Raw file format

[woodlandsparty]

Do you guys ever even mess with a camera's Raw file format or do you just stick with using the jpeg file format????

[boBQuincy]

I capture almost every image in RAW, along with a small jpg for emailing and quick viewing.

[Furgus]

Almost everything in RAW, or NEF for you Nikon owners :)

[Anewman]

Raw.

This is what Canon sez about the issue.
"Image processing with a personal computer yields higher image quality than with the camera's internal processing."

[0bli0]

i shoot raw almost exclusively - except daytime team sports. it gives you so much better control over whitebalance, sharpness, and exposure. but you need to spend time processing.

[fitzperry]

I started shooting almost everything in RAW (well, as Furgus said, NEF since I'm a Nikon gal) a couple of months ago. I've been quite surprised and pleased with the difference in image quality.

[Miss Kelly]

I plan on shooting in RAW when my camera comes on Monday. I may have some questions somewhere down the line about it. I'm glad everyone is so supportive of the RAW format here. :thumbsup2

[Furgus]

I plan on shooting in RAW when my camera comes on Monday. I may have some questions somewhere down the line about it. I'm glad everyone is so supportive of the RAW format here. :thumbsup2

Here are some links to help you with some basic, ok, not so basic questions :)

Understanding RAW (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml)
RAW vs JPEG (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/raw_vs_jpg.shtml)

What is a RAW File? (http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/raw-files.html)

Hope these help.

[boBQuincy]

I plan on shooting in RAW when my camera comes on Monday. I may have some questions somewhere down the line about it. I'm glad everyone is so supportive of the RAW format here. :thumbsup2

Here is another link that shows graphically how RAW can deliver more dynamic range than JPG.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos30d/page21.asp

Considering what many of us have spent on dSLRs, lenses, peripherals, and then WDW trips, it seems almost a shame to set the camera to "next to the best" quality.
Go for it! ;)

[Miss Kelly]

Thanks for the links. I'm 'off' to read. :)

[timned88]

i only use RAW...

by the way...RAW is RAW for sony, nikon, olympus, or canon. (.NEF is Nikon's raw file format, .CR2 is Canon's, etc.) The term RAW is interchangeable among cameras, but the files are not compatible. I saw a few people misusing the terms and wanted to shed some light on that. Hope that didn't come across as too snobby, it's hard to infer meaning on a computer screen.

[MarkBarbieri]

I also shoot almost exclusively in RAW. In general, I've found that if I get everything right, JPG is just as good. If I get the exposure or white balance off by more than a tiny bit or the photo has a very wide dynamic range, I end up with a much better result if my original was a JPG.

My one major concern about RAW is that it is a collection of non-standard proprietary formats. Not only does every camera maker have different RAW formats, the formats differ from camera to camera. For now, that isn't a problem, but it makes for a riskier archival format.

Here (http://www.openraw.org/info/) is a discussion of the problem and a proposed solution.

[fitzperry]

i only use RAW...

by the way...RAW is RAW for sony, nikon, olympus, or canon. (.NEF is Nikon's raw file format, .CR2 is Canon's, etc.) The term RAW is interchangeable among cameras, but the files are not compatible. I saw a few people misusing the terms and wanted to shed some light on that. Hope that didn't come across as too snobby, it's hard to infer meaning on a computer screen.

How is it "misusing" the term to say that you shoot in .NEF or .CR2 (I assume that' what you're referring to)? I would think it is simply more specific than saying you shoot in RAW.

[pyrxtc]

well, the only reason you should be shooting in RAw all the time is if you ahve no clue how to set your own functions on your camera, and then you should be using auto mode. Most of the public does not need the info your get on raw or need the size file that you get either. I do photography for a business and I will shoot in my highest Jpeg mode for a session unless there is somewhere I cannot use a flash or I know the flash will be useless. You should set your camera appropriately and use Raw only when need.

I used it recently at a concert becuase I knew my flash would be no good competing wiht all those stage lights and I couldn't get an accurate light reading with the lights changing so much.

The large Jpeg holds much more information than you need to create a 4x6 or even a 16x20. When you make a file sixe larger than you need, you are essentially giving the printer more info than neded and thye decide what gets thrown out and what stays. That is what results in colors being thrown off and such. Well, that and color fixing your monitors.

here is a place where I used raw .....

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/portfolio/CollageWall16x20Mpix.jpg

I ende up wiht wonderful photos but I can whatever I want with them. I am printng this up quite large but have resixed it myself to work with the printers specifications.

Shots like these, I used Jpeg and did whatver else I wanted to them postprocessing but the two sunsets are straight out of my camera, untouched.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/portfolio/MomFace.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/Playroom/P2130376Bren1.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/DisneyWorld/EpcotSign.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/DisneyWorld/PA040641.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/portfolio/Sunset2.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a125/pyrxtc/portfolio/Sunset1.jpg

Raw is not always better. sometimes you have a perfect picture wiht readjusting it in RAw. You should always shoot for getting it right the first time, not that you can fix it later on the computer. If you do that, you'll never get better at using your cameras features, you start to rely on RAw to fix everything and that is not always possible. Plus, think of how many more pictures you could fit on a card shooting in Jpeg mode.

[MarkBarbieri]

Raw is not always better.

At least in terms of picture quality, it would be accurate to say that RAW is never worse than JPG and sometimes better.

If you have good control over lighting and know what you are doing, there is little reason to use RAW. If you don't, and few of us wandering around WDW do, RAW provides a safety net.

You definitely need to weigh the tradeoff between the speed, compactness, and ease-of-use of JPG files versus the extra information provided by a RAW file. As for me, with my limited skills and the very low cost of memory and computing power, I like the extra safety provided by RAW for most circumstances.

[boBQuincy]

To imply those who use RAW should stick with “Auto” does quite a disservice to the many talented photographers on this board and elsewhere, amateur and professional, who use RAW!

For those who are new to this and are wondering if RAW is worthwhile, what I see in pyrxtc’s post is a great misunderstanding of what RAW is.

RAW is not more pixels; not for readjusting; not for fixing later in the computer; not for sending larger file sizes to the printer; not for colors being thrown off; and certainly not for making up for not knowing how to set the camera.

RAW is the full information from the camera's sensor, without processing, nothing more.

RAW image quality is *always* better than jpg. When the camera performs a lossy compression some image information is lost, and what is tossed away is the camera’s choice, not the photographer’s. It is always better to start with the original.

RAW requires the same precise camera settings that jpg does. Even though RAW may be more tolerant of certain exposure limitations than jpg, to get the best image quality still requires the proper settings.

RAW files do take more memory card space but I will pay that little extra to be sure I am getting the best image quality possible from my camera.

[DizneyNutz]

To imply those who use RAW should stick with “Auto” does quite a disservice to the many talented photographers on this board and elsewhere, amateur and professional, who use RAW!

For those who are new to this and are wondering if RAW is worthwhile, what I see in pyrxtc’s post is a great misunderstanding of what RAW is.

RAW is not more pixels; not for readjusting; not for fixing later in the computer; not for sending larger file sizes to the printer; not for colors being thrown off; and certainly not for making up for not knowing how to set the camera.

RAW is the full information from the camera's sensor, without processing, nothing more.

RAW image quality is *always* better than jpg. When the camera performs a lossy compression some image information is lost, and what is tossed away is the camera’s choice, not the photographer’s. It is always better to start with the original.

RAW requires the same precise camera settings that jpg does. Even though RAW may be more tolerant of certain exposure limitations than jpg, to get the best image quality still requires the proper settings.

RAW files do take more memory card space but I will pay that little extra to be sure I am getting the best image quality possible from my camera.

I am not camera literate by any means, but have self learned quite a bit since getting my current camera. No I don't always know what proper setting, but do my best with my current knowledge. There are times however that I wish (after the fact) that I could make some adjustments. The Op post me me feel like a total idiot, because I have not taken photgraphy lessons. My current camera does not support Raw and I am looking to upgrade for this reason. I don't strive to be a professional photgrapher, but have thouroughly enjoyed some of the photos on this board and hope to be able to take some of the same quality. Thanks for your post! :thumbsup2

[fitzperry]

Raw is not always better. sometimes you have a perfect picture wiht readjusting it in RAw. You should always shoot for getting it right the first time, not that you can fix it later on the computer. If you do that, you'll never get better at using your cameras features, you start to rely on RAw to fix everything and that is not always possible. Plus, think of how many more pictures you could fit on a card shooting in Jpeg mode.

Since you acknowledge that even with a RAW file, you can't fix everything, why do you assume that those who shoot RAW most of the time must be using it as a crutch? Memory is relatively inexpensivie, so squeezing more images on a card isn't much incentive to me. I'd rather have the best quality images I can capture. Of course you should shoot for getting it right the first time, but if you don't, you have more options with RAW. And in many situations, even if you do get it right, you'll end up with a better image.

[pyrxtc]

when you compres your RAW file afterward in your computer to a Jpeg, you're still throwing away all the extra information. I didn't say it is used as a cruth, I simply said that most people that are here on this board the phot's they take are not going to be much bigger than an 8x10 and they don't need a RAW files large info for that. They don't even need a the best quality Jpeg for that. I've gotten some wonderful 8x10's out of an old 1.3 MP camera and yes the ones with my new camera are better but that is more in experience than MP's.

using RAw when you are unsure of what else to do is fine, sometimes. But if you just shoot in the mode for the place you are, you should get a good picture wihtout having to convert a RAW file. the print you get is the same wether you sue RAw or Jpeg. Proffessional Photographer like to use RAw in instances where they want to be able to control the image more post-editing a 4x6 print is still the same pixels whether you shot in RAw or Jpeg.

[fitzperry]

when you compres your RAW file afterward in your computer to a Jpeg, you're still throwing away all the extra information.
But since I've done the processing, I've decided what gets tossed. And I always have the RAW file to go back to if I want to work with the image again, so I'm really not throwing anything away.

I didn't say it is used as a cruth, I simply said that most people that are here on this board the phot's they take are not going to be much bigger than an 8x10 and they don't need a RAW files large info for that. They don't even need a the best quality Jpeg for that. I've gotten some wonderful 8x10's out of an old 1.3 MP camera and yes the ones with my new camera are better but that is more in experience than MP's.
I don't believe that anyone here has argued that they need to shoot RAW to make larger prints. If I can get a better quality image by shooting in RAW, it doesn't matter whether I make a 4x6 or a poster sized print, I'll take the better image.

the print you get is the same wether you sue RAw or Jpeg. Proffessional Photographer like to use RAw in instances where they want to be able to control the image more post-editing a 4x6 print is still the same pixels whether you shot in RAw or Jpeg.
How is the print the same regardless of the format? That doesn't make sense.

[timned88]

remember also that by shooting raw you are getting everything that your camera's sensor has to put out. most cameras today are capturing at least 12 bits of information per channel (straight from the Adobe Camera Raw book) but a .jpg file is 8 bits so you are discarding 1/3 of your possible information right off the jump by shooting .jpg. also, when you shoot .jpg, you are depending on your camera's settings to be correct in order to get a nice photograph. if something was set wrong, such as white balance, you are going to have a very difficult time fixing that problem.

i understand that when you save your raw to a .jpg when you are done you are compressing the file anyway, so let's not get into a flame war about that fact. however, i would rather have all the extra information when editing prior to saving so as to have a larger tonal range and not experience posterization because i didn't capture as much data as i could have.

here is a sample of what is possible with raw that i have posted other places....

This is a before and after photo of the Walt Disney World Dolphin used to illustrate what is possible when shooting in RAW. If your camera has the capability (very few point and shoots have it, all D/SLR's have it), this is what is possible. The top image is a shot of the Dolphin straight out of the camera with no processing other than opening the RAW file. The bottom image is the completed photo, taken from the RAW and processed with a workflow that I use on all my images. The purpose of this exercise is not to divulge my workflow or host a lesson on Photoshop technique so please don't ask about that as it is beyond the scope of this post, but to illustrate what is possible when using the RAW format to it's capability.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/timned88/Blog%20Disney/before-after.jpg

[Anewman]

well, the only reason you should be shooting in RAw all the time is if you ahve no clue how to set your own functions on your camera, and then you should be using auto mode.


I really dissagree big time with this, it is exactly the opposite.

Shooting JPEG is like shooting in AUTO mode, you are letting the camera decide what your image should look like instead of processing it yourself. In fact shooting jpeg is "AUTO", auto processing that is.

What you just did is like telling old school photographers that the only reason they develope their own film is because they dont know their own camera, after all if they were good they would just drop their film off at WALMART and get great results.

but hey if it makes you feel better about your jpegs to say that us RAW shooters dont know how to use our camera, knock yourself out...

[Anewman]

Three RAW conversions from today, I really must start putting my Camera on AUTO since I shoot nothing but full manual.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/Manobeer/Miramar/_MG_0040-01.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/Manobeer/Miramar/_MG_0337-01.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/Manobeer/Miramar/_MG_0481-01.jpg

[PaulD]

remember also that by shooting raw you are getting everything that your camera's sensor has to put out. most cameras today are capturing at least 12 bits of information per channel (straight from the Adobe Camera Raw book) but a .jpg file is 8 bits so you are discarding 1/3 of your possible information right off the jump by shooting .jpg. also, when you shoot .jpg, you are depending on your camera's settings to be correct in order to get a nice photograph. if something was set wrong, such as white balance, you are going to have a very difficult time fixing that problem.

Timned88's point is well taken but just to clarify, you're actually throwing away 2^4 times (i.e. 16 times) the original amount of captured information. Yes, you're throwing away 4 of 12 bits (1/3 of the bits) but we're talking binary here. Each bit doubles the amount of information. You're reducing 4096 (the largest number represented with 12 bits) down to 256 (the largest number represented with 8 bits). That's only 1/16 the original amount of data. So, this reduction is actually extremely significant and really bolsters the importance of RAW.

Also, I wanted to mention that it's not just about exposure corrections. Every time a photo is interpreted to produce an image file (i.e. a jpg) decisions are made regarding how the colors are mapped or interpreted. By being in control of the colors at the time of processing you essentially can emulate the experience of having different film types. Remember when people used Velvia because of the colors it produced? You still hear people talking about replicating the Velvia look. At the end of the day you have almost no control (beyond saturation) over colors when you shoot jpg and you may or may not be satisfied with what the camera does for any given photo.

There are other things that you lose control over when shooting jpg such as how the image is sharpened, color space used, application of a contrast curve, level of jpg compression, file format used (i.e. no TIFF for most cameras), etc. Shooting RAW allows you to make all these decisions and produce the highest quality images that are possible with your camera. It also allows you to come back to an old photo with better software down the road to make a photo even better.

I admit that I don't use RAW very much because I have a great camera that is "good enough" for most of the types of photos that I take (family snapshots). But when I really want to make a beautiful photo I always shoot RAW.

[pyrxtc]

well I didn't say don't use Raw but if the day loks like that, you should be able to capture very close to that without RAW. If you want to use it, thats fine. I just don't want eveyrone who reads this thread to think that they should be using it because it is the best. When you resize your photo in the end to 300 PP Inch and 1200 x 1800 it is the same info. Yes you have more to work with at first but in the end it is the same saize for a print. Some people don't need that more information.

And for some general information, a lot of proffessional photographers don't use RAw. They use Tiff or mostly Jpeg. Well the ones I have read about and the ones that I know anyways.

[0bli0]

the original poster asked if anyone ever messes with raw, and many of us who do responded so. i don't think anyone is implying you must shoot this way.

.TIF files are great, if you're using a digital back that supports this file format. but for most of us using consumer dslr bodies, this isn't an option. the only options are .jpg and a raw sensor dump. if any bits are going to get thrown away, then i want to do it :)

most raw files are compressed, but they are done so in a 100% lossless way. and, as has been pointed out, you preserve the image exactly as the sensor has read it. the relationship between a sensor (and the way it responds to light) and the image as it is ultimately turned into a .jpg in camera are not the same as a film shooter simply choosing the right film stock and ISO. you then go to the darkroom and choose the appropriate paper, brand of chemicals (and temperature) and print the photos. if you need to dodge, burn, and push your prints, you do so.

the second step in my workflow is to adjust the white balance. i shoot using auto white balance because it's close enough. and i know i'm going to fix it later. btw the only 'auto' mode my camera has is 'P' mode which i only ever use if i'm using flash just want to do ETTL (not fill), so almost never. so when i'm processing my photos, it just takes me one click to adjust the white balance and then move on to my next step.

if i shoot team sports outside, i'll set a custom white balance before each game (since the light temperature changes as the day goes on and is affected by reflected grass, etc.). when i process these photos, i use the same workflow minus the white balance step.


if i'm shooting something that i don't really care so much about - maybe a work party or something similar - i'll shoot RAW + .jpg. so i end up with a raw and a jpg version of every shot. that way i can simply provide the jpgs, but if there is a shot i need to fix, i have the raw as a back up.

for me, shooting raw has nothing to do with the size of the print. every season i have 20x30 posters made of some of the players and the .jpgs are great for this. i just did a 30x30 canvas for a lady the other day (from raw, but .jpg would have been fine size wise - but not for the image).

anyway, for the original poster - i highly recommend trying your self - pick an afternoon and just shoot a bunch of pictures in raw, then take the time to pocess them to see what you think.

[Master Mason]

Here is what I do. I shoot in RAW + large Jpeg. 99% of my photos are used as is from the jpeg. But there is that 1% that I liked but didn't care for the end result. Having the Raw file allows me to go back and fix it. Also if and when I decided to start really getting into photo editing, having the raw files will give me more flexibilty.

And its not a big deal, I shoot as I always would, move the Raw files to a seperate folder and Burn and extra CD every week or so.....

But in the end, do what you like, this is supposed to be for fun after all, not getting lectured and yelled at.

[Groucho]

I hate TIFF - give me PNG for uncompressed pictures any day. :) But that's coming from more of a PC user side of things.

I'm going to avoid this fray except for one very minor comment on boBQuincy's statement: "RAW is not more pixels". It's the same number of pixels, but RAW does give you more unique pixels, because of JPG's lossy compression.

I still shoot mostly JPG just for the size, but am planning on shooting my next WDW trip using RAW, since it's harder to go back and re-take those photos than it is for local ones. Plus, at this point, many of my pictures are still experiments trying to learn the camera as much as possible. Once I'm happier with my own techniques, then I'll work more on the technical side, post-processing, RAW, etc.

[Anewman]

well I didn't say don't use Raw but if the day loks like that, you should be able to capture very close to that without RAW. If you want to use it, thats fine.

You are right, and maybe I could have used a point and shoot camera in full auto and gotten very close to that...

The same way that shooting RAW may have improved your leopard shot, but you will never know because you let the camera decide for you. And that is fine for you.

But I will stick to making all the decision making with my photos, in and out of camera.

I just don't want eveyrone who reads this thread to think that they should be using it because it is the best.

So instead you want everyone that reads this thread to read that "the only reason you should be shooting in RAw all the time is if you ahve no clue how to set your own functions on your camera."

But for my photos RAW is best, because it gives me complete control over the look of my image.

When you resize your photo in the end to 300 PP Inch and 1200 x 1800 it is the same info. Yes you have more to work with at first but in the end it is the same saize for a print. Some people don't need that more information.


See this all you think raw is about...

A Raw conversion has EXACTLY the same amount of pixels as jpeg, so in other words it has nothing to do with print or display size. I really dont know why you keep bringing it up.

It is about how the photographer wants his photos to look and feel, not about better or best but choice. And this is regardless of print/display size. Yes conversions may provide more detail but with the naked eye it will rarely be seen.



And for some general information, a lot of proffessional photographers don't use RAw. They use Tiff or mostly Jpeg. Well the ones I have read about and the ones that I know anyways.

So is this a contest, if we find more pros who do use it will that prove anything? Obviously not.

Again it is all about choice. Only difference is that I have never seen a RAW shooter go around saying that only persons that do not know how to use their camera shoot jpeg...

[pyrxtc]

So is this a contest, if we find more pros who do use it will that prove anything? Obviously not.

Again it is all about choice. Only difference is that I have never seen a RAW shooter go around saying that only persons that do not know how to use their camera shoot jpeg...

I was not saying that. If you read the hwole post, it was said that pro's use Raw. I also said that not all use it and it should be used in special circumstances, not relied on to "fix it later".