Raw Vs. JPG

[Knight]

Boomtap

Here`s a free piece of software that just may be able to give you a taste of RAW.
Its very basic, Hue saturation contrast and sharpening are just a few of the action`s you can use before saving to the file type you want. I did not read all the post here yet but does your camera give you the option of saving in RAW and JPEG ? If it does then you could make some good comparison`s.




http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm

[boomtap]

Thanks I will take a look at that software.

The D50 will let you do a Raw and a JPG, however the JPG is only in basic mode I believe. I am not sure that the creators of the camera put that in there for a comparison as much as they included that ability so you could have a quick easy to send file for the web, and your high quality master at the same time. Maybe? That is my guess.

I have been using this for raw today just to mess with it.
http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com...0vgAIBlQIihQsK

[payn817]

No, wrong approach. Shoot raw + jpeg all day. Process your raw, do the transfer to jpeg, then compare. Blow up areas of one colour and look for colour noise. Look at detail in both the bright areas and the dark areas. Look at colour, particularly in the areas you processed in RAW versus the areas in the jpeg. Do selective processing on the jpeg files and the standard global processing on the raw files.

Then you will really see, which format, fits your style and level of experience and knowlege.

Ronnoco

Ok, I can see the point in that. For me shooting in raw exclusively worked because I had a good feel for what the camera was giving with jpeg.

Here's two raw file conversions from Picasa
http://gallery.photographyreview.com...PICT0830-1.JPG
http://gallery.photographyreview.com...83PICT0827.JPG

[boomtap]

That is a great picture, and the color is fantastic to my eyes. Picasa did that? It is probably good enough for me until I get some more training and understand more about what I am doing. I am going to shoot June 1st all in raw and use Picasa 2 to export and see how that goes. You guys will see the results.

[SmartWombat]

No, the RAW file has been converted in the camera from analogue to digital, so it is not direct.

It's as direct as you can get out of the camera, with today's technology it's got to be digitised and not stored in analogue form. There is a fair amount of analogue processing between the sensor cell and the A/D converter(s), different depending on whether it's CCD or CMOS.

With jpeg you can selectively process different parts of the photo separately.

I think it's not a function of the format, but of the tools you use. Most RAW tools are concerned with global adjustments to curves, levels, colours and not image editing.

Most editing programs will not allow you to save in a camera manufacturer's RAW format (I've not found one that can, but that doesn't mean there isn't one out there somewhere).

Post processing is different in that RAW post processing is global and requires balancing areas of the photo.

At what point, having loaded a RAW image into software, does it stop being RAW?

I can load a RAW image into Photoshop, or GIMP, or FastStone, or ThumbsPlus - each program has different editing abilities, all will save in lossy or lossless formats but not RAW.

The difference in image responsiveness to the corrections is one of global versus selectivity.

I would say not in image responsiveness, but in features of the tools that manipulate that format - either globally in the case of RAW tools, or selectively in the case of mamge editors.
All image editors I've used have global change options - the differentiation is that typical RAW tools do not have selective editing functions that work on only part of the image.

[boomtap]

Ok, then let me pose another question to the panel of distinguished photographers. Would it be a good idea to shoot everything in raw, convert the raw to JPG, and then keep the raw files as well for a later time, because as software continues to develop eventually you will be able to have more control over the raw images than you do today?

[cyberlord]

Yes, keep the original RAW file. Think of it as a film negative. You can always make more "prints" with different settings for different results.

What shooting RAW does for you over shooting straight JPG is more latitude in exposure, especially in shadows (under exposed). The RAW editor allows an overall adjustment of exposure. That's the biggest benefit I have found since shooting RAW.

Tim

[boomtap]

Well we will see what happens June 1 as I take every snap in raw for the first time. It really seems like keeping raw as your negative couldn't hurt unless the JPG conversion is poorer quality then what you can get with your camera. I am going to have to get CS2 it sounds like.

[masdog]

Ok, then let me pose another question to the panel of distinguished photographers. Would it be a good idea to shoot everything in raw, convert the raw to JPG, and then keep the raw files as well for a later time, because as software continues to develop eventually you will be able to have more control over the raw images than you do today?

No. RAW is a tool. It isn't the be-all, end-all of digital photography.

While it grants you much more creative control than JPEG, it isn't suitable for everything, especially if your camera's buffer limits the number of consecutive RAW images you can shoot. Unless I missed it earlier in the thread, I haven't seen where you said what camera you're shooting with or what you intended subjects are.

[Ronnoco]

Ok, then let me pose another question to the panel of distinguished photographers. Would it be a good idea to shoot everything in raw, convert the raw to JPG, and then keep the raw files as well for a later time, because as software continues to develop eventually you will be able to have more control over the raw images than you do today?

That is only practical if you plan to do a very limited amount of photography. Imagine trying to quickly find one photograph on an almost full hard drive of 300 gig or so, or searching through 300 CDs or DVDs.

The reality is that no matter how great a photographer you are, not all your photos will be archival keepers. If you have a good eye, it is easy to decide which to keep and which to erase. When it comes down to it, spending a lot of time searching through large archives of photos, is not profitable. It becomes a decision related to priorities.

Ronnoco

[boomtap]

I am using a Nikon D50 and shoot mostly landscapes on hikes. I have never taken 1 raw photo yet and am trying to decide if I should begin taking them. I am a noob for sure, so it sounds like raw is a bit less forgiving?

[Ronnoco]

[QUOTE=masdog]No. RAW is a tool. It isn't the be-all, end-all of digital photography.QUOTE]

I would heartily second this view and add that it is neither efficient, effective, nor necessary to shoot everything in RAW, especially so, if you like to spend more time with your camera than with the computer.

Ronnoco

[Photo-John]

Ok, then let me pose another question to the panel of distinguished photographers. Would it be a good idea to shoot everything in raw, convert the raw to JPG, and then keep the raw files as well for a later time, because as software continues to develop eventually you will be able to have more control over the raw images than you do today?

Anything that's worth saving is worth saving in RAW. you should still do an initial sort and toss the obviously bad images. And you don't need to convert anything unless you actually want to use it. I have thousands of archived RAW images that have never been converted. But as I have the inclination or I get a client request, I convert them. And since I have been saving RAW for a few years, I always know I can deliver the best possible quality.

Finding them isn't that hard either. That's a matter of workflow and having a good filing strategy. And it would be the same with JPEG as RAW.

[Ronnoco]

I am using a Nikon D50 and shoot mostly landscapes on hikes. I have never taken 1 raw photo yet and am trying to decide if I should begin taking them. I am a noob for sure, so it sounds like raw is a bit less forgiving?

Well, in landscapes, I would shoot RAW for the early morning, mist rising off water, sun breaking through, etc. with mixed lighting from bright areas to dark areas, for interesting dramatic clouds, stormy weather, sunsets etc.....but for the average sunny mid day shots with a mildly interesting subject, I would probably shoot jpeg.

Ronnoco

[Franglais]

Ok, then let me pose another question to the panel of distinguished photographers. Would it be a good idea to shoot everything in raw, convert the raw to JPG, and then keep the raw files as well for a later time, because as software continues to develop eventually you will be able to have more control over the raw images than you do today?

This is what I do. I made a terrible job with some of my first RAW images in Turkey last year. They were much too saturated. 6 months later I converted some of them to black & white. And now - that doesn't seem right either, I might have another try at a colour version. With RAW it's easy -I just get back the RAW file from archive, undo the adjustments I did last time, make some new ones, generate the JPG for my online library then pop the RAW file back on the archive.

I use the Rampant Paranoia method of archiving. I have at least two copies of any RAW file, on different media. Last weekend one of my RAW archives on DVD+RW got a CRC check failure (i.e. it's terminally unreadable). I got back all the files from my original CD-R and DVD-R archives, burnt a new DVD+RW - and I also copied all my RAW files to USB hard disk.

3 months ago my first 300GB USB hard disk cost me 156 Euros. On Saturday my second one cost me 114 Euros! Storage is not going to be a problem, it's going to keep getting cheaper and cheaper..

Charles

[Ronnoco]

What shooting RAW does for you over shooting straight JPG is more latitude in exposure, especially in shadows (under exposed). The RAW editor allows an overall adjustment of exposure. That's the biggest benefit I have found since shooting RAW.

Tim

Even the experts would say that it is not quite that simple and straightforward. . In under-exposed and over-exposed photos there is less information in the colour pixel. It is impossible for example to bring back correct colour information in blown out highlights. Moreover the under or over exposure is usually in certain areas of the photo, with the result that you are stuck trying to bring up the underexposed area while at the same time not blowing out the brighter areas and causing an even more serious colour problem.

Then of course making the exposure adjustment in RAW makes noise more prominent, often weakens the colours and reduces the tones. Smoothing out the colour noise in the program reduces fine detail.

The answer here is not the RAW format but rather considerable care in getting the correct exposure in the first place.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

This is what I do. I made a terrible job with some of my first RAW images in Turkey last year. They were much too saturated. 6 months later I converted some of them to black & white. And now - that doesn't seem right either, I might have another try at a colour version. With RAW it's easy -I just get back the RAW file from archive, undo the adjustments I did last time, make some new ones, generate the JPG for my online library then pop the RAW file back on the archive.

Charles

Well, if RAW is so easy, why were you having such a hard time...oversaturated images etc. Sounds to me that you are not really finding working with RAW format that easy at all.

Ronnoco

[Erik Stiegler]

I am using a Nikon D50 and shoot mostly landscapes on hikes. I have never taken 1 raw photo yet and am trying to decide if I should begin taking them. I am a noob for sure, so it sounds like raw is a bit less forgiving?

You should at least experiment with RAW.

At least as far as post processing is concerned, I've found RAW to be more forgiving than JPEG. If the white balance or exposure is off, it's much easier (at least for me) to fix with a RAW image than a JPEG.

You can find good free RAW converters. SilkyPix Developers Studio and RawShooter Essentials are a couple you can download and use free to get your feet wet. Go shoot some RAW images and see how it goes for you.

[masdog]

I am using a Nikon D50 and shoot mostly landscapes on hikes. I have never taken 1 raw photo yet and am trying to decide if I should begin taking them. I am a noob for sure, so it sounds like raw is a bit less forgiving?

Actually, you're getting it backwards. RAW is more forgiving. If you screw up your exposure, want to saturate the colors, use the wrong white balance, etc, you can make changes much more easily in RAW (in my experience, anyway). They're better for most landscapes as they grant the shooter more control over the final output.

The disadvantage to shooting RAW is that it takes up much more space. On a Canon 20D, the Large/Fine JPEG is usually about 3.5 Mb. A RAW file is more than twice that. So if you start to shoot more in RAW, you'll have to get more storage.

[boomtap]

I am just now figuring that out. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

I just read these, and it seemed to shed some light.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...awtruth1.shtml

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...aw-files.shtml

[freygr]

Why all the fuss. RAW format is good for when you need to be able to make alot of fine turning. JPG is fine for non-crital snap shots, when you need to store a lot of photos.

Personal I have not been able to tell the difference on mid day photos. Almost all of the photos I take are in JPG. The next sunset I wiil try RAW.

[Ronnoco]

Actually, you're getting it backwards. RAW is more forgiving. If you screw up your exposure, want to saturate the colors, use the wrong white balance, etc, you can make changes much more easily in RAW (in my experience, anyway). They're better for most landscapes as they grant the shooter more control over the final output.

The disadvantage to shooting RAW is that it takes up much more space. On a Canon 20D, the Large/Fine JPEG is usually about 3.5 Mb. A RAW file is more than twice that. So if you start to shoot more in RAW, you'll have to get more storage.

Not quite correct. Yes you can make a lot of changes but without a good eye, you are missing the problems and disadvantages created by making those changes. Tim had a link to an example in RAW as being super, but no one noticed the noise made more prominent in the pavement area of the shot, by the changes to exposure in RAW. As to changes being more easy in RAW, no the advantage of jpeg is that the changes can be made selectively to small sections of the photo without adversely affecting other areas of your picture.

Storage is only one disadvantage. RAW as I have suggested all along requires a much better eye for noise, colour changes, tonal changes, lack of detail etc. and the effect of making adjustments and changes to other areas of your photo. With lots of experience and the desire to spend a lot of time in post-processing in front of the computer, you can make RAW work to your advantage. However if you totally shoot RAW, you are wasting time, effort, storage, and efficiency. How much you are wasting depends on your style of shooting and your typical subject.

My approach is to decide on RAW or jpeg based on the kind of shooting I am likely to do when I go out. If it is journalistic or public relations in type and speed is important, then I am likely to shoot jpeg for most and switch to RAW + jpeg if it seems that an exceptional, quality shot is possible. In weddings, I would lean to RAW + jpeg for the classic shots and jpeg for everything else. For scenic shots it would depend on the time of day, weather, and the impact of the subject. Mid morning and afternoon would be mostly jpeg while sunrise, sunset, fog, mist, and unusual weather would be RAW + jpeg.
In this way, I save storage space, organization, time, efficiency and profitability. Even if I shoot jpeg when RAW might have been better, I still have the advantage of selective improvements in jpeg of parts of the photo, rather than adjustments that affect the total picture.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

Why all the fuss. RAW format is good for when you need to be able to make alot of fine turning. JPG is fine for non-crital snap shots, when you need to store a lot of photos.

Personal I have not been able to tell the difference on mid day photos. Almost all of the photos I take are in JPG. The next sunset I wiil try RAW.

Early morning and late evening just before sunset, you have an extreme range of lighting from almost totally dark through to very bright. With a tripod, neutral density filter and RAW, it is possible with care, expertise and a good eye, to coach some detail out of some very dark areas, tone down the very bright areas and still make it look natural. It can be done in jpeg too, but you have a little more to work with in this type of photo using RAW. Nevertheless, this is assuming a lot of capability and experience with both the camera and the RAW computer program as well as an extremely good eye for small details and technical deficiencies. Not all photographers can handle it at their current level of expertise and experience.

Ronnoco

[Erik Stiegler]

Even if I shoot jpeg when RAW might have been better, I still have the advantage of selective improvements in jpeg of parts of the photo, rather than adjustments that affect the total picture.

Any RAW file can be converted into exactly the same JPEG as the camera will produce. Any adjustments that can be made to a JPEG can be made to a photograph taken as RAW. I do not see how JPEG has any practical advantages over RAW when it comes to postprocessing.

[masdog]

Not quite correct. Yes you can make a lot of changes but without a good eye, you are missing the problems and disadvantages created by making those changes. Tim had a link to an example in RAW as being super, but no one noticed the noise made more prominent in the pavement area of the shot, by the changes to exposure in RAW. As to changes being more easy in RAW, no the advantage of jpeg is that the changes can be made selectively to small sections of the photo without adversely affecting other areas of your picture.

To be honest, I didn't even click the link earlier in the conversation, but I have gone back and looked at it. I did notice the noise, but that could be attributed to the software that he used. Some software is better than others at converting RAW files. I've converted files that were almost 2 stops overexposed and ended up with no noticable noise.

Storage is only one disadvantage. RAW as I have suggested all along requires a much better eye for noise, colour changes, tonal changes, lack of detail etc. and the effect of making adjustments and changes to other areas of your photo. With lots of experience and the desire to spend a lot of time in post-processing in front of the computer, you can make RAW work to your advantage. However if you totally shoot RAW, you are wasting time, effort, storage, and efficiency. How much you are wasting depends on your style of shooting and your typical subject.

This goes without saying in any digital editing, Ronnoco. Whether you're working with RAW or JPEG, you'll introduce noise into the file if you make any changes. Most of that noise that you see on the screen won't be noticable when you make a print unless you're enlarging it.

Its not a good idea to tell photographers that they're wasting their time because they shoot everything in RAW. For whatever reason, they have decided on that method, and just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it doesn't work for them. Its a matter of preference that shouldn't be judged in the manner that you have judged it.