Why bother with RAW

gsxr1

I am stuggling to find the differences in Jpeg and Raw.


I have taken a few nice pics( out of about 1400) , blown up to at least 12 x 16" for frames in jpeg.
I find the format perfect.

But it seems to be the opinion on forums that RAW is the way forward.

Does everyone here use it. ??

Squidgy Black

I certainly do.

Do you edit any of your photo's? the RAW file contains so much more detail, that it's unprocessed and you can edit it yourself, where as the jpeg tends to be processed by the camera and holds less detail

gsxr1

stetyrrell wrote: »

I certainly do.

Do you edit any of your photo's? the RAW file contains so much more detail, that it's unprocessed and you can edit it yourself, where as the jpeg tends to be processed by the camera and holds less detail

I have been snapping with A DSLR for only 2 months and am taking basic tutorials on PS. And learning quickly about correct camera settings on AV and TV. Getting hooked. spending all my money. You know the story

So im a bit lost in the benefits of more detail.

What should I be looking for. Im trying my best to improve myself .. Is this a PS thang.

Am I trying to run before I can walk by using RAW

I've had a DSLR for about 18 months, and I've only recently started using RAW. I use it because I find that Adobe Camera Raw helps me fix most of my photos to a level where I'm happy with them.

It's a basic program, but simple to use, and the results of editing it never really result in too much pixelation or noise, etc. My edits usually consist of tweaking the exposure (usually to overexpose from the original shot, if it was taken in darkness). After I make my edits, I save the photo as a Jpeg and I keep the RAW file as it is. Any more editing is done on the Jpeg file.

One of the biggest reasons I use Camera RAW, and RAW in general, is the simple changing of the white balance.

If Adobe Camera Raw ceased to exist, then I'd just switch back to Jpeg shooting. In my opinion, any difference in quality between the two file types is negligible and based on the technical information in the file, rather than actually looking at the image.

Using JPeg, my camera processes the images quicker, meaning in burst shooting mode, I can get more shots out in succession before the camera buffer stops me; and jpeg means I can get more images on my card.


That said, I'm still just learning, so maybe there's something else to Raw that I don't see or appreciate yet about it.


I am curious about printing though. If I want a billboard made up, and I have two billboards, one with a JPeg photo and one with a RAW photo, will the RAW one look better...

Thecageyone

I only switched to shooting only RAW files last year, I'll never go back to Jpeg. When I shot Jpeg I found post-processing much less forgiving. The camera has already processed for you basically, and you just cannot push a Jpeg file around as much as a RAW one. Think of RAW as digital negative. Jpeg is like an already processed, stripped of finer detail version.

The ability to change the WB alone makes RAW worth it. If you process your Jpegs anyway, you're robbing yourself of ultimate control.

Borderfox

Its Horses for courses, for people who work to a deadline jpeg is the answer but with more time and the need to adjust white balance after the fact then raw is the solution. If I shoot an event to print on site then I use jpeg whereas a wedding is shot in raw.

dazftw

I find using RAW I edit my photos a lot more and they just turn out bad. I understand this is just my bad editing skills but for some reason when I use jpeg I don't edit as much and the results are 10x better..

CabanSail

With a RAW file you have all the data that is captured by the sensor. It's from this data set that the Jpeg is extracted. How you use that data is up to you. Just because you have it doesn't mean you will get the most out of it. I know that since I have learned more about editing I have revisted old RAW files and made good images, but if they were Jpeg I would not have been able to do that.

On another site there was a guy who was proud of the fact that he prints the Jpegs straight from the camera. I had a look at his stuff & the highlights were very lacking in detail and the same in the shadows. If he doesn't know any better then his expectations are low. When you see what can be brought out with good technique you will not go back.**





**The exception is when you have a deadline and have to trade some quality for speed.

Mellor

On advantage of jpeg over raw is FPS, for say sports photographers that's can be a huge edge

Paulw

I almost always shoot raw. It gives me more options when editing, when it comes to adjusting white balance and exposure, which can be needed when shooting under floodlights and in poor conditions.

If you're happy with jpg, then stick to jpg.

Shooting jpg or raw wouldn't make a difference on my workflow. Lightroom treats them almost the same.

quilmore

if you print straight from your camera (and you're happy with the results!), keep shooting jpg

RAW won't give you more resolution, but will give you the chance of overrule the camera's settings time and time again
like:
- in camera sharpening
- white balance

an extra thing you can do in raw that you can't in jpg is to recover blown highlights

these 3 things are the only things I do with raw before start being "creative" on photoshop

I haven't shot other than raw for over 2 years now, processing time not increased in more than 10% in my case, benefits are much more than that

OldGoat

Like the OP I'm new to faffing around with photography. After seeing the quality of my images I've prioritised learning to use the camera first. When I can shoot good clear pictures then I'll invest more time in improving my editing but for now jpeg does well enough. When I tuck a bit more experience under my belt I'll most likely move to RAW but for now I only have sow's ears to work with.

Prenderb

I took up a DSLR to make taking and printing photos more convenient - no film = no processing, and one can print only "the good ones."

I'm afraid that using RAW and setting up a big workflow thingy every time I download my pics means that I will a) spend more time adjusting images in post-download and b) will take less care taking the photo in the first place because "ah sure I'll fix that in PS/gimp or whatever later on." And point B is more important to me at the moment.

melekalikimaka

also get a few stops either side to play with.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Ballyman

Prenderb wrote: »

(b) will take less care taking the photo in the first place because "ah sure I'll fix that in PS/gimp or whatever later on."

You can't "fix" a photo with PS/GIMP.

You might be able to make a crap pic look a little less crap but it will still be crap.

For the vast majority all they use PS for is to colour enhance/WB change an already good pic.

PCPhoto

I've been shooting digital for about 10years ..... and rarely use RAW .... like Borderfox says ... "horses for courses"

my work requires getting an image and getting it sent out ASAP....I dont use much time in post processing (not allowed to manipulate the image for reportage work).

Prenderb

Ballyman wrote: »

You can't "fix" a photo with PS/GIMP.

You might be able to make a crap pic look a little less crap but it will still be crap.

For the vast majority all they use PS for is to colour enhance/WB change an already good pic.

Of course you are fixing it. You've underexposed an image cos you were rushing and didn't read the meter in the viewfinder, or overexposed because you did an exposure lock on something dark.... RAW gives you (probably) enough exposure latitude to fix this in many instances. Similarly for white balance. I'd rather learn to check my WB setting by taking a crap image than get away with it in processing it myself. Even where it's a well-framed, well-composed pic, you're still fixing it cos you forgot to set the WB to "indoor fluorescent."

It's rescuing a picture that, in film, you would have had a lot of trouble to make a decent print of.

There's nothing "wrong" with it, I think most people these days expect some alteration on an image when they see it, but for me, it's about taking an image not making one, until I know what the camera can do for me. And I think that'll take a while!

Even, in fairness, having framed it wrong you can crop and rotate, though you can do that with .jpg files aswell.

Hands up though, I've improved brightness of certain images I underexposed - and I loved the ability to do it. But these were with jpg files. I just don't want to come across as a luddite, I just want to get the exposure etc. right myself, in-camera rather than at the end where I'm fixing a mistake I made as an amateur photographer.

CabanSail

Well then you would hate the photo's that come straight out of my camera. I have quite a while come to the realisation that Digital Cameras are really rubbish. Don't get me wrong, I really love them, but they don't give you really good images straight from the camera. So I have adopted the approach of having a streamlined workflow and shooting for that workflow. For some time now my standard setting on may cameras is +1 EV and WB set to Flash. This generally feeds the best data to my workflow.

Not getting it right in the camera is a choice and to get good shots you still have to think about everything just as much, but the thoughts are to maximise how the workflow can process the data.

Saaron

Decided to shoot in RAW for a college project the other day, went onto CS5 and it doesn't support the RAW files from my camera!

Paulw

Saaron wrote: »

Decided to shoot in RAW for a college project the other day, went onto CS5 and it doesn't support the RAW files from my camera!

You simply have to download the latest ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) update from Adobe.

http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4924

jaybeeveedub

nobody seems to have touched on the main advanatge of RAW vs JPG, ie bit depth

Let's assume for the purposes of illustration that a digital SLR has a dynamic range of 5 stops (it's usually closer to 6 stops, but let's not quibble). When working in RAW mode, which you should be, most cameras record a 12 bit image. (Yes, we say it's in 16 bit mode, but the reality is that it's only recording 12 bits in a 16 bit space. Better than 8, but not as good as a real 16 bits would be).

A 12 bit image is capable of recording 4,096 (2^12) discrete tonal values. One would think that therefore each F/Stop of the 5 stop range would be able to record some 850 (4096 / 5) of these steps. But, alas, this is not the case. The way that it really works is that the first (brightest) stop's worth of data contains 2048 of these steps — fully half of those available.

Why? Because CCD and CMOS chips are linear devices. And, of course, each F/Stop records half of the light of the previous one, and therefore half the remaining data space available.

Within the first F/Stop, which contains the Brightest Tones: 2048 levels available (128 jpg)
Within the second F/Stop, which contains Bright Tones: 1024 levels available (64 jpg)
Within the third F/Stop, which contains the Mid-Tones: 512 levels available (32 jpg)
Within the fourth F/Stop, which contains Dark Tones: 256 levels available (16 jpg)
Within the fifth F/Stop, which contains the Darkest Tones: 128 levels available (8 jpg)

This realization carries with it a number of important lessons, the most important of them being that if you do not use the right-hand fifth of the histogram for recording some of your image you are in fact wasting fully half of the available encoding levels of your camera.

also if you record in jpg only you are discarding 4098 - 256 = 3842 levels,

this is where posterisation and visually gradients in shadows can be eliminated.... just compare the difference in discrete levels available for you darkest area of teh image

if you use jpg... just 8
if you use raw... 128....!!!

not to mention exposure latitude!!

jaybeeveedub

CabanSail wrote: »

Well then you would hate the photo's that come straight out of my camera. I have quite a while come to the realisation that Digital Cameras are really rubbish. Don't get me wrong, I really love them, but they don't give you really good images straight from the camera. So I have adopted the approach of having a streamlined workflow and shooting for that workflow. For some time now my standard setting on may cameras is +1 EV and WB set to Flash. This generally feeds the best data to my workflow.

Not getting it right in the camera is a choice and to get good shots you still have to think about everything just as much, but the thoughts are to maximise how the workflow can process the data.

have you ever gotten a really good image straight from a film camera??

jpb1974

have you ever gotten a really good image straight from a film camera??

No... you'd have to develop the film first.

But film development aside, and taking a more common sense understanding of 'straight from the camera', my answer to this question would be absolutely 'yes'.

kensutz

Like PCPhoto and Borderfox, working on deadlines and getting photos sent off means I shoot Jpg. It's a case of knowing how the camera works etc and no editing done at all except captioning.

Raw is shot about 5-10% of the time and that's only for weddings and pr shoots.

jaybeeveedub

jpb1974 wrote: »

No... you'd have to develop the film first.

But film development aside, and taking a more common sense understanding of 'straight from the camera', my answer to this question would be absolutely 'yes'.

I'm only needling you, I would shoot film every time over digital, but I do think it's misleading to suggest that there is no post shutter release work involved in getting a great print.... as you say develop... and then you have all the darkroom work....

If you've ever seen a film called "war photographer"about James Nachtwey, you'll see him spend hours with his printer getting a print for an exhibition "just so.."

and if you haven't seen it... you should... put it on your christmas list!!

Borderfox

This has come up time and time again, with the price of media so low you can shoot both raw+jpeg and make the choice of which looks best provided you have set the jpeg parameters right in camera

damiendar

When you work for other people ie a publication everything is on a deadline they always want the photos as soon as can be .
But even taken that into account, I only shoot RAW I dont find it slows things down that much.. but like PCPHOTO said you cant do much with them in PS colour correction, sharpen, dont even crop them and then uploaded to site for paper to download the file... I just like having the raw version which is then filed away on CD . I only shoot JPEG on family outings or the likes.. but as always do what works for you

charybdis

There is an advantage to shooting raw if you're going to post-process the image. Otherwise, JPEG is probably a better option.

That's really what it comes down to.

Thecageyone

Sure, if you're not processing JPEG is the better option easily. I don't get the whole 'SOOC' thing though, I can understand sports or news photographers with deadlines needing to use it to get it sent fast, but there's groups on the likes of Flickr dedicated to SOOC, like it made them better photographers because they never process. That's just silly. I actually enjoy the processing, and I have the time to do it, so RAW makes more sense for me personally. There isn't anything wrong with Jpegs, you just lose that bit of extra control.

CabanSail

jaybeeveedub wrote: »

have you ever gotten a really good image straight from a film camera??

Yes and No. They were called transparencies and you only had what was in the camera. Then again there were a lot more stuff ups and lost shots too.

Negative film would have the processing phase. Even the mini labs would do some auto corrections. So things have not changed that much.

I used to shoot mainly slides years ago. The reason was that it is hard to show a large group small prints but you can with a projector. For a lot of stuff it was record shots so most technical faults were not a problem.

Borderfox

Thecageyone wrote: »

Sure, if you're not processing JPEG is the better option easily. I don't get the whole 'SOOC' thing though, I can understand sports or news photographers with deadlines needing to use it to get it sent fast, but there's groups on the likes of Flickr dedicated to SOOC, like it made them better photographers because they never process. That's just silly. I actually enjoy the processing, and I have the time to do it, so RAW makes more sense for me personally. There isn't anything wrong with Jpegs, you just lose that bit of extra control.

But the camera processes the jpeg so technically they process?

Thecageyone

I meant more detailed processing, precision processing. The camera will only do a touch up, really.

Borderfox

You can use filters and fine tune the output settings and what comes out of the camera is really nice, for studio work using a lightmeter and careful setup the jpegs are superb

Thecageyone

Indeed you can get nice results straight off cam shooting Jpeg, or it wouldn't say much for the camera's IQ and tonal/contrast/sharpening settings.

before I shot RAW I used to lightroom my Jpeg files anyway, which is why it made total sense to switch to shooting RAW all the time. A lot of time I delete the RAW file once I have exported the processed Jpeg, as the final Jpeg is all you really need if you don't plan to re-process or print huge [I'm thinking it's better to convert from RAW to the likes of a .tif file? than a jpeg]

Borderfox

Tiff files are for large scale printing, fairly hefty to store on a large scale.

sunny2004

The simple answer to this is shoot RAW and you wont go back...

Borderfox

sunny2004 wrote: »

The simple answer to this is shoot RAW and you wont go back...

its not a simple answer, raw and jpeg are tools each with their own use

kensutz

sunny2004 wrote: »

The simple answer to this is shoot RAW and you wont go back...

Not if you're shooting say sports and need to get shots off straight away.

Saaron

Paulw wrote: »

You simply have to download the latest ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) update from Adobe.

http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4924

Thank you!

Much handier than having to use JPEG's!

sunny2004

I agree with what was said above, I am not a sports photographer so didnt consider it.. anyway, I shoot both Jpeg and Raw at the same time, only using the Jpegs to view and then select the raw files I want...

I have not suppied a file directly from the Jpeg in about 2 years...

Nforce

If you're confident that you can capture a perfect image then use jpeg...if you want to tweak/post process then RAW would suit better.:)
Remember that Jpeg is a "lossy" image format that degrades each time you edit it.

kelly1

Hello, just a few more technical details for you (and some repetition)

- with raw there is no loss of detail because it isn't compressed like jpeg.

- JPEG is an 8-bit image whereas raw is usually 12 to 14 bit. This is important when you're doing heavy manipulation of tones eg. with levels and curves. Doing this on a jpeg will cause "posterization" or unsmooth tonal transitions.

- raw is far more flexible when you need to adjust exposure by more than 1 stop

- Correcting white balance in jpeg can be a big problem with jpeg but you have full control with raw.

- With raw, even if the camera's histogram shows that you've blown the high-lights (over-exposed) you can still recover quite a bit of detail that's impossible with jpeg.

- JPEG is ok if you have the exposure and white balance just right.

- JPEG is fine for casual snapshots but never use for serious work.

Hope that helps a bit.

kensutz

kelly1 wrote: »

- JPEG is fine for casual snapshots but never use for serious work.

Oh really

The Snipe

Consider a RAW file like a Photoshop PSD File - the PSD contains all the layers and information on the file so that you can change individual settings on each layer - this is the same with RAW, where you can use tools to change exposure and whitebalance etc. without hassle, and requring you to go around manually changing certin areas. For example, if a digital artist creates an image in photoshop, he wouldn't just save it as a JPEG and leave it at that, he would save the origional uncompressed file too, incase there is something he wants to change its the exact same with photography.

Borderfox

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello, just a few more technical details for you (and some repetition)

- with raw there is no loss of detail because it isn't compressed like jpeg.

- JPEG is an 8-bit image whereas raw is usually 12 to 14 bit. This is important when you're doing heavy manipulation of tones eg. with levels and curves. Doing this on a jpeg will cause "posterization" or unsmooth tonal transitions.

- raw is far more flexible when you need to adjust exposure by more than 1 stop

- Correcting white balance in jpeg can be a big problem with jpeg but you have full control with raw.

- With raw, even if the camera's histogram shows that you've blown the high-lights (over-exposed) you can still recover quite a bit of detail that's impossible with jpeg.

- JPEG is ok if you have the exposure and white balance just right.

- JPEG is fine for casual snapshots but never use for serious work.

Hope that helps a bit.

All of this is fine but what if your jpeg is finished when its out of the camera, exposure correct/white balance correct/no clipped highlights

To say that jpeg is never used for serious work is naive to say the least, newspapers are full of unmolested jpegs

kensutz

Newspapers and news websites will not even look at photos that have been heavily processed. They want the images true to their nature and not portraying something completely different. There are exceptions but only in rare circumstances.

magicbastarder

XiledSniper wrote: »

Consider a RAW file like a Photoshop PSD File

is a PSD a RAW file?

Borderfox

magicbastarder wrote: »

is a PSD a RAW file?

No although I think a DNG is comparable

gsxr1

Without trying to sound stupid.

Is there a simple exercise I could do with a simple pic . Like this
THIS ONE WAS JUST SHOT IN RAW


THIS ONE WAS JUST SHOT IN JPEG


I have two shots here taken together.

What can I do to them via photo shop to make the difference apparent.
In laymens term:o

the raw shot one has more clarity but im not sure if that was due to the car headlights that where turned on in one shot and not in the other. The camera reset the apeture automatically

alexlyons

I only shoot raw.

An example as to why i do so.
I was in San Francisco in June, got a great shot of a police bike parked in the middle of the road. I had to be quick to get the shot I wanted as I was in the road myself. I got a few shots and moved out of the way (the police woman was looking at me very weirdly!).
I checked the shots a bit after and they were all, without exception, completely over exposed. I was devastated.
I got back to the hotel, uploaded the images, and imported to aperture. I dragged the exposure slider left, and the image instantly looked amazing. I'll be honest, it took an incredible amount of tweaking to get it right, but shooting in raw saved an amazing shot that so many people have commented really looks incredible.

On the other hand, I was using a friends D80, they're not the most proficient at using it and only use auto (I'm going to be teaching them when they get time). They took said camera down to their boat to photograph it in the snow a week or two ago. I had left the camera on manual and the shots came out completely over exposed (it was set to the lighting I had). There was nothing I could do to save them, they were gone, due to being JPEG. It was a perfect example of why I shoot in raw.

I don't take photos with any setting I choose and say "oh i'll fix it later", almost all shots are exposed just right. But it saves those images taken quickly and, if I'm honest, somewhat carelessly, albeit not deliberately.

Shoot RAW, you'll thank yourself someday.

CabanSail

A lot of it is done in your RAW Converter. Correct the White Balance and Exposure to bring back the detail is Shadows & Highlights. Then open as a PSD where you can process the Highlights/Shadows (contast) Saturation and Sharpness among other things.