Raw file format

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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".