Do all of you shoot RAW?

[Anewman]

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

You have read articles that state RAW files do not require processing, I did not know that. I have never come accross one that stated that myself.

Since you have worked in photo lab, I am not talking about color corection just overall style or color renditions that vary(from region to region as well). I am not a lab tech so I can not tell you any reasons for it.

If you have read elsewhere that RAW files do not require any processing it is fine with me if you continue to believe I am wrong. I offered to demonstrate and you declined so there is nothing I can really do. I will browse through my images to see If I may have some that I shot RAW + Jpeg.


Keep shooting.

bracket a series of shots and then tell me that changing exposure does not change color saturation...

Again, please point out where I said exposure does NOT change(or affect) saturation. I never said it.

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

You accidentaly left out the word "IF", it makes a bit of a difference. But feel free to take other little tidbits out of context, I think I addressed each and every one of your points in a respectfull manor.

You woked at a photo lab and stated and that color can be affected by the tech and how well the machine is balanced, "If" a RAW file is POORLY converted the same can happen.

Why convert a RAW file if you are not going to at the very least apply the same adjustments that were applied to the jpeg by the camera??????

I mean one does not shoot raw to purposely get inferior results.

 

[MICKEY88]

You have read articles that state RAW files do not require processing, I did not know that. I have never come accross one that stated that myself.

Since you have worked in photo lab, I am not talking about color corection just overall style or color renditions that vary(from region to region as well). I am not a lab tech so I can not tell you any reasons for it.

If you have read elsewhere that RAW files do not require any processing it is fine with me if you continue to believe I am wrong. I offered to demonstrate and you declined so there is nothing I can really do. I will browse through my images to see If I may have some that I shot RAW + Jpeg.


Keep shooting.







Again, please point out where I said exposure does NOT change(or affect) saturation. I never said it.


You accidentaly left out the word "IF", it makes a bit of a difference.

if un processed and no processing, mean exactly the same thing

what were you going to demonstrate..???


i opened raw files and without processing, they look fine, perhaps your personal taste just requires more saturation than was naturally occuring in nature..

and I was explaining why pictures processed in different labs look different

You woked at a photo lab and stated and that color can be affected by the tech and how well the machine is balanced, "If" a RAW file is POORLY converted the same can happen.

i never disagreed with this, I stated that a properly exposed file doesn't require processing....

you question what I've read, show me an article that says all raw files MUST be processed to yield a good picture..

 

[Anewman]

you question what I've read, show me an article that says all raw files MUST be processed to yield a good picture..

How about Canon?

"Both RAW and JPEG Have Advantages and Disadvantages
JPEG makes it easy to view images on a personal computer or print the them as is. On the other hand, RAW images must first be processed with a personal computer and dedicated software in order to view and print them. They are recorded as is without any internal processing by the camera. You can also use a personal computer to freely adjust the image brightness, color, etc., without degrading the image quality. However, this requires image-editing knowledge and skills. You need not learn these skills, but just be aware of the RAW mode."

How about Wikopedia?

"A raw image file contains minimally processed data from the image sensor of a digital camera or image scanner. Raw files are so named because they are not yet processed and ready to use by a bitmap graphics editor, printed, or displayed by a typical web browser. The image must be processed and converted to an RGB format such as TIFF or JPEG before it can be manipulated.'

How about CreativePro?

"When you shoot Raw, though, there's an extra wrinkle in your workflow. Raw files must first be processed with a Raw converter, such as Adobe's own Camera Raw, before you can edit them further."

Simple conversion with no adjustment on left, JPEG from camera on right.

 

[MICKEY88]

How about Canon?

"Both RAW and JPEG Have Advantages and Disadvantages
JPEG makes it easy to view images on a personal computer or print the them as is. On the other hand, RAW images must first be processed with a personal computer and dedicated software in order to view and print them. They are recorded as is without any internal processing by the camera. You can also use a personal computer to freely adjust the image brightness, color, etc., without degrading the image quality. However, this requires image-editing knowledge and skills. You need not learn these skills, but just be aware of the RAW mode."

How about Wikopedia?

"A raw image file contains minimally processed data from the image sensor of a digital camera or image scanner. Raw files are so named because they are not yet processed and ready to use by a bitmap graphics editor, printed, or displayed by a typical web browser. The image must be processed and converted to an RGB format such as TIFF or JPEG before it can be manipulated.'

How about CreativePro?

"When you shoot Raw, though, there's an extra wrinkle in your workflow. Raw files must first be processed with a Raw converter, such as Adobe's own Camera Raw, before you can edit them further."

all of these use the word processed in a different manner than you, they are simply stating that they can't be opened by other programs such as paint, word, etc......the word processed means opened with software that recognizes raw format and converted to a format that other software recognizes..., each article that you posted states, that once processed{opened} you then CAN, doesn't say must, edit for color, saturation etc....

nowhere do any of the articles state that you must edit the pics, boosting saturation etc, the more we debate, the more I believe it is you that doesn't understand the process...

 

[Anewman]

all of these use the word processed in a different manner than you, they are simply stating that they can't be opened by other programs such as paint, word, etc......the word processed means opened with software that recognizes raw format and converted to a format that other software recognizes..., each article that you posted states, that once processed{opened} you then CAN, doesn't say must, edit for color, saturation etc....

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...

And I guess they dont use the word processing the same way as you either, you seem to associate it with EDITING more than with the conversion process similar to what jpegs get in camera. You feel that processing them means boosting saturation or other editing, I feel that adjusting values during the RAW conversion is the same as the CAMERA doing the same in camera during its processing. I have been very consisstant on this.

nowhere do any of the articles state that you must edit the pics, boosting saturation etc, the more we debate, the more I believe it is you that doesn't understand the process...

I never said anything about EDITING, adjusting parameters during the conversion process is not EDITING as you feel it is. I have said that with values at the minimal settings that reflect the UNadjusted raw data, the image will be flat. Again if the camera sharpens or adjusts contrast/saturation in the camera it is called processing, If I do it in raw why would it be considered editing????

But feel free to share your articles as I did.

 

[Ratpack]

I shoot with RAW and jpg. The jpg is for the ability to send to other people to see and then RAW is just in case I need processing. Of course I am new so I am probably doing everything wrong!

 

[manning]

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?

With me I have one problem with that. I'm not that good... yet. LOL. Also I like to play with the pictures in Elements. Actually my master is in JPEG but what I play with are saved in TIFF so everytime I play and save I'm not losing anything.

 

[manning]

Isn't Microsoft or someone out there working on a lossless JPEG or has that gone by the wayside??

 

[Anewman]

Isn't Microsoft or someone out there working on a lossless JPEG or has that gone by the wayside??

Windows media photo format, is a jpeg rival that PROMISES to be lossless at lower qualitys but lossy at higher qualites.

Since Microsoft does not produce Digicams I dont know how much of dent they can make in the market, I can not imagine SONY every employing it even if it does live up to the "promises."

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/wmphoto.mspx

 

[MICKEY88]

And I guess they dont use the word processing the same way as you either, you seem to associate it with EDITING more than with the conversion process similar to what jpegs get in camera. You feel that processing them means boosting saturation or other editing, I feel that adjusting values during the RAW conversion is the same as the CAMERA doing the same in camera during its processing. I have been very consisstant on this.



I never said anything about EDITING, adjusting parameters during the conversion process is not EDITING as you feel it is. I have said that with values at the minimal settings that reflect the UNadjusted raw data, the image will be flat. Again if the camera sharpens or adjusts contrast/saturation in the camera it is called processing, If I do it in raw why would it be considered editing????

But feel free to share your articles as I did.

coversion does not require changing saturation or contrast,

on the other hand if you research deeply enough you will find that all cameras boost saturation to a small degree, when they do in camera conversion to jpeg, because the manufacturers believe this is what makes a picture more pleasing for the majority of people...with one exception, MInolta believed in keeping the file as natural as possible and letting the photographer decide if they wanted any boost, that is why a lot of people think minolta pics lack saturation...

perhaps that is why my raw files look fine to me, because there is no boost in the in camera jpeg conversion...

 

[Kelly Grannell]

just a little addendum, Canon's ALL NATURAL setting, is NOT all natural.

I remember needing to set my 20D to these settings as follows

COLOUR - ZERO
SATURATION - MINUS 1
CONTRAST - MINUS 2
SHARPNESS - 2

to make my pictures identical to RAW.

 

[Anewman]

coversion does not require changing saturation or contrast,

Ok I can agree with that. Adjusting any given parameters during processing is not required, but IMO one would have to in order to at least match jpegs out of camera. It would defeat the whole purpose of shooting raw in the first place if one was not going to make the adjustments, IMO.

on the other hand if you research deeply enough you will find that all cameras boost saturation to a small degree, when they do in camera conversion to jpeg, because the manufacturers believe this is what makes a picture more pleasing for the majority of people...with one exception, MInolta believed in keeping the file as natural as possible and letting the photographer decide if they wanted any boost, that is why a lot of people think minolta pics lack saturation...

While I can only reseach first hand the last two CANON DSLR models that I have shot raw with(10D and 20D did not shoot raw with 300D). ALL Dslrs that I have seen have in camera parameters to determine some of the shooters prefrences, such as saturation. One would have to lower all of those in camera parameters to come close to matching what a raw file would look like if converting with all values set at minimal adjustments.

Even Minolta 7D comes with a default saturation level of zero, but it can be adjusted from -2 through +2. Since it is set at a default of 0, I am guessing that some is still being applied since you can still lower it 2 notches.

from DPREVIEW of the Minolta 7d.
Color saturation adjustment
Saturation adjustment allows you to control the strength of color in the final image. We did find that the 7D's default saturation setting is quite strong and can occasionally lead to clipping (where one of the color channels reaches maximum (255) and loses detail). A setting of -1 generally avoided this.

perhaps that is why my raw files look fine to me, because there is no boost in the in camera jpeg conversion...

Well that is what it is all about, if the photographer is happy in the final result nothing else matters. I think it maybe the raw converter you used, My guess it was Rawshooter(would have to set -100 to cancel out all contrast).


But we both agree, processing is required but adjusting saturation during that conversion is a prefrence(I feel it is a must but still a prefrence). My new question would be, "If one adjusts parameters during the raw conversion just to MATCH jpeg output from the camera, do you consider that image as post processed?"

Dodge still rules.

 

[Anewman]

just a little addendum, Canon's ALL NATURAL setting, is NOT all natural.

I remember needing to set my 20D to these settings as follows

COLOUR - ZERO
SATURATION - MINUS 1
CONTRAST - MINUS 2
SHARPNESS - 2

to make my pictures identical to RAW.

From what I found today it really depends on what software I used to open the raw file. ACR with values zeroed out produces a VERY FLAT dull image, while Rawshooter(and Capture one pro) still apply somewhat heavy contrast and saturation when set at 0. You would have to go to negative numbers to cancel those settings out and see the unadjusted rendition.

But Yes I get your point, 0 sharpness in the parameters does not mean that no sharpness is being applied. In fact I will compare sharpness set to -2 and see if it matches 0 sharpness from a raw file in ACR, later of course.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

just FYI, I use Canon's own DPP RAW converter because it's free

 

[MICKEY88]

Ok I can agree with that. Adjusting any given parameters during processing is not required, but IMO one would have to in order to at least match jpegs out of camera. It would defeat the whole purpose of shooting raw in the first place if one was not going to make the adjustments, IMO.


the whole purpose of shooting raw for me, is to give myself the best chance to recover an image if I improperly expose it, if you are going to process your raw files to match jpegs out of camera, why bother shooting raw, just shoot jpegs..

While I can only reseach first hand the last two CANON DSLR models that I have shot raw with(10D and 20D did not shoot raw with 300D). ALL Dslrs that I have seen have in camera parameters to determine some of the shooters prefrences, such as saturation. One would have to lower all of those in camera parameters to come close to matching what a raw file would look like if converting with all values set at minimal adjustments.

Even Minolta 7D comes with a default saturation level of zero, but it can be adjusted from -2 through +2. Since it is set at a default of 0, I am guessing that some is still being applied since you can still lower it 2 notches.

from DPREVIEW of the Minolta 7d.
Color saturation adjustment
Saturation adjustment allows you to control the strength of color in the final image. We did find that the 7D's default saturation setting is quite strong and can occasionally lead to clipping (where one of the color channels reaches maximum (255) and loses detail). A setting of -1 generally avoided this.



Well that is what it is all about, if the photographer is happy in the final result nothing else matters. I think it maybe the raw converter you used, My guess it was Rawshooter(would have to set -100 to cancel out all contrast).


But we both agree, processing is required but adjusting saturation during that conversion is a prefrence(I feel it is a must but still a prefrence). My new question would be, "If one adjusts parameters during the raw conversion just to MATCH jpeg output from the camera, do you consider that image as post processed?" it is post processed by the very definition, if it is altered in any way once downloaded from the camera

Dodge still rules.

at least we agree 100% on Dodge....LOL

 

[ducklite]

I shoot JPEG 95% of the time. I shoot RAW only when I'm pretty certain that due to terribly poor lighting or other conditions beyond my control the photo's are going to need some adjustments.

I don't shoot both simultaneously as it bogs down the digital processor.

Anne

 

[Mickee]

Thx for the info all and surely enjoyed all the comments & debates.

 

[0bli0]

i shoot RAW for everything but sports. i manage all of my shots in Apple Aperture. for me now, my RAW workflow consumes the same time as a .jpg one. the only reason i shoot .jpg for sports is sheer volume. on a a typical saturday i'll shoot 6 or 7 hours - taking maybe 2000 shots - more for under 6 and under 7 teams. i don't ever need to spend time fixing shots that the exposure may be that much off. i can cull, rank, process, and in many cases print onsite.
for family, paid portraits, trips, etc. RAW gives me headroom, wider colour gamut, more control, and no first generation distortion.

 

[Magix]

I also shoot RAW files. All "important" shoots are done RAW, including my motorsport and tall ship photography. Vacation shots are done JPG. RAW files take a long time for me to process, but I like the leeway of fixing any exposure problems, which can happen frequently due to shooting on the fly with changing lighting conditions and bright cars/helmets with shadowed eyes inside those helmets and constantly moving subjects. I don't have time to carefully set up shots and have to grab and run, as it's more important to get out of the way of a racecar about to peel out for qualifying than it is to set up my shots with the proper exposure. With RAW, I can fix good shots that just need some exposure compensation, without losing any image quality, then convert to JPG.

 

[pisco]

There is one objective measurment by which we can say that RAW is superior to JPG. The number of brightness levels in a 12 but RAW file as compared to an 8 bit JPG file. The following is cribbed from the Luminous Landscape article mentioned on the first page of this thread:

A 12 Bit raw File
​

Within the first F/Stop, which contains the Brightest Tones, 2048 levels available
Within the second F/Stop, which contains Bright Tones, 1024 levels available
Within the third F/Stop, which contains the Mid-Tones, 512 levels available
Within the fourth F/Stop, which contains Dark Tones, 256 levels available
Within the fifth F/Stop, which contains the Darkest Tones, 128 levels available

Figure #1

An 8 Bit JPG File

Within the first F/Stop, which contains the Brightest Tones, 69 levels available
Within the second F/Stop, which contains Bright Tones, 50 levels available
Within the third F/Stop, which contains the Mid-Tones, 37 levels available
Within the fourth F/Stop, which contains Dark Tones, 27 levels available
Within the fifth F/Stop, which contains the Darkest Tones, 20 levels available​

Figure #2

​

Now imagine that you want to make a modest adjustment to the file in Photoshop or any other editing program. Which would you rather have to work with, 47 levels or 384 levels? Clearly the 8 bit file will show posterization, which is the effect that one sees when instead of smooth transitions between brightness levels you see abrupt jumps.
​

— Because a raw file has not been processed in any way, if new and improved methods of linearizing files, applying colour filter array decoding, or other image processing advances are made, you can return to your archived raw files and work on them afresh. A JPG file, on the other hand, is fully baked.
​

I'm not trying to say that you should shoot one way or the other (I do both depending on circumstances). I just wanted to point out that there is at least one objective superiority of the RAW format.