D300 success statistics (why I shoot RAW)

I did a wedding last weekend. I shot RAW+JPG the whole time, 515 images = 6.5GB of files. I shoot RAW because I can easily correct errors afterwards (I leave the D300 on full auto most of the time). But I asked myself - how close is the camera getting to perfection. So I counted up and here are the results:

Number of shots I consider presentable = 458
Number of technically correct but unpresentable shots = 51
Number of technical failures = 6 (out of focus=3, flash ran out of batteries=3)

Out of the 458 presentable shots:

No correction required = 265 (58%)
1/3 stop underexposed = 104 (22%)
2/3 stop underexposed = 52 (11%)
1/2 stop overexposed = 12 (2.5%)
Dlighting contrast correction = 23 (5%)
Change colour balance (my fault) = 2 (0%)

I was using flash almost all the time, bounced flash indoors off a low ceiling (475 shots on a set of batteries in the SB800).

All the outside shots were pretty much perfect apart from some contrast control, even with the bride's white dress. The ones that required correction were done indoors with flash. It looks like whenever the subject had light-coloured clothing the camera underexposed a little.

The focussing performance is remarkable. Most of the time I was letting the camera choose the right focus itself and switching to a single point when I was reaching out to 200mm to pick out some detail - and this with the 18-200, which is not the greatest lens for low-light focussing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franglais

The focussing performance is remarkable. Most of the time I was letting the camera choose the right focus itself and switching to a single point when I was reaching out to 200mm to pick out some detail - and this with the 18-200, which is not the greatest lens for low-light focussing

---

1/2 percent error rate, and using a lens with a relatively slow maximum aperture - and a lot of shots likely in less-than-ideal conditions? Yes, very impressive!

Also 80% chance of the shot being within 1/3 stop of correct exposure - excellent as well, considering all the different situations you were likely in during a wedding, and if I'm reading it right everything was based on auto/matrix (no exposure comp at time of capture).

I think whats more impressive is the 88.9% of "presentable" images

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WsW-WYATT-EARP

I think whats more impressive is the 88.9% of "presentable" images

---

Yes I suppose 89% rather impressive. People at this sort of event ask me how I do it and I don't know. I just concentrate on the subjects - and getting them to do what I want - and let the camera sort out the rest, knowing that I can correct most errors afterwards. And each generation seems to improve the success rate.

Nice to know, think I'll also start shooting in raw + jpg as well. Thanks for the stats.

Why bother shooting jpeg? Why not just raw?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kajuah

Why bother shooting jpeg? Why not just raw?

---

I personally shoot just raw - but when shooting an event where you can shoot 1000 + images - if they are correct then you have no further processing to do if they are jpg. It just eliminates alot of post processing that isn't needed. But it also gives you the opportunity to edit if something happens that you need to correct something by shooting both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WsW-WYATT-EARP

I personally shoot just raw - but when shooting an event where you can shoot 1000 + images - if they are correct then you have no further processing to do if they are jpg. It just eliminates alot of post processing that isn't needed. But it also gives you the opportunity to edit if something happens that you need to correct something by shooting both.

---

Advantages of shooting RAW+JPG:

1. It gives you a second copy of each image, right from the start. If something happens to one file, the other might be okay. If the whole card fails you're dead, obviously
2. The JPG files are pretty small and you can use them straight away. If you take a portable PC or an ARCHOS to an event, you can make a quick copy of the JPG's to the portable and give people a look at the first results. Some models even insist on having a CD of the results of a shoot before leaving..

It sounds like a good waste of space to me, I'd rather have 100 % images I want than 50 % of ones im going to scrap off the bat

I have a D300 also, but i really don't see a big difference in shooting raw or jpeg. I hear a lot of photographers, take about u have more control when shooting in raw. Can u explain that to me, please.

Jimmy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaywill317

I have a D300 also, but i really don't see a big difference in shooting raw or jpeg. I hear a lot of photographers, take about u have more control when shooting in raw. Can u explain that to me, please.

Jimmy

---

You will see no difference whatsoever between a JPG image and a RAW image straight out of the camera. The camera has done the following:

1. Take the picture & read the signal off the sensor (including amplification for ISO setting)
2. Make the RAW image by applying the parameters you have chosen like colour balance, saturation, sharpness, Active Dlighting etc.
3. Make the JPG image from the RAW image (compression from 12/14 bits down to 8 bits)

With a RAW editor on your computer you can go back to step 2 and change the parameters, which are stored individually in the RAW file. You can change things like colour balance, saturation, DLighting, contrast sharpness and exposure as many times as you like till you're satisfied. Then you do step 3 again and generate the JPG image.

OK so why bother with RAW, why not make the changes directly to the JPG?

A JPG image can hold up to 16 million colours, which is far more than the eye can discern. It looks really good. However those 16 million colours are made up of a combination of 3 primary colours (Magenta, Cyan and Yellow) each of which has only 64 levels from nothing to full intensity (2 to the power of 8 bits). If you start to modify the levels then you only have 64 levels to play with for each primary colour. You go from level 9 to level 10 when level 9.3 was what you were really looking for. Quite quickly the result starts to look unnatural.

A RAW image has 12 or 14 bits per primary colour. That's 1024 or 4096 levels. You have a much more precise adjustment (9.3 is easy) and you can go a long way without the result looking unnatural. When you do the JPG conversion you get a better result than modifying a JPG directly

OK so why doesn't a RAW image out of the camera look better than a JPG one?

A 14-bit image (RAW) can reproduce 68 billion colours while an 8-bit image (JPG) can only reproduce 16 million. The human eye can only distinguish about 5 millions colours so you're not going to see any difference between the two. JPG is fine for the finished image but it's not a good idea if you want to make modifications.

Plus a JPG image is compressed and each time you save it the compression loses some data

Thankyou...great info Franglais!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starriderrick

Thankyou...great info Franglais!

---

After such encouragement - there is one more thing about RAW that not many people are aware of. You can use it to get back detail that seems to be completely burnt out or completely dark in the JPG.

You cannot adjust the ISO setting in RAW (the amplification is done coming off the sensor, before getting to the RAW file). But NX has an exposure correction slider that allows you to do -2 to +2 stops correction.

You have something that looks completely white and lacking in detail in the image, push the slider towards underexposure and all of a sudden detail appears. Of course yu've made the whole image darker so you have to play with the curves and bring up the mid-tones for it to look right, but this a way round the dreaded "clipping" effect you get on white clouds on a sunny day that makes digital look bad when compared with film.

I don't understand exactly where the extra detail comes from. It must be in the RAW file - the editor can't invent it - but the JPG converter cant't make it fit in the tonal scale of the JPG and doesn't use it.

Thanks! Great details, i needed!