RAW or not RAW? :)

Hi,
You edit RAW image. After editing is done you save the pic in jpg format. Is
this for you final product or do you edit this jpg too?

You know I still don't fill advantage of shooting RAW over JPG. For now
looks to me like working with RAW takes more time.

So my question is. How to edit RAW to see the advantage of shooting in RAW?

Thanks

j

 

Which camera brand and model?

 

Could be that I'm not typical of the ordinary raw user, but I save in
a non-destructive format (PSD, TIFF...) as well as JPEG for outside
consumption. Saves getting to a usable basis for subsequent editing
and JPEG-ing, since the PSD, TIFF, et al., may be edited and resaved
without losing data. One save to JPEG per image version is plenty.

 

Canon Rebel XT.
Is that related to the subject?

 

Could be. For sheer in-camera jpeg rendering, I think Canon has always
produced good results - better than Nikon.

But anyway, the advantage of raw - apart from "sharper" better rendered
jpegs (or other image format) is the ability to post-process retaining
full shadow and highlight detail recorded by the sensor (and also to
adjust badly set white balance)
If you don't need to do this, then you mightn't see an advantage.

 

If you get the exposure right, get the right balance right,
have the saturation/contrast set the way you like it, then
you are quite likely fine to shoot in JPG.
Some key things that RAW will give you greater editing scope:
tweaks to exposure / white balance / contrast / saturation -
with a greater bitdepth, the raw won't show posterisation as
quickly
Lens corrections - most raw conversion software will allow
some corrections to be made to lens geometry. By acting on
the greater bitdepth and not-yet modified RAW image, these
corrections can be made with greater accuracy.
Softness / Sharpness control - once converted to JPG, errors
introduced by too much sharpness or too much softness are
harder to correct, than if the correction is made once from
the RAW image.

Not every image will benefit from RAW, but if you only shoot
in JPG you are limited in the amount of correction you can
make to the image compared to if it is shot in RAW.
Personally I shoot in JPG if I'm in "snapshot" mode, and
RAW+JPG if I'm chasing better results.

 

Of course it is. Would you read a long appraisal of Nikon Capture NX?

 

JPEG for web is only 8-bit color. Your RAW file should be more and it could
make a huge difference when doing prints, etc. Not so much when final
product is JPEG.

 

Raw tends to show a tiny bit more detail and more noise.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

 

Raw is not capitalized because it is not an abbreviation or a specific
file format. JPG is.

Whether you shoot camera raw or not is entirely up to you. When I was
at WPPI in March, the professionals who were giving the workshops and
seminars were about evenly split.

I find that when using tools like Nikon Capture NX or in-camera
D-Lighting conversion on the Nikon D300 that I get what seem to me
noticeably better results with camera raw. However, the vast majority
of my images are properly lit in the first place and do not need that
kind of processing. The fact is, the detail that is lost in shadows
with JPG is usually detail that I do not want. If I photograph a
jackrabbit shading himself under a sagebrush, I want that sagebrush
dark and lacking in detail so it will not distract from the jackrabbit,
see?

On the other hand, shooting the happy couple at a wedding can pose
problems for JPG. The bride wears a white gown symbolizing purity and
virginity; the groom a black tux symbolizing, oh, I don't know.
Anyway, it is sometimes hard to get those both properly exposed.
Sometimes camera raw can help a little bit with situations like that. I
find even here, however, an incident light reading will go a long way
toward getting an exposure that maintains detail in both bride and
groom.

But if you are shooting some high key backlit subject and you want to
maintain some detail in the background (or even if you want it not so
high key and just a perfectly exposed bright background) with a dark
subject then I am not convinced that camera raw will save you. The only
way you are going to get that shot is to illuminate the subject with
enough wattage to match the background.

 

C J Campbell wrote:
[]

[]

It seems to be a convention that "raw" implies purely RGB values (as in
image data before digital cameras) whereas "RAW" implies raw sensor data,
probably not pre RGB, with camera-specific headers (post the arrival of
digital cameras).

Cheers,
David

 

People will capitalize RAW, CR2, JPEG, TIFF, ...

"JPG" is not correct. JPEG is.
Joint Photography *Expert* Group.

-Wolfgang

 

.... but the RAW is linear, while the JPEG is gamma-encoded.
That means that steps in JPEG are visually (more or less)
equidistant. That is not true for RAW.

-Wolfgang

 

That depends.
I, for example, use a dedicated (non-destructive)
RAW-converter. Being a RAW converter and not a paint
program, it cannot do everything (e.g. more than rather
cloning, and no healing brush). If special needs are there,
the JPEG gets edited --- or even saved as TIFF, edited and
then saved as JPEG.

That's fine. You'll find out if you need it.

-Wolfgang

 

Irrelevant. The advantages of raw are the same for all cameras.

 

Others will no doubt give you the blow by blow advantages of raw. The
ones that count for me:

-full dynamic range of the capture (12 to 14 [camera dependant] bits per
pixel) v. 8 bits for JPG.

.can sometimes save an underexposed image from the trash heap. The
JPG v. might not be salvageable.
.less so for over-exp.

-independence from assumptions on light source. (aka white balance
problems). Once that's recorded in the JPG you have less ability to
correct (dynamic range issue). Raw files saved by the camera do not
have the light color assumption applied. You do this at import time.

-archival of the original (note: I convert to Adobe's DNG format to save
10 - 20% of storage space. The data is still 'raw' and can be
revisited forever. Memory is cheap. (eg: I have 1.5 TB of external
hard drives here...).

Cheers,
Alan.

 

That's why I shoot in raw. I hate capitalized data format extensions.

:~)

 

Of course it isn't, because the benefits of raw lie in the preservation
of original data v. what is lost in conversion to JPG, not in the post
editing s/w of which there are a variety of great programs.

Cheers,
Alan.

 

The question was "How to edit RAW to see the advantage of shooting in RAW?"

So the brand does matter.

 

As you say, the benefits of RAW lie in what is lost in the in-camera
conversion to JPEG. Why the camera matters is that there's quite a bit
of variation in the quality of conversion in-camera to JPEG. Some are
so good that only special cases allow you to spot the differences,
whereas with others the differences are obvious in every image.