apply.</p>

[saskphotog]

<p>If you can see it, the Raw image has had all sorts of processing done already. It is useless unless some processing is done. Tone curves, color decisions, color space, sharpening, all sorts of things are applied by any Raw converter as "defaults" that either are what the operator set, or what the program was told to use by the programmers. But, if you can see it on a monitor, processing has already been done. If you use DPP, the image you see is very much like the Jpeg you would have got from the camera because DPP uses all the Jpeg settings for its initial "rendering" of the Raw.</p>

<p>Now, you CAN do a lot more processing with the depth of available information to a Raw than you can with a Jpeg, and I shoot everything Raw for that reason. I archive Raw because I often change my mind about just how I want a particular image to look. I always had access to a darkroom in the old film days too, so maybe that has something to do with why I like Raw, but I agree with the OP that Raw is a lot of fun, and makes for good quality too.</p>

[sknowles]

<p>Interesting discussion and it makes me wonder when viewing a photographers' images, can you tell if the original was raw or jpeg, or even maybe film (but often scanning seems to impart some obviousness I can't describe)? I'll never argue the advantages of raw, but I think it's importance has been overblown for a lot of work easily done with jpeg. It's about the content and the result, if you need raw, fine, use, but if you find your processing is just doing simple things, then consider jpeg which will produce comparable results with the converted raw file.</p>

<p>And it does occur to me that the emphasis on shooting raw, beside the use of full program or automatic mode with AWB, is where some photographers are far less concerned about the quality of the image they capture but what all they do in front of the computer. To me, it's simply a choice to prefer to apply the knowledge when you're standing behind the camera. And I always say to any photographer, if you think you're that good, shoot 4x5 and lets see the slides or negatives. And remember it's all just my opinion.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>A raw is useless until its processed huh???? Well I seem to be able to view them and edit them non-destructively in camera raw before I save them to tiffs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What you are viewing is a processed file. Put it in three different processors and you will get three different results. Why? Because the raw file is useless until it's put through a processor. I think you are lacking understanding in what it actually is. Also, as I said, it's not about "quality," it's about the ability to process it in ways a jpg or tiff file can't be processed.</p>

[josh_phoenix]

<p>Im glad this issue gained some traction. I think its great that we can debate over these techniques and come up with a good argument for both. It helps people decide for themselves, and gives them good reason for choosing what works for them.</p>

[ellery]

<p>I am not sure what all was discussed in the previous post Lynn was referring to, but I am confused about her conclusion that her photos are so much better since switching to RAW - if a large JPEG is captured with little picture controls and is edited...the same exposure as a RAW edited in a similar manner I would think on the whole yield very similar results. I would think this would especially be true if you are just viewing them on a household monitor or printing them at CVS - for a beginner, I am not so sure that a given good exposure RAW vs. JPEG fine should be significantly different...? So if Lynn changed over to RAW - it would seem that what she did not like was the effects applied in camera via picture controlls? Anyway, I have taken both JPEG and RAW and generally as long as exposure and WB is good, I have not noticed a big difference - I suspect for the eye and the tools available to a beginner that is the case?</p>

<p>Semantics and language is important to us beginners - we do not always have the whole context of things to read between the lines - so you all do your best to accurately describe things - if you do not, we may assume something incorrectly.</p>

[josh_phoenix]

<p>uhmmmm.. I think you might want to read the previous 16 posts. :)</p>

[ellery]

<p> I am too a beginner and this is a beginner forum - most of my additions to this are in question form - so if you dont mind, feel free to correct me as I am a beginner. The reason I even added here is to figure out why my current beginner assumptions are true or untrue - your response does not help me in the fogiest. If you do not mind, I would appreciate clarification in my apparent confusion. </p>

[ellery]

<p>Disregard my previous post - I must have had a moment of confusion... :) Sorry!</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Look, we've wondered off "beginners" level here, but the short answer is shoot BOTH <strong>RAW</strong> + <strong>Large jpeg</strong> . When I talked at the beginning about resetting the jpg parameters I was not meaning instead of RAW, but in addition to.<br /> If you shoot only RAW, then as Jeff says, you have to process any image if you want to use it. By shooting a properly customized jpg, you will get a nice usable jpg that is easily accessible inside any photo editor, and still have the RAW "negative" to tweak in those cases where the various settings are not as you want them.<br>

<br /> The usual or default jpg images on most cameras are usually tweaked up a little higher in contrast, color saturation, etc. to give that sort of "Kodachrome" look that many people like. Some <em>zip</em> , you know. On the other hand, some of us prefer a less "pepped-up" look. These are the people who think that the RAW file "looks" better when they call up DPP or whatever to work with it. Such people can go into their camera and set the parameters to have more muted jpgs than the camera will give on the default, straight-from-the-factory settings.</p>

<p>If you do that and shoot RAW+large jpegs you will have the best of both worlds. Also, never judge a photo by how its color, etc., looks on the LCD screen on the camera. This is a processed image that does not always give a good idea of what you could get out of the image in Post Processing (PP). Of course, you <em>can</em> see on the LCD if you've cut off grandma's head....</p>

<p>Another problem, by the way, with RAW is that these are proprietary formats belonging to a particular manufacturer. Twenty years from now, it may be hard to find something that will read it, while I think that jpgs will at least still be convertible into newer formats. At some point, there is something to be said for converting RAW images into less "lossy" formats than jpg, although I generally for the here and now settle for 12-setting jpgs. TIFF is likely to be readable into the future as well, if only by conversion programs like GraphicConverter or its descendants.<br>

Oh, do buy a nice big HD for backup and get the nice 4 to 8 GB memory sticks/cards. ;)</p>

[tom_anderson9]

Lynn,

<p>

Awesome that you've found something that makes your images better for you. I like raw myself.

<p>

Rest,

<p>

All digital cameras shoot in RAW. That is, the CCD or CMOS sensor is just that, a sensor. The difference is using the in camera software, or PC based software to convert from RAW to JPG or TIFF. Some cameras will let you do both. Some people find the camera's built in conversion more convenient, and acceptable for their purposes. Other people would rather have the flexibility, user interface, and often finer control and quality of conversion available in a PC solution. Some people claim a difference can't be seen in where the conversions are done, but that's largely a subjective evaluation that's highly dependent on the equipment involved, and really only relevant to someone's personal choice. Or, do you like smooth or crunchy peanut butter?

<p>

In the context of a beginner forum, converting from RAW to JPG or TIFF on the computer separates capturing the image from processing the image. It gives the photographer the ability to more easily see the difference that white balance makes, as well as contrast and saturation and other controls. It's the equivalent of having someone shoot an image on 6 or 12 different kinds of film, then looking at the results afterward. Remember the days of picking color negative film, or Kodachrome or Velvia before a shoot, and wondering if that was the best choice? Today, you can "shoot in raw", and decide most or all of these things later. In this sense, I don't believe it's a crutch or a safety net at all, but rather a tool that facilitates learning and experimenting, and thus, better images and happier photographers.

[ellery]

<p>I think the thing that drives me crazy about this discussion that is always gonig on, is that it would seem to me that most of the debate is over the minutia of quality difference between these formats and it becomes less of a "beginner" issue correct? - It would seem to me that Lex said it nicely - there will be shots taken in RAW that will incrementally retain better detail, but for many shots it may be difficult to tell (at least that is what I understand to be true). So the message to beginners should be get get the desired exposure right, learn to get WB as you desire, get it right in camera to minimize PP work (RAW or JPEG) - then decide for yourself what format you want to use - JPEG is not CATEGORICALLY inferior to RAW I think, it will just depend - I am in the process of doing more in RAW - I mainly use it for when I think I will need perhaps that incremental improvment in detail or latitude in processing or I think my WB will be screwed up....but I am not totally sold on RAW - I have loved many of my images in JPEG fine (although I am just a novice) :) Thanks everyone for all of your great advice!!</p>