# RAW



## gtaylor (Apr 14, 2008)

I can't see much advantage in shooting RAW.

I realize "pros" use only RAW files, but for my money the friendlier JPG is just fine.

I'm  trying to educate myself of its advantages to the average "shooter".


----------



## asfixiate (Apr 14, 2008)

Do you plan on editing any of your shots after you take them?

*Reasons to Shoot JPG*

&#8212; Files are smaller and therefore more of them fit on a card.
&#8212; For many applications image quality is more than sufficient (family snapshots, news images).
&#8212; Small files are more easily transmitted wirelessly and online. This is important to newspaper photographers.
&#8212; Many photographers don't have the time or inclination to post-process their files.
&#8212; Many cameras (especially digicams) can not shoot quickly when working in raw mode. Some lower-end models can't record raw files at all.​*Reasons to Shoot Raw*

&#8212; A raw file is comparable to the latent image contained in an exposed but undeveloped piece of film. It holds exactly what the imaging chip recorded. Nothing more. Nothing less. This means that the photographer is able to extract the maximum possible image quality, whether now or in the future. A good analogy with the traditional world of film is that you have the opportunity to use a different type of developer or development time at any point in the future if one comes along that you think might do a better job of processing the image.
&#8212; Raw files have not had while balance set. They are tagged with whatever the camera's setting was, (_either that which was manually set or via auto-white-balance),_ but the actual data has not been changed. This allows one to set any colour temperature and white balance one wishes _after the fact_ with no image degradation. It should be understood that once the file has been converted from the linear space and has had a gamma curve applied (such as in a JPG) white balance can no longer be properly done.
&#8212; File linearization and colour filter array (Bayer) conversion is done on a computer with a fast and powerful microprocessor. This allows much more sophisticated algorithms to be used than those done in a camera with its slower and less powerful processor and with less space for complex conversion programs.
&#8212; The raw file is tagged with contrast and saturation information as set in the camera by the user, but the actual image data has not been changed. The user is free to set these based on a per-image evaluation rather than use one or two generalized settings for all images taken.
&#8212; Possibly the biggest advantage of shooting raw is that one has a 16 bit image (post raw conversion) to work with. This means that the file has 65,536 levels to work with. This is opposed to a JPG file's 8 bit space with just 256 brightness levels available. This is important when editing an image, particularly if one is trying to open up shadows or alter brightness in any significant way.​


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 14, 2008)

Why Raw -- Part I


----------



## Mav (Apr 17, 2008)

You can still adjust white balance in JPEG with little to no loss in quality.  And you can still recover PLENTY of shadow detail in JPEG also with little to no loss in quality.  Why were imaging systems standardized on 8-bits / 256 levels?  Because the _human_ visual system is hard pressed to identify even _100_ distinct tones.  256 x 256 x 256 for each color channel is 16.7 million colors.  How many do you need?  The only thing RAW has ever helped me with is when I make a technical error such as overexposing, but that's about it.

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


----------



## Arch (Apr 17, 2008)

Uh... Ken Rockwell has an awful opinion about RAW imo, take it with a pinch of salt.
The link Big Mike gave is MUCH more accurate and informative.
IMO shoot RAW at all times... but this opinion will change with every photog you talk to.
Im really going to have to make a sticky on this subject. :roll:


----------



## kbeelitz (Apr 17, 2008)

Since I purchased my Olympus E510, I've been able to utilize RAW.  Ever since I discovered Photoshop years ago, I&#8217;ve always heard about RAW but was not able to take advantage of it.  Basically, RAW = awesome/great.  Like what Arch stated shoot RAW at all times.  It gives you more leeway for editing.  Do to its bulkiness, you may not want to use it on just &#8220;random&#8221; snapshots &#8211;the files are large.


----------



## Socrates (Apr 17, 2008)

Mav said:


> You can still adjust white balance in JPEG with little to no loss in quality. And you can still recover PLENTY of shadow detail in JPEG also with little to no loss in quality. Why were imaging systems standardized on 8-bits / 256 levels? Because the _human_ visual system is hard pressed to identify even _100_ distinct tones. 256 x 256 x 256 for each color channel is 16.7 million colors. How many do you need? The only thing RAW has ever helped me with is when I make a technical error such as overexposing, but that's about it.
> 
> See also: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm


:thumbup:


----------



## Mav (Apr 17, 2008)

Arch said:


> Uh... Ken Rockwell has an awful opinion about RAW imo, take it with a pinch of salt.
> The link Big Mike gave is MUCH more accurate and informative.
> IMO shoot RAW at all times... but this opinion will change with every photog you talk to.
> Im really going to have to make a sticky on this subject. :roll:


Over half of what I see posted about JPEG by RAW shooters is awfully inaccurate and provably false at worse, or exaggerated at best.  Some of the benefits of RAW while technically accurate you might only be able to see at 100% viewing (the equivalent of having your nose into a 3 foot wide print), or even 200% (nose into a 6 foot wide print) which isn't how anybody actually views photos.  And I routinely do things with my JPEGs that people say you "can't" do unless you're shooting RAW, which I honestly think is pretty funny.  The article that Mike posted _is_ good, but you can hardly tell ANY difference in the example images posted.

Here's the biggest reason for shooting RAW as per that article.



> Raw Advantage #1: Flexibility
> 
> When a photographer shoots JPEG, the white balance, tonal curve, sharpening, compression, and other choices are essentially burned into the file. The sharpening and compression are irreversible (you can blur the JPEG image to reduce the sharpening, but that is not the same as undoing the sharpening and it will degrade the image). Color and tonal problems created by improper white balance or tonal curve can be adjusted somewhat in a JPEG file, but it will cause some degradation of the image. The problem arises because the camera sets these parameters into the image at the time the photo is taken. Making changes to these parameters at a later time can be difficult (e.g., loss of detail in the shadows due to the use of a contrasty tonal curve) or impossible (e.g., undo file compression).


Line by line...



> When a photographer shoots JPEG, the white balance, tonal curve, sharpening, compression, and other choices are essentially burned into the file.


Not really.  "Burned in" implies you're hard-locked to whatever the JPEG is, but that's not true at all.



> The sharpening and compression are irreversible (you can blur the JPEG image to reduce the sharpening, but that is not the same as undoing the sharpening and it will degrade the image).


Most JPEG outputs from DSLRS are on the SOFT side precisely because over-sharpened JPEGs that you try to soften up end up looking like crap.  It looks far better to have a soft JPEG output and add sharpening as needed, which is how pretty much everybody does it.  The cameras are tuned so that the very best professional level lens you can put on the camera will look just right, but the lesser lenses will need to have some sharpening added for the best results.  I've never seen an overcooked JPEG out of my Nikons with regards to sharpening.



> Color and tonal problems created by improper white balance or tonal curve can be adjusted somewhat in a JPEG file, but it will cause some degradation of the image.


Nope.  I can completely yank around screwed up white balance in JPEGs and it looks just the same as RAW.  RAW does make it easier for you since you can select among the different in-camera settings, but I have yet to see a JPEG I've taken with messed up white balance where the RAW resulted in any better of a photo.  And yes I've shot both side by side.



> The problem arises because the camera sets these parameters into the image at the time the photo is taken. Making changes to these parameters at a later time can be difficult (e.g., loss of detail in the shadows due to the use of a contrasty tonal curve)


Nikons have auto-contrast which is great.  In over 20,000 shots between my D40 and D80 I've never had a single shot where shadow details were dropped because the auto contrast takes care of it.  If I shot with Canon, I'd be far more likely to shoot in RAW precisely because of this, but thanks to Nikon I don't have to.  This is one of the big reasons why I never switched to Canon.  My buddy shoots Canon, and yes he tends to blow out his JPEGs from time to time with regards to contrast, and yes he's hosed unless he shot RAW too.



> or impossible (e.g., undo file compression).


Even the lowest "Basic" JPEG quality setting on Nikon has great output with no visible artifacting or loss of detail.  In fact I've processed a Basic JPEG and a RAW side by side and honestly could not tell the difference in which was which in a blind "after" test.  Usually I shoot JPEG / Normal which is one step higher just because it makes me "feel better" but even from my own testing the Basic JPEG is just fine, and a lot smaller.  Even after two rounds of processing re-saving both such that the file size after was the same as the file size before, you still cannot see any artifacting or other JPEG compression issues, even when viewed at 100% or more.


Going through the rest of the article, the part about JPEG compression and "squares" is hilarious.  I can _NEVER_ see the JPEG "squares" at any reasonable magnification.  What magnification did the author use to display that, 600%? :roll:  And nobody shooting JPEG re-saves at low quality levels anyways, so the whole point is moot.  The next part talks about sharpening being worse on JPEGs because it'll just sharpen the squares??  WTF?  I never see them to begin with viewing at normal magnification and saving at reasonable quality settings, so another moot point.  I never see any posterization either, and I don't have time to go on all day. 


So a lot of the reasons people give for shooting RAW and why JPEG is so bad is built on myths, lies, and exaggerations.  Yes there ARE reasons to shoot RAW and I do shoot RAW from time to time, mainly for money shots where I can't afford a mistake, and primarily for the purpose of being better able to recover from any mistakes, not to make a better image had I actually gotten my technique right in the first place.  I try to get it right on the camera the first time, and when you do that there's little real reason to shoot RAW.

I need to make a "The Myths of RAW" post.  I'm sure it'll go over very well and be very popular. :roll:


----------



## Socrates (Apr 17, 2008)

Mav said:


> Over half of what I see posted about JPEG by RAW shooters is awfully inaccurate and provably false at worse, or exaggerated at best. Some of the benefits of RAW while technically accurate you might only be able to see at 100% viewing (the equivalent of having your nose into a 3 foot wide print), or even 200% (nose into a 6 foot wide print) which isn't how anybody actually views photos. And I routinely do things with my JPEGs that people say you "can't" do unless you're shooting RAW, which I honestly think is pretty funny. The article that Mike posted _is_ good, but you can hardly tell ANY difference in the example images posted.
> 
> Here's the biggest reason for shooting RAW as per that article.
> 
> ...


----------



## STICKMAN (Apr 17, 2008)

Can the Nikon D40 shoot Raw? And what are some estimates as to file sizes when shooting such. Being new to this makes me want to be sure i make the right purchase the first time.


----------



## Mav (Apr 17, 2008)

STICKMAN said:


> Can the Nikon D40 shoot Raw? And what are some estimates as to file sizes when shooting such. Being new to this makes me want to be sure i make the right purchase the first time.


Yeah the D40 will shoot RAW only or RAW + Basic JPEG.  A Basic JPEG is about 750 KB and a RAW is around 5 MB.


----------



## noob873 (Apr 17, 2008)

I shoot RAW most of the time, probably like 90%, but I dont believe you should only use RAW like some of you had said.  Like if you're doing something where you need to use (or show someone) most/all the pictures you have taken, you wont want to edit every single one to be able to have them viewable.  I think you should understand what I mean


----------



## STICKMAN (Apr 17, 2008)

Thanks Mav, 

Just another positive reason on to my list as for picking the D40. Can't wait !!!!!


----------



## Arch (Apr 17, 2008)

As i have mentioned before... if you only need to shoot jpeg then go ahead, if that suits your type/style of photography as a hobby.

However, the kind of photography that i do, for me requires RAW, end of story, and to be honest most pro wedding photog etc wouldn't shoot jpeg nowadays either.
Take a look at this random choice of fav photogs of mine just as an example...You may already be aware of her....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/

Now she doesn't exclusively shoot RAW, but her work shows how editing and working with zones can make your images so dramatic.
I also spend alot of time editing my photos... not 'fiddling' as ken rockwell puts it but careful editing, which i get much enjoyment from.

You can compare this with the old film days. Some photographers prefer to snap thier shots, get them developed, then move on to the next one. Where as others would be in thier element in the darkroom. There is no difference here... this is what i do, and for me Jpeg doesn't cut it.

Now, for me the style of work shown by my above link 'poo's' all over anything ken rockwell does... i find his images tame and very ordinary. (so wonder why everyone seems him as any kind of authority on technical advice.) :roll:

But as mentioned this is my own opinion about RAW and Jpeg... an opinion that i share with many... but again, cannot be convinced otherwise... i have done too much work myself to be convinced by anyone that Jpeg would be better for me.

The ONLY advantage Jpeg would ever give me is faster burst shooting.... thats it. But seeing as tho i don't shoot sports, motor racing or any other kind of fast paced subject.. i have no need for it.
I bought 2 more 2G SD cards the other day, the equivelent of $10 each... i will not run out of card space... so space is never going to be an issue.

What Rockwell says about NEF's becoming obsolete is absolute nonsence.. i can still get a ROM to play spectrum games, the first nintendo games... i can get software that will transfere all my tapes to cd. There are so many hundreds of thousands of people using NEF nowadays that even if Nikon dont make the software in 20 years time, someone will... the chances that no one will be able to use any of thier images at all... is 0.

As far as editing goes.. i don't like working with Jpegs at all... i HAVE seen blocking in dark areas before, and i have also seen blocking where slight overexposure from glare for example is tried to be corrected. Problems like these can occur from any image that IS generally exposed correctly but just randomly happen i.e. glare from a vehicle, water, persons belongings etc...

I will admit to being a perfectionist too... if my camera can give me the maximum data taken from the scene, id much rather handle that data in my own personal way form word go.

Moral of the story, if you want to take a shot and move on to the next subject and generaly like to shoot sports and like to document things... you shouldn't have a problem shooting Jpeg most of the time.
If you like to add alot more to your images and shoot at the maximum information your camera can give, shoot RAW.
At one stage or another i would recommend that everyone tries shooting RAW, for the times that you absolutely need to use it, even if they end up going back to jpeg.


----------



## Arch (Apr 17, 2008)

Incidently, we had this converstion just the other day if you remember... it seems like it comes up every week through no fault of our own... but just to reiterate those points....

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=116459&highlight=raw


----------



## Rand0m411 (Apr 17, 2008)

Mav said:


> Over half of what I see posted about JPEG by RAW shooters is awfully inaccurate and provably false at worse, or exaggerated at best.  Some of the benefits of RAW while technically accurate you might only be able to see at 100% viewing (the equivalent of having your nose into a 3 foot wide print), or even 200% (nose into a 6 foot wide print) which isn't how anybody actually views photos.  And I routinely do things with my JPEGs that people say you "can't" do unless you're shooting RAW, which I honestly think is pretty funny.  The article that Mike posted _is_ good, but you can hardly tell ANY difference in the example images posted.
> 
> Here's the biggest reason for shooting RAW as per that article.
> 
> ...



You forgot to mention that in RAW, all of the original metadata is always untouched. So you can edit to your hearts content and still default back to the original picture at any time. You can also shoot in monochrome and later switch it to color in PP, because all of the original color metadata exists in the RAW file, even when shooting in monochrome. Also RAW is an uncompressed file format, JPG is a compressed file format.

Other than that I fully agree with you. Unless you really need to be shooting in RAW, its really unnessesary. You can edit the heck out of a .jpg just like you can a RAW file. I edit .jpg's on a regular basis in Photoshops "Camera RAW" PP tool. Works out great.


----------



## Socrates (Apr 17, 2008)

Rand0m411 said:


> You forgot to mention that in RAW, all of the original metadata is always untouched. So you can edit to your hearts content and still default back to the original picture at any time.


 
If you have a Mac with iPhoto, those statements are true with ALL file formats.  When you import into iPhoto, the original is stored.  When you make a decision to modify it (either with the limited iPhoto capabilities or with something like PS), iPhoto immediately makes a copy and you're alqays working with the copy.  Three years later you can still "revert to original."


----------



## Jon0807 (Apr 17, 2008)

I used to shoot in JPG cause I didn't know how to work with RAW.  But after playing with RAW files I've found I get better results and I have more control of how the photo will turn out rather than being limited to what I was able to do with JPG.  But that's just me and my preference.


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 17, 2008)

Mav said:


> You can still adjust white balance in JPEG with little to no loss in quality.  And you can still recover PLENTY of shadow detail in JPEG also with little to no loss in quality.  Why were imaging systems standardized on 8-bits / 256 levels?  Because the _human_ visual system is hard pressed to identify even _100_ distinct tones.  256 x 256 x 256 for each color channel is 16.7 million colors.  How many do you need?  The only thing RAW has ever helped me with is when I make a *technical error *such as overexposing, but that's about it.
> 
> See also: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm



I would not say technical errors only. some scenes just go to the limits of your sensor's dynamical range, but you still might need the details in the bright parts _and_ shadows. Then you are much better off with having more than 8 bits, since you can pull up the dark areas without getting posterisation effects. No, ND-Grad filters cannot always do the job here!

At least in most of my kind of photography (most of the outdoor work, landscape, architecture, but also people and event photography), I am happy when I can use RAW. Maybe if you do studio work, or easy light outdoor work, then JPEG is more than sufficient in most cases.

Also, those 256 distinct tones per colour channel are not distributed linearly, they are quite dense in the bright part of the spectrum, and very sparse in the dark part as far as I know.


It is true, that for 80% of my images I could have survived with JPG, but those other 20% are worth the RAW effort.


----------



## Mav (Apr 18, 2008)

Arch said:


> Incidently, we had this converstion just the other day if you remember... it seems like it comes up every week through no fault of our own... but just to reiterate those points....
> 
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=116459&highlight=raw


Yes, this is what, Round 2 or 3? 




Arch said:


> As i have mentioned before... if you only need to shoot jpeg then go ahead, if that suits your type/style of photography as a hobby.
> 
> However, the kind of photography that i do, for me requires RAW, end of story, and to be honest most pro wedding photog etc wouldn't shoot jpeg nowadays either.
> Take a look at this random choice of fav photogs of mine just as an example...You may already be aware of her....
> ...


I agree.   Like I think I've said elsewhere too, photogs seem to be either capturers or manipulators.  The capturers like to capture what they see how they see it and then prefer to do as little fiddling as possible and move on, whereas the manipulators like to take photos of something and then heavily tweak it.  If you're going to be going from program to program and do a ton of editing steps and working in a lossless format that supports greater than 8-bits, then you might as well start out that way in 12/14/16-bit RAW on the camera.



Arch said:


> Now, for me the style of work shown by my above link 'poo's' all over anything ken rockwell does... i find his images tame and very ordinary. (so wonder why everyone seems him as any kind of authority on technical advice.) :roll:


The only thing I'm going to say here is that just because YOU personally do not like his photographic style doesn't mean that a few milllion others don't, and thus enjoy reading and taking his technical advice.  Why is it seemingly a mystery to you that people might like a style of photography other than your own?  There are some other well-known independent Nikon reviewers out there that a lot of people flock to whose style I personally hate.  But hey, it's a different style and my tastes are otherwise, so I respect the work and related advice anyways despite not caring for it myself.

Rebba's stuff I like.  Very very nice work!  Although the only people shots I seem to like are the ones of herself, and that probably has mostly to do with her apparently being pretty hot. :mrgreen:  The landscape photos though (much more my style) are stunning.  But are those really any different than what KR does?  Not really.  But then again I don't think Ken Rockwell has ever been to Iceland either. :lmao: Actually that would play right into a lot of the advice that he gives on his site.  Stop worrying about what gear you have and spend the money you'd upgrade to junk you don't really need on a trip to somewhere you've never been instead.  Like Iceland!  A D40 and 18-55 kit lens will take stunning photos of Iceland.  Much better than a $5000 D3 and $1800 24-70 would because you just blew your trip money on all of the gear and have to stay at home now, lol.  I actually want to go there, and seeing some of the scenic stuff from there only makes me want to go more.  My wife is from the tropics though, so her and cold places don't get along very well. :/



Arch said:


> What Rockwell says about NEF's becoming obsolete is absolute nonsence.. i can still get a ROM to play spectrum games, the first nintendo games... i can get software that will transfere all my tapes to cd. There are so many hundreds of thousands of people using NEF nowadays that even if Nikon dont make the software in 20 years time, someone will... the chances that no one will be able to use any of thier images at all... is 0.


Well you're just guessing, and so is Ken and so am I.  20 years from now I'll be able to open any JPEG I have and use the latest and greatest image tweaking software out there to make my photos even better, while laughing at the people who say you "can't do that" with JPEGs and are having to screw around with converter programs that they'll be paying money for their RAWs to work, if there even is anything.  I keep all of my original "keeper" JPEGs, and the programs I use to edit them never touch the originals either, as some others have already pointed out.  If you want to take your chances with RAW, be my guest.  DSLRs and people who actually shoot RAW with them are not nearly as prevalent in homes as gaming systems are, so the comparison is apples to oranges anyways.  If people already have trouble opening 5 year old RAW files today, then it might be prudent to assume that the problem will only get worse 20 years from now.  RAW is proprietary, not a universal standard like 35mm film negatives.  Agree or disagree, it's a valid point and concern.  I would never depend on a RAW to work years from now which is why when I do shoot RAW I still do RAW + JPEG so that I have both.  DNG looks promising, but that's still getting off the ground apparently and from what I've read you can only edit them with _Adobe_ software. :roll:




Arch said:


> Moral of the story, if you want to take a shot and move on to the next subject and generaly like to shoot sports and like to document things... you shouldn't have a problem shooting Jpeg most of the time.
> If you like to add alot more to your images and shoot at the maximum information your camera can give, shoot RAW.
> At one stage or another i would recommend that everyone tries shooting RAW, for the times that you absolutely need to use it, even if they end up going back to jpeg.


If you had just started out by saying that I would never have even bothered to disagree.  And here's a similar take by Ken:



> I take a lot of flack from tweakers because I, like other photographers, prefer to make my adjustments in-camera and use the JPGs directly. Others prefer to spend even more time later twiddling in raw, but that's not for me. I get the look I need with JPGs and prefer to spend my time making more photos. *If you're the sort of person who likes to twiddle and redo than by all means raw is for you.*
> 
> *Everyone's needs vary.* For many hobbyists tweaking is part of the fun and I don't want to spoil that. Please just don't take it personally that I prefer to get my shots right the first time instead of having to tweak them later. If I need to correct a goof I just do it from the JPGs.


Hey look at that, you agree with Ken! 

_<split post due to character limit>_


----------



## Mav (Apr 18, 2008)

I could care less if anybody shoots RAW or JPEG because I'm smart enough to know the difference and where I might need it or it could be helpful based on _my personal style_ of how and what I like to shoot, and what I like to do afterwards with my photos (nothing that can't be done with a JPEG 99.99% of the time).  Hence I shoot JPEG.  What's troubling though is the apparent herding of beginners into shooting RAW on these forums by default (not in this particular thread though) as if it's the only legitimate choice, the misinformation presented about JPEG and all the things you "cannot" do with them which for the most part is untrue, and the "funny looks" that so many seem to give JPEG shooters as if they're crazy when shooting JPEG is just as reasonable of a choice as RAW is.  _Either can be better_, all depending on what and how you shoot, and especially what you like to do afterwards.  It really would be nice and helpful to BEGINNERS here trying to learn if people could check their personal biases at the door rather than trying to ram-rod one's own personal view down others' throats as if it's the only "correct" way and that anybody who disagrees is crazy and not worth listening too.  Mr. Rockwell's take is perfectly reasonable and a very under-represtended viewpoint on these forums, and thus definitely worth a read.  Either can be better, and there are pros and cons to both, so I have no clue at all why one of the few people out there with a decent pro-JPEG article should be taken with a grain of salt or not listened to.  That's completely unreasonable.  When one says something like that, all you're doing is revealing your own personal biases and convictions.  This is only helpful if the person asking for help would end up having the SAME biases and convictions in the end anyways.  But since everyone is different it's a crapshoot and NOT helpful in my view.  RAW will work better in some situations and worse in others.  It's a choice, not some wacky religious cult.  

I cannot tell you how many times I've seen someone shooting in RAW for all the wrong reasons, not getting results that they like, clearly being misinformed as to the differences (could have to do with the virtual "censoring" of Mr. Rockwell's article since it's the _only_ one I've seen representing the other side :roll: ), and for all their trouble might have been far better off shooting in JPEG to begin with.  Don't fall for the "RAW brainwashing".  Read about both, _including_ Mr. Rockwell's article, shoot with and evaluate your results from both, weigh both formats against your own personal shooting style and needs and what you like to do editing wise, and make the decision from there.  Very simple.

For completeness sake, here's a few more threads worth a read:

Working with RAW...
D300 RAW: No "Visible" Difference?


I'll try to squeeze a link for this into my sig.


----------



## asfixiate (Apr 18, 2008)

Why do you write a book everytime you get your point across. Its helpful to beginners to give them recommendations is it not? What's wrong with learning the hardway before the easy way?

Its like telling a film photographer to not learn how to develop film because you can have someone else do it for you. Wouldn't you want to learn how? Sure do whatever you want to a .jpg but that's your opinion and method. 

What is the difference between you being biased over jpgs to anyone else being into RAW?

Noone here makes it seem wrong to do it one way or the other except for you honestly. I'm only seeing opinions and views here. I'm sure the person posting is mature enough to draw their own conclusions. I shoot in raw even if I don't make any changes to the photos. Its more like a just in case thing for me.


You are the only one giving anyone an attitude here it seems!


----------



## Mav (Apr 18, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> I would not say technical errors only. some scenes just go to the limits of your sensor's dynamical range, but you still might need the details in the bright parts _and_ shadows. Then you are much better off with having more than 8 bits, since you can pull up the dark areas without getting posterisation effects. No, ND-Grad filters cannot always do the job here!
> 
> At least in most of my kind of photography (most of the outdoor work, landscape, architecture, but also people and event photography), I am happy when I can use RAW. Maybe if you do studio work, or easy light outdoor work, then JPEG is more than sufficient in most cases.


My D80 with the 18-55 kit lens and a 2-stop Grad ND filter, processed from JPEG.  Even that wasn't enough and the bridge, road, and buildings were all deep in the shadows.  But all I needed was the dorky on-board D-Lighting feature set to mild to pull them up while still maintaining full sky detail.








Here's another, similar setup with the same 2-stop Grad ND, also processed from JPEG.  On this one I could have easily lightened up the beach and pulled up their details even more, but I felt it was distracting and unimportant and wanted to concentrate the attention on the sunrise.  Who cares about the beach?







I end up having to pull up shadow details a bit on these photos which tells me that I probably need a 3-stop Grad ND rather than a 2.  RAW would give me a little more leeway before quality starts dropping out, but I'd rather just use the better exposure technique in the first place with appropriate filters.  Now that I'm standardizing on 77mm filters I'm going to get both a 1 and a 3-stop and skip the 2.  For general daytime outdoor shots, I tend to need either a CPL or a 1-stop grad ND, and 2 isn't quite enough but "good enough" for sunrise/sunset type photos.  If I was really hardcore I'd get some of the Cokin square filters so that I could slide the grads up and down and have more framing options, but I don't get out enough with a 1 year old running around to justify that just yet. :mrgreen:


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 18, 2008)

Mav said:


> I need to make a "The Myths of RAW" post. I'm sure it'll go over very well and be very popular. :roll:


 


I don't want to "preach" anymore.  I use what *I* want and anyone that wants to do what they want... will.

I will continue to shoot RAW for all the reasons stated a hundred times in other threads here and be happier.  To me, thats all that counts. 

Between all these RAW vs JPG threads, "what camera should I buy" and JIP's one man campagne against the 18-200, I am slowly getting tired of reading and repeating the same things over and over and over.


----------



## asfixiate (Apr 18, 2008)

JerryPH
+1(Is that how I'm supposed to agree here?...lol)


----------



## Arch (Apr 18, 2008)

You know what Mav.... i do agree with most of what your saying, i think we both understand our own styles of photography and the needs that go with it.

I realise many people do go around saying 'you can't with jpeg' and so forth, that can be a problem as there arn't massive differences between the two _unless you know what you are doing and why you want to use one or the other._ What i do like to do tho is to encourage people to use RAW, because the worst thing that could happen for someone is to avoid RAW completely becuase they hear that JPEG_ is the same,_ but then try RAW on a special outing or occasion but then dont know what to do with it because they haven't ever used it properly. (this happens alot).

The only real problem i have with Rockwell is his attitude towards RAW users... right from the point in his website titled 'Raw Details' he is completely negative about RAW in every way, his information is wrong and then goes on to call people like me 'twiddlers'... frankly, im not a twiddler, im a photographer the same as he is... its like me refering to jpeg shooters as 'snap-shotters'... i would never do that because *i do* have respect for what other people like to do with thier photography.

What i would like to come of any of these types of threads is simply 'knowledge' to the beginners. Threads like this start because someone has tried RAW for the first time and not seen thier images suddenly change into something special. Good use of RAW and editing is something that needs to be worked at for those that are inclined to try it.

Once you have found a style or type of photography you prefer, as we have, then you can make a decision what you can use most of the time.


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 18, 2008)

Mav said:


> My D80 with the 18-55 kit lens and a 2-stop Grad ND filter, processed from JPEG.  Even that wasn't enough and the bridge, road, and buildings were all deep in the shadows.  But all I needed was the dorky on-board D-Lighting feature set to mild to pull them up while still maintaining full sky detail.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I did not say it never works, I just said, there are situations where it does not work as I want it!  I am not telling you that you should use RAW, I just said it has its uses and I would not want to live without it.

BTW, on my Eizo I do see posterisation in the darker parts of the sky in the second image ...

Both shots, by the way, are shots with a flat horizon, which are ideal for ND grads! You are in much more trouble in the mountains or in architectural photography... or when you are much closer to the not so flat background.

Thinking about the Cokin or Lee filters myself by the way ... 


I think it was Lee, who also offer a double grad filter, which could be quite nice for sunsets apparently. I would like to try it to see if it is really as useful as some people say.


----------



## Rand0m411 (Apr 18, 2008)

Im really not understanding why something so simple has to be so philosophical. Either you prefer working in a compressed or uncompressed data format. 

There are clear advantages with working in uncompressed file types(TIFF, RAW). And there is an ease of use with working with compressed file types (.JPG).  

Try both, pick one... or pick both.


----------



## Mav (Apr 18, 2008)

*@ asfixiate*: There's a greater context that you're missing here, which is understandable since you're a relative newcomer.

*@ Jerry*: +1, lol

*@ Arch*:  I consider a lot of what I see in these RAW articles such as the one Mike posted that you consider more accurate to not be "wrong" per se but rather exaggerated in terms of trying to make the RAW look as good as possible while going out of their way to make the JPEG look as bad as possible and then still not seeing much difference, heavy analysis paralysis, and then making huge deals about things that are not even visible in any reasonable print size viewed at any reasonable distance.  And in all honestly, if there's an entire SEA of pro-RAW / anti-JPEG articles out there when we're talking about both being perfectly reasonable choices then I really don't think it's a big deal if there's only ONE heavy-hitting pro-JPEG / anti-RAW article.  I actually thought Rockwell's article was pretty refreshing after reading a half dozen or so RAW articles.  Obviously you'll agree more with one or the other and should read BOTH and encourage people to do so.  That's why I posted the Rockwell article after Mike posted one of the many RAW articles.  Same deal with political discussions.  It's called balance. :mrgreen:  I'm in complete agreement with you on the rest of your post though.

*@ Alex_B*:  You are *only* seeing posterization on that second image because you're looking at the higly compressed 800 pixel wide junky Fotki.com copy and not the 2.5 MB original which looks great.   I have no control over Fotki's compression.  And yes, I did mention Cokin grads if I got more serious about landscape photography.  I almost bought a set of those but mostly I do baby/family photography nowadays and can't get out much anymore so I passed.


----------



## Arch (Apr 18, 2008)

An example of a heavily reworked image using RAW...

Admittedly the original exposure is wrong, but apart from the range being difficult to capture, this shot wasn't even planned... i took it on the way back to the car... i could see the composition, but didn't take the time to get a good exposure as i didn't think it was a keeper....







The result isn't my usual style as its kind of gimmicky, inspired by the film Sleepy Hollow (because it kinda reminded me of that ), but even tho i used all processing techniques possible to avoid blocking, a Jpeg would have struggled with this...






I have taken many images that would have held up in Jpeg with the editing i used... but this is why i love RAW, you never know if one of the crappy ones may turn into something.


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 18, 2008)

Mav said:


> *@ Alex_B*:  You are *only* seeing posterization on that second image because you're looking at the higly compressed 800 pixel wide junky Fotki.com copy and not the 2.5 MB original which looks great.   And yes, I did mention Cokin grads if I got more serious about landscape photography.  I almost bought a set of those but mostly I do baby/family photography nowadays and can't get out much anymore so I passed.



Ah, ok 

what if you set up your light on the baby with a strong gradient? then you could justify the cokin grads because you have to compensate 

Anyway, we could agree that RAW is not overrated, but that JPG is often underrated and falsely dismissed as unworthy.


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 18, 2008)

Rand0m411 said:


> Im really not understanding why something so simple has to be so philosophical.



Because else we could not discuss and fight :mrgreen:


----------



## asfixiate (Apr 18, 2008)

Even if I've never even looked at a camera before the only thing I'm saying is Whether you spend 3 hours editing a .jpg or 3 hours editing a RAW file what's the difference. 

Your shots are in my opinion very great work but you can't tell me that they aren't touched with software. I dind't read the Rockwell article but I assume he's treating a digital camera as a film camera and he doesn't believe in editing the photos afterwards or something like that. Or at least not editing them as much.

If you twiddle the hell out of your .jpgs I assume that means he's calling you a twiddler?

People here are only stating their preference in what appears to me a non biased way. You, in a biased way, are saying that everyone is wrong for recommending RAW since you can do the same stuff with .jpgs.

You could easily just say you can do anything with a .jpg that you could do in raw and be done but when you call everyone out it starts arguments.


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 18, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> Even if I've never even looked at a camera before the only thing I'm saying is Whether you spend 3 hours editing a .jpg or 3 hours editing a RAW file what's the difference.



If you edit one image for 3 hours, then either:

a) you have a very slow computer

or 

b) you want to print really HUGE, like a whole wall.

or

c) something is wrong with you or the image 

Not talking of graphical art here where you create something entirely new (then 3 hrs would not be much) ... talking about photography.



> You mention that Rockwell calls people who shoot in .jpg twiddlers. What's the difference in you twiddling your .jpgs?  Wouldn't Rockwell frown upon what you do?



What Ken says does not matter too much anyway.  He is not the ultimate
 and final judge of everything, he is just an individual stating his personal opinion, as we all do.


----------



## Helen B (Apr 18, 2008)

Mav said:


> Why were imaging systems standardized on 8-bits / 256 levels?  Because the _human_ visual system is hard pressed to identify even _100_ distinct tones.



I think that that is misleading. We may be able to distinguish between only 100 tones at any one instant, but we can distinguish between many more as we scan an image with our eyes.

To test the B&W printer profiles I make, I print a target made up of hundreds of squares and rectangles arranged so that the 256 tone values that an 8-bit printer driver will print can be compared with the numerically adjacent tone as well as the tone 2, 3, 4 and 5 values away - for example I can compare 75 directly with 76, 77, 78, 79 and 80. For prints with a very high density range (over about 2.4) it gets difficult to adjust the profiles so that the one-value steps (eg 75 to 76) are not noticable as a line. The two-values steps (eg 75 to 77) are nearly always noticable as a line. This tells me that if the density range of the print is high enough I can distinguish over 200 shades of grey. That is limited by the print, not by my vision. Anyone can do the same test if they can print to a great enough density range - ie something in excess of a traditional silver gelatin print.

If you are looking at a medium with a density range greater than 2.7 (slide film, for example) you would be able to distinguish even more tones.

You can also calculate the number of discernible tones by dividing the least discernible density difference by the brightness range that humans can handle - it's just theoretical, and the numbers are inaccurate, but the answer will be way over 100.

Best,
Helen


----------



## asfixiate (Apr 18, 2008)

lol Alex. Sorry I was just exaggerating in efforts to make some kind of point.

I just don't see the difference in supporting someone against "twiddling" if you are doing the same thing jsut with different image format.

Arch
By the way I like the "Sleepy Hollow" look a lot. Cool pic. The original has a good creapy approach to.

Can't the whole raw/jpg thing just be settled scientifically anyways? do what you do to a .jpg and a raw print out in 8x10 take magnifying element and compare or just look at the science behind it?

In my line of work we can't scan certain images in bitonal since the contrast is funky. Instead we use greyscale and it looks 100 times better. Difference between the two is more shades to work with that handle brightness and darkness better.


----------



## Mav (Apr 18, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> People here are only stating their preference in what appears to me a non biased way. You, in a biased way, are saying that everyone is wrong for recommending RAW since you can do the same stuff with .jpgs.


- A lot of people say you "cannot" adjust WB in JPEG.  _False_
- A lot of peope say you "cannot" adjust exposure in JPEG. _False_
- A lot of people say you "cannot" recover shadow details in JPEG. _False_
- A lot of people say you "cannot" re-save a JPEG without losing quality. _False_
- A lot of people say RAW is automatically better just because it's uncompressed. _False_
- A lot of people say RAW is automatically better because it's 12/14/16-bits vs 8-bits for JPEG. _False_
- A lot of people say you "cannot" go back and re-edit old JPEGs with newer/better software. _False_

I see these reasons being given for shooting RAW _all the time_ and they're just not true.  A lot of these myths come from the RAW software that's out there that supports a lot more adjustments with RAW files and very little with JPEG.  It doesn't mean that you "cannot" do those things with JPEG.  It just means that that _specific software_ cannot do those adjustments specifically with JPEGs.  Other software most certainly can.  I seriously have had people tell me they shoot RAW because you "cannot" adjust exposure with JPEG.  In Capture NX for Nikon exposure is a slider bar adjustment for RAW, but you can only do crude curves to adjust exposure for JPEG thus leading to the "you cannot adjust exposure in JPEG" myth.  In DxO exposure adjustment is a slider bar for either RAW or JPEG.  Other software is similar.

Like I said above, "a lot" (not all) of the reasons for not shooting JPEG and to shoot RAW instead are outright false at the worst, or exaggerated at best.  And if those are your reasons, why are you even bothering with RAW?  You don't need to because you _can_ do all of that with JPEG to nearly the same extent you can with RAW.  If I'm pointing out that the reasons one gives for shooting RAW don't hold up from a technical standpoint and simply aren't true, then how is that being biased?  It's like someone claims 1+1 = 3, and I say no, it's 2, and then they call me "biased" for pointing that out.  



asfixiate said:


> You could easily just say you can do anything with a .jpg that you could do in raw and be done but when you call everyone out it starts arguments.


The arguments start when people say things about JPEG or JPEG shooters that simply aren't true _AND_ when a JPEG shooter actually bothers to argue back which does not occur 99.999999% of the time thus leading to a false consensus about JPEG based on bad or highly debatable information. :greenpbl:  If people would just stick to the facts then there would be no nonsense to clean up and hence no war.

I shoot RAW when...

- I need maximum leeway to fix any mistakes for critical shots, such as overexposure on a JPEG where you're hosed.
- When I'm rushed for time in a shoot and won't have any time to dial in the camera or lighting and am just going to have to deal with what I get, heck yeah I shoot RAW.

Others shoot RAW because...

- They like to do more than just basic or moderate editing, might do things in multiple steps and save in a lossless higher bit format, and so it makes PERFECT sense to start out in a lossless high bit format in the first place.

- They have no Auto Contrast (Canon) and it's too difficult to adjust it or for your eyes to notice it and your JPEG outputs end up getting blown which you could have easily fixed if you shot in RAW (friend of mine).  I'm spoiled by Auto Contrast and other automated JPEG output settings on my Nikon - it's never failed me, and JPEGs come out looking great.  Can't say the same for other systems though.


You're correct, I did do editing to the two photos I posted.  The originals were actually more on the bland side but here's the before and after.


Original: 







After PP in DxO software:





*For "Beginners": This is within the leeway of adjustment for getting large quality prints out of JPEG.  If you want to tweak things much heavier than this, by all means shoot RAW or use better technique, whichever you prefer.*  If I wanted to bring the beach up a lot more I really would have needed a 3-stop Grad ND filter rather than the 2-stop that I had.  I did all that in just a few minutes.  DxO makes it easy, and it doesn't touch your original file so you can go back and re-tweak to your heart's content.  In fact I did just that.  I haven't printed this one, but I have printed some others that I PP'ed similarly at about 3-feet wide that are waiting to go up in my house and they look spectacular.  

changes made: 

- leveling and slight crop
- auto sharpening
- applied Velvia film profile (non-linear color adjustments)
- applied mild "Smart Vibrancy" adjustment
- mild lighting correction to bring the beach up just a tad, but not too much
- cooled off the White Balance just a tad
- minor exposure adjustment
- probably some other minor stuff that I forgot

This looks a bit overcooked color wise, but I have it tweaked for the printer that I use that tends to have a bit duller colors.  If it's not right, I can go back and re-adjust from the original JPEG again later.  No big deal at all, but even on screen I like it.  I'm like KR in that I like more wild colors in my landscape shots.


BTW, when I say "without losing quality" in reference to JPEG adjustments, what I'm actually talking about is quality differences that you can see in actual prints viewed at reasonable differences.  Some people define a loss of quality as any difference they can make out when viewing something with their nose touching their screen at 100% (nose into a 3 foot wide print) or even 200% (nose into a 6 foot wide print).  This is extremely stringent and _ridiculously_ stringent considering most people don't view photos like that.  I usually review photos and adjustments at 50% or less.  I only view at 100% if I'm checking focus for the most part.  The most extreme example I've seen are those that use special photoshop layer/threshold masks to highlight the smallest of differences.  These are _invisible_ period, even in prints, and even on the very best monitor viewed at ridiculously high magnification, which is why they have to use photoshop to "see" any difference.  I no longer consider that photography but rather computer geekery or analysis paralysis. 


*@ Arch*: Can't see your photo due to firewall issues atm but I'll check it out later.


----------



## Mav (Apr 18, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> Anyway, we could agree that RAW is not overrated, but that JPG is often underrated and falsely dismissed as unworthy.


Perfectly stated.



Alex_B said:


> What Ken says does not matter too much anyway.  He is not the ultimate and final judge of everything, he is just an individual stating his personal opinion, as we all do.


Exactly.  He just has 1.5 million unique visitors per month reading his opinions which gives his more sway, which I think upsets a lot of people who don't agree with him.  I don't agree with him on everything, and yes I've seen people be misled by him.  But more often than not those people are not necessarily doing all of their homework and are taking the advice blindly.  Shame on them.  From personal experience, Color Mode IIIa and Saturation+ doesn't work out too well for skin tones. :blushing:


----------



## Mav (Apr 18, 2008)

Helen B said:


> I think that that is misleading. We may be able to distinguish between only 100 tones at any one instant, but we can distinguish between many more as we scan an image with our eyes.


Yes, that's true, but how do you look at photographs, or your television or computer screen?  There are some Apple fans that are upset because the type of monitor used in the 20" iMac is really only a 6-bit display rather than a true 8-bit like the 24" model.  To get the extra few bits it dithers and what your eyes see is an average that "looks like" the full 8-bit color range, even though it's apparently really only displaying two 6-bit colors.  The 6-bit dithered display has the advantage of being a bit better for motion video or games though since the dithering cuts down on redraw times and fades out the old image quicker.  The full 8-bit display goes into the 24" model since it's definitely preferred for photography use over the 6-bit.  I don't think you can see the difference, but it still upsets some people anyways on the 20" model.  If they had the 8-bit display then they'd complain more about screen lag and slow redraw times and poor video which you can actually see, rather than the difference between dithered 6-bit quasi 8-bit color vs true 8-bit color which you can only really see the difference in spec sheets and not the actual display.

Point taken on greyscale stuff, though.  I've looked at 8-bit greyscale maps and I could definitely see more distinct tones on the greyscale map, but definitely fewer on the color maps.  In general though, 8-bits is plenty for "most" uses which is why everything was standardized on 8-bits.  For the more extreme editing, yes more will probably work better.


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 18, 2008)

Mav said:


> Original:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



hmm, a bit off-topic, but I prefer the original _a lot_! 
(neglecting the tilted horizon)


----------



## asfixiate (Apr 18, 2008)

Scientifically, mathematically, literally, a RAW image is 65,000 and a .jpg is 8bit....

Scientifically I can drive a ferrari with regular with a bottle of octane boost and still make it to the grocery store but do I want to gamble that my car will handle the gas correctly? Why not just use super?

You can't use the argument "could you even notice the difference" because everyone is basing their views on facts that anyone can go and look up to prove correct. For preferences use what works for you and sure you can do the same but if you compared the 2 ANYONE would see the difference eventually. Starting to print different sizes and eventually you will. 

Press Print Screen on your keyboard and paste into Paint. Save that file as .jpg. See what happens?

BMP = non compressed
JPG = compressed


----------



## dEARlEADER (Apr 18, 2008)

oh hey everyone,

I'm a little late in joining this thread and have never seen anything on this subject before.... and 40 posts would take much too long to read...

so if someone could just tell me what is better RAW or JPEG that would be great...


----------



## Mav (Apr 18, 2008)

"yes" :lmao:


----------



## logan9967 (Apr 18, 2008)

asfixiate said:


> Entire Post


 

wow. first reply and probably the easiest to understand and make a decision from 

and my 2 cents. 

.jpg is perfectly fine for pics, i just found out about raw recently and 95% of my pics are from .jpg and i can still editing a fair bit from them. of course this is nowhere close to what i could get out of the raw files. it's enough. .jpg isn't garbage, but when compared to raw it's basically a honda civic and a bmw. 

both will give you what you need. 
both have enough capabilities for any normal person. 
but one of them has that extra 'umph' the other doesn't. 

hope that helps


----------



## Jon0807 (Apr 18, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> oh hey everyone,
> 
> I'm a little late in joining this thread and have never seen anything on this subject before.... and 40 posts would take much too long to read...
> 
> so if someone could just tell me what is better RAW or JPEG that would be great...



You're gonna start another 40+ posts lol


----------



## Rand0m411 (Apr 18, 2008)

Fact is you can edit more in a RAW file than jpg. Use what works for you. Both work.

Also im choosing "tastes great!" over "less filling!".

Im also choosing pepsi over coke. "choice of a new generation".

The egg came before the chicken.

Im still wondering where the beef is...

And after reading this whole thread Im realizing, I could have had a "V8".


----------



## Mav (Apr 18, 2008)

logan9967 said:


> it's enough. .jpg isn't garbage, but when compared to raw it's basically a honda civic and a bmw.


:thumbdown:

JPEG is like a Z06 Vette.  It's minimalist and only what you need, very agile, very efficient, and extremely fast.  RAW is like an M5.  Yeah it's "more" and "nicer" but once you figure in all of the "extras" you're dragging around that you don't really "need" it's wasteful, slower, inefficient, and quite porky in comparison. :mrgreen:


----------



## Mav (Apr 18, 2008)

Arch said:


> An example of a heavily reworked image using RAW...
> 
> Admittedly the original exposure is wrong, but apart from the range being difficult to capture, this shot wasn't even planned... i took it on the way back to the car... i could see the composition, but didn't take the time to get a good exposure as i didn't think it was a keeper....
> 
> ...


That's cool! :thumbup:

Although as a 'capturer' I would never think to do anything that extreme.  Just isn't my style.  I would rather drag my ass outta bed at some insane hour to catch that same exact scene at the precise time when the natural light is perfect and the colors are at their peak.  When you do that, you'll never need to do anything with your images that can't be done with JPEG.  Two totally different approaches to photography.  Neither are wrong, just different.  Yes, by all means shoot RAW if this is what you plan to do and is your approach.


----------



## RebelTasha (Apr 18, 2008)

I like to be able to change my pictures from b/w to color sometimes in RAW, I also like the Nostalgia colour you can use in RAW too..
When I don't use JPEG I miss JPEG when I don't use RAW I miss RAW my computer is really too old to use both I already have to stay on top of my files without adding more strain..
What to do...  
Here's the original






Nostalgia


----------



## asfixiate (Apr 18, 2008)

Yeah I never actually said one was the better than the other I was only stating facts that I found when researching the subject.


----------



## logan9967 (Apr 18, 2008)

Mav said:


> :thumbdown:
> 
> JPEG is like a Z06 Vette. It's minimalist and only what you need, very agile, very efficient, and extremely fast. RAW is like an M5. Yeah it's "more" and "nicer" but once you figure in all of the "extras" you're dragging around that you don't really "need" it's wasteful, slower, inefficient, and quite porky in comparison. :mrgreen:


 
how dare you trash my analogy! 
i was comparing more to gas milage in usage and also with what you get. a civic will get you where you going, and you wont have any problems with it. generally you will be happy and can do little modifications to it and whatnot but its nothing really special. its good. now raw.. the bmw (minimum 5 series thank you) you get the beef, the power, it of course gets you around, and any playing with it you do will look amazingly good. :lmao:


----------



## Mav (Apr 18, 2008)

ah that's better 

Actually most Hondas have huuuuuuuuuuuuuge aftermarket support and there really isn't anything that you can't do with them. LOL


----------



## Arch (Apr 19, 2008)

Mav said:


> I would rather drag my ass outta bed at some insane hour to catch that same exact scene at the precise time when the natural light is perfect and the colors are at their peak.  When you do that, you'll never need to do anything with your images that can't be done with JPEG.



Yea, the reason this image turned from a snap shot to a keeper is the fact that it had been raining for a whole day non stop, and when i walked down this path the sun had briefly come out which created this instant mist rising from the tree areas.
It would be very difficult to go back and reshoot... sure you could get the scene with a different kind of light, but not easily how it was that day.

As i say, this is not always how i shoot, this is just an example of how an image fit for the garbage can be saved because it was shot in RAW.

My style of shooting isn't really rescuing bad images. Probably because of my art background, what i try and do is imagine what the image could look like as an end result, then go about creating that image.
This is why i religiously shoot RAW (+jpeg actaully, space isn't an issue for me) because whether the image is exposed well or not, i will still do what i have to, to make the image how i imagined. This also doesn't automaticlly mean alot of editing, but can do.

Anyway at this point i think we both know why we shoot the way we do. The only reason we are here discussing it is to give people without the know how the heads up.


----------



## Arch (Apr 19, 2008)

Mav said:


> - A lot of people say you "cannot" re-save a JPEG without losing quality. _False_



Well..as you know Jpeg is lossy format, which means even if you re-open it to take out a dust spot and save, the image will have to undergo uncompression followed by recompression. This may not damage the overall quality too much to notice anything, but it is still happening. If you try and change something a little more spread like creating more contrast for example, then you will loose much more data, especially from any shadow and highlight areas.


----------



## Mav (Apr 19, 2008)

Arch said:


> Well..as you know Jpeg is lossy format, which means even if you re-open it to take out a dust spot and save, the image will have to undergo uncompression followed by recompression. This may not damage the overall quality too much to notice anything, but it is still happening. If you try and change something a little more spread like creating more contrast for example, then you will loose much more data, especially from any shadow and highlight areas.


This is why I specifically defined as an added footnote up in post #37 what exactly I consider a drop in quality since I know everybody has different standards.



Mav said:


> BTW, when I say "without losing quality" in reference to JPEG adjustments, what I'm actually talking about is quality differences that you can see in actual prints viewed at reasonable differences.  Some people define a loss of quality as any difference they can make out when viewing something with their nose touching their screen at 100% (nose into a 3 foot wide print) or even 200% (nose into a 6 foot wide print).  This is extremely stringent and _ridiculously_ stringent considering most people don't view photos like that.  I usually review photos and adjustments at 50% or less.  I only view at 100% if I'm checking focus for the most part.  The most extreme example I've seen are those that use special photoshop layer/threshold masks to highlight the smallest of differences.  These are _invisible_ period, even in prints, and even on the very best monitor viewed at ridiculously high magnification, which is why they have to use photoshop to "see" any difference.  I no longer consider that photography but rather computer geekery or analysis paralysis.


I do most of my post-processing in DxO.  DxO never touches the original file, and if I set it to output JPEGs that it processes at 97% quality, I end up with about the same filesize on output that I started off with on the input.  Occasionally I need to run the Image Trends Hemi plug-in for fisheye photos, which I get to in Photoshop.  I take the modified JPEG photo that was just saved at 97% in DxO, open it in photoshop, run the plug-in correction, save at Quality 10 to another new file, and that also seems to give about the same filesize on output as I gave it on input.  With those two steps and with the type of editing that I do, I see "no noticeable loss of quality" even when viewed closely at 100% on my screen which is the far more stringent of tests.  Normally I like to sit back a bit more and view at maybe 50% and look at the entire photo at once.   

In the occurances when I have seen a noticeable drop in quality, it had nothing to do with JPEG compression itself and everything to do with bad or inappropriate settings in DxO.  A good example of that is something like this.  I was shooting through a moving bus window so I needed to keep the shutter speed higher, took a loss of light from the window itself, a 2-stop loss from the circular polarizer I was using to neutralize reflections, and the end result was having to shoot at about iso800 on a D80 which is just about its upper limit before things really start to get nasty.  The noise itself wasn't too bad, but DxO didn't agree.  DxO was identifying all of the fine details on the cliff combined with the high ISO as "noise" when it was really real texture and detail and not noise, and the result on output was very smudgey and flat looking photos.  You could see this clearly even at 50% at a normal distance, and it was plainly obvious at 100%.  I had to go back and re-process this whole series and turn NR off completely in DxO and then they looked _much_ better.  And since DxO never touches the original, it's no problem at all to do that.  

Beyond that, there are many other quality limits that I'd be butting up against before ever being able to blame something on JPEG compression.  There's the dirty bus window for one.  There's the fact that the bus was moving and that in some cases there's just a tiny bit of softness in the photos from motion even if it's not plainly obvious.  Then there's the fact that I was shooting with a respectable but non-professional consumer lens, the 18-135DX.  It's nice, but just doesn't compare to the professional 17-55DX f/2.8 that I've got now which looks incredible at any focal length and aperture.  The 18-135 is nice, but isn't as sharp wide-open, but I couldn't stop down due to conditions.  If I did want to stop down I'd have to run iso1600 which would have a far worse impact on quality than JPEG compression ever would.  So for all of the photos from that series, RAW just wouldn't have done much for me either due to too many other things in the way first having a far greater impact.


----------



## Antithesis (Apr 19, 2008)

I don't want to get into this arguement because I use both depending on the situation. But....

If you have to batch process thousands of images, adding in an additional step that takes quite a bit of time is not efficient. If you are technically capable of proper exposure and white balance (i.e. taking a couple of test shots before going for "the shot"), then you can shoot in Jpeg and save yourself hours of conversion time. I shoot in Jpeg almost all the time, because I can get the exposure right on the first shot (sometimes it has to wait until the second), and if I do need to adjust it by a fraction of a stop, Jpeg does that just fine. 

If I have a limited chance to get that one shot that I want, I shoot in RAW. If the lighting is poor and I need a little wiggle room, I shoot in RAW. But it's relatively rare as I don't like the additional processing step. When I finally get a d300 and I can shoot in TIFF, my problems will be solved, and I will shoot in that 100% of the time.


----------

