RAW or not RAW? :)

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by jazu, May 5, 2008.

  1. jazu

    jazu Guest

    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
     
    jazu, May 5, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. jazu

    N Guest


    Which camera brand and model?
     
    N, May 5, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. jazu

    Frank ess Guest

    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.
     
    Frank ess, May 5, 2008
    #3
  4. jazu

    jazu Guest

    Canon Rebel XT.
    Is that related to the subject?
     
    jazu, May 5, 2008
    #4
  5. jazu

    frederick Guest

    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.
     
    frederick, May 5, 2008
    #5
  6. jazu

    Doug Jewell Guest

    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.
     
    Doug Jewell, May 5, 2008
    #6
  7. jazu

    N Guest

    Of course it is. Would you read a long appraisal of Nikon Capture NX?
     
    N, May 5, 2008
    #7
  8. jazu

    just bob Guest

    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.
     
    just bob, May 5, 2008
    #8
  9. jazu

    Paul Furman Guest

    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
     
    Paul Furman, May 5, 2008
    #9
  10. jazu

    C J Campbell Guest

    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, May 5, 2008
    #10
  11. 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
     
    David J Taylor, May 5, 2008
    #11
  12. People will capitalize RAW, CR2, JPEG, TIFF, ...
    "JPG" is not correct. JPEG is.
    Joint Photography *Expert* Group.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 5, 2008
    #12
  13. .... 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
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 5, 2008
    #13
  14. 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
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 5, 2008
    #14
  15. jazu

    Alan Browne Guest

    Irrelevant. The advantages of raw are the same for all cameras.
     
    Alan Browne, May 5, 2008
    #15
  16. jazu

    Alan Browne Guest

    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.
     
    Alan Browne, May 5, 2008
    #16
  17. jazu

    Alan Browne Guest

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

    :~)
     
    Alan Browne, May 5, 2008
    #17
  18. jazu

    Alan Browne Guest

    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.
     
    Alan Browne, May 5, 2008
    #18
  19. jazu

    N Guest



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

    So the brand does matter.
     
    N, May 5, 2008
    #19
  20. 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.
     
    Chris Malcolm, May 6, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.