never shoot in raw?

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by kencaleno

Almost there I just need to work on the top part-I notice the jpeg side is sharper. Regards, Ken

If by "sharper" you mean "aliasing."

[Jim Bryant]

Man..he just doesn't give up

Originally Posted by kencaleno

Almost there I just need to work on the top part-I notice the jpeg side is sharper. Regards, Ken

[wulf]

Can all you crazy people please be a little bit cautious about making sweeping statements like "you must be crazy to shoot in RAW" and "you must be crazy not to shoot in RAW"?

I don't think there is a strong argument against the fact that shooting RAW images gives you more post-processing options. However, it does demand more time (learning to make the most of it and processing each picture) and money (to get the computing gear to reduce the per-picture time cost and to backup the larger files properly).

However, if your camera's inbuilt "sensor data to JPEG" conversion is generally acceptable to you (remembering the fact that you can generally tweak the settings) and you struggle to find time to go through all your images and you don't often get frustrated by not being able to tweak them further and you are happy with the output you are getting (hey! that sounds like me! ) then you are arguably not far behind the person who shoots everything in RAW then accepts the default conversion from their image library software and stores terabytes of digital negatives that they will never look at again because they are taking better pictures all the time and, anyway, the proprietary .BUTT files from their trusty Canikon will be made obsolete and nothing will read them anyway.

Yes, I know I could do with more full stops in the above sentence but hopefully you catch my drift; make an informed choice and play nice with others who have chosen differently.

Thanks,

Wulf

ps. I know RAW isn't a true acronym but it does seem an established pattern and it conveys the meaning of a group of file formats, like the NEFs my D40 generates, which are acronyms (although, to be honest, I don't know precisely what for!)

[Sime]

Originally Posted by wulf

ps. I know RAW isn't a true acronym but it does seem an established pattern and it conveys the meaning of a group of file formats, like the NEFs my D40 generates, which are acronyms (although, to be honest, I don't know precisely what for!)

NEF?... That stands for "Not Even Funny" ...Hey, the internet says it's true!

For those of you trapped in acronym hell...

EXIF image (*.jpg, *.tif, *.thm)
Kodak RAW image (*.dcr, *.tif)
Canon RAW image(*.crw, *.tif)
Nikon RAW image (*.nef, *.jpg)
Olympus RAW image (*.orf)
Minolta RAW image (*.mrw)
Fujifilm RAW image (*.raf)
Sigma RAW image (*.x3f)

and for those of you needing a soothing track after reading this thread *clicks*

*wanders of to get a coffee....*

[Jim Poor]

The problem I have with this post (although I agree with the point being made) is that the comparison is between two different images rather than the RAW and JPG image made at the same time. (Remember every RAW image has a JPG embedded).

I wish there were a button to push that would force people to make logically sound arguments in support of their positions rather than comparing apples to oranges and skewing things based on bad logic.

Originally Posted by fletch

This thread inspried me to write a blog post about RAW. In doing so I tried to illustrate the difference by putting two files into the same image, one side the edited RAW file and one a JPEG with the camera's default settings. I thing the differnce is quite striking so I though I'd share it here as well.

Here's the image...



In the JPEG the shadow detail at the base is seemingly lost and some of the highlights are blown. If anyone wants to take this image and make the right side match the left then I may have to eat my words.

[fletch]

Originally Posted by Jim Poor

The problem I have with this post (although I agree with the point being made) is that the comparison is between two different images rather than the RAW and JPG image made at the same time. (Remember every RAW image has a JPG embedded).

Jim - The comparison you ask for although a nice idea is actually impossible. RAW (or raw!) files are not images, they are raw data files. You can't view a RAW file, it needs to be processed in some way first. This may be a permanent thing such as converting to JPEG or tempory when just viewing on screen. However when viewing on screen the same process need to be applied so the screen can disply the image, applying colour balance, sharpness, saturation, contrast etc. The screen can also only display 8 bit colour info so even if you view a 12-14 bit file you won't see the difference.

Therefore when comparing a straight to JPEG image with the RAW image created at the same time, if the settings used are the same, the images will look identical, the only differnce being any compression artifacts in the JPEG.

So why use RAW if you can't see the difference? The point isn't that you don't need to create an image file (jpeg,tiff etc) but how you get there. With a RAW you can interveen and choose the settings as you wish. That is what my expample demonstrates quite well, the difference between the default JPEG and what you can do if you process the RAW yourself.

Ken has almost managed to demonstrate that you can process a JPEG to get the same result but I bet it took a lot longer than the original 5 mins in ACR from the RAW file and the output isn't as good, the colour is not the same an there are a load of undesirable effects.

[wulf]

They seem to match up pretty well. I'm guessing that either it is the result of a RAW + JPEG combination (so custom processing vs camera processing) or two shots taken one after the other with the same settings apart from the save mode. I think it is a very useful illustration.

Those who want to learn most effectively and who have a RAW capable camera should try the same experiment and see what results they get. The assertion that a RAW image has more data and gives more option in post processing seems a well-grounded fact to me. The assertion that one or other mode is better, without reference to the circumstances, is where it seems to get less clear cut.

Wulf

[Jim Poor]

I agree with some of your points, but a more equitable comparison is indeed possible.

If I were to do it this is what I would do:

Extract the JPG from the raw (just for you ) file and show the raw file and the extracted JPG with no adjustments side by side.

Then adjust the RAW (sorry, this one will stick even though it is technically incorrect ) and the JPG files separately using the RAW converter and PS or whatever you want for the JPG making every effort to be fair to each image during the process. Then post the results side by side with notes on what was done, how easy / difficult it was and how long it took for each version.

Just looking at the photos you used, it is really easy for someone to make the argument that the shadow detail is lost in the JPG, not because of the limits of the JPG itself, but rather because it is a different shot, different composition and different exposure (even if the camera settings were the same).

I would disagree that Ken has come close. Not close at all by any objective measure.

[wulf]

Go on then, Jim. Show us your comparison. Unless Fletch is a lightning fast worker, I imagine he has put a fair amount of time into what he presented but I'm sure he wouldn't mind an independent illustration being contributed.

Wulf

[vandergus]

Extract the JPG from the raw (just for you ) file and show the raw file and the extracted JPG with no adjustments side by side.

Can I suggest shooting in RAW+jpg mode, at least. The jpg that's embedded in the RAW file is not meant for final presentation of the image. It's meant to be used as a preview or thumbnail image for programs that can't display RAW images. RAW+jpg will give you the raw sensor data to process yourself and the same raw sensor data processed by the camera into a jpg.