# RAW vs JPEG - Canon 50D



## jakezori (Mar 5, 2010)

So after taking a couple hundred photos with my new 50d (my old camer  was a sony A100), I have discovered that I am not that big of a fan of  RAW (I had never taken RAW before my 50d). The images seem too starched  or dark. After editing I guess they are good, but I don't see why so  many people like them over JPEG. In addition, I have also discovered  that I can't stand going through my photos when I have both JPEG and  RAW. My question is, what should I shoot with and why.. If raw, what is  the best/easiest way to edit.


----------



## Jeremy Z (Mar 5, 2010)

The best way is raw, but it is obviously more labor intensive.

I like jpg well enough, but it burns me up when a shadow area is un-fixably dark and there is no detail in the midtones. You wouldn't notice if you've been shooting digital for a long time. But I had been shooting and developing my own 35mm B&W, and the difference is huge. RAW is easy compared to B&W film.

iPhoto on Macintosh easily does Canon raw. It is included with a new Mac purchase, and is no more difficult than jpg. The only problem is that it takes up a lot more memory. If you're shooting raw, and don't like sorting through the pix, you can skip the jpg. But I think the idea is that jpg is usually good enough. In those cases, trash the raw images. But when you get one that needs some doctoring, doctor up the raw one and throw out the original jpg. Save a new jpg from the raw.

Keep in mind that this is how digital photography works. We are really spoiled by it. Not too long ago, if you blew a pic, it was really blown. We could do some stuff, but mostly the quality of the negative determined the quality of the print.

Another thing you could do is not take so many pictures. Learn from your mistakes and you will have less to filter through later. The problem is that it is so easy to do, we tend to just do it.


----------



## RobNZ (Mar 6, 2010)

If its an important shoot I now shoot RAW only, more work but you also have alot more flexibilty post. So much new information to take in when I went to DSLR but once I got a bit of knowledge like actually learning how to use Digital Photo Professional properly (still learning as the need arises, and probably always will...lol) its a fast and simple process.

My method, open the folder containing the RAW images in DPP, select all then Tools, then Start Quick Check Tool, I then go through them quickly full screen and mark the ones I think may have potential with a check mark 1. 

Next step, Edit, Select check mark1 images only, then Edit image window button, this will cue them all up, I quite often shoot from the same location with similar lighting so I adjust the first and save recipe, then where possible paste the recipe to each one as I come across them, this gives me a baseline, then just some minor tweaks and then export as tiff for other post if required, I will quite often use DPP for cropping as well.

Works for me and I can wade through quite a few images fairly quickly, and then spend time on the keepers.


----------



## jakezori (Mar 6, 2010)

Thanks guys... I get that I should use RAW (even though I'm not that big of a fan as of yet), but is there any use in using JPEG then besides not having to edit the photo?

JPEG has been good to me for the past 2 years. Raw seems white washed or something. I can't put my finger on it... What are the supposed benefits of RAW?


----------



## DRoberts (Mar 6, 2010)

If you are out taking everday shots jpeg is fine. It doesn't use as much memory on your card as it is a smaller file, and easy enough to edit the day to day shots. If you are shooting serious shots then RAW is the way to go. It saves more detail of the image, thus making it a much larger file, giving you alot more to work with in your post work.
 Just like everything else the more you use it the more familiar you will become with it and the more you will see the diferences and the advantages.


----------



## jakezori (Mar 6, 2010)

Well, I'd like my "everyday shots" to look just as good as my "important shots" though. IDK, after more looking I can see advantages of RAW and JPEG, but I hate go through photos of RAW + JPEG. So I feel I must choose one (I'm not concerned about space. I upload photos to my comp every other day.) Also, I'm still looking for ways to edit RAW to make them more... colorful. No mac programs please. PC only.


I would love to post a pic of what I mean, but I can't seem to figure out how to upload. What am I missing here.


----------



## RobNZ (Mar 6, 2010)

jakezori said:


> Also, I'm still looking for ways to edit RAW to make them more... colorful. No mac programs please. PC only.



You should have a copy of Digital Photo Pro already if you have a 50D?


----------



## Derrel (Mar 6, 2010)

Have you tried what Canon's DPP calls "Faithful"? It's not all that faithful, but I think it's a lovely pre-set look and rendering for Canon raw files, at least from the 5D.

ANd yes, RAW files can look rather flat or dark right out of camera; a lot of how they look depends on the pre-set profile that the particular RAW converter uses when it opens up the RAW data files. The default "look" of one raw converter or another can look dark to the eyes of many people.

There are a zillion RAW converter applications, but two 3rd party ones might really,really change your mind. The first one is called SilkyPIX, and is created in Japan,and has a unique "verbal" way of describing how to adjust images. The second one is a product named Bibble, from Bibble Labs.com, here in the USA. Neither of these products are mass-market, but each one has some very,very capable software engineering, and some very,very outside the box color and rendering capabilities.

Both have free downloads available. I would suggest that SilkyPIX is easier to figure out interface-wise. I hate to sound like a stereotyper or some sort of racist or something like that, but Japanese raw developer software engineers have a very NON-western approach to developing raw images,and SilkyPIX for example showed an understanding of one of the worlds most-maligned and most-complex  d-slr cameras, the Kodak 14n; until the SIlkyPIX people got their 14n module completed, converting the 14n's massive 14 megapixel, full-frame RAW files was a horrible chore, with the dreaded "Italian flag" color nightmare. The engineers there were able to take a camera with RAW output that was riddled with several color problems,and "tame the savage beast".

It has recently gone to a version 4.1.30.0 release, and I am still on the 3's with it. A free trial of SilkyPIX Developer Studio can be downloaded here

Download SILKYPIX Developer Studio 4.1.30.0 Free Trial - Improve your images with this easy-to-use software utility - Softpedia

and Bibble can be downloaded here: Bibble Labs - Professional Photo Workflow Software


----------



## DerekSalem (Mar 6, 2010)

The big advantage to RAW is simply that it doesn't store any white balance data with the picture. It's "raw" picture data (hence the name) with virtually no post-processing done in-camera. This means that you can assign your own white-balancing to the picture (where as most of the time when you assign white balance to a picture you're actually trying to edit what's already there by changing color values).

Yes, it can definitely make pictures look better (color and light wise) but it won't improve the actual quality of the picture. I rarely use RAW, but I find that it's easy enough to change from Jpg to RAW (even easier on the new T2i -- Hit Q, tap down, and scroll the wheel over one slot).


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 6, 2010)

The huge advantage of RAW is that you can adjust color without being destructive. 

You can change your white balance, saturation, high pass, color profile with no reduction in overall image integrity. 

You can also recover highlight and shadow detail much easier. 


And it's not as obvious on the Canons, but on a Nikon, there is MUCH more micro detail in the RAW files than in jpegs. 


With programs such as Adobe Lightroom, unless it's seriously high-volume work (sports), there's no reason you shouldn't shoot RAW, especially if you're up to the level of using a 50D.


----------



## UUilliam (Mar 6, 2010)

*I skipped most of this post.*

In your camera you have "picture styles" I.e. Standard, Portrait etc...  (not shooting modes.) which you can also customize to do different sharpness, saturation, contrast etc... 
This is only applied  to a JPEG image.

Raw does not have anything applied to it, it is simply "what the camera sees"

that is why RAW needs to be edited
Jpeg is good if you learn to use it but RAW is better for imporant shoots where editing is almost necessary i.e. the model is too dark, the sky is too blue or whatever the case may be.


----------



## Jeremy Z (Mar 6, 2010)

I just read through this again. It sounds like the original poster likes jpg, but FEELS like he should like raw, because it is more capable.

If you like jpg, then stick with it. But keep that little voice in the back of your mind: "When I'm shooting a scene with wide tonal range or I'm not sure about the white balance, I should shoot in RAW + jpg."

In other words, do what works for you, but keep your options open.


----------



## jakezori (Mar 6, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Have you tried what Canon's DPP calls "Faithful"? It's not all that faithful, but I think it's a lovely pre-set look and rendering for Canon raw files, at least from the 5D.
> 
> ANd yes, RAW files can look rather flat or dark right out of camera; a lot of how they look depends on the pre-set profile that the particular RAW converter uses when it opens up the RAW data files. The default "look" of one raw converter or another can look dark to the eyes of many people.
> 
> ...




I downloaded both of them, but I'm not the biggest fan of the interface and I don't really want to pay for a program. Any other programs that are totally freeware?

-- Also, I currently use picasa to surface edit all of my photos. Bad or good?


----------



## Derrel (Mar 6, 2010)

For the most part, free RAW converters are very scarce. Freeware is nice for many things, but there are hundreds and hundreds of RAW file formats. You have a $1,500 camera and lenses that probably cost more than a month's groceries, and yet you want free software that's got an interface you like within one night's time and use? I'm sorry, but if you want instant-instant gratification to go with your instant digital photos, you will have to scour the interwebs for freeware...or learn to understand and use the Canon DPP softeware that came free with your camera.

Not instantly "liking" an interface is kind of an interesting commentary on your expectations, but seriously, these RAW converter applications today are light years ahead of what I learned on in 2001. Interface unacceptable, price unacceptable, prefer JPEGs straight out of camera...you might want to reexamine your degree of commitment to learning something new and a bit challenging versus just going back to shooting JPEGs, and if you don't see the value in RAW image capture and post-processing, then simply switch back to JPEG capture, and work with that.

If you want to be a JPEG shooter, you'll want to really work hard and diligently on getting the white balance set the way it needs to be...that's the main thing in being a JPEG shooter--knowing how to manipulate White Balance in the field. And hey, enjoy the 50D!! These new d-slrs are wodnerful cameras, that can do a heck of a lot.


----------



## jakezori (Mar 6, 2010)

Thanks for your help everyone. 
I do like SILKYPIX... I still need to learn how to use it properly though. The only reason I want freeware is because I just spent every last penny I own on this camera and lens lol. I'm not necessarily complaining about the software. I especially appreciate your help Derrel. 

So where I am at now is:

Shooting with JPEG unless you have a pre-planned shoot. (Does anyone have any suggestions on where to learn how to use white balance well?) Use RAW + JPEG on pre-planned shoots and edit with SILKYPIX. 


My question is, does anyone have any other general advice or program use advice and how do I convert the output file of SILKYPIX (or other programs) to something usable online or in other programs? Would quality be taken away to convert RAW to JPEG and then edit in JPEG? Would quality be lost converting RAW to JPEG after editing? If so, how can I use RAW files online or for other practical purposes? 

Thanks =)


----------



## Prometheus (Mar 6, 2010)

One thing everybody needs to remember is that software is best served FREE

RAW conversion plug-in for GIMP:
UFRaw - Home

On the install page it lists instructions for installing to Windows, just go to the install page and scroll down a bit. You'll need to install GIMP first, which is an open-source/free yet EXTREMELY CAPABLE clone of Adobe Photoshop. UFRAW acts as a plug-in for gimp. Open the RAW file in GIMP, and a UFRAW dialog box will come up allowing you to make edits as you please. Once you're finished it'll open it into GIMP where you should probably save it as a TIFF file and set it to lossless/no compression when it asks. Then save a copy as a JPEG .... JPEGs are compressed, so there's some degree of image quality loss. The TIFF will preserve your edits with no quality loss.

Oh, and UFRAW saves your previous settings automatically in case you're editing images in succession. It takes time to go through each image individually but this software is amazing ... and it's totally free. It's even open-source, so if the original people stop developing it, anybody can step in and resume development if they feel like it. That means it'll probably never go away. If Adobe goes bankrupt and closes its doors nobody can continue to develop Photoshop ... unless they sell the rights.


----------



## Renol (Mar 6, 2010)

This might be a dumb question but, don't all RAW processors control the same functions? I mean I know some include more features (e.g. LR vs Photoshop for RAWs) so other than the initial preview when you first open the file, what's the point of the different readings? Is it just a matter of easier work flow from open?


----------



## matfoster (Mar 6, 2010)

Prometheus said:


> Oh, and UFRAW saves your previous settings automatically in case you're editing images in succession. It takes time to go through each image individually


 

i use UFRAW all the time now. 'remember last settings' (particularly for color temperature), 'linearity', auto exposure correction...all really good. the fact that these adjustments are non-linear is great too. seamless export into GIMP..great tool.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 7, 2010)

Silkypix sucks. it came with my GF1 and typically with bundled software, it sucks. 


Download a 30 day trial of Adobe lightroom or Capture One. That's what a real RAW converter is like .


----------



## Prometheus (Mar 7, 2010)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Silkypix sucks. it came with my GF1 and typically with bundled software, it sucks.
> 
> 
> Download a 30 day trial of Adobe lightroom or Capture One. That's what a real RAW converter is like .


I just can't justify paying for software like Lightroom when high-quality software like UFRAW is available totally free of charge, source code included.

I'm serious. Everybody needs to give it a shot.

Here's a user guide that shows you all the features: UFRaw - User Guide

Here's a screenshot from the UFRAW web site:


----------

