# "Why You Should be Shooting RAW" - Story on wired.com



## astrostu (May 20, 2008)

Just saw this tonight.  I think it makes some good points.



> Theres some confusion as to what the RAW photo format actually is, and, like any good photographic fact, it can incite forum flame wars as quickly as the mention of the words Leica and Bokeh in the same sentence. Although it comes in various flavors -- seemingly one for every different camera model -- RAW is essentially the raw data from the cameras sensor, hence the name.
> 
> If your camera has a RAW setting, you should be using it, no excuses. Heres why.
> 
> ...


----------



## Crosby (May 20, 2008)

Sounds like someone lives in a world where everyone has all the time in the world to post process every picture... that or they are trying to sell you some photoshop software. Not to mention my pp skills are lacking. I wonder if those hackers can hack me a copy of some pro photoshop software:er:


----------



## Boz Mon (May 20, 2008)

Crosby said:


> Sounds like someone lives in a world where everyone has all the time in the world to post process every picture... that or they are trying to sell you some photoshop software. Not to mention my pp skills are lacking. I wonder if those hackers can hack me a copy of some pro photoshop software:er:





Are you saying that you want a copy of Photoshop?


----------



## manaheim (May 20, 2008)

Crosby said:


> Sounds like someone lives in a world where everyone has all the time in the world to post process every picture... that or they are trying to sell you some photoshop software. Not to mention my pp skills are lacking. I wonder if those hackers can hack me a copy of some pro photoshop software:er:


 
I actually tend to tell new people to shoot JPEG until they can't seem to get a shot to look the way they wanted it to (like due to discoloration from incandescant lights or something) and THEN switch to RAW.  Gives on a much better understanding of the camera's limitations AND why RAW is so powerful and critical.

That said, it's not so much an issue of time as pickiness.  I had a number of images absolutely RUINED because the camera made some bad determinations... or because I was a bit off on my exposure... or... or... or...

Shooting RAW saves your arse from these kinds of things.  If you're not that picky, or ok with buggering an otherwise awesome shot now and again (and likely more often than you would expect), the JPEG away... but the minute you get angry at your camera for ruining a shot, you should switch to JPEG asap.


----------



## bahandi (May 20, 2008)

manaheim said:


> I actually tend to tell new people to shoot JPEG until they can't seem to get a shot to look the way they wanted it to (like due to discoloration from incandescant lights or something) and THEN switch to RAW.  Gives on a much better understanding of the camera's limitations AND why RAW is so powerful and critical.
> 
> That said, it's not so much an issue of time as pickiness.  I had a number of images absolutely RUINED because the camera made some bad determinations... or because I was a bit off on my exposure... or... or... or...
> 
> Shooting RAW saves your arse from these kinds of things.  If you're not that picky, or ok with buggering an otherwise awesome shot now and again (and likely more often than you would expect), the JPEG away... but the minute you get angry at your camera for ruining a shot, you should *switch to JPEG* asap.



switch to RAW, you mean?

is the software that came with the camera adequate in editing RAW files? or do i need to look into photoshop? personally, i still need a lot of work getting exposures right before i even want to start 'processing' my pictures


----------



## tirediron (May 20, 2008)

Hmmm...  well, here's my $00.02 worth; your opinion may vary.  

If you're taking a _photograph_ then shoot RAW.  If you're taking a _picture_ shoot .jpg or .tif.  What's the difference?  [As I define it] a photograph is something that you compose, take time over and for which you have a specific end result.

A picture is simply something that you snapped on the spur of the moment, family at a picnic, that sort of thing.  

Crosby mentioned software; there's NO excuse for not using RAW files because you can't afford the latest software.  There are freeware applications.  Pixmatic's "RAWShooter Essentials" is a very good freeware RAW handler, and the GIMP (www.gimp.org) is an outstanding freeware photoshop-style application.

Bottom line:  If you intend to do any serious post-processing, shoot RAW.


----------



## Mystwalker (May 21, 2008)

I'm not sure what to do with RAW (yet), nor do I have time to process all the raw files into something costco.com will print for me.

But I shoot in RAW+JPEG, just in case.


----------



## Iron Flatline (May 21, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> I'm not sure what to do with RAW (yet), nor do I have time to process all the raw files into something costco.com will print for me.
> 
> But I shoot in RAW+JPEG, just in case.


Smart.


----------



## Mav (May 21, 2008)

blah blah blah... RAW this, RAW that, blah blah blah

I'm convinced that all of these "pro-RAW" editorials are nothing but a scam to keep the memory card and storage markets afloat, along with propping up the RAW processing software companies.  Click the "Why RAW" thread in my sig, but lets have a quick JPEG review...

You _CAN_ do plenty of post processing on JPEGs with little to no loss of quality.
You _CAN_ adjust white balance with little to no loss in quality.
You _CAN_ recover shadow detail with little to no loss in quality.
You _CAN_ push underexposed shots by 2 or even 3 stops with little to no loss in quality.
You _CAN_ make even fairly aggressive adjustments with little to no loss in quality.
You _CAN_ re-save two or even three times at high quality settings with little to no loss in quality.
You _CAN_ get software that's setup to handle JPEGs well that won't save over your original file and won't even touch a non-original file.

*You CAN NOT recover blown highlights in JPEG.*  That's its only real downfall for me.  And that's why when I'm in a serious photo-journalist type situation where the light might be difficult and I know I won't be able to keep up with my D80's inconsistent meter, I switch over to RAW.  It's saved me a few times.  Once a lot, and another time a little, but I was still able to do pretty darn well with the JPEG.  This is just for my style though.  If you're more the graphic artist type (where's Arch), yes, by all means shoot RAW.


I shot some RAW + JPEG tonight on a sunset.  It was fairly boring so I tried to see how much I could crank them up with pretty aggressive adjustments in post.  At the end, looking at both the RAW and JPEG shots on my calibrated screen at 100% I could just barely see some posterization in the JPEG shot that I couldn't in the RAW.  It was a blind test.  I didn't know which file was which, but I _was_ able to pick out the RAW, but only if I pixel-peeped at 100%.  When it came down to it though, I still liked the in-camera processed JPEG better.  The colors and tones and some other things just plain looked better than the RAW.  So in the end the JPEG file once again got the nod.  It's not surprising to me that some software reps at the recent trade shows have admitted off the record that they really can't keep up with all of the in-camera processing that the latest bodies are doing these days.  Automatic dynamic range adjustments, automatic CA correction, etc.

Was going to post my original vs RAW vs JPEG shot, but Fotki managed to completely hose up the JPEG that I processed from RAW - had some weird color shift and not going to screw with it anymore. 


And this whole attitude that JPEG shooters only take 'pictures', but RAW shooters take _photographs_ is nothing but bull****.  Sorry.


----------



## Sidewinder (May 21, 2008)

I can only speak out for using RAW.
Once you've integrated the RAW processing into your workflow, you can also do quick adjustments for photographs that are not that critical, so if you have a bunch of RAW photographs that don't need individual processing each, you can apply a preset way of developing to all of them at once and thus won't spend hours messing around with an individual photograph. 
However, once you want to really invest some time into re-working a certain shot, you'll be glad you have the raw file.
Of course, one can argue, if you really have to shoot the next family picnic in RAW, but as I said, if there is no special treatment needed, it's easily possible to process a whole bunch of them with presets.

Sebastian

P.S. Since I am basically only shooting in black & white, I have really embraced the RAW format, I don't want to use the camera presets for converting into black & white, because if I do it manually in Lightroom or Photoshop afterwards, I have much more control over the whole process. RAW comes in handy here, because I get all the unprocessed data and as a result far better black & white photographs, than with jpegs that are either converted by the camera right away or that I convert into black & white afterwards.


----------



## tirediron (May 21, 2008)

Mav said:


> blah blah blah... RAW this, RAW that, blah blah blah...
> 
> <snipped>
> 
> ...


 

First, if a highlight is blown, it's blown.  You can't recover it in RAW, .jpg, or .bmp or any other format.  It's gone, vamoosed, done like dinner.  RAW however does allow you to recover a great dynamic range than jpg.  

The chief objection to jpg is that it is a lossy format.  That is, each time you open it, edit it, and then save it, you lose a little more data.  Considering I sometimes push an image through the mill a half-dozen or more times trying different things, that can leave the final result (if shot in .jpg) looking less than ideal.

Also,  I did not say that only RAW shooters take photographs and jpg shooters take pictures, and I'm sorry if it came out that way.  I was suggesting that if you want to take a photograph (per my definition in the post) then RAW is a better format [IMHO].  If you're happy with .jpg, great.  My belief is that since a Large, Fine .jpg on my camera weighs in at 5-7Mb and a 12 bit RAW at 20, then there has to be something useful in all that extra data.


----------



## manaheim (May 21, 2008)

Mav said:


> blah blah blah... RAW this, RAW that, blah blah blah
> 
> I'm convinced that all of these "pro-RAW" editorials are nothing but a scam to keep the memory card and storage markets afloat, along with propping up the RAW processing software companies. Click the "Why RAW" thread in my sig, but lets have a quick JPEG review...


 
Conspiracy theories? Come on, mav... Do you suppose us photogs pushing it are getting big kickbacks from Lexar for the extra $50 someone spent on the mem card 2x the size of the one they were originally going to purchase? :er:

That's more than a little silly.

If you don't see a benefit from raw, personally, fine... I would put you in the "less picky" bucket, and congrats to you for it. 

Me, personally... I don't trust the camera to do things right and it is a FACT that when recording the image to jpeg that the camera tosses out the data "you don't need". It's gone. Gone gone _gone_. And no matter how much fiddling is ever going to get back the picture you COULD have had at the same quality you could have had. (if you can even get the pic)

I have about 50 pictues from one session that were RUINED by incandescant street lights. This is exactly the time I realized I needed to shoot raw. Here is one of the ones that wasn't _SO_ bad, and even it is a total train wreck.







See all that hideous yellow? See the poor exposure where shadows are lost? Yeah. RAW would have made that far less of a problem, and possibly even a non-issue. JPG? No way. That info was GONE.

RAW has a very real and distinct purpose.  Use it if you care that your pictures are as good as they can possibly be.  Period.


----------



## SBlanca (May 21, 2008)

to be honest i haven't spent a lot of time shooting in raw. raw is a million times better, im quite the purist, i hate it when people make ridiculously good photos on photoshop because there's no talent, and as someone says you should be able to compose the shot. but the advatages of raw over jpeg in my situation are that instead of taking 30 shots and keeping a good one you take 3 and keep 1 good one..its actually more of a purist approach because you can actually take a raw shot and not change it at all....this is obviously more pure than putting a lot of stuff on in-camera. in reality, raw and jpeg is roughly the same, thing is in raw you apply things like white balance etc after taking the shot, so its not more cheating than jpeg..

i dunno, if i see theyre just shots that i don't want to put a lot of importance into i'll shoot jpeg, but stuff im serious about, raw all the way


----------



## Village Idiot (May 21, 2008)

Crosby said:


> Sounds like someone lives in a world where everyone has all the time in the world to post process every picture... that or they are trying to sell you some photoshop software. Not to mention my pp skills are lacking. I wonder if those hackers can hack me a copy of some pro photoshop software:er:


 
I shoot RAW regardless of whether I shoot 5 or 500 photos. First of all, if you shoot correctly, you don't have to process anything. There's also Light Room, which will add any adjustments you want and export the files in any format you want.


----------



## Jeff Canes (May 21, 2008)

Do not agree with the &#8220;Wired&#8221; article. Absolute statements are absolutely not absolute. Except for this one.:lmao: There is a time and place for each tool used in photography.


----------



## audiobomber (May 21, 2008)

manaheim said:


> See all that hideous yellow? See the poor exposure where shadows are lost? Yeah. RAW would have made that far less of a problem, and possibly even a non-issue. JPG? No way. That info was GONE.
> 
> RAW has a very real and distinct purpose. Use it if you care that your pictures are as good as they can possibly be. Period.


 
Jpegs can be edited, just not to the same extent. You could do better, it was hard to process without knowing what the original scene looked like.


----------



## bhop (May 21, 2008)

When I first tried RAW files, I had a hard time getting them to look like I wanted compared to out of the camera jpgs.  Once I had it figured out, there's really no going back for me.  I only shoot raw, there's just no comparison.  



Crosby said:


> Sounds like someone lives in a world where everyone has all the time in the world to post process every picture...



Personally, I do PP every picture I take.  Keepers anyway...  It might take a little longer, but I get the results I want because of it, and once you get used to it, it doesn't take very long at all.


----------



## someguy5 (May 21, 2008)

Mav said:


> I'm convinced that all of these "pro-RAW" editorials are nothing but a scam to keep the memory card and storage markets afloat, along with propping up the RAW processing software companies.  Click the "Why RAW" thread in my sig, but lets have a quick JPEG review...



Read it, and I think the most attractive feature for me is white balance correction...  So many of my night/indoor shots are ruined because of this.  Now I have a reason to use RAW.:thumbup:


----------



## PhotoDonkey (May 21, 2008)

Well, I'm convinced to at least try RAW.  If I'm going out with the fambly and need to be able to take alot of pictures, I can always switch to JPEG.

I'll probably start out shooting both, since my camera has that feature.


----------



## Crosby (May 21, 2008)

Wow, what a thread... Ok, I'm convinced to shoot Raw, when I'm ready. I don't think I am ready yet since I'm still trying to practice on composing the shots. And I like to take a lot of shots. 

I award the best advice to manaheim, :king:
"I actually tend to tell new people to shoot JPEG until they can't seem to get a shot to look the way they wanted it to (like due to discoloration from incandescant lights or something) and THEN switch to RAW."


----------



## dEARlEADER (May 21, 2008)

I shoot both....

-In camera I only shoot RAW
-I import the RAW files using ViewNX
-I immediately convert them to high quality JPEG
-At the end of each month I burn the RAW's to disc for safe keeping and delete them from the drive

I mostly nail my in camera settings so what little editing I choose to do can be done with the jpeg.  I also have the surety of having all the RAW files just in case, or for sometime in the future.  Although I rarely use them.

I don't like the hype on RAW vs JPEG and I find myself swinging back and forth on the debate.  So I hedge my bets and have both.


----------



## PhotoDonkey (May 21, 2008)

Ok, as a test I shot some pictures in both RAW and JPEG formats (my camera has a feature that allows all pictures to be saved in both formats).  After looking at the results, I'm sold.  RAW images, unprocessed, appear to be slightly more crisp than JPEG.  That alone is convincing.

I'll probably still shoot JPEG under certain circumstances (such as when I know I'll be taking a lot of photos before I will have a chance to back them up to PC), but at the very least I'll continue to shoot both if not strictly RAW.


----------



## Mav (May 22, 2008)

tirediron said:


> First, if a highlight is blown, it's blown.  You can't recover it in RAW, .jpg, or .bmp or any other format.  It's gone, vamoosed, done like dinner.  RAW however does allow you to recover a great dynamic range than jpg.
> 
> The chief objection to jpg is that it is a lossy format.  That is, each time you open it, edit it, and then save it, you lose a little more data.  Considering *I sometimes push an image through the mill a half-dozen or more times trying different things*, that can leave the final result (if shot in .jpg) looking less than ideal.


Well there you go.  I use software that lets me do just about everything I need to in a single step, it never over-writes the original file so if I want to go back and re-do I can and I'm still starting from the same point.  Once in awhile I need to do some plug-in stuff on top of that in another program, which results in at most a whopping two different saves.  I've specifically tested this seeing where I start to truly see quality degradation.  Going by what you read on the Internet a lot of people make it sound like you're going to have bad artifacting and horrible quality after a single save, but that's exaggerated and blown out of proportion too.  Saving three times at high quality settings is about my limit.  At that point if I blow an image up to 600% on my screen and compare it with the original, I can almost convince myself that I'm starting to see artifacting and other JPEG quality issues.  But only if I have my nose into an image at 600%, only if I'm looking for them, and only if convince myself that I really am seeing it.  So if I wanted to do more than 3 steps worth of post-processing, yeah you might as well just be shooting RAW, and dumping to TIFF or whatever immediately.



tirediron said:


> Also,  I did not say that only RAW shooters take photographs and jpg shooters take pictures, and I'm sorry if it came out that way.  I was suggesting that if you want to take a photograph (per my definition in the post) then RAW is a better format [IMHO].  If you're happy with .jpg, great.  My belief is that since a Large, Fine .jpg on my camera weighs in at 5-7Mb and a 12 bit RAW at 20, then there has to be something useful in all that extra data.


The JPEG saves what you "need" and discards what you don't.  It's entirely dependent on your style and what sort of PP work you like to do as to whether it'll be useful to you or not.  For most people out there (not just people on these forums) it's not and JPEG is fine.  I don't even use Fine JPEG settings.  Normal is good enough.  Heck even Basic is good enough.


----------



## djacobox372 (May 22, 2008)

SBlanca said:


> to be honest i haven't spent a lot of time shooting in raw. raw is a million times better, im quite the purist, i hate it when people make ridiculously good photos on photoshop because there's no talent, and as someone says you should be able to compose the shot. but the advatages of raw over jpeg in my situation are that instead of taking 30 shots and keeping a good one you take 3 and keep 1 good one..its actually more of a purist approach because you can actually take a raw shot and not change it at all....this is obviously more pure than putting a lot of stuff on in-camera. in reality, raw and jpeg is roughly the same, thing is in raw you apply things like white balance etc after taking the shot, so its not more cheating than jpeg..
> 
> i dunno, if i see theyre just shots that i don't want to put a lot of importance into i'll shoot jpeg, but stuff im serious about, raw all the way


 
It takes no talent to create a ridiculously good photo in photoshop??? 

If an image is good it's good, how it gets there is a technicality.


----------



## Mav (May 22, 2008)

manaheim said:


> Conspiracy theories? Come on, mav... Do you suppose us photogs pushing it are getting big kickbacks from Lexar for the extra $50 someone spent on the mem card 2x the size of the one they were originally going to purchase? :er:
> 
> That's more than a little silly.


I wasn't directing that comment at individual photogs, so thanks for taking my comments out of context.  It was directed specifically at online and print magazines, who accept advertising money from none other than storage companies looking to sell you more space, and software companies looking to sell you more software.  What sort of editorial angle do you think those companies would go for?  Getting it right the first time straight off the camera, no or minimal post-processing, and JPEG so that you don't need larger storage investments?  





manaheim said:


> If you don't see a benefit from raw, personally, fine... I would put you in the "less picky" bucket, and congrats to you for it.


I'm plenty picky.  I just don't consider extremely minor differences that you'll never be able to see in actual prints to be a reason to shoot RAW.  And since I try to get things right the first time right on the camera, that minimizes my need for RAW even further. 



manaheim said:


> Me, personally... I don't trust the camera to do things right and it is a FACT that when recording the image to jpeg that the camera tosses out the data "you don't need". It's gone. Gone gone _gone_. And no matter how much fiddling is ever going to get back the picture you COULD have had at the same quality you could have had. (if you can even get the pic)


If your camera has sucky JPEG outputs then that's certainly true, but I have no complaints about my D40 and D80.  They have _never_ bombed out shadow details on me in nearly 25,000 shots between them, and you can _always_ recover them if you want them more visible barring any massive technical mistake on your part.  I've said before that if I shot other systems that didn't have JPEG outputs that are as nice as my Nikons that I would be far more likely to shoot RAW, but thankfully I don't have to.  Both of my Nikons give me great JPEG outputs, and time and time again I've post-processed them side by side, and usually I can't even tell which was which when viewing both at a reasonable size and difference.  Even pixel peeping I can't always tell which is which.



manaheim said:


> I have about 50 pictues from one session that were RUINED by incandescant street lights. This is exactly the time I realized I needed to shoot raw. Here is one of the ones that wasn't _SO_ bad, and even it is a total train wreck.
> 
> http://www.wickedtiki.com/images/tpf/concstones.jpg
> 
> See all that hideous yellow? See the poor exposure where shadows are lost? Yeah. RAW would have made that far less of a problem, and possibly even a non-issue. JPG? No way. That info was GONE.


I have no clue what you were trying to achieve there, but if you had composed differently so that the lights in the background weren't getting into the shot, you could have exposed the foreground a lot better.  Or if they were unavoidable you could have simply blown them out intentionally.  You only have so much dynamic range on digital, and this is far exceeding that range.  Heck, a different time of day you might have been able to get a much better photo of the same scene too.  And you can still fix WB issues on JPEG just fine.  I've only done it a few thousand times, some of which I've print 3 feet wide, and they look great.  It really gets comical when people say you can't do stuff on JPEGs that I do all the time and get great results. 



manaheim said:


> RAW has a very real and distinct purpose.  Use it if you care that your pictures are as good as they can possibly be.  Period.


Nope.  If you care that your pictures are as good as they can possibly be, you'll try to get it right the first time straight off the camera and will wait for the best possible light in any 24 hr period to make that happen (for scenic stuff), rather than asking the camera to capture something that it really isn't capable of doing and had perhaps questionable exposure or composition to begin with, and then blaming JPEG for it.

Some people's "art" is what they're able to capture straight off the camera.  Here's one from the other night straight off of my D80, no PP whatsoever.






I _did_ shoot that one in RAW too by the way, I _did_ play around with it pretty extensively in CS3 ACR, and could only ever make it as good as the off-the-camera JPEG.  When you nail it on-camera, there's really not much you need to do _off_ the camera.  If you're trying to turn night into day, or miraculously turn horrible lighting into good lighting then you've got bigger issues than RAW vs JPEG.

Definitive statements like yours on RAW vs JPEG are complete nonsense, and you fail to respect that people have different styles, different methods of PP (or no PP), and that people are all trying to achieve different things.  Why don't you tell some of the award winning photojournalists who shoot JPEG because they have zero time to screw around in Photoshop that their photos aren't the best they can be because they didn't shoot in RAW.  Or how bout the sports shooters whose "art" is to capture something at a key moment where even a technically "flawed" JPEG captured at the right moment is a far superior image to a technically "more perfect" RAW image captured a moment too late because your buffer had filled and you missed the shot.   Some people's art is in what they capture and want to get things right on-camera.  That's me.  Other people like what I consider to be "messing around" in Photoshop doing a dozen different steps later.  Their art is what they can create after the fact.  That's not me, but I respect their art form just like I do any other.  Just because we all have DSLRs doesn't mean we should all be doing things ONE particular way.  Everybody has a unique perspective and approach and aims for different things.  Shooting in RAW may or may not make a difference depending on what you're trying to achieve.  It rarely has for me, but YMMV since everyone's approach will be different.


----------



## Garbz (May 22, 2008)

Sorry but since when does JPEG capture less dynamic range than RAW? If your camera is that retarded to apply a contrast curve that blows highlights it actually recorded maybe it's time for a new camera, but chances are the article is wrong.

There's more bit depth between the high and low parts, but there is no more dynamic range, and definitely not a few stops more.

I won't get into the whole editing debate only to say, just because you shoot in RAW doesn't mean you need to edit your photos. When you import photos in bridge or lightroom it applies it's default settings just like your camera does when it processes to jpeg.

I do no less work on my computer if I shoot jpeg, I just lose the ability to do some finer editing (colour balance is a life saver).

As for the storage issue. You guys need to go out with a roll of film some day. You may come home with less crap pictures if you're limited to taking 36 in the one outing.


----------



## Mav (May 22, 2008)

audiobomber said:


> Jpegs can be edited, just not to the same extent. You could do better, it was hard to process without knowing what the original scene looked like.
> 
> http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/5912/concstonesvd5.jpg
> 
> Sorry all, I couldn't figure out how to post the image instead of the link.


WOW!  Simply amazing what you can do with a web-sized [size=+1]JPEG![/size] :lmao: :hail:

I love these threads.  Somebody always posts a photo that they just couldn't get right and needed to shoot RAW because of, and then someone corrects the little web-sized JPEG.  Yet people still say you "can't" fix WB on JPEG.  Amazing.  The myths will never die.


----------



## Mav (May 22, 2008)

someguy5 said:


> Read it, and I think the most attractive feature for me is white balance correction...  So many of my night/indoor shots are ruined because of this.  Now I have a reason to use RAW.:thumbup:


You can easily fix indoor/night WB issues with the Photoshop Color Balance tool.  Select a white/neutral point and it'll re-map out the colors.  Or just adjust the slider until things look right.  It's about two or three clicks for me in the DxO software that I used.  I've fixed plenty of indoor shots from JPEG with messed up WB, and yes I've printed them big too.  They look great.


----------



## tirediron (May 22, 2008)

Mav, you like jpg, and it works for you.  That's great.  Enjoy.


----------



## manaheim (May 22, 2008)

^^^ +1

It's obviously pointless continuing this, I'll just make a couple final remarks.

1. That corrected image is _nowhere near _correct. I wanted it to look like the scene looked to my eyes... and that wasn't it... and there is NO way to get it from that JPEG. Trust me. 

2. I'd really love to have gotten that shot without the street lights, but that was taken right next to the village center... I can't move the gravestones OR the street lights.

3. Important to know that Nikon D series, in my experience, handles incandescant lights really poorly.

If you can get the shot consistently enough such that its "nailed" and you feel you can make corrections for when you don't such that it makes you happy... cool. As I think I said before, and as the previous poster said... it works for you. That's great. 

For all I know you're a hell of a lot better photog than I am with far better control of your equipment... or perhaps your cams handle this better than my D100 did... and my D300.

Who knows.

I find RAW indispensable. You don't.

C'est la vie.


----------



## Arch (May 22, 2008)

Oh dear oh deary me.... i suppose it was only a matter of time before this thread turned into _another_ huge RAW Vs JPEG debate. *Sigh*

My initial reaction after reading most of this thread is even tho i shoot RAW and would never consider shooting just jpeg for anything... the artical is over the top... to the point of almost saying 'if you don't shoot RAW your an idiot', which becuase i DO have respect for the 'mainly Jpeg' shooters, is just ridiculous. However, the way i work seems to still be misunderstood by some Jpeg shooters.. and here's why....

Mav, with all due respect you were doing so well up untill this point...



Mav said:


> Other people like what I consider to be *"messing around"* in Photoshop doing a dozen different steps later....  *but I respect their art form* just like I do any other.



Hmmm... surely if thats not a show of respect then a misunderstanding?!
I can't ever seem to express to a jpeg fanatic how working with RAW does not mean i am 'messing around'... nor does it mean i _need to fix_ my photos. As i have said before that is just like me naming jpeg users as 'snapshotters'... and i simply wouldn't do that.
The worst culprit of this misunderstanding is the infamous Ken Rockwell who loves to talk from his rear on this subject, and because he's google optimized people tend to be believe what he's saying is gospel.



Garbz said:


> I won't get into the whole editing debate only to say, just because you shoot in RAW doesn't mean you need to edit your photos. When you import photos in bridge or lightroom it applies it's default settings just like your camera does when it processes to jpeg.



Exactly.



Mav said:


> WOW!  Simply amazing what you can do with a web-sized [size=+1]JPEG![/size] :lmao: :hail:
> 
> I love these threads.  Somebody always posts a photo that they just couldn't get right and needed to shoot RAW because of, and then someone corrects the little web-sized JPEG.  Yet people still say you "can't" fix WB on JPEG.  Amazing.  The myths will never die.



yea sure.. for half decent screen res thats ok... try and get a decent size print tho


----------



## asfixiate (May 22, 2008)

In my software I can take a RAW file convert and save it to any DPI I want. Can you do that with jpg or its already converted to a certain DPI?

I'm just curious. I researched the actual technical difference between the two and that's why I shoot raw. Working for a company that does digital imaging has also allowed me to determine my decision.

My biggest decision factor is the amount of colors in a RAW file vs JPG.  If scientifically and technically there are more colors to work with in a RAW file you'll have better results in final output.  Its not a matter of preference on that its science(said in Ron Burgandy voice)


----------



## roadkill (May 22, 2008)

Sounds like someone lives in a world where everyone has all the time in the world to post process every picture... that or they are trying to sell you some photoshop software. Not to mention my pp skills are lacking. I wonder if those hackers can hack me a copy of some pro photoshop software
________  isohunt.com dude


----------



## roadkill (May 22, 2008)

Crosby said:


> Sounds like someone lives in a world where everyone has all the time in the world to post process every picture... that or they are trying to sell you some photoshop software. Not to mention my pp skills are lacking. I wonder if those hackers can hack me a copy of some pro photoshop software:er:



isohunt.com man, anything you want.  (sorry I messed that last quote up)


----------



## asfixiate (May 22, 2008)

I can do a lot with the software that came with my camera. I'm really only sharpening and adding color saturation though since I generally get my exposures correct.

If 9 times out of 10 I do the same thing to the shots I just select all if not most of my shots at a time and run the same tool. On a decent computer it doesn't take all the time in the world anyways. 

Spending days on one model(not person one of those ones you glue and paint) is ok why isn't editing photos.

I'm not saying what is better I'm just stating what I do. as far as speed is concerned shooting JPG will keep me from missing a large sequence but I don't really shoot that way.


----------



## manaheim (May 22, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> In my software I can take a RAW file convert and save it to any DPI I want. Can you do that with jpg or its already converted to a certain DPI?


 
You can always downsize an image without worrying about loss of quality.  It _will_ get a bit softer (to varying degrees, depending on your application) but you can correct that to a degree that usually satisfies even the pickiest of people.

If you upsize an image beyond its captured resolution, you are forcing the program to interpolate the space between the pixels and make guesses.  This will reduce image quality.  The larger you make it, the more guesses, the worse the quality.

DPI... DPI confuses me, frankly.  I haven't figured that one out yet.  DPI essentially seems meaningless to me in a digital world, but I'm sure I'm missing something.  Anyone???



asfixiate said:


> My biggest decision factor is the amount of colors in a RAW file vs JPG. If scientifically and technically there are more colors to work with in a RAW file you'll have better results in final output. Its not a matter of preference on that its science(said in Ron Burgandy voice)


 
It is an undeniable fact that raw images have more data in them than JPEG images.  Thus, working with raw, you have more data available to you that allows you to make your own decisions about what you need and what you don't.  So if you are picky and concerned about getting stuck in a situation where data, and thus options, are lost... then stay with RAW.


----------



## asfixiate (May 22, 2008)

Manheim thanks for actually realizing I was asking and not stating anything. I never tried and I'm not home to try. Now I know and knowing is half the battle...GI JOE!

A good example i have found for why having mroe data matters is taking a BMP and save it to JPG.  See the results?  

Same reason while at my current company we have to scan in greyscale because black n white doesn't cut it.  All about producing best noticeable result


----------



## someguy5 (May 22, 2008)

Mav said:


> You can easily fix indoor/night WB issues with the Photoshop Color Balance tool.  Select a white/neutral point and it'll re-map out the colors.  Or just adjust the slider until things look right.  It's about two or three clicks for me in the DxO software that I used.  I've fixed plenty of indoor shots from JPEG with messed up WB, and yes I've printed them big too.  They look great.



Thanks for the tip.



Garbz said:


> I won't get into the whole editing debate only to say, just because you shoot in RAW doesn't mean you need to edit your photos. When you import photos in bridge or lightroom it applies it's default settings just like your camera does when it processes to jpeg.



So does this end up coming out better than the in-camera conversion (if I save it to jpeg immediately afterward)?



> As for the storage issue. You guys need to go out with a roll of film some day. You may come home with less crap pictures if you're limited to taking 36 in the one outing.



All true.  :lmao: I had a 24exp roll with my SLR one day and suddenly I find my self *really* thinking before I shoot.


----------



## Socrates (May 22, 2008)

tirediron said:


> The chief objection to jpg is that it is a lossy format. That is, each time you open it, edit it, and then save it, you lose a little more data. Considering I sometimes push an image through the mill a half-dozen or more times trying different things, that can leave the final result (if shot in .jpg) looking less than ideal.


Several years ago, I did a rather unscientific test.  I took a decent jpg shot and did a "Save As" ten times, each time from the previous rather than from the original.  I didn't do ten regular saves because I didn't want to modify anything.  In any event, when finished, I was unable to visually detect the difference between the original and the tenth copy.

If your eyes are better than mine, all that is necessary is to convert the jpg to tiff or psd immediately after importing into your computer.  Then, you can resave to your heart's content.  When finished, convert to the format of your choice.


----------



## Joves (May 22, 2008)

Personally I like to shoot in RAW+JpegBasic. That way if I have pictures that need PP, I have the file to do it with. If I dont need to do post then, I have a picture to put up on the web immediately if I choose to do so. Also the RAW file can be converted to a much better Tiff for printing or whatever I choose to do with it. I could shoot in Tiff too but, I like working with RAW files in NX first.


----------



## audiobomber (May 22, 2008)

manaheim said:


> 1. That corrected image is _nowhere near _correct. I wanted it to look like the scene looked to my eyes... and that wasn't it... and there is NO way to get it from that JPEG. Trust me.


 
I don't believe there was any way to correct that image in Raw mode either. As I said, it was hard to figure out what I was trying to do because I wasn't there. Frankly I wasn't even sure of what you were intending as the subject. 



> 2. I'd really love to have gotten that shot without the street lights, but that was taken right next to the village center... I can't move the gravestones OR the street lights.


 
Well, you could have moved your feet? It looks to me that two of the lights would have been blocked if you had shifted just a bit to the right .



> 3. Important to know that Nikon D series, in my experience, handles incandescant lights really poorly.


 
All cameras handle incandescent poorly if you use the Auto wb. You have to use the Tungsten (incandescent setting) for a jpeg. I'm not sure those lights were incandescent. That's a mighty strange colour.



> If you can get the shot consistently enough such that its "nailed" and you feel you can make corrections for when you don't such that it makes you happy... cool.


 
There's no need to nail every shot just because the camera is shooting jpegs. There are easy fixes for white balance, backlighting, overexposure etc in jpeg mode. You can change highlights, shadows, fill light, saturation, tint, contrast and sharpening. It seems to be a common theme in this kind of thread that one is stuck with the camera's edition of the jpeg. It's just not so, and that's why I edited your example.

You said:


> See all that hideous yellow? See the poor exposure where shadows are lost? Yeah. RAW would have made that far less of a problem, and possibly even a non-issue. JPG? No way. That info was GONE.


 
It's clear from my edit that the shadows weren't lost, they were just underexposed. And I changed the hideous yellow to green. I'm not at all convinced that Raw would have done any better with that shot. You shook the camera which made the blown streetlights look worse. That has nothing to do with raw or jpeg. Then instead of trying to fix the photo with post-processing, you're on here saying the shot was blown because you shot in jpeg. Sorry, I'm not buying it.


----------



## JerryPH (May 22, 2008)

Another near useless RAW vs JPG thread, IMHO.  There are many here... and the same people post the same pics to try to prove (and fail) the same points.

I shoot RAW, becuase I did my own research and my own tests.  If everyone did the same, they'd all be a lot happier and there would be a little less BS in the forum today... lol.


----------



## Garbz (May 22, 2008)

someguy5 said:


> So does this end up coming out better than the in-camera conversion (if I save it to jpeg immediately afterward)?



That's in the eyes of the artist. I for one never liked the over saturated and overly warm colours the D200 produced (in any colour mode). I find lightroom's defaults give me far more neutral results with better skin tones. But that said there are a few people who do not like lightroom's default curves, and they have complained here that the camera in JPEG gives them nicer results. 

The point is RAW is RAW data which is up to interpretation. If you want to shoot RAW and absolutely love what your camera produces your best bet is RAW processing from your camera manufacturer (e.g. Nikon Capture NX).

Colour as side Lightroom does a better job out of the box with sharpening, but my camera in JPEG mode does a better job with noise reduction (not that it matters since Noise Ninja beat both of them by a wide margin).

The only truly unbiased and entirely unargueable point is that RAW gives you better results if you edit your photos in any way that adjusts brightness contrast or colour, because it has the extra bit depth that is lost in JPEG mode to eliminate guess work out of the actual target pixel colour.


----------



## manaheim (May 22, 2008)

^^ Jerry is right, but this is my first time on one of these so I'm trying to exit gracefully.

The only way to even attempt to prove this is to go out and deliberately take some pics that are way off and then do the various corrections for both RAW and JPEG and show the results.

Even that isn't going to work however.  I'm tempted to do it just to see, but I know the result is going to be someone correcting the JPEG and saying it looks amazing, when it really looks like absolute crap.

I have always felt that anyone who says "always" about things like this tends to be missing some nuance.  There is a time and place for each of these options.  The original article seems to think you should always use RAW.  It seems that some people here think that is stupid and you should always use JPEG.  Both positions seem silly.

For those that are in the JPEG camp, I guess I just would wonder why you think there is all this energy invested by professionals and the industry in JPEG?  And how JPEG being a lossy compression is a non-issue?

Even so... if it works for you, great.

BTW, for the record- that shot I posted is CRAP and I know it.  I only kept it because it was a representation of the time I learned I needed to start shooting RAW.

*manaheim out*

...and if I post on this thread again, please someone kill me.


----------



## astrostu (May 22, 2008)

Sorry!  I really didn't mean for this to turn into a JPG vs. RAW debate! 

Personally, I always shoot RAW now.  Yes, it takes longer to process each image, but I can correct stuff that I did poorly while taking the picture originally.  I especially like it because I can export all the RAW files as 16-bit TIF images, which for my purposes for my astrophotos is a must - there's simply no JPG substitute (literally, since JPG doesn't support 16-bit files).


----------



## goodoneian (May 22, 2008)

Crosby said:


> Sounds like someone lives in a world where everyone has all the time in the world to post process every picture... that or they are trying to sell you some photoshop software. Not to mention my pp skills are lacking. I wonder if those hackers can hack me a copy of some pro photoshop software:er:



i've never payed for photoshop haha


----------



## goodoneian (May 22, 2008)

i've found that shooting raw+ jpeg basic works out well for me even though it eats memory card space. 

i also never liked shooting raw untill i started using nikon capture nx, because the raw images look significantly better to me then they ever did in adobe camera raw. that's just me though, because i'm sure people like ACR better than capture nx because it's somewhat simpler to use imo

PS: also as stated before, i agree with that jpegs are good for just snapshots of stuff, but raw really works for taking thought out and composed photographs


----------



## audiobomber (May 23, 2008)

manaheim said:


> I have always felt that anyone who says "always" about things like this tends to be missing some nuance. There is a time and place for each of these options.


 
:thumbup: I completely agree.


----------



## asfixiate (May 23, 2008)

I primarily shoot in RAW due to my budget not allowing over 1,000 dollar lenses at the moment. Everything I shoot I sharpen and add saturation Less noise is created when I have more to work with. I'm generally not lightening or darkening as I expose properly and refer to histogram while shooting.

If I'm at the dog park and this one dog is there I switch to jpg in order to shoot sequences of it doing its flip. The owner holds a stick throws it up in air and dog does backflip, catches stick, and lands on feet. JPG allows 14 frames continuous where RAW allows 3.

For me I generally do the same things to my photographs and I have relatively decent computer to handle it so time is not a problem.

Every reason I shoot RAW is because I've tried and failed other ways and RAW works the best for me.


----------



## LWW (May 23, 2008)

tirediron said:


> Hmmm...  well, here's my $00.02 worth; your opinion may vary.
> 
> If you're taking a _photograph_ then shoot RAW.  If you're taking a _picture_ shoot .jpg or .tif.  What's the difference?  [As I define it] a photograph is something that you compose, take time over and for which you have a specific end result.
> 
> ...


BRAVO!

LWW


----------



## ovjamaica (May 23, 2008)

This debate has raged on long enough, but I thought I'd add my two cents to it. I'm a videographer with a great interest in photography. I recently purchased a Rebel XT and started to take photography more seriously. I think that both RAW and jpeg formats have their place, but the ability to shoot in RAW is just incredible. Do you guys realize how awesome it is to even have this available? In the video world, if you want raw sensor data you either have to do some serious hardware hacking of the camera (like these guys:  http://www.reel-stream.com/andromeda.php ) or have a very, VERY expensive setup, like a Thompson Viper (http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/products/cameras/viper/). 

It just amazes me that there is such a huge debate about this. It's not hard to see that RAW is a format that allows you more editing possibilities. Jpg still has its place though, and I'm not dismissing it. I just think that most photographers have NO idea how lucky they are to have RAW capture capabilities out of even the cheapest DSLR.


----------



## asfixiate (May 23, 2008)

Thanks for your input ovjamaica...It will probably make this thread go another page or two but thanks...lol


----------



## manaheim (May 23, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> Thanks for your input ovjamaica...It will probably make this thread go another page or two but thanks...lol


 
:lmao:

Hey, one more for the RAW boosters.
Oh crap, I said someone needs to kill me if I post on this again.
Well, I'll go update my life insurance.


----------



## asfixiate (May 23, 2008)

lol

RAW rules JPG drools.


----------



## ovjamaica (May 23, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> Thanks for your input ovjamaica...It will probably make this thread go another page or two but thanks...lol



You're most welcome.  I realize this is an endless debate. Which is just fine. I just wanted to point out that we're extremely lucky to even have the option. So, with that said, please continue with the RAW vs JPEG debate.


----------



## asfixiate (May 23, 2008)

Since you're a videographer what should I be looking for when it comes to less than 500 dollar camcorders? The only video I can currently do is on my 5mp kodak easyshare. The canon powershot s5IS takes good videos but I want longer videos.

If you want to take this private you can message me.


----------



## nicfargo (May 23, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> I shoot both....
> 
> -In camera I only shoot RAW
> -I import the RAW files using ViewNX
> ...




If you then edit those "High Quality JPEGs" I would suggest converting them to TIF instead.  I edit all my RAW files (after first going through Lightroom) in TIF.  Then if I'm putting them online I convert them to JPEG.  I never edit JPEG because it is Lossy.


----------



## asfixiate (May 23, 2008)

+1 Nicfargo


----------



## ovjamaica (May 23, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> Since you're a videographer what should I be looking for when it comes to less than 500 dollar camcorders? The only video I can currently do is on my 5mp kodak easyshare. The canon powershot s5IS takes good videos but I want longer videos.
> 
> If you want to take this private you can message me.



I'd be more than happy to talk about it. I tried to message you but apparently I'm too new to do that and you're options don't allow me to email you. You can email me or if you have Messenger you can IM me. My id is ovjamaica@live.com.


----------



## asfixiate (May 23, 2008)

just messaged you.  click my name and chose send private message.


----------



## manaheim (May 23, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> Since you're a videographer what should I be looking for when it comes to less than 500 dollar camcorders? The only video I can currently do is on my 5mp kodak easyshare. The canon powershot s5IS takes good videos but I want longer videos.
> 
> If you want to take this private you can message me.


 
pfft.  You don't need a camcorder.  That's just a scam to sell you more equipment.  All you really need to do is take pictures _wicked fast_ using your SLR and then string them together to form a movie.

Anyone who uses a camcorder is really just failing to capture the images fast enough, and is honestly just leaning on a big crutch.

noob.


----------



## asfixiate (May 23, 2008)

lol.  anyhoo

I'm getting one to capture my nephew as well as when I have kids.


----------



## ovjamaica (May 23, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> just messaged you.  click my name and chose send private message.




I tried, it's not there. I think I'm just too new. Don't have enough posts yet. I've worked with these boards before and there is usually a threshold of how many posts a new user has to have before they can use the PM system. Also, I didn't receive the message you sent, unfortunately.  

I can gladly give you pointers, I just don't want to hijack the thread.  

Oh, and manaheim's right. All of us videogs are just lazy photographers.  Actually it IS rather fascinating to have so many similarities in not just the craft of getting a good image, but in the technology of DSLR's. Many of the same problems that are encountered with DSLR's are very prevalent in the digital video world, such as highlights blowing out, noise in the image, less dynamic range, etc. Even post processing techniques (levels, curves, etc) are extremely similar. It's definitely given my learning of digital photography a big boost. It always saddens me when I see photographers and videographers fighting over things when we really have much more in common that we have different.


----------



## asfixiate (May 23, 2008)

I'm not a videographer and won't turn into that.  I just want a decent camcorder to capture videos.  Videography takes talent anyways.

I'm all photo though.


----------



## ovjamaica (May 23, 2008)

Ok, I'll just make one recommendation and then tell you a few good things to look for. Personally I lean towards something like the Panasonic PV-GS320 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/477103-REG/Panasonic_PVGS320_PV_GS320_3_CCD_Mini.html)
 because Panasonic makes great video gear and because this is an inexpensive but nice camera. Canon makes a few good ones too, but the difference is the number (and quality) of CCD's utilized in the cam. This Panasonic (and a few other models) use 3 CCD's instead of just 1. Each CCD is dedicated to its own color channel (RGB) so you get much better color in your image. It's also better in low light situations, less noise. 

A few things to keep in mind. Most of the hard drive based camcorders are a total PAIN to edit with because they use convoluted codecs that aren't very standardized. I'd recommend either getting a tape-based camcorder (miniDV is the standard) that is digital, or getting a memory-card based one that records in AVCHD. That is becoming the standard for digital based consumer video and is much easier to edit. If you're not planning on editing ever and just want to see the video, buy a DVD-based camera. I really don't recommend those for quality but they are usually the simplest to use. 

Also, the size of the CCD has a big impact on image quality. A lot of the HD camcorders in the consumer realm are using CMOS sensors, which is totally fine but they can get a bit noisy. Now before I get jumped there is absolutely nothing wrong with a CMOS sensor, but when you're talking about the world of digital video and the chip is less than 1/4" that gets noisy real fast in low light. 

Anyway, those are a few tips. Let me know if you have more specific questions. And thanks for saying videography takes talent. I think both art forms (videography and photography) take quit a bit of talent and work and can be appreciated in their own ways.


----------



## asfixiate (May 23, 2008)

This looks like the one I was messing with at best buy.  Thanks for the lesson and recommendation.


----------



## ovjamaica (May 23, 2008)

Anytime. I love to help.


----------



## bahandi (May 23, 2008)

lol... this thread's been hijacked


----------



## PhotoDonkey (May 23, 2008)

Considering the level of vitrol that seems to accompany the JPEG vs RAW debate, hijacking the thread might not be a bad thing.


----------



## ovjamaica (May 23, 2008)

Just doing my part as a n00b. While at the same trying to up my post count to get out of noob status.


----------



## Joves (May 23, 2008)

RAW VS Jpeg=


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 12, 2008)

I'm a relative newb so pardon my contribution here, but I'm pretty sure one advantage of RAW over JPEG is the ability to pull a RAW file into Photomatix Pro and be able to get an HDR file, whereas with the JPEG you would've needed to bracket.  This makes HDR action shots possible.


----------



## icassell (Jun 12, 2008)

Well, I shoot RAW, but then again, I had a darkroom when I shot 35mm. There is no question in my mind that JPG is more convenient, but I feel I have more control over the final image when I shoot RAW.  It's a matter of what you want and what time you want to invest.  We're all in this for different reasons.  Hey, get the image compsition, lighting, exposure, etc.  PERFECT at the time of exposure and it probably doesn't matter a hoot which you use.


----------



## Garbz (Jun 13, 2008)

MDesigner said:


> I'm a relative newb so pardon my contribution here, but I'm pretty sure one advantage of RAW over JPEG is the ability to pull a RAW file into Photomatix Pro and be able to get an HDR file, whereas with the JPEG you would've needed to bracket.  This makes HDR action shots possible.



What advantage? You can't create what doesn't exist. In this case the JPEGs will give the far superior result. After all a RAW file still only has the standard dynamic range of sensor unlike JPEGs which will have the High dynamic range of multiple shots. Multiple RAWs will be better of course to take advantage of 16bit processing, no extra dynamic range though.


----------



## gizmo2071 (Jun 13, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Multiple RAWs will be better of course to take advantage of 16bit processing, no extra dynamic range though.



This is my main reason to shoot Raw.
RAW files are 12bit files, JPEG's are 8bit.
My work flow is done in 16bit and saved as TIFF for printing. I've compared prints of the same image from the JPEG and TIFF files and there's enough visual quality difference for me to use the RAW/TIFF file.


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 13, 2008)

RAW files are typically either 12-bit or 14-bit, depending on the camera, as far as I know.

On the topic of RAW's dynamic range: I dunno.. everything I've read so far says that RAW files have a much higher dynamic range than JPEG files and you can pull multiple exposures from them.  RAW format is storing much more than the eye can see, obviously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAW_image_format
http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html
http://paxtonprints.com/index.php?x=process_image_multiple_times


----------



## Mav (Jun 13, 2008)

Even JPEG files can store more than your eyes can see.  Anyways there's a couple good links in the FAQ thread where this has been discussed ad nauseum.  No sense in firing up another one. LOL


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 19, 2008)

One more thing: true that if you have blown highlights, you can't recover the detail in them.  But if they're not blown, they're usually salvageable.  I don't think (but I could be wrong) that's possible with JPEGs.

So let's do a test.  See below.. first image is at EV 0.  I shot the photo in RAW, so I took it into Lightroom and dropped it down to EV -4.  Check out the detail that was regained!  I'd like to see if anyone can take that first JPEG and salvage the details as well as I did working with the RAW image.


----------



## Overread (Jun 19, 2008)

I should add that whilst I too have found the ability to change the exposure in RAW to be brilliant at saving whites that it somtimes just cannot save a white from being overexposed - so it is better I find to underexpose the shot initially and then boost exposure a little in RAW editing. Course you only use this with bright light sources so you don't have to worry about the shot not having the details in it to upp the exposure in PP - but don't go extreme with lowering the inital exposure - just enough to stop blowouts and no more.

I think you can edit JPEGs to a great amount to get similar effects, but RAW is considerably quicker and simpler to use I find -


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jun 19, 2008)

wow... i think we went a whole week without doing the RAW vs JPEG thing....


----------



## Mav (Jun 19, 2008)

MDesigner said:


> One more thing: true that if you have blown highlights, you can't recover the detail in them.  But if they're not blown, they're usually salvageable.  I don't think (but I could be wrong) that's possible with JPEGs.
> 
> So let's do a test.  See below.. first image is at EV 0.  I shot the photo in RAW, so I took it into Lightroom and dropped it down to EV -4.  Check out the detail that was regained!  I'd like to see if anyone can take that first JPEG and salvage the details as well as I did working with the RAW image.
> 
> ...


Right, if you blow out your exposure by *4-stops* on a JPEG you're totally and completely hosed.


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 19, 2008)

Mav said:


> Right, if you blow out your exposure by *4-stops* on a JPEG you're totally and completely hosed.



Sarcasm?   Well, that's why I posted the original JPEG too.. I wanna see if anyone with mad PP skills can match the 2nd photo where I regained the detail.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jun 19, 2008)

MDesigner said:


> Sarcasm?   Well, that's why I posted the original JPEG too.. I wanna see if anyone with mad PP skills can match the 2nd photo where I regained the detail.



lol... dude... if someone blowing out their subject by 4 stops they should forget about editing....put down the camera.... and slowly back away....


----------



## MDesigner (Jun 19, 2008)

Sorry..too much of a n00b to know what +4 stops looks like.  Not sure if Mav was referring to my photo or not.  I do know that there was no highlight clipping in that shot, otherwise it would've been unrecoverable.  But it was damn close.  Having shot it in RAW made it possible to recover those details that would've been lost with JPEG.  At least I'm pretty sure.. until someone proves otherwise


----------



## ANDS! (Jun 19, 2008)

> That is, each time you open it, edit it, and then save it, you lose a little more data.



"Save As" - problem solved.  



> Do you suppose us photogs pushing it are getting big kickbacks from Lexar for the extra $50 someone spent on the mem card 2x the size of the one they were originally going to purchase?



The question would be - why are you pushing it?  Did you hear it from someone else - then who did they hear it from, and so on down the line.



> and as someone says you should be able to compose the shot.



There are certain STYLES however, that just aren't going to come out of the camera; personal embelishes that define someones "photograph".  For some, straight out of the camera is fine for them, for others, the photograph is a template to move forward from.



> Read it, and I think the most attractive feature for me is white balance correction... So many of my night/indoor shots are ruined because of this. Now I have a reason to use RAW.



Knowing how to color correct is also a method that doesn't just mean you click on a switch in Camera-RAW.  It takes more time sure, however it also means you can get it JUST RIGHT.  So being able to adjust color that was flubbed from a bad white-balance isn't exclusive to RAW files.

(This is where I saw the actual post dates. . .sheesh - grave digger when you dig my grave!)



> I'm pretty sure one advantage of RAW over JPEG is the ability to pull a RAW file into Photomatix Pro and be able to get an HDR file



That is the "dirty" way of doing it with a single RAW file.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 20, 2008)

Restarting dead threads from hell should be punishable by death.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jun 20, 2008)

manaheim said:


> Restarting dead threads from hell should be punishable by death.



lol...


(thread digger) <-----


----------



## Blackbelt94 (Jul 20, 2008)

so raw or jpeg or raw/jpeg my camera has that?


----------



## icassell (Jul 20, 2008)

raw/jpeg takes up alot of room on your memory card and takes longer to dump from camera to card (if you're worried about shooting rapidly).  It's nice, however, if you want some instant gratification with the jpg and then want to go back and work it in raw later.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 20, 2008)

I often set my cam to 640x480 JPEG and full-frame RAW. 

I totally agree with this though:



manaheim said:


> I actually tend to tell new people to shoot JPEG until they can't seem to get a shot to look the way they wanted it to (like due to discoloration from incandescant lights or something) and THEN switch to RAW.  Gives on a much better understanding of the camera's limitations AND why RAW is so powerful and critical.



It's hard enough learning how to frame, compose, and expose properly without sinking yourself with 40 technical slider terms and more often than not making goo out of the image.


----------



## 93formulalt1 (Jul 20, 2008)

The only real reason that I haven't even experimented in RAW format is because I don't have any software to do any PP in after downloading my images. . . No Lightroom, no PS, nothing.  I can't see myself spending that much for Photoshop anyways, that particular program costs more than I paid for my DSLR!


----------



## Joves (Jul 20, 2008)

93formulalt1 said:


> The only real reason that I haven't even experimented in RAW format is because I don't have any software to do any PP in after downloading my images. . . No Lightroom, no PS, nothing. I can't see myself spending that much for Photoshop anyways, that particular program costs more than I paid for my DSLR!


 Didnt your camera come with any software to do it? Also there are some freebies out there but, I use CaptureNX or, CS to do mine.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jul 20, 2008)

tirediron said:


> The chief objection to jpg is that it is a lossy format.  That is, each time you open it, edit it, and then save it, you lose a little more data.  Considering I sometimes push an image through the mill a half-dozen or more times trying different things, that can leave the final result (if shot in .jpg) looking less than ideal.



Most JPG shooters who need to edit their stuff a lot save it as a TIF or PSD and work on it in that format, only finally finishing it as a JPG, avoiding the generational compression issues.


----------



## reg (Jul 20, 2008)

I've never NOT used PSDs when doing heavy editing, regardless of original shooting format. To do otherwise would be silly, and not just for compression reasons.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jul 20, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> It's hard enough learning how to frame, compose, and expose properly without sinking yourself with 40 technical slider terms and more often than not making goo out of the image.



99.99 percent of the problems that most shooters have will not be fixed by RAW... rather, they need to learn how to actually technically learn how to take pictures.

I am not disrespecting RAW... its just that, for most people, they have a ton of other things to fix in their photography that are a LOT more important than worrying about something like a file storage format.

Any DSLR owner can shoot RAW by flipping a switch on their camera... and blast away shooting horrible pictures in RAW all day long.


----------



## RacePhoto (Jul 20, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> lol... dude... if someone blowing out their subject by 4 stops they should forget about editing....put down the camera.... and slowly back away....



If it's a continuing problem maybe consider bracketing instead of raw. 

Hey folks, I have a question. When you are done with processing that RAW photo, with all that extra data, what format do you save it as? Does your new processed JPG by magic, become something with qualities, and dynamic range, different from any other JPG. :meh:

No argument, you can do more correction and fine tuning on a RAW, before you save it. But calling anyone who shoots JPG not a photographer is an unnecessary insult. That's like saying people who shoot 800 speed film aren't photographers, (or some who say, people who shoot digital aren't photographers!) or people who shoot B&W aren't photographers.

Depending on your needs, time and how "perfect" the photo needs to be, plus what it's going to be used for, each of us can decided if we need to shoot JPG or Raw, or pick which to use in different situations. The subject dictates how it will be photographed.

Saying one or the other is better, without looking at the subject, lighting and other conditions, doesn't make any sense.


----------



## reg (Jul 21, 2008)

RacePhoto said:


> Hey folks, I have a question. When you are done with processing that RAW photo, with all that extra data, what format do you save it as?



Generally, TIFF.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 21, 2008)

Good fricken god.

If you shoot JPEG and that makes you happy, then _fine_.
If you shoot RAW and that makes you happy, then _fine_.

This really is _not_ an emotional debate, it's a matter of weighing pros and cons.

*JPEG:*
- Pros: small, fast to work with, can go right to usable straight from the camera, no worries about whether PS can read it
- Cons: it's *lossy compression*, the camera basically is your photo lab and they print your image for you and effectively shred the negative. Whatever they didn't think you need is gone forever.

*RAW:*
- Pros: gives you a margin of error on exposure, allows you to shoot without worrying about white balance, you always have the "negative" if you need to go back and change things later
- Cons: It's fricken huge, slower to record, slower to get off the camera, confusing to work with if you don't know the ins and outs

That's basically it. Pick which one of those works out better for you. I have absolutely no issue with anyone who picks one, or the other, or alternates. 

What I _do _have an issue with is JPEG people saying RAW people are being suckered/stupid/whatever, and with RAW people saying JPEG people are amateurs/not photographers/morons/etc.

I mean seriously.

EDIT: By the way, I -seriously- don't understand why some people are so gung-ho to pan raw just because they feel that they, personally, don't need it. It's like they are threatened by it or something. If you're that good, then damn... show me the way, brotha'. I absolutely want to learn... but in the meantime, why should you care if I use raw? Yah?

I hate this thread...


----------



## reg (Jul 21, 2008)

manaheim said:


> *JPEG:*
> - Pros: small, fast to work with, can go right to usable straight from the camera, no worries about whether PS can read it, *gives you a margin of error on exposure, allows you to shoot without worrying about white balance*



Fixed.

This is really a dumb thread. There is VERY VERY little that RAW can do that Jpg can't. If you need that, or simply want to be able to tweak with a slider as opposed to actual Photoshop work (a legitimate reason too) then use RAW.

But let the thread die already!

Oh...maybe just one more bump.


----------



## Hawaii Five-O (Jul 21, 2008)

But I don't have the RAW format on my camera


----------



## manaheim (Jul 21, 2008)

reg said:


> Fixed.
> 
> This is really a dumb thread. There is VERY VERY little that RAW can do that Jpg can't. If you need that, or simply want to be able to tweak with a slider as opposed to actual Photoshop work (a legitimate reason too) then use RAW.
> 
> ...


 
I respect you reg, but I totally disagree.  There are huge and fundamental differences in the capabilities.  Staggering.

I've been meaning to go out and shoot some things and then have a JPEG vs RAW fix-off.  Haven't gotten around to it yet...

Serious question- have you used RAW much?


----------



## reg (Jul 21, 2008)

I shoot RAW almost every time I go out.

I'm not gonna go dig it up but the most convincing thing I've ever seen was in another one of these RAW vs. jpg threads.

The challenge was to take a jpg of a box of Sour Patch Kids and correct the WB. Could it be done? Yes. Is it as convenient? Probably not. My point was that you can still do it.

BTW I'm sorry to say it but if you respect me, all other opinions fly out the window until further verification, at which time their broken and tattered pieces may be recovered like a clipped highlight.

:thumbup:


----------



## 93formulalt1 (Jul 21, 2008)

Joves said:


> Didnt your camera come with any software to do it? Also there are some freebies out there but, I use CaptureNX or, CS to do mine.


It came with a couple of programs, but the UI isn't very good, not very intuitive, and I just don't like them.  I'd rather just use JPG format than start messing with RAW when I still have no clue what needs to be done to compose, frame, and capture a good picture in the first place, adding any PP work to that image is just going to cause me more confusion, I think.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 21, 2008)

reg said:


> I shoot RAW almost every time I go out.
> 
> I'm not gonna go dig it up but the most convincing thing I've ever seen was in another one of these RAW vs. jpg threads.
> 
> ...


 


I'm gonna go look for the sour patch kids thing...


----------



## roadkill (Aug 23, 2008)

isohunt.com


----------



## LeroyLion (Aug 23, 2008)

J-RAW... the ultimate...


----------



## manaheim (Aug 24, 2008)

A pox upon those who revitalize threads from hell.


----------



## reg (Aug 24, 2008)

IF YOU INSIST ON REVIVING AN OLD THREAD

1) Know the damn rules of the site. Posting a link to a torrent site is AGAINST the damn rules of the site.

2) Try to actually SAY SOMETHING.


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 24, 2008)

Many of the points for using raw instead of jpeg could be made for using print film over transparency:  increased dynamic range, ability to adjust after the exposure, etc...  Yet, many film photogs preferred slides to negs.  I like print film and raw myself, but I can understand that other photogs find other materials and processes more advantageous.  I have never looked at a photo and found myself thinking "I wonder if they shot this with the camera set to raw or jpeg?"


----------

