Sunrise and Sunset

[Almond.Butterscotch]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

But shooting RAW will give you that much more lattitude.

With exposure, yes, but as for getting the colors as they come in, you can't beat JPEG (in this case anyways). my 2¢

[OsmosisStudios]

But RAW gives you that much more control over the colours. To each their own i guess.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

I dunno- I played with it for a while, and I just couldn't get the colors back to how they were in the JPEG. Yes, much more control- I got all sort of wild results trying, but none that were even close really

[wildbird]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Sidestepping the exact reason for shooting RAW: that kind of control just cannot be obtained in JPG. If you just want what the camera can produce, then shoot JPG. But shooting RAW will give you that much more lattitude.

Seems that people may think that JPG's cant be edited.
The size of RAW files is quite alot larger than a large/fine JPG, meaning alot less capacity (if you never travel far from a computer, not so much of an issue - if you travel for months at a time, does make a difference to capacity - even having alot of cards etc).
Software to produce and edit the RAW files is also required. For the majority of users I believe that it is fine to use JPGs. A very quick example is shown below, from original JPG, and edited in about 3 seconds in picasa (free download for those that dont know of it)

[Michael_2010]

I'm relatively new to advanced digital photography, so I tend to make notes about manual settings before I go looking for the shot. I also take several shots, using the camera's presets just in case my manual settings are a complete failure. Early on, I boldly went totally "M" after waiting for hours just to capture the right light. Got home and had a SanDisk full of garbage. The let down is not quiet as severe, if something is salvageable out of a session.

[Michael_2010]

RAW deserves a category all its own. Is there an active one going on now?

I'm not getting the most out of RAW images either. The software furnished with my Canon appears to give a closer representation of the original, but some of the photo editing software out there can open up some really bizarre looking files. Once that happens, it is almost impossible to get them back to something usable. At that point, I throw up my hands and grab the jpeg version.

[wildbird]

Originally Posted by Michael_2010

RAW deserves a category all its own. Is there an active one going on now?

I'm not getting the most out of RAW images either. The software furnished with my Canon appears to give a closer representation of the original, but some of the photo editing software out there can open up some really bizarre looking files. Once that happens, it is almost impossible to get them back to something usable. At that point, I throw up my hands and grab the jpeg version.

If your camera can take jpgs and RAW simultaneously, take a few series of pics, then have a look at them and see what you can do with whatever editing program you have. If you see no advantage to having RAW files, simply shoot JPGs. No point limiting the number of pics you can take if there is no advantage at the end.

[navcom]

Hate to get into yet another RAW versus JPG argument but what the heck.

I've been taking sunrise/sunset photos for more than 20 years and about 15 of them with a digital camera. I've went from JPG only to RAW only in that timeframe. I think everyone has different criteria for which they shoot and it's each individual's own choice which to choose.

That being said, I can honestly say that I'm firmly in the RAW only camp. File sizes are no longer that critical (for most people). I have a terrabyte external drive that has over 10,000 RAW images on it and is nowhere near being full. I bought it for $50. That's 1/2 a cent for each image at this point.

The flexibility you get from RAW when you consider image quality and ease of change can't be matched. I've tried both. As for whether a JPG will produce better sunrise colors, that depends on how you've set your camera. A JPG is processed in camera. you can change how it's processed. If you increase the saturation setting, it will come out "more colorful" than a RAW because the RAW is not touched. I can apply the same saturation effect when I process the RAW afterwards. It works in reverse as well. I can make the JPG less colorful if I decrease the saturation in camera. It just depends on where you have it set. The fact is, the JPG is "pre-processed", which means there is already some compression and loss that has occurred (albeit small). The RAW is purely what the camera took...which can be easily modified to exactly what you want in post...not modified a second time like you have to with a JPG if you want to make changes.

The best (and easiest) way I've found to get the maximum color from a sunrise is to use the "shade" white balance preset versus using the "daylight" setting. It produces a warm color palette that can't be beat. Here is one of my images that was taken with RAW and "shade".



I think the colors turned out great. The image needed very little post (mostly sharpening as usual) and I didn't have any degredation that can occur (even if only minor) with a JPG conversion. I'm a perfectionist.

RAW images are a true digital negative and are right out of the camera. You are getting the best your camera can provide. I prefer that.

My two cents. And again, it's the individual's choice based on need.

[Michael_2010]

Since I first made the above comment, I have become a RAW advocate. Nothing else gives you the same flexibility after the fact.

I was loading the RAW images directly into my photo editor and it must have some default values that were consistently making each file look extreme and hardly usable. Adjustments with its sliders did little to correct the problems. By switching to the Canon provided RAW processing software, I discovered a whole new world that had been hiding in my captures.