Do all of you shoot RAW?

[Mickee]

With your dslr?

I've read enough to know about it...I guess my concern is just not having enough time to pp them;

I didn't know if shooting in jpeg would take away from the whole package?

Just another step in my learning process before I move ahead.

Always take any and all advice.

Thank you.

 

[MICKEY88]

With your dslr?

I've read enough to know about it...I guess my concern is just not having enough time to pp them;

I didn't know if shooting in jpeg would take away from the whole package?

Just another step in my learning process before I move ahead.

Always take any and all advice.

Thank you.

for most stuff I just shoot jpeg, on the highest setting,,, for really important stuff I shoot raw and jpeg, more often than not the jpeg pics are just fine, but if any need work, i then use the raw file

 

[jann1033]

that is a good idea..once i finish figuring out the rest of my camera i was thinking of trying this also...my husband does decorative paint finishes and has a sample book...the samples i took with a 4 mp easy share look, well , awful, no depth of color etc and i think that RAW would help with that?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

vritually never, except for high-key fashion shots (white background with light coloured, even white dress), which is less than 1% of all my shots.

 

[jann1033]

vritually never, except for high-key fashion shots (white background with light coloured, even white dress), which is less than 1% of all my shots.

why then Kelly? guess i don't quite understand ...i think i've read RAW can give more details upon processing so is that why ( since it's basically all white)? trying to get when "to" or "not to". i was thinking of taking some monkey pictures to send to a friend my next zoo trip and i want the color to be just right

 

[Kelly Grannell]

RAW give slightly higher dynamic range, and white on white is very easy to overexpose. If it is a posed shot then it won't be a problem because I can meter it properly, but for my style of shooting, the models constantly move as if there is no camera around.

Now for the red **** on black monkey shots I don't think you need RAW.

Every photographer have different approach in taking pics. To me, RAW in 99% of the situations is overrated, but another photographer will say that JPEG in 99% of the situation is unuseable.

Try both, and see it for yourself. Your camera allows you to take RAW+high-res JPEG anyway. Take several shots that way, bring them home, compare them, and see whether the RAW version is worth the extra effort and your post processing time (JPEG post processing is done internally. I personally set my camera settings to all zero and sharpness to -1)

 

[jann1033]

got it thanks

 

[Mickee]

Thx everyone for your quick responses (as always).

This was one of my worries and now has been put to rest.

 

[MICKEY88]

why then Kelly? guess i don't quite understand ...i think i've read RAW can give more details upon processing so is that why ( since it's basically all white)? trying to get when "to" or "not to". i was thinking of taking some monkey pictures to send to a friend my next zoo trip and i want the color to be just right

color being just right is more about proper exposure, than whether your file is jpeg or raw...


I've debated this with someone else , a properly exposed picture won't need processing whether jpeg or raw..they insisted that all raw files need processing, and without it, their raw files were pretty much useless...my guess is they shoot a lot of improperly exposed images and rescue them with post processing...or they just like saturation and contrast higher than what the original scene truly was..which is easier with raw files....but as Kelly stated, jpeg will do fine, in almost all situations, as long as you have proper exposure... I stand by my point....

I shot raw and jpeg one weekend, compared the 2 side by side, and most pictures were identical, only those with tricky lighting showed any variation..

 

[boBQuincy]

Kelly and I were discussing RAW vs JPG, and being civil about it!
I went back to do more research on RAW and here is some of what I found:

Some of us photograph in JPG. It is much more efficient due to the smaller file sizes and has little or no need for post processing.

Some of us photograph in RAW. It has much more information, thus a potentially higher quality image. The key word though is "potentially", as in does this larger file size really translate into greater image quality?

A look at some JPG images confirms the JPG photographers are obviously getting the high quality they need to satisfy their customers. Would RAW give even more, is more even needed or worthwhile, or is all this just more marketing hype?



*Before adding to this thread I greatly encourage readers to read the following essays on RAW. They *are* biased toward using RAW so please take that into account. If you agree or disagree with them, good, but please explain why. I also strongly encourage you to read about the Zone System.
The excerpt below is taken from the second essay.

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml
http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/rawtruth1.shtml


JPEG Shooter - The camera captures RAW data, and it then develops the image into a JPEG or TIF. The RAW data is discarded. The photographer gets the camera’s rendition of the file and is essentially stuck with it unless a loss of quality is to be tolerated through editing. And this may be OK if all the parameters like exposure and White Balance were properly set in the camera. But in the real world that is rarely the case 100% of the time.
RAW Shooter - The camera captures RAW data, and it then saves the RAW data onto the memory card for future development(s). The RAW data (ALL of the captured data) is preserved. The photographer gets the full potential of the image, and will maintain that potential forever by archiving the RAW file. (With many cameras, you can shoot RAW + JPEG which saves the JPEG and RAW files to the memory card. Perfect except for the extra space this consumes, but a great transitional mode while getting used to or experimenting with shooting RAW).
RAW Truth #1
The JPEG shooter and the RAW shooter both capture RAW data. The JPEG shooter uses the camera as their RAW converter (developer) and is willing to give up the potential to do a better development in the future. The RAW shooter, saves the RAW data (and maybe a camera developed JPEG as well) so that the potential of the image can be maximized by using his or her RAW converter of choice.

end of plagiarized material.


***
From all the information I have been able to gather, the RAW file can not be directly displayed. What we are seeing is the RAW file converted to a viewable format, with the camera settings (or the RAW converter settings) applied. The big deal is that the settings are applied only to that conversion, the RAW file itself is not altered. Because of that we can go back and change the settings and convert the RAW file as many times as we wish, always starting with the original instead of compounding the changes (and losing data at every step).

This doesn't seem much different from altering the JPG several times (but always starting with the original as well), except the original JPG has already been converted from the RAW by the camera (according to it's settings) and data has already been lost. It appears if we wish to use JPG we might be best off with the minimum settings except that means more post processing outside of the camera, something that we are trying to get away from by using JPG in the first place!

My needs are different from a professional, I am not a pro and have no screaming clients so I have the luxury of time to post process every image if need be. I usually combine a small JPG with the RAW for viewing and emailing, and I print a very small percentage of my images anyway so it's not a big problem. In the case of a pro I can only imagine the havoc that would result from being forced to spend a lot of time processing every image, for a client who wants them *now*. I read an article on SuperBowl photographers and naturally they shoot JPG because of the huge number of photos the Sports Illustrated editor has to view, even during the game.

A typical sunny day scene can have a brightness range of over 10,000:1, our sensor can record maybe 4,000:1, paper can display about 200:1. Obviously "correct exposure" can mean many things, as in correct for which part of the scene? There is no way the exposure can be correct for all parts of a high contrast scene, we cannot capture that much range of brightness. RAW can capture more of it than JPG so I use RAW to give me the most options.


So as far as I can figure, yes, RAW can provide a higher quality image but it comes at a cost and is not always the best choice for the final output.



boB

 

[Sonno]

I'll be shooting RAW + JPEG-H. Why?
Why not? I'll be dumping my cards to a laptop at the end of the day anyway. Figure if I do end up needing the RAW files, I'll have them.

 

[tjl1388]

Why not? I'll be dumping my cards to a laptop at the end of the day anyway. Figure if I do end up needing the RAW files, I'll have them.

You underestimate the size RAW files.

On my D70 set at just below highest jpeg I can get about 1100 shots on a 2gb card. By switching to RAW I go to around 200 or less.

200 shots won't get me past main street and the castle.....

To rephrase though, if I am shooting a moving subject with variable lighting conditions I do go to RAW, you can just change so much more.

 

[Anewman]

Canon states(on their training page)
"Image processing with a personal computer yields higher image quality than with the camera's internal processing."

That does not mean that jpeg is not good enough, even for pro jobs.

For me as the photographer that does shoots pretty much on full manual 99% of the time because I do not like to let the camera decide what to expose for, I feel I should also decide how much contrast/saturation/etc... each photo requires.

I understand there is a trade off, space and time are the two obvious ones.

SPACE, for me media is all so cheap that for me it is not a factor. If all I had was one 512mb compact flash I would obviously not shoot raw.

TIME, for me the RAW conversion(and processing) takes less than a minute per image. I then apply that conversion to any other RAW files that I shot under the same lighting/exposure. I can honestly process and convert(to any format) 200 photos in about half an hour, that includes resizing for print.

SPEED, may not be a big issue to many others but when shooting a big baseball tournament burst is very important. If I had a camera that could not give me a 7 shot burst with RAW I would switch over to jpeg.


I only convert files for print or display, I have one button actions that give me the exact size and file format I need at the time. If I ever see something that I would like to change I go back to the original RAW file and start from there, Adobe bridge makes this very easy.

I choose RAW not because it may or may not give better detail, I choose it because it gives me the look that I am looking for. IMO in camera JPEGS are the look that the camera was looking for.

 

[manning]

Also there are some who will argue that using JPEG will cause a problem in post processing, losing data everytime you save (resolution). This is solved by simply saving a master as TIFF.

 

[Anewman]

I've debated this with someone else , a properly exposed picture won't need processing whether jpeg or raw..they insisted that all raw files need processing, and withut it, their raw files were pretty much useless...my guess is they shoot a lot of improperly exposed images and rescue them with post processing...which is easier with raw files....but as Kelly stated, jpeg will do fine, in almost all situations, as long as you have proper exposure... I stand by my point....

I think that was me Mickey.

I also still stand by my point, which is that your guess is wrong. Your basic premise is also wrong. "won't need processing whether jpeg or raw", when the jpeg was ALREADY PROCESSED in the camera(that is a FACT).

The raw data starts as a NUETRAL image, that equals very little contrast/saturation/etc...
If you convert that RAW file to another format with all values zeroed out you would get a FLAT and COLORLESS(depending on converter 0 saturation equals very little color). One must decide how much contrast/saturation/sharpness/shadows/brightness/etc... to apply to each raw file during the conversion JUST AS THE CAMERA DECIDES FOR YOU when shooting jpeg in camera.

IMO Exposure is just as important when shooting RAW as it is when shooting JPEG, RAW will not create data where there is none(as in blown highlights or dropped shadows).

I shot raw and jpeg one weekend, compared the 2 side by side, and most pictures were identical, only those with tricky lighting showed any variation..

If true it can only mean your raw converter was set to auto(or maybe "as shot" defaults), which is the same as allowing the camera to process the photo for you. In other words you just "processed" it.

But if you are not convinced feel free to send me(or a third person volunteer) a "properly exposed" raw file to convert with all the conversion values zeroed out(equals truly unprocessed raw image). I have 4 raw converters that you can choose from.
Phase One C1 PRO, Adobe ACR, BIBBLE and Rawshooter Pro.


DISCLAIMER
This post has nothing to do with saying that one format is better than another, just trying to clear up some facts.

Also there are some who will argue that using JPEG will cause a problem in post processing, losing data everytime you save (resolution). This is solved by simply saving a master as TIFF.

Yes Manning, some feel it is a major drawback that you can never have a first generation JPEG again. The only real solution IMO is getting the perfect JPEG out of camera to begin with, that way you avoid having to do any editing. I mean if you have to save a tiff which is larger than the RAW file would be, what is the advantage of having a larger file with less image data?

 

[MICKEY88]

I think that was me Mickey.

I also still stand by my point, which is that your guess is wrong. Your basic premise is also wrong. "won't need processing whether jpeg or raw", when the jpeg was ALREADY PROCESSED in the camera(that is a FACT).

The raw data starts as a NUETRAL image, that equals very little contrast/saturation/etc...
If you convert that RAW file to another format with all values zeroed out you would get a FLAT and COLORLESS(depending on converter 0 saturation equals very little color). One must decide how much contrast/saturation/sharpness/shadows/brightness/etc... to apply to each raw file during the conversion JUST AS THE CAMERA DECIDES FOR YOU when shooting jpeg in camera.

IMO Exposure is just as important when shooting RAW as it is when shooting JPEG, RAW will not create data where there is none(as in blown highlights or dropped shadows).



If true it can only mean your raw converter was set to auto(or maybe "as shot" defaults), which is the same as allowing the camera to process the photo for you. In other words you just "processed" it.

But if you are not convinced feel free to send me(or a third person volunteer) a "properly exposed" raw file to convert with all the conversion values zeroed out(equals truly unprocessed raw image). I have 4 raw converters that you can choose from.
Phase One C1 PRO, Adobe ACR, BIBBLE and Rawshooter Pro.


DISCLAIMER
This post has nothing to do with saying that one format is better than another, just trying to clear up some facts.

I continue to stand by my point, exposure will change your saturation and contrast,

as shot defaults would be just that, the file as shot with no processing,

if as you state, no processing of a raw file results in a flat colorless image, then, what is the point of changing settings to control exposure..

I will agree there is a difference between a properly exposed raw file, with no processing and one that has the saturation boosted, one looks natural, the other doesn't..if too much saturation is added...

when I did my test i had my program zeroed out, I had 3 other people double check me to make sure I wasn't looking at it wrong, and I know what the results were...

 

[Quinn222]

With me RAW is not so much that it has the potential for a better image. It's that if I shoot JPEG then the camera is doing processing on my image for me. If I shoot RAW then it is not and I get the exact image that I shot. Not one that the camera has processed in any way.

One isn't necessarily better than the other, it's just how you want the camera to handle the image. Though of course with RAW you are retaining a lot more of the digital information and are not getting JPEG compression.

 

[Anewman]

I continue to stand by my point, exposure will change your saturation and contrast,

Yes exposure will affect overall saturation and contrast, I dont think I ever claimed the did not. If you dont capture the detail, the detail can not be displayed regardless of format used. So obviously a proper exposure is required, but once that exposure is captured different PROCESSING can give you 1000 different results.

as shot defaults would be just that, the file as shot with no processing,

AS SHOT to RAW converters means it will apply the same processing parameters, that the camera would have apply to the jpeg in the camera. This means the same white balance/saturation/contrast/sharpness/etc...
You just PROCESSED the raw file and applied pretty much the same processing parameters set in the camera when it was shot. This is only really possible if using software provided by your camera maker, all other software can not be perfectly accurate(more of a guess). For Canon it would be DPP or RIT.

if as you state, no processing of a raw file results in a flat colorless image, then, what is the point of changing settings to control exposure..

Changing exposure settings does just that, it changes exposure settings not PROCESSING parameters. They are not the same thing.

I did not say a "raw file rusults in a flat colorless image." I said it STARTS as a neutral image and if UN PROCESSED(or poorly processed) it will yeild a flat colorless image. Just as negative film starts FLAT AND COLORLESS. And final print results from film will vary greatly depending on processing, I have taken same negative to 3 different labs and prints all look different even though it was the same exact exposure.

I will agree there is a difference between a properly exposed raw file, with no processing and one that has the saturation boosted, one looks natural, the other doesn't..if too much saturation is added...

All images have saturation boosted regardless of how spot on the exposure was, some boost it to look natural and some over do it regardless of it being done in the camera or on a PC. But they are all boosted from where the raw data was captured. Even when camera parameters(for jpeg) are moved to -2(as in Canons), some boost is still being applied, same goes for all parameters and digital cameras.

when I did my test i had my program zeroed out, I had 3 other people double check me to make sure I wasn't looking at it wrong, and I know what the results were...

I stand by my offer.

Again not trying to convert you or anyone, but I would hope everyone could understand the process.

 

[MICKEY88]

Yes exposure will affect overall saturation and contrast, I dont think I ever claimed the did not. If you dont capture the detail, the detail can not be displayed regardless of format used. So obviously a proper exposure is required, but once that exposure is captured different PROCESSING can give you 1000 different results.

AS SHOT to RAW converters means it will apply the same processing parameters, that the camera would have apply to the jpeg in the camera. This means the same white balance/saturation/contrast/sharpness/etc...
You just PROCESSED the raw file and applied pretty much the same processing parameters set in the camera when it was shot. This is only really possible if using software provided by your camera maker, all other software can not be perfectly accurate(more of a guess). For Canon it would be DPP or RIT.


Changing exposure settings does just that, it changes exposure settings not PROCESSING parameters. They are not the same thing.

I did not say a "raw file rusults in a flat colorless image." I said it STARTS as a neutral image and if UN PROCESSED(or poorly processed) it will yeild a flat colorless image. Just as negative film starts FLAT AND COLORLESS. And final print results from film will vary greatly depending on processing, I have taken same negative to 3 different labs and prints all look different even though it was the same exact exposure. that is all influenced by how frequently the lab balances their machine, what lab tech does the printing, and how much exposure they give the negs, on a properly expose neg, and a properly balanced machine, no color correction is neccessary..



All images have saturation boosted regardless of how spot on the exposure was, some boost it to look natural and some over do it regardless of it being done in the camera or on a PC. But they are all boosted from where the raw data was captured. Even when camera parameters(for jpeg) are moved to -2(as in Canons), some boost is still being applied, same goes for all parameters and digital cameras.

even if shot in raw and printed with no processing..???



I stand by my offer.

Again not trying to convert you or anyone, but I would hope everyone could understand the process.

I respectfully decline your offer, I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else, I know what I saw with my own 2 eyes, I know what I have read in dozens of articles, I believe I understand the process quite well,

as far as film goes I worked in a photo lab for 5 years and always had customers requesting I print their pictures, so I 'm fairly sure I understand it...


how do we know that you are right and everyone else I've read is wrong

 

[MICKEY88]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MICKEY88
if as you state, no processing of a raw file results in a flat colorless image, then, what is the point of changing settings to control exposure..



Changing exposure settings does just that, it changes exposure settings not PROCESSING parameters. They are not the same thing. bracket a series of shots and then tell me that changing exposure does not change color saturation...
I did not say a "raw file rusults in a flat colorless image." I said it STARTS as a neutral image and if UN PROCESSED(or poorly processed) it will yeild a flat colorless image. Just as negative film starts FLAT AND COLORLESS. And final print results from film will vary greatly depending on processing, I have taken same negative to 3 different labs and prints all look different even though it was the same exact exposure.

take note of the red text, you deny saying what I posted, then state exactly the same thing...???