RAW file format

[Frantasmic]

Many prefer to shoot all their photos in RAW due to the ability to post-process. This ability gives you more leeway in ALL your photos. I always shoot RAW in low-light situations to give me that extra capability to lighten my pictures. In the summer and outdoor, I generally just use the large picture option as I'm less likely to mess with photos while it's light outside and I can do stuff.

 

[YEKCIM]

I've been shooting RAW almost exclusively for the better part of two years now and would not go back to JPEG. As FRANTASMIC said, there is a lot of tweaking you can do with a RAW file that you cannot do with a JPEG. If the exposure is off a stop or so, you can correct that. If the white balance is wrong, you can correct that, usually with one click. If you have overexposed highlights, you can sometimes recover lost detail. You can apply noise reduction, desaturate to create a black and white image, and several other things. It also allows you to keep a "digital negative" that can be re-processed over and over and over, in different ways, w/o ever altering the original RAW file.

Those are the pros. The cons are (1) larger file size and (2) requires another step in the editing process, which makes it more time-intensive. The pros FAR outweigh these relatively minor (IMO) cons.

~Ed

 

[bob100]

hi there i would like to know how many people shot in raw mode i have a canon XSI 12mp and wanted to know if people perfer shoting in raw or just large photo mode and what the pro and cons to shoting raw are thank you

I have a Canon XSi and always shoot in RAW, it's better to have more options before converting to jpeg. If the pic is only in jpeg things like cropping, adjusting the exposure, etc. can affect image quality. RAW files are larger but memory is cheap.

 

[zackiedawg]

I'm one of the rare DSLR jpeg shooters...I shoot 99% jpeg and don't use RAW except for a few experiments. Which is the better way to shoot? Well RAW will certainly give you MUCH more ability to process and tweak your photos - most notably recovering problems like blown highlights, bad white balance, and even performing noise reduction on your own for higher quality jpeg output with high ISO shots.

However, for me I really enjoy the challenge of trying to get as much of that stuff correct before I shoot - I like to manually set or check my white balance kelvin level, watch my highlights and shadows when exposing, and trying to get correct exposure at higher ISOs which controls noise. The more I pay attention to these things, the better I feel my instincts become with my camera and with photography in general, and the less post-processing time I have to spend with my photos. Ideally, in a batch of 500 photos, I might post process 20-40 of them...the rest I am happy enough with the output straight from the camera that I don't process at all. Those that I do post-process are usually not very far off - corrections that can just as easily be made in jpeg as in RAW (while RAW is better for processing headroom...that doesn't mean jpegs can't be processed for white balance correction, highlight recovery, shadow enhancement, color tweak, etc. You just have less range to correct).

Sure...I've had a few photos in each batch that were a little too cooked in jpeg to recover - and RAW would have given me that room. But I chalk it up to learning what to watch for next time. The much lower file size on a card, the faster shot-to-shot or continuous modes, and the ability to avoid any post-processing at all makes jpeg my preferred method of shooting.

But I'd recommend RAW if you've got the storage room, don't mind more processing time, or have more extreme problems in your photos that can be recovered or adjusted to save your photos and improve your output. Jpeg engines on all cameras are a bit limited, and you're stuck with the processing choices built into the camera...if you find yourself unhappy with the camera's output, or tend to find issues like highlight clipping, white balance issues, crushed shadows, or jpeg compression artifacts...then RAW would definitely be the better choice.

In the end, whatever makes you happy and successful!

 

[YesDear]

My analogy is that RAW gives you a negative to work with. You can then adjust it in manually in post processing. With JPG you are sending your image to the Walmart processing unit in your camera. I mean that seriously and jokingly. Your camera will take the image and process it for color, contrast, exposure, etc. It then processes that image into an almost hard coded image.

Yes there are somethings you can adjust in a jpg but many you cannot.

The music analogy I make is when you convert a wave file into an mp3 you are compressing or losing some of the information. You effectively do the same with a RAW to JPG image. The camera selects what it thinks is important.

When media storage was more expensive, RAW was a bigger decision in my opinion. When I can buy an extermal 1tb hard drive for $100 and an internal one for $80, the decision got easy. Also flash memory is dirt cheap today.

I am far more aggressive with shot selection. I discard many more images that do not meet my image standards. If I take 100 pictures if I keep 20 it would be a great day. That number would change if I am shooting a family event etc.

Once you see the capabilites of RAW, I think you will like it.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I shoot RAW. I'm too lazy and sloppy to get good pictures shooting JPG.

 

[Chikabowa]

I only shoot RAW for my client work because my graphic designer prefers the file sizes and information for laying out albums and doing large-print work. It's more flexible and gives him the ability to do a lot more in terms of his designs.

I shoot JPEG for my personal work because I suck at photoshop and prefer not to have to go through the extra steps in my own family pictures.

I'm a huge believer of nailing the shot in camera. So my exposures and color very rarely need to be tweaked.

 

[pointandshoot]

I shoot in raw + jpeg mode. Storage is cheap. You can do so many adjustments in RAW that post processing in an editing tool is often minimal.

I like to have the jpegs around if I need quick prints and I am too lazy to post process a batch. Why give away the flexibility that RAW provides and shoot in jpeg is my thought. Can always delete.

I would not suggest using the smaller RAW modes offered by Canon. Just buy a few large cards and shoot away.

Chuck

 

[RBennett]

I will shoot in RAW 100% of the time and then once I get home I will go through and the ones that came out the best or that I really like, I will convert to jpeg for scrapbooking, albums, frames, website, etc.

 

[Todd_H]

I also try to "get it right in the camera," however I shoot RAW 100% of the time to have that digital negative, as YesDear said.

 

[wenrob]

I've been shooting RAW almost exclusively for the better part of two years now and would not go back to JPEG. As FRANTASMIC said, there is a lot of tweaking you can do with a RAW file that you cannot do with a JPEG. If the exposure is off a stop or so, you can correct that. If the white balance is wrong, you can correct that, usually with one click. If you have overexposed highlights, you can sometimes recover lost detail. You can apply noise reduction, desaturate to create a black and white image, and several other things. It also allows you to keep a "digital negative" that can be re-processed over and over and over, in different ways, w/o ever altering the original RAW file.

I'm one of the rare DSLR jpeg shooters...I shoot 99% jpeg and don't use RAW except for a few experiments. Which is the better way to shoot? Well RAW will certainly give you MUCH more ability to process and tweak your photos - most notably recovering problems like blown highlights, bad white balance, and even performing noise reduction on your own for higher quality jpeg output with high ISO shots.

Okay guys, how do you apply noise reduction to a RAW file? This is something that I haven't figured out. By most accounts the noise reduction in LR and Capture NX are crap. Any trial program that I've come across you have to convert to TIFF or JPG first. What am I missing?

I remember finding RAW hard to convert in the beginning, now it's a piece of cake. Once you get a system down it's second nature and so worth it. While I strive to get everything right there are times when a good picture has gone bad for whatever reason and RAW has saved it. I'll never go back.

On a what do you think level, I regularly read a photo blog where the photographer has gone away from RAW and back to JPG. I can see the difference her photos seem much more 'compressed' to me, they have that grey mist effect happening. Now it could all be in my head because I know she has switched. Do you guys think if the picture is spot on right out of the camera you can tell the difference? Or am I delusional? (wait... don't answer that) Of course, I swear I can tell the difference between a photo from a Canon and one from a Nikon, so maybe I am nuts.

 

[annnewjerz]

Okay guys, how do you apply noise reduction to a RAW file? This is something that I haven't figured out. By most accounts the noise reduction in LR and Capture NX are crap. Any trial program that I've come across you have to convert to TIFF or JPG first. What am I missing?

I remember finding RAW hard to convert in the beginning, now it's a piece of cake. Once you get a system down it's second nature and so worth it. While I strive to get everything right there are times when a good picture has gone bad for whatever reason and RAW has saved it. I'll never go back.

On a what do you think level, I regularly read a photo blog where the photographer has gone away from RAW and back to JPG. I can see the difference her photos seem much more 'compressed' to me, they have that grey mist effect happening. Now it could all be in my head because I know she has switched. Do you guys think if the picture is spot on right out of the camera you can tell the difference? Or am I delusional? (wait... don't answer that) Of course, I swear I can tell the difference between a photo from a Canon and one from a Nikon, so maybe I am nuts.

Now don't take this response to mean that I actually know how to use it (I still haven't figured out what each slider does) but when I use PE 6 and Adobe Camera Raw opens, there is an option for noise-reduction there that I can use on my RAW files.

 

[praline3001]

Just this past month I started shooting in RAW and won't go back to Jpeg.

The plain and simple of it is you can convert a RAW photo to Jpeg but you can't convert a jpeg into RAW....I do all photos in RAW just in case ...its no biggie to change an unedited RAW photo into a jpeg but I could very well kick myself if my Jpeg photo was too dark and I couldn't lighten it as well as I could a RAW photo. Better safe than sorry I guess..


it does take a bit more time in post processing BUT its well worth it in my book. I am able to fix white balance, and correct curves/tone or saturation before converting it over to jpeg.

 

[RBennett]

...On a what do you think level, I regularly read a photo blog where the photographer has gone away from RAW and back to JPG. I can see the difference her photos seem much more 'compressed' to me, they have that grey mist effect happening. Now it could all be in my head because I know she has switched. Do you guys think if the picture is spot on right out of the camera you can tell the difference? Or am I delusional? (wait... don't answer that) Of course, I swear I can tell the difference between a photo from a Canon and one from a Nikon, so maybe I am nuts.

I know in October DW and I had a professional take some pictures of us around a couple resorts and the beach near the wedding pavillion, and I asked him if he shoots in RAW. His answer... NOPE! He does a lot of wedding shoots so he has gotten in the habit of shooting only in jpg because he doesn't want to have to convert all of those photos. Plus, he has gotten really good (IMO) and got it right when he took the shot.

 

[zackiedawg]

Okay guys, how do you apply noise reduction to a RAW file? This is something that I haven't figured out. By most accounts the noise reduction in LR and Capture NX are crap. Any trial program that I've come across you have to convert to TIFF or JPG first. What am I missing?

Well, this is just my opinion...but even the worst RAW processors can perform better noise reduction than in-camera noise reduction, mostly because they allow you to apply noise reduction selectively, and separate luminance from chroma. Jpegs are delivered from the camera with noise reduction already applied in camera, to preset levels. Though a few cameras may offer a noise-reduction off mode in jpeg...many don't, and it's been rumored that some cameras that do are still actually applying some nosie reduction.

Personally, the few times I've used RAW, I will selectively apply light noise reduction in the RAW file, tweak the photo as needed, convert to jpeg at the highest quality, and then run additional noise reduction with one of the jpeg applications (Helicon and Topaz DeNoise are two favorites I use a lot) for final tweaking.

Then again...I'm one of the weirdos shooting mostly jpeg!

I remember finding RAW hard to convert in the beginning, now it's a piece of cake. Once you get a system down it's second nature and so worth it. While I strive to get everything right there are times when a good picture has gone bad for whatever reason and RAW has saved it. I'll never go back.

I definitely don't find it hard...just more time than I care to spend. I go on a Disney trip or a cruise, take 500 photos, I just load them and walk away - I'm done! Maybe I check them out later and find a few I want to make minor tweaks to, or a few adjustments on...but I can leave the majority of them alone. I just can't sit still in front of a computer that long working on photos.

On a what do you think level, I regularly read a photo blog where the photographer has gone away from RAW and back to JPG. I can see the difference her photos seem much more 'compressed' to me, they have that grey mist effect happening. Now it could all be in my head because I know she has switched. Do you guys think if the picture is spot on right out of the camera you can tell the difference? Or am I delusional? (wait... don't answer that) Of course, I swear I can tell the difference between a photo from a Canon and one from a Nikon, so maybe I am nuts.

I suppose it depends on the camera, the photographer, and the processing. I personally don't see any discernable difference in my own photos between RAW and JPEG, at least at the common printing and display sizes (which are always much smaller than the full size original is capable of). Maybe I print a 16x24, or display on a 1280x1024 19" monitor...and they look fine in either format. The only differences here and there might be a few highlights where I blew 255x255x255 on the jpeg, that I might have had just a bit more room on the RAW..but in a reasonable print size, I haven't really experienced any complaints or problems. I find I can see small problems with my own photos much better than average folks can...I may notice a wee dust spot in a corner, or a slight hint of fringing on a highlight edge at 100% viewable...but anyone I show it to doesn't have any idea it's there, and if I mention it to them, they look at me as if I'm speaking Japanese to them.

That's why I basically came to decide on using jpeg. It's a lot less work for me in general, still can produce lovely results, allows nice, large printing, and I can still get photos sold or published. I may still come upon situations where I want to use RAW, because I think there's a strong chance of getting something wrong, or an extreme situation where capturing the proper dynamic range or detail in an extreme crop might just require RAW to get the very most from the shot. But in general, I am very happy with what I get from my current camera and lenses, and jpeg mode...and compression or 'grey mist' aren't something I have noticed (maybe you can see it in my photos...but i don't and so far noone else has brought it up!).

I don't think there's a right or wrong usign RAW or jpeg...just two options with different advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Todd_H]

Okay guys, how do you apply noise reduction to a RAW file? This is something that I haven't figured out. By most accounts the noise reduction in LR and Capture NX are crap. Any trial program that I've come across you have to convert to TIFF or JPG first. What am I missing?

Don't know about the other programs, but Noise Ninja has a Photoshop plugin. By using the plugin, you can use NR on the RAW file.

 

[handicap18]

I shoot RAW. Have been for about 3 years. I also try to get the "shot" "correct in camera". I don't always do a lot of post processing. I really don't like PP that much. I would say that 75% of the PP I do is adjusting White Balance. That is definitely something that is VERY difficult to do with just a JPEG and even when you can do it is harder to do than with the original RAW file.

To convert from JPEG to RAW is very simple. Sure its an extra step, but with just a few clicks its no big deal in a batch process.

 

[YEKCIM]

Okay guys, how do you apply noise reduction to a RAW file?

There are a couple of sliders in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) - I forget what the tab is called, but think it has a triangle icon on it. You just push the slider to the right and can see the effect immediately. I've also discovered that the noise reduction in Topaz Adjust seems to do a really good job of nixing noise w/o blurring details.

~Ed

 

[ukcatfan]

Bibble allows full Noise Ninja control if you own a license.

If you are going to use noise reduction after processing the RAW file, be sure that you do not apply sharpening on the RAW file. It should pretty much be the last step you do.

 

[ColleenG]

What do most people use for PP? Photoshop or the software that came with the camera? I just got a Canon and still need to figure out the software. I have PSE7 but don't have the slightest clue how to use it.