RAW file format

[Master Mason]

if we're going to use film comparison, maybe this would make sense

raw=medium format negative

jpeg = 35mm negative,

one has more detail than the other but they are both negatives, from which prints are made..

No I don't buy that because you could not choose with the same camera from shot to shot to take your picture with medium format or 35mm film. Your camera only took pictures on one medium. So if your chosing not to use all of the information that is availible to you with the medium your using, then it would be like tossing your negative in favor of working with a print moving forward. It simply makes little sence to toss away that advantage.

 

[MICKEY88]

No I don't buy that because you could not choose with the same camera from shot to shot to take your picture with medium format or 35mm film. Your camera only took pictures on one medium. So if your chosing not to use all of the information that is availible to you with the medium your using, then it would be like tossing your negative in favor of working with a print moving forward. It simply makes little sence to toss away that advantage.

as much sense as people who used scotch film rather than kodak or fuji, yet people did it,


as I stated earlier I do shoot raw and jpeg, but to be quite honest I rarely open a raw file, because I have no problems with my jpegs..

 

[Groucho]

Heheh, what a silly debate. (And friendly or not, it's most certainly a debate.)

Deletedpenguin, I disagreed because IMHO the real question (once you understand what Raw is and offers you), the question is not, "why use raw", but "why use jpg"? The benefits are many and the drawbacks few, and I encourage everyone with the option to shoot raw.

If you use the included raw processing photo, it should take the same information that the camera used to create the photo and use that by default, so the raw-to-jpg conversion should give you approximately the same shot as if it was processed in-camera - maybe better, if the raw processor's jpg engine is superior to the in-camera one.

Mickey88, I'll assume you were joking when you compared raw/jpg to different sizes of film. And what does that make gif files, comparable to Kodak Disc film? Seriously, you're smart enough to understand the difference. The raw-to-negative, jpg-to-print analogy is most certainly an accurate one.

 

[MICKEY88]

Mickey88, I'll assume you were joking when you compared raw/jpg to different sizes of film. And what does that make gif files, comparable to Kodak Disc film? Seriously, you're smart enough to understand the difference. The raw-to-negative, jpg-to-print analogy is most certainly an accurate one.

well you know what happens when you assume..

I thnk my analogy is a very good one..., medium format negs do hold more info and will yield a better print,

the analogy that you believe to be accurate doesn't make sense to me forr this reason...

first it's technically flawed because a raw file isn't a negative it's a positive...

as for the jpeg to print, again I disagree I can doa lot of editing with a jpeg including white balance, all you can do with a print is frame it..

 

[Master Mason]

as much sense as people who used scotch film rather than kodak or fuji, yet people did it,


as I stated earlier I do shoot raw and jpeg, but to be quite honest I rarely open a raw file, because I have no problems with my jpegs..

yes they did buy inferior film, but when they asked why there pictures weren't as good, the first thing they were told was to buy better film because they could capture more information on the better film.... Kind of like people are told to shoot RAW because you can capture more information.

I'll put it this way, if shooting jpeg was a better solution, then all the professionals would be doing it that way, but I am fairly possitive that if you went out and polled 100 people that do this for a living, that over 95 of them will be shooting in RAW and processing or post proccessing whatever you want to call it into jpegs.

 

[Anewman]

well you know what happens when you assume..

I thnk my analogy is a very good one..., medium format negs do hold more info and will yield a better print,

the analogy that you believe to be accurate doesn't make sense to me forr this reason...

first it's technically flawed because a raw file isn't a negative it's a positive...

as for the jpeg to print, again I disagree I can doa lot of editing with a jpeg including white balance, all you can do with a print is frame it..

IMO it would make more sense to compare different sized film negatives to different sizes of RAW files, as they go from point and shoot tiny sensor raw files all the way to full frame and beyond(digital backs).

I find it interesting that NOW we are being literal with the definition of the word "negative"...

 

[Master Mason]

as for the jpeg to print, again I disagree I can doa lot of editing with a jpeg including white balance, all you can do with a print is frame it..

my question is why you would want to if you have the RAW... it takes no more effort to work with a raw image than a jpeg.... so why not use the one that has the most information?

And again, you couldn't shoot medium format with your 35mm camera, but you can shoot RAW with your dSLR that produces jpegs.... so it isn't really a good analogy....

 

[DueyDooDah]

Getting back to the original question, I use auto WB alot but will set a custom one/use another when it really matters, and I only shoot raw. I set custom when I am doing portraits since it allows me to get the most accurate skin tones, rather than having to "guess" post. I also set a WB (tungsten) when I am doing night photography so that I can avoid those orange tones.

Why does it matter - if the camera is shooting to a specific white balance, it can affect how it meters off the light in the scene so with your correct WB, you will get a better exposure. Remember, the meter is shooting for a neutral gray so if it is guessing what is neutral, the exposure can be wrong. Yes, you can typically fix it afterwards but I prefer to get things correct the first time around.

In most cases, I use an ExpoDisk (http://www.expoimaging.net/) for setting the white balance - attaches to the lens and records through it so you don't have to walk out into the water to get a good reading. If I don't have my ExpoDisk for some reason, I shoot a gray card and then use that to fix a neutral tone afterwards.

This is what I was looking for. Looking at Understanding Exposure (or Understanding Digital Photograhy) by Peterson is was the reason for the question. His text led me to believe there was a reason to adjust WB even for raw. You have stated it well and I now have a reason to be concerned with proper WB. Thanks.

 

[DueyDooDah]

On the point of post-processing, I believe it really means processing that must take place before you post the photo.

 

[MICKEY88]

This is what I was looking for. Looking at Understanding Exposure (or Understanding Digital Photograhy) by Peterson is was the reason for the question. His text led me to believe there was a reason to adjust WB even for raw. You have stated it well and I now have a reason to be concerned with proper WB. Thanks.

very interesting info


hmmm this coming from the most recommended book on the dis photography board.

 

[MICKEY88]

yes they did buy inferior film, but when they asked why there pictures weren't as good, the first thing they were told was to buy better film because they could capture more information on the better film.... Kind of like people are told to shoot RAW because you can capture more information.

I'll put it this way, if shooting jpeg was a better solution, then all the professionals would be doing it that way, but I am fairly possitive that if you went out and polled 100 people that do this for a living, that over 95 of them will be shooting in RAW and processing or post proccessing whatever you want to call it into jpegs.

I NEVER said shooting jpeg was a better solution, actually my original point was that it's best to try to get the best possible photo in camera, to reduce the amount of post processing neccessary, rather than just shooting raw and relying on that to make your shot,



again I repeat I shoot raw/jpeg.. but very very rarely, ever open a raw file, because I'm generally very happy with the resulting jpeg that results from me taking the time to take total control with my camera, making all adjustments including white balance prior to tripping the shutter...

 

[SharonLowe]

This is what I was looking for. Looking at Understanding Exposure (or Understanding Digital Photograhy) by Peterson is was the reason for the question. His text led me to believe there was a reason to adjust WB even for raw. You have stated it well and I now have a reason to be concerned with proper WB. Thanks.

Glad to help. I was thinking of posting an off-color portrait and asking people to "correct" it to see if someone could come up with the right skin tones but that would start another debate.

The big time pros who shoot interior architecture shots or on location model sessions typically use color meters to determine the exact color temp (white balance) and in film days (or still with cinematography) that would determine the color gels they would need for their lighting units. Those color meters are a bit pricey so the expodisk is a great way to get basically the same effect.

 

[Master Mason]

I NEVER said shooting jpeg was a better solution, actually my original point was that it's best to try to get the best possible photo in camera, to reduce the amount of post processing neccessary, rather than just shooting raw and relying on that to make your shot,



again I repeat I shoot raw/jpeg.. but very very rarely, ever open a raw file, because I'm generally very happy with the resulting jpeg that results from me taking the time to take total control with my camera, making all adjustments including white balance prior to tripping the shutter...

and I agree with this, my point all along is if your going to post process your better off using RAW if your camera is capable of capturing it, nothing more and nothing less.

Glad to help. I was thinking of posting an off-color portrait and asking people to "correct" it to see if someone could come up with the right skin tones but that would start another debate.

The big time pros who shoot interior architecture shots or on location model sessions typically use color meters to determine the exact color temp (white balance) and in film days (or still with cinematography) that would determine the color gels they would need for their lighting units. Those color meters are a bit pricey so the expodisk is a great way to get basically the same effect.

A poor mans solution to this is to shoot a color card with known color values, that can then be used in PP for exact coloring..

 

[MICKEY88]

Glad to help. I was thinking of posting an off-color portrait and asking people to "correct" it to see if someone could come up with the right skin tones but that would start another debate.

The big time pros who shoot interior architecture shots or on location model sessions typically use color meters to determine the exact color temp (white balance) and in film days (or still with cinematography) that would determine the color gels they would need for their lighting units. Those color meters are a bit pricey so the expodisk is a great way to get basically the same effect.

excellent point

 

[MICKEY88]

1.and I agree with this, my point all along is if your going to post process your better off using RAW if your camera is capable of capturing it, nothing more and nothing less.



2.A poor mans solution to this is to shoot a color card with known color values, that can then be used in PP for exact coloring..

1. but that isn't neccessarily the best choice for everyone, some people, simply don't want to do the post processing, nor have the software to do it, I think sometimes it's easy for people to get caught up in things and forget that not everyone on here is a pro or advanced amateur, some people would simply like to understand white balance so they can set it and hopefully get the best shot possible without having to post process.

I wasn't saying anyone was wrong for wanting to shoot raw, I was making the point for those people who don't want to shoot raw and have to do the conversion/processing, I think it is wrong to make them feel that they are wrong for not wanting to spend as much time working on pics as some people do..


2. although that does indeed work, the problem for me is that I often do model shoots that yield between 500-700 photos

it is much more efficient timewise for me to spend a few seconds setting my white balance , prior to shooting, than it is to batch process that many photos

 

[Anewman]

2. although that does indeed work, the problem for me is that I often do model shoots that yield between 500-700 photos

it is much more efficient timewise for me to spend a few seconds setting my white balance , prior to shooting, than it is to batch process that many photos

There is no batch processing involved when setting WB in most software when it comes to RAW, 7 pictures or 7000 pictures makes no difference.

You simply make that reference image the new default(or set it as custom to a select range of photos) temperature, and then when you do open or convert the 700 photos WB will be consistent with that reference image.

But JPEG white balance corrections would require batch processing.

 

[MICKEY88]

There is no batch processing involved when setting WB in most software when it comes to RAW, 7 pictures or 7000 pictures makes no difference.

You simply make that reference image the new default(or set it as custom to a select range of photos) temperature, and then when you do open or convert the 700 photos WB will be consistent with that reference image.

But JPEG white balance corrections would require batch processing.

but I'd still have to convert 700 pics which would take more time than setting the white balance at the shoot...

there is no need to white balance the jpegs if the white balance was set before taking them..

 

[Anewman]

but I'd still have to convert 700 pics which would take more time than setting the white balance at the shoot...

there is no need to white balance the jpegs if the white balance was set before taking them..

Yes correct you would still have to convert RAW images

Just did not want to spread the misconception that it takes a long time to apply WB to raw files, which is the way I read your post.

If you simply take jpegs straight from the memory card to the printer/lab/website, yes Raws would require more time.

But IMO if you open jpegs in software to tweak/resize/crop/proof/etc..., the raw conversion would be invisible time wise even with 700 images. But it comes down to workflow and software, so yes those without the proper skill or software might take longer if working with Raw files vs Jpegs.

 

[MICKEY88]

But IMO if you open jpegs in software to tweak/resize/crop/proof/etc..., the raw conversion would be invisible time wise even with 700 images. But it comes down to workflow and software, so yes those without the proper skill or software might take longer if working with Raw files vs Jpegs.

ohhhh now I lack skill,, thanks...

with 700 pics, they don't all get opened with editing software, they get a quick once over with fax/slide viewer, the bad get tossed, the few that I want to tweak get opened and edited, where as with raw, all 700 would have to be converted...

 

[Anewman]

ohhhh now I lack skill,, thanks...

with 700 pics, they don't all get opened with editing software, they get a quick once over with fax/slide viewer, the bad get tossed, the few that I want to tweak get opened and edited, where as with raw, all 700 would have to be converted...

I did not say YOU lacked skill, I do not understand how you would take offense. You seem pretty sensitive for a guy that has made similar comments about how RAW is for those that lack the skill to get a proper exposure in the camera.

with 700 pics, they don't all get opened with editing software, they get a quick once over with fax/slide viewer, the bad get tossed, the few that I want to tweak get opened and edited, where as with raw, all 700 would have to be converted...

Seems pretty similar to my workflow with raw... IMO Raw it takes me no extra time vs working with jpeg, I actually feel it is faster.


And no all 700 would not have to be converted, you just said you tossed some