Question concerning RAW format

[robertchance]

My plan in the next few weeks is to get a camera that will be able to shot in RAW besides J-PEG,, In theory, I understand why folks would want to shot in RAW format. Would one of you RAW shooters out there be so kind as to show me a before and after RAW pic so I can see how much things change in that format after the pic has been processed by the user? Thanks in advance for your help.

[MarkBarbieri]

You can't really view RAW photos, at least not with a standard web browser. It's sort of like asking someone to post a negative.

I think the closest thing that you could get would be for someone to post a RAW with a straight JPG conversion and then the same thing tweaked. Of course, that wouldn't be a fair comparison, since you can tweak the JPG. So probably the best comparison would be for someone to post a shot taken in RAW, converted to JPG using some basic defaults and then adjusted and the same shot carefully adjusted before converting to JPG.

To get a really good comparison, you'd want to see several different types of corrections - large white balance corrections, significant overexposure corrections, significant underexposure corrections, significant dynamic range compression, etc. You'd probably also want to have someone post these using a wide gamut color space like Adobe RGB even though most PC based browsers won't display them properly. The wider gamut will be visible when printing and problems associated with making adjustments to an 8-bit file (such as banding) will be more apparent with a wider gamut than with SRGB.

[boBQuincy]

Like Mark said, there is really no good way to compare the files. I usually shoot in RAW along with a small JPG and that's about the best comparison I can do. I have my JPG set for all neutral settings, saturation, sharpness, contrast, and tone. I also have my camera set for AdobeRGB which is not the best choice for display on the web.

Here is a JPG:
http://www.mindspring.com/~bobquincy/beach/IMG_6671j.jpg

and the corresponding PSD from RAW (converted to JPG for viewing), with basic adjustments for levels and color:
http://www.mindspring.com/~bobquincy/beach/IMG_6671r.jpg

Not a great deal of difference, and I would have been happy with the JPG had I not seen the PSD. I could process the JPG into the same style as the RAW but the histogram would show gaps in the color values.

I hope this helps, or at least doesn't confuse things even more. ;)

[Anewman]

Would one of you RAW shooters out there be so kind as to show me a before and after RAW pic so I can see how much things change in that format after the pic has been processed by the user?

See the thing about raw is that it will look exactly as you would like it too, not so much about being better or worse it is about YOUR prefrence.

Sometimes the conversion could look EXACTLY(to the naked eye) like the out of camera jpeg, but other times it can be night and day.

the biggest differences would be on photos that require the maximum amount of dynamic range. Why??? Well because the in camera processor does not know if the highlights or shadows are important to you and may decide to TOSS them, hence making the highlights in the jpeg blown out(also may drop shadows). But when you process your own RAW file all the data captured by the exposure would still be present and you may decide to keep the highlight data instead of tossing it like the in camera processor did.

[robertchance]

thanks for the answers, looks like i need to do a bit of learning about RAW

[0bli0]

Robert,

here is another example. although this image was taken as RAW, this version is doing a straight conversion to .jpg first a little about the image. i'm using a reflector with no flash. in fact, if you pull a CSI and look at the reflection in her eye, you can see me next to the big round reflector. there was early morning sun and little cloud cover.

straight raw-jpg conversion. no post processing applied
http://homepage.mac.com/imagetechphoto/tempy/sevara_T2A6379-untouched.jpg

white - balance, slight bump in green channel and slight drop in red channel (to compensate for a characteristic with the 1 series cameras), slight edge sharpening. all done in Apple Aperture - no photoshop. all edits applied directly to raw (non-destructive), then exported as .jpg - it took me maybe 20 seconds to process this.
http://homepage.mac.com/imagetechphoto/tempy/sevara_T2A6379.jpg

ok so i thought it might look good as a mono image. so i took the raw image and converted to mono - increased the red channel, decreased the blue. slightly adjusted the luminance, applied slight edge sharpen. again took less than 20 seconds.
http://homepage.mac.com/imagetechphoto/tempy/sevara_T2A6379-Version2.jpg

[boBQuincy]

Robert,

here is another example. although this image was taken as RAW, this version is doing a straight conversion to .jpg

0bli0,

who cares about RAW, JPG, TIFF, etc., she is just *too* cute! :)

[0bli0]

thanks, boB! - she thinks so, too :)

[P00h]

If you don't know how to post process RAW files then I'd recommend sticking with jpeg. Also RAW files are larger than jpeg so you better have a powerful computer and extra HD space. RAW, in the hands of an inexperienced user, can create undesirable results as opposed to jpeg. RAW gives more freedom in post process but you need to know what you're doing.

[0bli0]

instead of sticking to jpeg, i'd personally recommend to anyone who is interested in trying raw to go out and shoot around the neighborhood/house/kids/etc. and see what kind of results you get. it can be quite fun *and* you often learn something about your camera.

as P00h recommends, if you're not familiar, i wouldn't shoot anything important until you're familiar with it. the pc requirements aren't terribly steep and storage is pretty cheap should you choose to go down this path.

each camera that has an option to shoot raw comes with software for processing it, which are generally quite intuitive. if nothing else, you can use the automatic settings. you might also try the free beta of Adobe Lightroom, as it makes processing raw files a snap.

[Anewman]

If you don't know how to post process RAW files then I'd recommend sticking with jpeg. Also RAW files are larger than jpeg so you better have a powerful computer and extra HD space. RAW, in the hands of an inexperienced user, can create undesirable results as opposed to jpeg. RAW gives more freedom in post process but you need to know what you're doing.

While that is a very common way of looking at it, one can put a RAW converter on AUTO and produce results just as good as in camera jpegs(if not better). It really takes no knowledge.

And Some software takes less PC power than you would think.

http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.asp

[DizneyNutz]

0bli0,

who cares about RAW, JPG, TIFF, etc., she is just *too* cute! :)
She looked like a LINEBACKER going after a QB in that photo of her and Tigger :rotfl2: GREAT CAPTURE :thumbsup2

[P00h]

While that is a very common way of looking at it, one can put a RAW converter on AUTO and produce results just as good as in camera jpegs(if not better). It really takes no knowledge.

And Some software takes less PC power than you would think.

http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.asp

If you're looking to produce results "just as good as in camera jpegs" then why bother? If you're going to set a RAW converter to AUTO then you're actually defeating the whole purpose of shooting in RAW in the first place.

[MICKEY88]

If you're looking to produce results "just as good as in camera jpegs" then why bother? If you're going to set a RAW converter to AUTO then you're actually defeating the whole purpose of shooting in RAW in the first place.


the benefit would be to learn how to post process your own work,

if you get frustrated and can't get the look you want, then go with auto settings...

[Anewman]

If you're looking to produce results "just as good as in camera jpegs" then why bother? If you're going to set a RAW converter to AUTO then you're actually defeating the whole purpose of shooting in RAW in the first place.

I am not suggesting that one "should" set their RAW converter to AUTO, just pointing out that you were mistaken in saying that an "inexperienced" shooter "could not" produce acceptable results.

But the benefit would be that after the newb becomes more experienced, they would have the RAW data to go back to.

Very few persons know how to develope their own film, but everyone tries to keep their 35mm negatives anyways...

[P00h]

I am not suggesting that one "should" set their RAW converter to AUTO, just pointing out that you were mistaken in saying that an "inexperienced" shooter "could not" produce acceptable results.

But the benefit would be that after the newb becomes more experienced, they would have the RAW data to go back to.

Very few persons know how to develope their own film, but everyone tries to keep their 35mm negatives anyways...

No, I don't think I am mistaken at all, I just don't believe that the casual shooter will really find any benefit to shooting RAW. Especially if they are inexperienced with working with RAW files, unless they are willing to spend time learning software and post-processing every photo they take then they should stick to jpeg.

I would suggest learning how to set a custom white balance and getting correct exposure before tackling working with the RAW files. I'm a firm believer in cr*p in = cr*p out.

[MICKEY88]

No, I don't think I am mistaken at all, I just don't believe that the casual shooter will really find any benefit to shooting RAW. Especially if they are inexperienced with working with RAW files, unless they are willing to spend time learning software and post-processing every photo they take then they should stick to jpeg.

I would suggest learning how to set a custom white balance and getting correct exposure before tackling working with the RAW files. I'm a firm believer in cr*p in = cr*p out.



I must respectfully disagree with this thought...the majority of serious shooters started out as casual shooters, then were caught with the photography bug.


and ALL photographers are inexperienced with working with raw files, the first time they do it...no one has experience in the beginning

[boBQuincy]

No, I don't think I am mistaken at all, I just don't believe that the casual shooter will really find any benefit to shooting RAW. Especially if they are inexperienced with working with RAW files, unless they are willing to spend time learning software and post-processing every photo they take then they should stick to jpeg.

I would suggest learning how to set a custom white balance and getting correct exposure before tackling working with the RAW files. I'm a firm believer in cr*p in = cr*p out.

I would agree that a casual photographer may not find any benefit in RAW, but one day they may decide to be more than casual, only to find all they have are JPGs. Better to start with RAW (+ JPG) now and know you have them for the future. Even if the photographer does not care to work on the RAW files they may want someone else to help with them.

Custom white balance is actually not a function of "in", it is processed in the camera after the exposure has been made. RAW has no white balance so it could be set later, even if the light has changed after the white balance was set. It is much more flexible than JPG.

[Anewman]

No, I don't think I am mistaken at all, I just don't believe that the casual shooter will really find any benefit to shooting RAW. Especially if they are inexperienced with working with RAW files, unless they are willing to spend time learning software and post-processing every photo they take then they should stick to jpeg.



This is a big departure from you original post

If you don't know how to post process RAW files then I'd recommend sticking with jpeg. Also RAW files are larger than jpeg so you better have a powerful computer and extra HD space. RAW, in the hands of an inexperienced user, can create undesirable results as opposed to jpeg. RAW gives more freedom in post process but you need to know what you're doing.

You made it seem like an "inexperienced user" could not produce acceptable results, I pointed out that they could. Now your stance changed to that it is of little benefit...

If you do not feel archiving the digital negative is a benefit, well there is no debate here.


I'm a firm believer in cr*p in = cr*p out.

I agree, I just dont see what that has to do with shooting RAW vs JPEG.

[caniswolfie]

I would have to say that the advantage I see to RAW is that sometimes the novice makes mistakes about checking some setting or other that RAW may help with. I don't think penalizing the novice because it will teach them a lesson and make them a better photographer is helpful. I think if the person can be shown to batch convert their RAW to JPG as shot and then maybe go back fix those occasions when it is warranted would be nice.

I have to think that if the novice perhaps for example used the wrong white balance on their christmas morning photos and could correct it that would be great. I don't think the lesson of you should of thought of making sure your white balance was right and now you have your children's memories not their best because of a mistake.

I think that if you are willing to use the extra space for the RAW, why not? In a lot of things, when you are beginning you get a safety net. When you get to be a professional and don't need the net (or know when you need it) you can shoot JPG and not worry about having to make as many changes or know exactly when you might need the extra power of RAW. I think RAW can be an instructional tool or how certain settings could have changed the photo.

[P00h]

This is a big departure from you original post



You made it seem like an "inexperienced user" could not produce acceptable results, I pointed out that they could. Now your stance changed to that it is of little benefit...

How is that a big departure from my original post? They go hand in hand. An inexperienced user who does not know software will probably get worse results than a properly exposed jpeg out of the camera. If you're going to stick a RAW converter to "Auto" then you are defeating the purpose and realizing the benefit of RAW; best to stick with jpeg. Processing RAW files is an extra step. Most casual shooters don't want to bother. Most people I've bothered to explained RAW to, inevitably switch back to jpeg. There are a few that stick with the process (those who are technically inclined in the first place) but the majority I've come across just don't want to bother.


If you do not feel archiving the digital negative is a benefit, well there is no debate here.

Now you're putting words in my mouth.


I agree, I just dont see what that has to do with shooting RAW vs JPEG.

My point is that people often use software and technology as a crutch. Most people on these types of forums see someone else's photos and they ask what camera they were using and what technique was used in post processing, without realizing that in the end it doesn't really matter. I've seen great photographs taken with point-and-shoots that were actually better than quite a few I've seen taken with dSLR's. With RAW files you still need to consider exposure, lighting, composition, etc. Just because someone is shooting in RAW will not make them a better photographer. The skill comes from the photographer not the software or the equipment. Learn the basic skills before all else.

[P00h]

I would agree that a casual photographer may not find any benefit in RAW, but one day they may decide to be more than casual, only to find all they have are JPGs. Better to start with RAW (+ JPG) now and know you have them for the future. Even if the photographer does not care to work on the RAW files they may want someone else to help with them.

Custom white balance is actually not a function of "in", it is processed in the camera after the exposure has been made. RAW has no white balance so it could be set later, even if the light has changed after the white balance was set. It is much more flexible than JPG.

No disagreement here. I'm not against the RAW format at all. I use it and definitely enjoy the flexibility it offers. Although, if a casual photographer doesn't know why they should be shooting RAW in the first place then maybe it's best that they stay away from it initially. RAW format will not make up for bad exposure or poor lighting. I just don't want to see anyone using RAW as a crutch and disregarding proper techniques because they think they can "fix" it later in post processing. IMHO, not a good idea. I've had countless people send me RAW files of badly exposed photographs asking me why their software can't "fix" it. Better to shoot jpeg and be forced to be mindful of exposure and lighting.

[MICKEY88]

The skill comes from the photographer not the software or the equipment. Learn the basic skills before all else.

this is true to a point,, a camera that allows full manual control will yield better results in tricky lighting situations, in the hands of an experienced photographer, than a fully auto camera....


raw will allow more adjustment to pics with poor exposure and bad lighting...

it's better to shoot raw and jpeg, so if one is ever so inclined to be more creative or have more control, the option is there...

to say that most people shouldn't shoot raw, because many will not benefit, is like saying most people shouldn't use more than a 3 megapixel camera, because many will not benefit from the extra info, nor have pictures printed larger than 4x6

[Groucho]

to say that most people shouldn't shoot raw, because many will not benefit, is like saying most people shouldn't use more than a 3 megapixel camera, because many will not benefit from the extra info, nor have pictures printed larger than 4x6
Actually, I'd go along with that one. The megapixel race is silly and counterproductive. We have tiny PnS cameras with 7mp sensors that are just big image noise machines. All the megapixels in the world don't matter if there's no detail because it's obscured by noise.

I'd have been a lot more likely to have kept my last PnS if it was a 2mp sensor instead of a very noisy 5mp one. Noise was very rarely an issue in the 2mp camera I had before that, and the fact is, most digital pictures live only on the computer, where they are usually displayed on 1024x768 screens, or maybe 1280x1024 - and 2mp's 1600x1200 gives plenty of picture, enough to crop off edges and still have it larger than most displays.

[fitzperry]

RAW format will not make up for bad exposure or poor lighting. I just don't want to see anyone using RAW as a crutch and disregarding proper techniques because they think they can "fix" it later in post processing. IMHO, not a good idea. I've had countless people send me RAW files of badly exposed photographs asking me why their software can't "fix" it. Better to shoot jpeg and be forced to be mindful of exposure and lighting.

You're contradicting yourself, just like the other poster in this thread who has been arguing about RAW being a crutch. How exactly is RAW a crutch if it won't make up for bad exposure or poor lighting? And how exactly is a .jpg preferable in the case of that badly exposed image?

[Anewman]

How is that a big departure from my original post? They go hand in hand.
Your original post implied that one needed knowledge of processing to be able to obtain acceptable images from RAW files, this was not a debate just missinformation.

Once corrected you have tried to make it a debate about the benefits or lack their of...

They do not go hand in hand.
1. States that a newb can not get good images out of raw.
2. Admits that they CAN(using auto) but now the debate becomes that it is NOT beneficial...



An inexperienced user who does not know software will probably get worse results than a properly exposed jpeg out of the camera.

Dissagree and have already stated how an inexperienced user can EASILY put the software on AUTO and get results at least equal to out of camera jpegs.

If you're going to stick a RAW converter to "Auto" then you are defeating the purpose and realizing the benefit of RAW; best to stick with jpeg.

Again That is your opinion and I choose not to debate this. I am not trying to convince anyone to use RAW or jpeg just stating HOW that casual/newb/inexperienced/etc... photographer can get decent results out of RAW files, contrary to what your original post had stated.

Processing RAW files is an extra step. Most casual shooters don't want to bother. Most people I've bothered to explained RAW to, inevitably switch back to jpeg.

Yes RAW files require the shooter to execute an addtional step.

And since we have all seen how accuratly you "explain" the RAW process and lack of benefit, I am not surprised that most of them have switched to back to jpeg.

If you do not feel archiving the digital negative is a benefit, well there is no debate here.



Now you're putting words in my mouth.

Your words.
"If you're going to set a RAW converter to AUTO then you're actually defeating the whole purpose of shooting in RAW in the first place."
"I just don't believe that the casual shooter will really find any benefit to shooting RAW."
"If you're going to stick a RAW converter to "Auto" then you are defeating the purpose and realizing the benefit of RAW"

So would the casual shooter have any benefit or not????? :confused3
If you say no, my last comment stands.
If you say yes, then we agree that archiving digital negatives would be of benefit.

My point is that people often use software and technology as a crutch. Most people on these types of forums see someone else's photos and they ask what camera they were using and what technique was used in post processing, without realizing that in the end it doesn't really matter. I've seen great photographs taken with point-and-shoots that were actually better than quite a few I've seen taken with dSLR's. With RAW files you still need to consider exposure, lighting, composition, etc. Just because someone is shooting in RAW will not make them a better photographer. The skill comes from the photographer not the software or the equipment. Learn the basic skills before all else.
YES it is best to start with the best exposure possible regardless of the file captured.
Now back to the ORIGINAL point.

If your original post would have stated an OPINION that casual shooter may be uncapable of seeing any real benefit from RAWs until they gather more knowledge of processing, I would not have interjected.
BUT instead you stated as a fact that newbs would not be able to get decent conversions, and that it takes mucho knowledge to do so...

Turning it into a debate about RAWs benefits, talk of addtional steps or using RAW as crutch does not make that original post any more correct.

[pxlbarrel]

Up until recently I shot only jpgs....mainly because I'm cheap and wanted to maximize the amount of compact flash memory. I've recently switched to shooting both raw and jpg (the camera will store both). The raw so I can play around with the post processing and the jpg in case I just want to email a photo to somebody quickly...and not have to do a lot of post processing.

Unfortunately, shooting this way means I have to go out and buy more compact flash cards to complement the many i already have.

I also need a better raw image editing software or plugin than I have right now...perhaps invest in plug-in for Photoshop.

It's interesting to see the differences between the RAW and the JPG. For the OP, if your camera is capable of taking both at the same time, try that and see the difference in images. It may be slight but it might enlighten you a bit more as to what's really involved.

[Anewman]

I also need a better raw image editing software or plugin than I have right now...perhaps invest in plug-in for Photoshop.



Do you have Pixmantecs Rawshooter Essentials???

It is free while it lasts, ADOBE purchased Pixmantec and they are integrating the engine into LIghtroom once they go out of BETA they will stop distributing RSE so download ASAP. My buddy has it running on an old laptop that is to slow to run Photoshop elements, it runs great and he can actually multi task while it batch converts in the background.

http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.asp

Also highly reccomended is a program called Silkypix, never tried it but it is growing in popularity. Do a google search, they also have a free license.

Any questions or issues feel free to start a thread, plenty of RAW shooters around to help you.

[pxlbarrel]

Oooooo...thanks very much! I downloaded RawShooter Eseentials 2006 just now. It looks great. I'll have to take a look at it more closely in the morning. I'll look at that other software too.

:goodvibes

[pyrxtc]

I'm just glad to see someone is getting bashed besides me. I found it no use to argue as long as I got my point across. Whch was, that I don't want everyone to think they should run out to buy a new camera that will shoot in RAW when they ahve a perfectly good camera in hand. If you area casual shooter then what you ahve is fine. Be happy with it like you have been and don't worry about anythig that has been said in these RAW posts. If your happy with your pictures then just be happy. The grass is always greener ...........

[pxlbarrel]

I'm just glad to see someone is getting bashed besides me. I found it no use to argue as long as I got my point across. Whch was, that I don't want everyone to think they should run out to buy a new camera that will shoot in RAW when they ahve a perfectly good camera in hand. If you area casual shooter then what you ahve is fine. Be happy with it like you have been and don't worry about anythig that has been said in these RAW posts. If your happy with your pictures then just be happy. The grass is always greener ...........

Absolutely! I "survived" on jpgs for years. LOL Absolutely nothing wrong with jpgs. If you've got time, the inclination and the curiosity...you can move into RAW images later. :)

[MICKEY88]

. The grass is always greener ...........

especially when working with raw files.....


sorry someone had to say it....LOL

[Anewman]

I'm just glad to see someone is getting bashed besides me. I found it no use to argue as long as I got my point across. Whch was, that I don't want everyone to think they should run out to buy a new camera that will shoot in RAW when they ahve a perfectly good camera in hand. If you area casual shooter then what you ahve is fine. Be happy with it like you have been and don't worry about anythig that has been said in these RAW posts. If your happy with your pictures then just be happy. The grass is always greener ...........

No one is being bashed(imo), but why would you be glad?
Just seems odd to me.

If I recall correctly you are one that said something like "only reason one should shoot RAW is if they do not know how to set their camera functions", I assure you if somebody said the same thing about JPEGS they would have gotton the same exact response as you.
It is and never was personal, as it is not in this thread.

Yes JPEGS are great and they serve MILLIONS of photographers very well, so there is no need to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about RAW. Stick to the FACTS about JPEG and nobody can call anyone out, its merits are very clear and stand on their own.