How important is RAW?

[SWriverstone]

I'm a highly experienced amateur photographer and Photoshop user. For years I've been using a Canon PowerShot S2 (and I've loved it). I'm about to replace it, and am wondering (amongst many other things) how important it is to have RAW shooting capability?

Keep in mind that I'm not a working professional photographer...and I almost never print my images. 99% of them end up on the web no bigger than 800x600px.

I realize that Photoshop and Lightroom have dedicated processing tools only for RAW images (e.g. advanced white balance control).

So what I'm wondering is...assuming I'm pretty good with Photoshop to start with (and know about adjustments to levels, curves, hue/saturation, etc.)...how much of a difference do the RAW-only processing tools make to the overall quality of the image? (Again—keep in mind that I'm not printing images.)

Am I really missing out on an opportunity to make my images significantly better just by shooting in RAW?

Thanks,
Scott

PS - By the way, I do know about the CHDK for Canon cameras that enable shooting in RAW...but it's a bit of a "pain in the ass" RAW since you've got to convert to DNG first...

[SWriverstone]

So...is this not getting answered because all the pros think it's a dumb question? :-) Or because people really don't know?

Scott

[Frog]

Sorry, it hasn't been answered but there have been several threads about shooting raw format lately.
I seldom shoot anything else because of what I can pull out of my pictures and also because raw files are lossless and don't deteriorate like jpegs.
Almost never print means you do print when you get something that you want and you never know when you'll get that once in a lifetime shot.
Also if you select the wrong whitebalance it is easy to fix in photoshop.

[retroactiv]

I always, always shoot RAW for just those very reasons. If I make a white balance mistake then I can fix it without any problems. It is exactly what your camera takes that is why it is called raw, and in the end you can convert it to a JPG or any other format that you might want.

[Franglais]

RAW allows you to "replay" the conversion that the camera made when converting the image from the sensor to a JPG - but with your parameters. And you can do it as many times as you want.

The RAW file is usually 12 or 14 bits per pixel per colour, coming in off the sensor. The camera converts the RAW data to a JPG which has only 8 bits per pixel per colour.

If you need to make basic adjustments to your image (example colour balance) then 8 bits/colour might not be fine enough. If you go too far the result looks unnatural - on a web page, printed, whatever, if the colours are wrong then it's visible. RAW allows you to make large changes but still remains natural.

Second advantage of RAW on good editors (Nikon NX) is that it allows you to bring back detail in highlights that were completely burnt out in the JPG. You have a correction of +/- 2 stops.

Third advantage of RAW is that it's lossless. You can edit a file as many times as you want and the result will still be the same whereas with JPG each time you edit the file you degrade the image through compression artefacts

[SWriverstone]

Thanks everyone. Just to (temporarily) play devil's advocate...

1. RAW = Lossless. I understand that RAW data isn't compressed...but...even with a JPEG, can't I simply save the original JPEG as a TIFF or PSD file (immediately upon getting it from the camera)? That would prevent any loss of data *after* the original in-camera compression, right?

2. White balance adjust: it almost seems as if this is some sort of "magic" bullet in post-processing...but can't you adjust *any* color, hue, saturation, white point/black point of *any* image in Photoshop? Why is the white balance so important when you can literally do anything in Photoshop? (Or is white balance affect something that cannot be adjusted otherwise in Photoshop?)

Thanks,
Scott

[Photo-John]

Thanks everyone. Just to (temporarily) play devil's advocate...

1. RAW = Lossless. I understand that RAW data isn't compressed...but...even with a JPEG, can't I simply save the original JPEG as a TIFF or PSD file (immediately upon getting it from the camera)? That would prevent any loss of data *after* the original in-camera compression, right?

That would save any data from after the conversion. But you're still accepting the in-camera conversion that happens when the camera converts from RAW to JPEG. To me, the key is the bit-depth that Franglais mentioned. Your JPEG is 8-bit but the RAW files are 12-bit (I think). That's a lot more data and I believe it makes a big difference in the highlights and shadows. I actually convert my RAW files to 16-bit TIFF in order to preserve all of that data. But I do major color, contrast, and density adjustments to the RAW image, before I convert it.

2. White balance adjust: it almost seems as if this is some sort of "magic" bullet in post-processing...but can't you adjust *any* color, hue, saturation, white point/black point of *any* image in Photoshop? Why is the white balance so important when you can literally do anything in Photoshop? (Or is white balance affect something that cannot be adjusted otherwise in Photoshop?

It would seem that easy. But it's not. You really need to shoot RAW to see why. I suggest shooting both JPEG and RAW images outdoors with the tungsten preset and then try to correct them. The RAW file will be a snap to fix. The JPEG will be impossible.

I shoot everything RAW - unless I'm using a point-and-shoot only offers JPEG. Storage and the time involved matter a lot less to me than an unrepairable shot. Actually, it's mostly about just having the as much control as possible. My final images are always better when they come from RAW files.

[SWriverstone]

Okay, thanks for the response!

So...given the inherent advantages of RAW (especially in post-processing)...would you say that I should always shoot RAW with my 5-megapixel Canon PowerShot S2 (now that CHDK makes it possible to shoot in RAW)?

Or is the consensus that the advantages of RAW are only worthwhile with high-megapixel-count DSLRs?

Shooting in RAW with the S2 via CHDK requires a conversion to DNG...but once I do that, I have the full range of RAW post-processing options (e.g. white balance types, etc.)

Scott

[retroactiv]

Like I said above that I shoot raw no matter what, in both of my cameras. I think the choice is left to you with what you want to do. It has been clearly outlined the extreme advantages as I see them to shoot in raw, leaving the processing choices up to you and not the camera it's self. But if you're willing to give up the advantages that you'll receive in PP then shoot in jpg mode.

[Jenn_B]

Or is the consensus that the advantages of RAW are only worthwhile with high-megapixel-count DSLRs?

You can get better images out of small sensor cameras with RAW because it bypasses in-camera processing.

All small sensor cameras apply noise reduction to JPEG images, and you can't turn it off. This gives you a less grainy image, but sacrifices fine detail for that. You can get finer detail out of RAW images than JPEGs.

You can easily apply whatever noise reduction you like later, but you can't undo it once the camera has done it.

The same applies to sharpening, contrast, saturation and color balance, although you generally have some control over them in-camera. However, applying those to the RAW file yourself gives you more flexibility and control. You can set those in camera, but you're limited to that one setting you've chosen as opposed to being able to make multiple adjustments to a RAW file.

RAW images, even from small sensors, have a little more latitude for exposure compensation than JPEGs.

I also like the idea of having a pristine original copy of the image.

I'd suggest giving it a shot and see if the benefits are worth it to you. At 800x600 viewing on the web, the difference between RAW and JPEG isn't going to be Earth shattering.

[Photo-John]

I don't have any experience with the CHDK software, but I have been curious about it. I think the only way you'll find out for sure is by trying. In theory, RAW should always deliver better results. But there are other variables. I had a 4-megapixel Canon G2 back when it was current and I was never happy with the RAW results. Later I discovered that it was because the Canon RAW converter wasn't very good for the G2. When Adobe Camera RAW came out, the RAW conversion quality was much better.

Another issue is speed. We tested the Panasonic LX2 and the Leica D-Lux 3. They're basically the same camera and RAW-capable. I found that the RAW image quality was a bit better. But the speed was much slower in the RAW mode. And depending on what you're shooting, that may be a real problem. With those cameras I ended up shooting JPEGs because they were pretty good and I preferred the speed over any image quality gain I got from shooting in RAW mode.

So I think the CHDK is worth a shot with your camera. I'd like to see back-to-back tests in both RAW and JPEG mode. If I remember right, you can remove CHDK and go back to the original firmware. Anyway, if you do try this, I'm really curious about the results you get and what you think of both the software and the RAW quality and process. One thing I'm wondering about is the bit-depth of the capture on your camera. Since it's a compact camera it may only be 8-bit. I'm not sure. If that's the case, there won't be as much benefit shooting RAW as with a DSLR that captures 12-bit color.

[SWriverstone]

I'll shoot some test images with my Powershot S2 in both RAW and JPEG and post the results.

CHDK provides the ability to drop a JPEG alongside the RAW image on the card...though I'm not sure how or if this JPEG differs than what you'd capture without CHDK.

I believe the CHDK-enabled RAW image from the S2 is 10-bit (most DSLRs are 12-bit, right?).

I guess for me a lot of what we're talking about comes down to...what can you actually see when comparing two 800x600 images side-by-side? Many people tout the advantages of RAW...but most of those advantages are probably only visible in a high-resolution, large-size printed image or by zooming into the digital image on-screen.

I'd be willing to bet that in a blind "taste test" of 800x600 images (of a variety of different subjects) a lot of photographers who swear by RAW would not be able to tell the JPEG that resulted from the in-camera JPEG...from the JPEG that resulted from the RAW image. So this suggests that many photographers are enamored of the idea or the principle of shooting in RAW...as opposed to on-the-web viewing differences. (Not that the principle of shooting in RAW is bad, since as someone pointed out, you never know when you might need to make that 36"x24" print for a gallery show!)

Scott

PS - To use a different analogy...consider the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit digital audio. High-end audio professionals will swear up and down that there is a huge difference...but I've tested many people on this and 90% or more literally cannot hear the difference (16-bit is considered "CD quality"). If I put them in an acoustically-isolated space that is totally silent...and let them listen on a pair of $10,000 monitors...they can hear a *very slight* difference. (But how many people listen in those circumstances?) There comes a point where the "quality curve" gets almost totally flat...and improvements in quality become ever thinner and harder to detect...

[Photo-John]

To use a different analogy...consider the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit digital audio. High-end audio professionals will swear up and down that there is a huge difference...but I've tested many people on this and 90% or more literally cannot hear the difference (16-bit is considered "CD quality"). If I put them in an acoustically-isolated space that is totally silent...and let them listen on a pair of $10,000 monitors...they can hear a *very slight* difference. (But how many people listen in those circumstances?) There comes a point where the "quality curve" gets almost totally flat...and improvements in quality become ever thinner and harder to detect...

Not another audiophile! :P

Please just don't make me listen to the same music back-to-back on a CD and vinyl. Because the vinyl always sounds sooo much better. I prefer to remain blissfully ignorant :-D

[SmartWombat]

I bet you want valve amps too, not those new fangled transistor jobbies...

[Photo-John]

I bet you want valve amps too, not those new fangled transistor jobbies...

I own an SACD player (hangs head in shame)

Actually, I love it. Don't actually own many SACDs, though.

[Jenn_B]

I'd be willing to bet that in a blind "taste test" of 800x600 images (of a variety of different subjects) a lot of photographers who swear by RAW would not be able to tell the JPEG that resulted from the in-camera JPEG...from the JPEG that resulted from the RAW image. So this suggests that many photographers are enamored of the idea or the principle of shooting in RAW...as opposed to on-the-web viewing differences.

That conclusion only follows if the photographers in question only end up creating 800x600 images for the web. When you're asking photographers who swear by RAW, that is probably not the case.

The ones who are shooting for the web may prefer a workflow starting with RAW images, even if the end result is the same.