...and this is why I shoot in raw

We went out to our local bennihana style restaurant tonight, and I figured I'd be a good opportunity to exercise the d7000 a bit. I wasn't expecting the results I got in this particular image though. The first is what the camera showed me in the original raw and jpeg, and the second is with the fill light slider maxed out. Really makes it a whole new photo, and it really amazes me just how much can be pulled out of one image.

Absolutely! Very nice.

Excellent illustration of the advantages of shooting raw and why I do it. Thanks for sharing.

WesternGuy

Ok... I've been resisting for a long time but I guess I'm going to have to start shooting more raw and exploring those shadows and highlights more.

. . . a real "i" opener n8, I'm also guilty of resisting shooting RAW format too ! :rolleyes:

Being able to easily adjust white balance was enough for me to always shoot in RAW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Timer

Ok... I've been resisting for a long time but I guess I'm going to have to start shooting more raw and exploring those shadows and highlights more.

---

It's about time! There's really no reason not to shoot RAW anymore. Unless you're a photojournalist and need to deliver immediatelty. That's the only reason I know of to shoot JPEG.

good to see a couple of excellent photographers convert to raw due to this thread
knowing a t2i and a D700 were shot in jpg only, is to me a bit mind boggling

I shoot both jpg and raw so i can browse instantly and quickly decide If I'll spend time on any particular images

I still shoot JPEG for events. Gotta max out storage and let the camera do some of the PP for me when dealing with 1000's of shots. But for anything else it is RAW. You can not deny the adjustment possibilities with it. If something is too bright or dark you can really pull a lot out. It is amazing in some cases what you can get. This is a great example of it.

I always shoot in raw to fix my hot pixel issue. Sometimes I envy those cannons with their mapping feature.

It's not just Canon, my Olympus has pixel mapping as well. Hope I won't need it though.

I now want a cellphone that shoots in RAW mode on its camera.

Cool shots! I'm a HUGE advocate for always shooting in not just RAW, but 14-bit RAW if you have that capability. Shooting RAW is the best way to take full advantage of your digital sensor and get the widest range of color information in your file.

Shooting JPEG means throwing away information that you can never get back. With memory and storage being so cheap these days, there is no reason not to shoot RAW all the time.

Cool shots! I'm a HUGE advocate for always shooting in not just RAW, but 14-bit RAW if you have that capability. Shooting RAW is the best way to take full advantage of your digital sensor and get the widest range of color information in your file.

Shooting JPEG means throwing away information that you can never get back. With memory and storage being so cheap these days, there is no reason not to shoot RAW all the time.

In order to fairly compare jpeg and RAW, you need to make processing adjustments to the jpeg file, just as you made adjustments to the RAW file above.

It is possible to adjust a jpeg file in post processing, just as it is with a RAW file. It is not fair to adjust only the RAW file and compare it to an unedited jpeg. There is shadow detail in the jpeg that can be retrieved with the use of the same adjustment slider you used for the RAW photo.

After you make that adjustment, a comparison of how much shadow detail was recovered from each format, and any noise issues can be fairly evaluated.

I agree Tom. This forum sometimes just isn't very kind to the JPEG, no respect at all!

I always shoot Raw, Fine JPEG just in case I need to make adjustments. The first picture is the JPEG version and the second is the RAW version after adjustments, Jeff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomBrooklyn

In order to fairly compare jpeg and RAW, you need to make processing adjustments to the jpeg file, just as you made adjustments to the RAW file above.

It is possible to adjust a jpeg file in post processing, just as it is with a RAW file. It is not fair to adjust only the RAW file and compare it to an unedited jpeg. There is shadow detail in the jpeg that can be retrieved with the use of the same adjustment slider you used for the RAW photo.

After you make that adjustment, a comparison of how much shadow detail was recovered from each format, and any noise issues can be fairly evaluated.

---

I completely agree. I never had any problem pulling out details from dark areas in JPEGs which is my favorite format. Actually recovering those details are easy in both RAW and JPEG. The real challenge is to preserve highlight detail in BOTH formats which much of it was lost in the "flame" area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n8

We went out to our local bennihana style restaurant tonight, and I figured I'd be a good opportunity to exercise the d7000 a bit. I wasn't expecting the results I got in this particular image though. The first is what the camera showed me in the original raw and jpeg, and the second is with the fill light slider maxed out. Really makes it a whole new photo, and it really amazes me just how much can be pulled out of one image.

---

Would it be OK if I tried giving this picture a try and posting it? Jeff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomBrooklyn

In order to fairly compare jpeg and RAW, you need to make processing adjustments to the jpeg file, just as you made adjustments to the RAW file above.

It is possible to adjust a jpeg file in post processing, just as it is with a RAW file. It is not fair to adjust only the RAW file and compare it to an unedited jpeg. There is shadow detail in the jpeg that can be retrieved with the use of the same adjustment slider you used for the RAW photo.

After you make that adjustment, a comparison of how much shadow detail was recovered from each format, and any noise issues can be fairly evaluated.

---

I don't understand the objections. There is more dynamc range captured by a 12-14 bit RAW file than by an 8-bit jpg from the camera. You cannot bring out detail that has not been captured. Correct? - Terry

The only positive thing about jpeg, is that you can do the non stop unlimited photos per second paparazzi thing.

That depends on the camera used. More details and more dynamic range in RAWs is not necessarily a rule of a thumb in any camera, each camera processes both formats differently.When it comes to my Olympus E-30, RAW and JPEG are about equal, I never felt the need to shooting RAW to capture more detail and dynamic range. I only use RAW when I have specific use for the file such as HDR for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldClicker

I don't understand the objections. There is more dynamc range captured by a 12-14 bit RAW file than by an 8-bit jpg from the camera. You cannot bring out detail that has not been captured. Correct? - Terry

---

Theoretically, the RAW file will contain more dynamic range. That's what this comparison above alleges to show, but the comparison was not made fairly.

You are correct that you cannot bring out more detail than has been captured or retained. But again, no attempt was made to process the jpeg, so we don't know how much detail, if any, is there.

Ok, so I had to go in my recycle bin to dig this guy out, opened it up in acr and again cranked the fill slider, which I believe is all I did to the one up top. I wish I could have added it to the op, but I suppose this will do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldClicker

I don't understand the objections. There is more dynamc range captured by a 12-14 bit RAW file than by an 8-bit jpg from the camera. You cannot bring out detail that has not been captured. Correct? - Terry

---

Jpeg and raw have the same total range, it is the larger gamut between brightest and darkest tones that raw exceeds jpeg with. JPEG compression also effects very high adn low tones more than midtones

************

I'll let someone else bother with all that for now, lol. I can say though, that when I look at these two examples side by side, raw wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

Jpeg and raw have the same total range, it is the larger gamut between brightest and darkest tones that raw exceeds jpeg with. JPEG compression also effects very high adn low tones more than midtones

---

But when you get down into the darker tones, the 8-bit jpg no longer has enough levels within the stop to provide any details - the choice has been made, those details are gone and they cannot be recovered in PP. Also, in camera jpgs have that nice ‘contrasty’ image that sells cameras. This contrast comes at the expense of the dynamic range.

When you post adjust the exposure on a jpg, all you are doing is changing the brightness - same as if you used the brightness adjustment on your monitor. When you adjust exposure with RAW, you are changing the RAW conversion process.

Terry

I'm not going to deny that Raw is certainly the more flexible format. But Jpeg still has it's place as well.

An 8-bit Jpeg contains has a dynamic range of 1:255. A 12 bit raw has a d.r. of 1:4095. But the human eye can only detect about 200 tonal variations, so the dynamic range of both exceeds that of normal visual acuity.

And whichever dynamic range you use, the dispersal of pixels is the same: the histogram doesn't change simply because you have more steps between black and white. Each stop contains the exact same amount of information.

The difference then, between Raw and Jpeg is editibility. Many of Photoshop's edits are destructive, and Raw gives you a much greater ability to lose information before the eye detects it. Also, having more steps in each stop gives greater control over the information distributed there. And since Raw records the exposure, but doesn't lock it in, you can achieve better effects with tone-mapping a single exposure. Lastly, because Raw is a proprietary format, you can get a bit better color reproduction by using a Raw editor that knows how to use the proprietary color information (ie, one supplied by the same manufacturer as the camera).

The main advantage of shooting Jpeg is a much smaller file size, which equates to a faster transfer time, and greater fps shooting rate. Many of Raw's advantages (white balance, exposure control, etc,,,) can be overcome by the skill of the photographer. There is still a trade-off, but in some instances it's worth it.

- Joe U.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Medley

I'm not going to deny that Raw is certainly the more flexible format. But Jpeg still has it's place as well.

An 8-bit Jpeg contains has a dynamic range of 1:255. A 12 bit raw has a d.r. of 1:4095. But the human eye can only detect about 200 tonal variations, so the dynamic range of both exceeds that of normal visual acuity.

And whichever dynamic range you use, the dispersal of pixels is the same: the histogram doesn't change simply because you have more steps between black and white. Each stop contains the exact same amount of information.

The difference then, between Raw and Jpeg is editibility. Many of Photoshop's edits are destructive, and Raw gives you a much greater ability to lose information before the eye detects it. Also, having more steps in each stop gives greater control over the information distributed there. And since Raw records the exposure, but doesn't lock it in, you can achieve better effects with tone-mapping a single exposure. Lastly, because Raw is a proprietary format, you can get a bit better color reproduction by using a Raw editor that knows how to use the proprietary color information (ie, one supplied by the same manufacturer as the camera).

The main advantage of shooting Jpeg is a much smaller file size, which equates to a faster transfer time, and greater fps shooting rate. Many of Raw's advantages (white balance, exposure control, etc,,,) can be overcome by the skill of the photographer. There is still a trade-off, but in some instances it's worth it.

- Joe U.

---

"And whichever dynamic range you use, the dispersal of pixels is the same: the histogram doesn't change simply because you have more steps between black and white. Each stop contains the exact same amount of information."

More steps between black and white IS more information - it's the detail. Actual, that's all the image information there is in any RGB file.

Higher dynamic range means having more steps within the stops at the black and/or white ends. If you have an area of an image that is all black and increase the dynamic range enough, there will be areas that aren't black - detail. If you could increase the dynamic range enough, there probably would be NO black areas in the image.

Terry

Terry is describing the contrast detail, what Joe and I were talking about was simply the tonal detail. But, you have a point Terry. I suppose it was at least applicable to the original posters image.

My Olympus E-30 offers the BEST dynamic range of any camera I laid my hands on. That is why all of the above issues for me are "SOLVED".

The DPreview.com review of the Olympus E-30 said, "The JPEG quality is superb, with excellent dynamic range and a slightly more subtle approach to color and contrast than we're used to from Olympus, giving results that look great 'out of the can' but respond well to post processing too. The tone curve manages to avoid clipping highlights even at ISO 100 (which as our tests show is not the optimum setting - ISO 200 gives you a stop more range), and highlight range stays consistently high throughout the higher sensitivity range."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

Terry is describing the contrast detail, what Joe and I were talking about was simply the tonal detail. But, you have a point Terry. I suppose it was at least applicable to the original posters image.

---

I guess I don't understand. The only information in an RGB file is the shades or steps between black and white for each of the three colors, correct? There is no intensity component. Or (to simplify it) in an 8-bit B&W image, all you have to work with is 256 shades of gray (including black and white). Isn't this the tonal range/detail? - Terry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

Jpeg and raw have the same total range, it is the larger gamut between brightest and darkest tones that raw exceeds jpeg with. JPEG compression also effects very high adn low tones more than midtones

---

Incorrect, RAW on my camera has 12 bits per color! As JPEG is 8 bit per color, by JPEG specifications. So a 12 bit RAW file has 2^4 more range (that is 4 F stops) then any JPEG image to start with, and some of the newer camera's are using 14 bits per color RAW images files that is a total of 6 F stop more range than JPEG files can handle. JPEG is also lossly so you lose tonal range and detail and it's cumulative each time the file is opened and saved even it no editing is done (open and close has no effect on the file).

With the extra stops you can capture more contrasty without washing out the highs or loss in the shadows. Using JPEG you have 256 shades of gray with 12 bits you have 4096 shades of gray which you can save to a 16 bit TIFF file :)

>>this is why I shoot in raw
I love the pics but am surprised to see that they didn't mind you being naked at that restaurant...

A black detail is black so long as its not 0 black, if its 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 black, its detail, whether or not there is contrast near or around it, it is detail, if only tonal detail. When a piece of an image is solid black, below 0, thats black without detail. Theres also white, and white without detail.

Freygr - check what I just said. 0 is still 0, 0 is 0 in raw, the same as it is in jpeg, 255 white is 255 white, its white without detail, tonal detail. The kind of detail you are talking about is contrast detail. I am aware of the distinction between 8-bit compressed jpeg, and 12 and 14 bit raws.

No it doesn't have more stops of tonal range, if it did everything would look gray. It can pull shadow detail better, and with the extra shades can spread it wider, but it does not have 'more stops', not even remotely. Crush a shadow in jpeg, its crushed in raw. (I'm talking 0 crushed, not 1-10 crushed)

Terry - I see exactly what you mean, but we are talking about different things. You are talking about contrast detail, I am talking purely of tonal detail. Lets say theres a sky in an image, pure blue sky - even though there is no contrast (or very little), its still detail because it is not solid black or white. It doesn't need a shift in its gradations to be considered detail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

A black detail is black so long as its not 0 black, if its 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 black, its detail, whether or not there is contrast near or around it, it is detail, if only tonal detail. When a piece of an image is solid black, below 0, thats black without detail. Theres also white, and white without detail.

Freygr - check what I just said. 0 is still 0, 0 is 0 in raw, the same as it is in jpeg, 255 white is 255 white, its white without detail, tonal detail. The kind of detail you are talking about is contrast detail. I am aware of the distinction between 8-bit compressed jpeg, and 12 and 14 bit raws.

No it doesn't have more stops of tonal range, if it did everything would look gray. It can pull shadow detail better, and with the extra shades can spread it wider, but it does not have 'more stops', not even remotely. Crush a shadow in jpeg, its crushed in raw. (I'm talking 0 crushed, not 1-10 crushed)

Terry - I see exactly what you mean, but we are talking about different things. You are talking about contrast detail, I am talking purely of tonal detail. Lets say theres a sky in an image, pure blue sky - even though there is no contrast (or very little), its still detail because it is not solid black or white. It doesn't need a shift in its gradations to be considered detail.

---

In 12 bit RAW white is 2^12 = 4096 during the conversion to jpg white becomes 256 due to the fact JPG is 8 bit per color. Using an editor restricted to 8 bit color depth or a video driver (display) which is 8 bit color depth you can't see any color depth difference. You can see the difference on a high end printer printing large sized output.

I don't mean to derail this thread, but in the original photos, the item that's burning/flaming is that the "onion volcano"?? I honestly just heard about that thing 2 days ago. =)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

A black detail is black so long as its not 0 black, if its 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 black, its detail, whether or not there is contrast near or around it, it is detail, if only tonal detail. When a piece of an image is solid black, below 0, thats black without detail. Theres also white, and white without detail.

Freygr - check what I just said. 0 is still 0, 0 is 0 in raw, the same as it is in jpeg, 255 white is 255 white, its white without detail, tonal detail. The kind of detail you are talking about is contrast detail. I am aware of the distinction between 8-bit compressed jpeg, and 12 and 14 bit raws.

No it doesn't have more stops of tonal range, if it did everything would look gray. It can pull shadow detail better, and with the extra shades can spread it wider, but it does not have 'more stops', not even remotely. Crush a shadow in jpeg, its crushed in raw. (I'm talking 0 crushed, not 1-10 crushed)

Terry - I see exactly what you mean, but we are talking about different things. You are talking about contrast detail, I am talking purely of tonal detail. Lets say theres a sky in an image, pure blue sky - even though there is no contrast (or very little), its still detail because it is not solid black or white. It doesn't need a shift in its gradations to be considered detail.

---

I've been trying to find some definitions od 'tonal' and 'contrast detail' without much luck. Could you define each? - Terry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

I agree Tom. This forum sometimes just isn't very kind to the JPEG, no respect at all!

---

1) You lose color
2) fine details

Why you ask, the JPG compression is lossy merging colors which are close in color, removing fine detail and colors the eye can't see. These effects are cumulative each time the file is saved. After a few times a person can see the changes (open and save) and after many saves any one with good eye sight can see the loss of quality and JPG artifacts.

I have no problems using JPG, but for editing I always use the RAW image file if I have one, otherwise I open the original JPG and save to a non-lossy file format like TIF, BMP, or one of the many other image file formats which are non-lossy for editing.

Note: I shoot RAW with basic JPG, as the storage is so cheap now days.