Talk Snatcher into shooting RAW . . . ?

[Sutton Warrior]

SW, did a little package arrive yet??

 

Colin

 

Colin,

You have a PM.

SW

[Colin Brett]

I have to admit to being inspired to look at RAW again.

I have been just using jpegs recently and although I've been getting some good results [well they seem OK to me] after reading Steve's replies I have just reset the camera to RAW.

 

I have recently had an article published in Pike and Predators [December] together with plenty of images all supplied in jpeg. Also been on the front cover two months on the trot with portrait images taken from my landscape images. So I must have done something right.

 

I have been reminded that if I'm taking any sort of shots, how important it is to take portrait as well as landscape images, especially if you want them in magazines.

 

Colin

[Alnath]

I shoot raw (it isn't an acronym for anything, its just raw data) when it is critical to get it right such as weddings and portraits. The flexibility it offers with the colour balance and exposure can be a right life saviour. For air shows, sport and everyday shots ill shoot JPEG simply because of the speed and storage advantages JPEG offers as well as the huge amount of time it saves not having to convert everything. JPEG may be a lossy format but not even an Eagle could resolve the missing data on a first generation low compression image.

[Peter Sharpe]

A 10megapixel camera's RAW file will be 10mb approx and the same photo shot as a jpeg will be around 4mb <-- At this stage you've already handicapped yourself and thrown away 6mb of photo information!

 

Steve...

Surely, with that 4mp jpg, you haven't thrown away 6mp of information, because although the stored file will appear as 4mb, as soon as you open it, it will once again show as a 10mb photo. I feel convinced that many people are taking photos in RAW, then simply using a program to open them that that instantly converts them to jpg format - in effect, merely doing on their computers what the camera would have done if they shot in jpg mode.

 

Somebody mentioned that with RAW files, you could rescue "burn outs". Surely that isn't correct; if the photo was over exposed, there is nothing that you can do to repair information that was corrupted at source. If it can do that, then you might as well ignore any camera setttings apart from aperture for depth of field, then simply correct it afterwards. Mind you, I have yet to see a noticeable difference in quality between a jpg file converted from RAW and a jpg obtained as the result of using the correct camera settings in the first place.

 

I always select the best jpgs for printing and convert them to Tif format before doing any tweaking to conform with my personal preferences. Sometimes though, if the jpg is originally 20mb or more, I wont bother to convert it if it just needs a very simple adjustment. You really can't tell any difference at all.

Edited December 27, 2008 by Peter Sharpe

[Snatcher]

I feel as though I must yield to "peer pressure" on this one.I will stick at least my toe into the water!!! It will have to wait for a while though as I really must channel all of my photographic energies into finishing my photographic tour of oz first.

 

As most of you know I jumped at the chance of early retirement last March and we spent a large part of the summer living in our static caravan on the Mull of Galloway - where my internet access is limited.For this very reason I will be aiming to finish my oz "diary" by March 1st at the latest as this is when our caravan park opens again.

 

I promise to look into RAW as soon as the diary is complete

 

I know that this is strictly but whom amongst you have not visited the Mull of Galloway - I am guessing 95% at least! It really is an undiscovered gem and a great place to chill out.It is also a photographers heaven,not to mention a fishermans paradise.Its food for thought anyway Catch ya later then,off for breckie

 

John

[Steve Randles]

Surely, with that 4mp jpg, you haven't thrown away 6mp of information, because although the stored file will appear as 4mb, as soon as you open it, it will once again show as a 10mb photo. I feel convinced that many people are taking photos in RAW, then simply using a program to open them that that instantly converts them to jpg format - in effect, merely doing on their computers what the camera would have done if they shot in jpg mode.

 

True and not so true. Shoot in jpeg and things like exposure and whitebalance are preset, and set into the compressed jpeg so losing that ability, therefore losing that 6mb. The true part of your statement is people opening up the RAW in a converter just to use the image.

 

There is much that can be written about RAW file conversion, and many many things one can do to a RAW file at time of conversion but my intention was to educate not confuse and write a few lines not a novel.

 

My main intention was to get people using/shooting in RAW format first and foremost, regardless of how they edit or use the files so that later on down the line they have the ability to go back and re-process files once their RAW handling experience increases. By just shooting RAW and then using a RAW converter to open the file, people can use the format and still be in a comfortable, familiar position.

 

Why am I advising this? Because I have around 15,000 photos..shot in JPEG that I wish where in RAW format, I didn't take it on board quick enough and started shooting RAW after much reading and deliberating on the subject..and taking part in many debates on the subject too...which incidentaly still rage on today at many places online. (Google "RAW vs JPEG" for approx 450,000 results on the subject)

 

Aside from that Peter, when you convert to tif, do you also convert from 8bit to 16bit? As I assume once your edits are finished you convert back to jpeg before print?

 

Steve...

[Alnath]

This is the contents of my "photos" hard drive

 

 

How many do i wish were in raw that were shot in JPEG? None cos for everyday shooting raw is just making work for yourself. Like i said earlier if it is absolutely critical to get it right then raw all the way baby but any other time sod it, it ain't worth the effort.

[Steve Randles]

RAW is only making work for yourself if you let it, if you prefer jpeg...stick with it. If however you want flexibility use RAW.

 

Steve...

[Steve Randles]

These RAW vs JPEG comparisons will be of interest to some no doubt, draw your own conclusions and use the format you think best suits your needs.

 

RAW vs JPEG discussions have been going on for years, and will probably continue to go on for years to come, but you can do a little test all on your own.

 

Spend a day out with your camera and set it to shoot in "RAW + JPEG" so that every shot you take you have one of each. Once your home and you have the photos on your PC/MAC, open the shots in pairs (same shot, one RAW and one JPEG) into your editing software, DONT make any edits whatsoever, but view them at 100% (full size, actual pixels) and make notes of the quality of detail between the two...judge what you think is the better.

 

Now start to make a few simple edits, but do exactly the same to each photo, so if you increase colour saturation by 9 for example..do it to both and again view both at 100%, look now for colour or tone shifts or posterisation etc etc.

 

This is the real way to judge which is the better format to use and if your still happy with JPEG then stick with it.

 

Here are a few RAW vs JPEG comparisons online..many more exist via google, and I might add there are also many supporting the "JPEG is better than RAW" argument too.

 

http://michaelmistretta.com/2008/raw-vs-jpeg/

http://blog.epicedits.com/2008/04/07/raw-v...ual-comparison/

http://photodoto.com/raw-vs-jpg-print-shootout/

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial...g-follies.shtml

 

You should also be aware that some cameras apply sharpening as standard (among other things) to compressed jpegs which will make them "look better" SOOC (straight out of camera), your cameras manual should tell you if this is so, this includes and is not limited to both Nikons and Canons.

 

Steve...

[Newt]

Interesting stuff in some of those links Steve. Reminds me a little of some barbed vs. barbless discussions. Fanatical support for both extremes and some reason in the middle.