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.

 

[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.

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

Understanding RAW
RAW vs JPEG

What is a RAW File?

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.

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 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 .....

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.

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!

 

[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.