nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

When to begin shooting RAW and why?

gnolan

I've had my camera about a week at this stage and have been shooting in JPEG normal and JPEG fine. Should i really be shooting RAW and why? What are the advantages of shooting RAW?

I took a few photos yesterday in RAW: the snapshot on the LCD screen looked the same as always, and when viewed in Lightroom it looked pretty much the same too.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Overheal

Nearly all digital cameras can process the image from the sensor into a JPEG file using settings for white balance, colour saturation, contrast, and sharpness that are either selected automatically or entered by the photographer before taking the picture. Cameras that produce raw files save these settings in the file, but defer the processing. This results in an extra step for the photographer, so raw is normally only used when additional computer processing is intended. However, raw has numerous advantages over JPEG such as:

Higher image quality. Because all the calculations (such as applying gamma correction, demosaicing, white balance, brightness, contrast, etc...) used to generate pixel values (in RGB format for most images) are performed in one step on the base data, the resultant pixel values will be more accurate and exhibit less posterization.
Bypassing of undesired steps in the camera's processing, including sharpening and noise reduction
JPEG images are typically saved using a lossy compression format (though a lossless JPEG compression is now available). Raw formats are typically either uncompressed or use lossless compression, so the maximum amount of image detail is always kept within the raw file.
Finer control. Raw conversion software allows users to manipulate more parameters (such as lightness, white balance, hue, saturation, etc...) and do so with greater variability. For example, the white point can be set to any value, not just discrete preset values like "daylight" or "incandescent". As well, the user can typically see a preview while adjusting these parameters.
Camera raw files have 12 or 14 bits of intensity information, not the gamma-compressed 8 bits stored in JPEG files (and typically stored in processed TIFF files); since the data is not yet rendered and clipped to a colour space gamut, more precision may be available in highlights, shadows, and saturated colours.
The colour space can be set to whatever is desired.
Different demosaicing algorithms can be used, not just the one coded into the camera.
The contents of raw files include more information, and potentially higher quality, than the converted results, in which the rendering parameters are fixed, the colour gamut is clipped, and there may be quantization and compression artifacts.
Large transformations of the data, such as increasing the exposure of a dramatically under-exposed photo, result in fewer visible artifacts when done from raw data than when done from already rendered image files. Raw data leave more scope for both corrections and artistic manipulations, without resulting in images with visible flaws such as posterization.
All the changes made on a RAW image file are non-destructive; that is, only the metadata that controls the rendering is changed to make different output versions, leaving the original data unchanged.
To some extent, RAW photography eliminates the need to use the HDRI technique, allowing a much better control over the mapping of the scene intensity range into the output tonal range, compared to the process of automatically mapping to JPEG or other 8-bit representation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

Gerard93

Have a look at this
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/05/why-you-should/

Raw is unprocessed Data from the Camera, with JPEG there is some processing of Data by the Camera. Depends what you want to do with the picture, bear in mind that Raw files are much bigger than normal JPEG so will fill Card faster.

Overheal has explained it all ignore my post!!!

gnolan

Thanks for that.

It sounds like a lot of work has to be done to each image before it is presentable. I guess i'm wondering at this stage whether the camera would be better at processing the data than i would?

Bypassing of undesired steps in the camera's processing, including sharpening and noise reduction

Can you tell me why these are considered undesired steps? Simply because you would want to have finer control over these aspects of the processing?

To some extent, RAW photography eliminates the need to use the HDRI technique, allowing a much better control over the mapping of the scene intensity range into the output tonal range, compared to the process of automatically mapping to JPEG or other 8-bit representation.

HDR is something i intend to look into pretty soon. My understanding was that to create a HDR image, you merged several of the same shot at different exposures. Are you saying that this can be done easier in post-processing by using only one image?

kfish2oo2

Overheals post explains it all pretty well. In a nutshell, RAW gives you much more control on the post processing stage than JPEG. If you're a casual shooter who's only reason for owning the camera is casual family type shots and so on, then RAW may not be as important to you - typically, these kinds of shooters don't do much (or any) post processing. If, however, you wish to pursue photography as a serious hobby or want to eventually make money out of it, the sooner you start shooting RAW the better. Its hard to grasp sometimes, but Post Production - whatever program you use - is as important a step in the workflow process as any of your other photography tools.

Anecdotally; when I fist got my DSLR, I shot exclusively in Fine JPEG. This was fine at the time, but as I progressed I started playing with post production and following a few tutorials and I quickly realized that JPEG limits you enormously in the PP stage. There are a lot of those early shots I wish were in RAW, because just simple tweaks in Photoshop could make them much more appealing. Think of it this way - JPEG is like an MP3 and RAW is like the off-the-mic FLAC. To the casual listener, the difference isn't particularly discernible but to a musician, audiophile or sound technician the difference is massive - the FLAC is richer and - crucially - can be tweaked without damaging other aspects of the sound.

[Deleted User]

Get it when you have a RAW image editing software handy, that you want to use.

These days I shoot everything in RAW. Even random test shots, as I think the RAW-Edited Jpeg looks better than the JPeg my camera gives me.

That said, I'd been shooting JPeg only for about 18 months before I started looking at RAW. If you're new to DSLR photography, then there are other, much more pressing things to worry about than RAW.

To be honest, I think people tend to throw the word RAW around a lot in conversation because... I don't know why, actually. It makes them feel better about themselves to say they know what RAW is? Makes them look more professional? I don't know.

I do know one person that recently told me she shot RAW. She did a few football games she was saying it. I said "ah, I'd shoot JPeg in that situation, for my buffer's sake". She replied with "ah, yeah, but here's a pro-tip for you; shoot RAW AND Jpeg. That way the camera gets the detail from both formats in one go, and you can delete the RAWs when you get home, and just keep the vastly superior JPeg file!".

She also informed me of this saving a lot of space because the Jpeg file from shooting Raw+Jpeg file is smaller than the Raw one, so when I delete the raw one I'm saving HDD space.

I just nodded and agreed, and told her I couldn't wait to try it out, and thanked her (very sarcastically) for sharing her "pro-tip" with me.

Anyway, I'm just rambling way off topic now, but yeah, if you've a RAW editor on your PC already, shoot a random file and play with it, if not, don't worry about until you fully understand the photographic triangle and basic composition. Then use raw to make your great photos even better.

ditpaintball

It depends on what you are shooting. I shoot both. I shoot raw for when i am doing portraits and fashion and I shoot jpeg for when doing sports and events...or for when I know I will not be editing the shots after.

CabanSail

I would suggest you shoot RAW + Jpeg as soon as you are serious about Photography. Store the RAW's away if you do not know how to process them and use the Jpeg's for now. Later on you can revisit the RAW's and get a lot more out of them.

The question is .... When do you stop shooting in Jpeg?

gnolan

I'm more than willing to shoot RAW and process each one. I use both Lightroom and Photoshop. I think Lightroom may be a little more friendly when it comes to processing, less detailed than PS but probably a little easier.

My question is, what are the most common settings i will have to change around each time? I know each shoot is unique but, say for example, a day out in the park; what would be the most common adjustments?

The tools at my disposal with Lightroom would be:

Treatment: i'm fine with this
White balance: also fine
Exposure: also fine
Recovery: ???
Fill light: ??? i assume how white the whites are
Blacks: ??? i assume how black the blacks are
Brightness: this is where i begin to get confused, i thought this might have been covered by exposure
Contrast: think i'm alright here
Tone curve: I don't know about this, but it seems to be more about contrast
HSL: Fine tuning of color??
Split Toning: No idea what this is
Detail: Think i'm ok with this, sharpening and the like
Lens corrections: Compensating for distortion maybe?
Effects: Vignettes
Camera calibration: ???

So two questions: does lightroom have enough processing tools to successfully edit most RAW images, and how many of these will i need to realistically use?

5uspect

Recovery: ???

Digital sensors are a bit non-linear. Their response to light tends to trail off logarithmically towards the highlight end. However we want a nice linear response to the light we're shooting to get a realistic looking shot.
You don't want your midtones looking brighter than the brighter parts of the scene.

Since the camera decides what goes on when you shoot JPEG the response is linearised and the relatively wide dynamic range at the highlight end is compressed and clipped. With RAW it is preserved. So you can use some of that extra highlight information hidden by the linearisation to "recover" detail and seemingly blown detail.

Fill light: ??? i assume how white the whites are
Blacks: ??? i assume how black the blacks are
Brightness: this is where i begin to get confused, i thought this might have been covered by exposure
Contrast: think i'm alright here
Tone curve: I don't know about this, but it seems to be more about contrast
All of these are modifications of the histogram. Contrast is one thing you can achieve by altering the distribution of the intensity of an image.

HSL: Fine tuning of color??
Split Toning: No idea what this is
A lot of these can be done with any digital image in PS. Having them available in RAW is a non destructive way to maintain maximum quality since you have so much more colour information.

Detail: Think i'm ok with this, sharpening and the like
Lens corrections: Compensating for distortion maybe?
Yes, and chromatic aberration
Effects: Vignettes
Camera calibration: ???
You can calibrate your camera and lenses to correct for lens distortion, dust, color shifts etc.

kfish2oo2

The lens correction tool can also be used creatively to add in distortion like vignetting or spherical distortion (for a slight fish-eye look) because sometimes that makes the shot look just a little more interesting. Maybe a discussion best saved for another time though

gnolan

Thanks everyone for the replies. I imagine i'll shoot in RAW from now on and i might post up a C&C thread in the next few weeks to get some feeback

goldseeker

Couple days ago did research on net about raw and jpeg. Did not want to start new thread.So found this.I was always raw shooter,I am a little bit geek myself,like technical stuff. Was encouraging my friends use only raw.It is obvious that raw is much better,more colours, not compressed,so much more information in that called digital negative,so much flexibility.
But yesterday did myself some comparison,I was disappointed, not that much difference between those two

I can say that raw is just better if you want to fix photos,it is too dark,or too bright.But if you have properly exposed photo,and just doing adjustments then with lithroom or photoshop, then there is not that much difference. Had a photo made in raw and jpeg at the same time in camera.Loaded on lightroom, made a lot of adjustments on raw,just to push that photo to the limit,copied settings on jpeg. Zoomed to the single pixel,compared two,was expecting bigger difference, very difficult to see any differences. Looks almost completely same,just slight slight pixelation to the single pixel, which is not really important.
Any way,raw is better,that for sure, but probably we need better technology to use that betternes, better screens,with wider dynamic range.Maybe new software.If you shoot just around and about,do not bother with raw,just waist of your time.
It is like having formula 1 car, and driving your kids to school in ballyfermot thru ramps on the road.In the end you will achieve same result as driving them with fiat punto. You will see difference only if you jump on a highway

sineadw

goldseeker wrote: »

Couple days ago did research on net about raw and jpeg. Did not want to start new thread.So found this.I was always raw shooter,I am a little bit geek myself,like technical stuff. Was encouraging my friends use only raw.It is obvious that raw is much better,more colours, not compressed,so much more information in that called digital negative,so much flexibility.
But yesterday did myself some comparison,I was disappointed, not that much difference between those two I can say that raw is just better if you want to fix photos,it is too dark,or too bright.But if you have properly exposed photo,and just doing adjustments then with lithroom or photoshop, then there is not that much difference. Had a photo made in raw and jpeg at the same time in camera.Loaded on lightroom, made a lot of adjustments on raw,just to push that photo to the limit,copied settings on jpeg. Zoomed to the single pixel,compared two,was expecting bigger difference, very difficult to see any differences. Looks almost completely same,just slight slight pixelation to the single pixel, which is not really important.
Any way,raw is better,that for sure, but probably we need better technology to use that betternes, better screens,with wider dynamic range.Maybe new software.If you shoot just around and about,do not bother with raw,just waist of your time.
It is like having formula 1 car, and driving your kids to school in ballyfermot thru ramps on the road.In the end you will achieve same result as driving them with fiat punto. You will see difference only if you jump on a highway

Yeah, or if you print it. In which case the jpeg image has banding and all sorts of distortion due to compression

sineadw

Or actually, if you have any sort of fine gradation in your image either. That's more than visible on screen.

You could also think of it this way: Buying a good camera and then shooting jpeg is like buying a formula one car and then driving your kids to school through Ballyfermot through ramps on the road. You can do it, and more power to you, but it's kind of missing the point.

stcstc

actually, depending on size, a jpg can be fine to print from

also a lot of the high volume prolabs systems actually render your images to jpg for printing anyway.

i dont, i can print from 16bit tiffs, but i know of a few that do

but like i say if its 12*8 or less not very many people could tell

sineadw

stcstc wrote: »

actually, depending on size, a jpg can be fine to print from

also a lot of the high volume prolabs systems actually render your images to jpg for printing anyway.

i dont, i can print from 16bit tiffs, but i know of a few that do

but like i say if its 12*8 or less not very many people could tell

Yeah, got some done from jpeg in the workshops even at A3 and they were grand

(and some where there were printing issues). But I'd like to always have the option of printing bigger. Shooting raw means you always will, no matter what you do with the files after that. At least if you have the raw file you can! Only time I'd shoot jpeg is maybe sport. Which I don't shoot

stcstc

i agree, i wasnt suggesting its a reason to shoot JPG. more just correcting peoples perceptions of JPG.

mind in saying that photographers are terrible for just wanting big big and bigger, when thats not always the best route

sineadw

But big is beautiful!

Yeah I know.. some exhibitions doing the rounds where the prints are just big for the sake of being big as far as I can see.

Anyway.. yeah, shoot raw unless there's a real issue with speed. They only require minimum processing, and you can use an assortment of free tools for it. Better to have and not need than to need and not have

stcstc

yea big isnt always beautiful

just look at the size of some of the art pieces in the RHA exhibition, that look stunning but might only be 6 or 8 inches square

oh and they sell for a fortune!!!

i am not complaining photographers want big, as i earn my living from it

recently having printed things like

8Ft * 4Ft canvas
6*4 canvas
1.5*1m block mounts

but some of the most stunning stuff is is much much smaller

sineadw

My mate's mam had a teensy shot in the RHA (image of a bed, top of the stairs) that was just lovely

And currently working on a project that involves images printed at maybe 10cm x 10 cm

BlastedGlute

Im getting really pissed off at RAW the last few days. If I import a RAW into lightroom it automatically corrects some things about the image (histogram reads "calculating" until it eventually pops my image up with the changes made) By the way it also seems to add a tonne of noise to my images. But if I import a JPEG it just leaves it as is! Like I say, really starting to piss me off. Ill be shooting RAW+ JPEG from now on

The Snipe

BlastedGlute wrote: »

Im getting really pissed off at RAW the last few days. If I import a RAW into lightroom it automatically corrects some things about the image (histogram reads "calculating" until it eventually pops my image up with the changes made) By the way it also seems to add a tonne of noise to my images. But if I import a JPEG it just leaves it as is! Like I say, really starting to piss me off. Ill be shooting RAW+ JPEG from now on

Thats because your exposure is wrong - just change it yourself.

OP - Start shooting RAW when you intend on Editing And/Or printing.

5uspect

BlastedGlute wrote: »

Im getting really pissed off at RAW the last few days. If I import a RAW into lightroom it automatically corrects some things about the image (histogram reads "calculating" until it eventually pops my image up with the changes made) By the way it also seems to add a tonne of noise to my images. But if I import a JPEG it just leaves it as is! Like I say, really starting to piss me off. Ill be shooting RAW+ JPEG from now on

You've probably inadvertently set up a camera calibration somewhere.

BlastedGlute

Thwew's a lot of other people out there having the same issue with lightroom, so I know it's not just myself.

Basically a RAW(canon raw or nikoin NEF) has an embeded JPG that shows up during the preview before the original RAW image is then displayed. What would is the point in on camera presets if lightroom automatically removes them to basically just show what your sensor took at the time of shooting.

*EDIT* I've just made a screenshot video to show you guys what I mean,will post it here when it's uploaded.

BlastedGlute

BlastedGlute wrote: »

Thwew's a lot of other people out there having the same issue with lightroom, so I know it's not just myself.

Basically a RAW(canon raw or nikoin NEF) has an embeded JPG that shows up during the preview before the original RAW image is then displayed. What would is the point in on camera presets if lightroom automatically removes them to basically just show what your sensor took at the time of shooting.

*EDIT* I've just made a screenshot video to show you guys what I mean,will post it here when it's uploaded.

Ok video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eARCm5nrAtU

ozymandius

What you are describing is how Lr works. It shows the JPG preview as thumbnail, which reflects the camera settings. Then when you select the image in Lr it displays the thumbnail until it generates the preview image - histo show calculating at this point. Then it displays the unadulterated RAW image. Depending on what camera profile is selected in Lr, and what profile is selected in camera, these can can look very different.

For Nikon users ViewNX/CaptureNX does apply the camera profiles to the NEFs, so these will look more like expected.

Can't recall what profile is the default - but you should select one which is more to your liking and, along with some other tweaks, make it your default. That's in the Develop module (very bottom) - use Shift + Reset to set default.

Note also that you can generate the preview images at Import time - up to 1:1, but it'll take ages and eat disk space.

BlastedGlute

Yeah I gather that, as I said pretty much exactly what you just said above my previous post.

Anyway that's pure ****e, if I wanted the RAW jpeg with no on camera settings applied then i'd just turn off those settings and shoot standard. Anyway, ill now be opening the image in the eos software, make whatever little RAW adjustments I want to. Then send it to photoshop. This will convert it to TIFF with no compression and retaining the on camera settings I shot with in the first place. Then I can save the file and open it up in lightroom and it wont make these changes.

As for previewing at a live session, I'll have bridge only display the JPEG as I will now be shooting RAW+JPEG, but the jpeg will only be for a preview situation to work out lighting and colours etc.

Lightroom is great but you cant just drop your RAW straight in there, you have to work around it so it wont show you this rubbish looking, EXTREMELY noisey version of your desired photo.

sineadw

Huh? I'm not getting you.. what you're describing is raw. Which is exactly what raw is..

challengemaster

You more than likely (as already said) have some camera calibration settings being applied somewhere. Take a look in LR, you need to scroll down the side panel until it pops up, IIRC it's the last box (possibly in the develop module) its been ages since I've used LR..

These days I just use bridge for organising and PS for editing...