# First time shooting RAW... stupid question for you guys...



## pictureEVERYTHING (Mar 5, 2008)

Hello again.  I know I'm late to the party but this is my first experience shooting with raw files.  Just wanted to make sure I'm not missing something.

Will shooting in Raw completely eliminate the need to bracket exposure on my photos?  Since I can change exposure in CS3s raw editor, I don't see the need for bracketing anymore.

Is there any other standard practice that is popular with shooting film that is now obsolete in raw?  

So far... I'm a fan... a BIG fan!  Just wanted to run that one past you guys.


----------



## EOS_JD (Mar 5, 2008)

No shooting RAW does not eliminate bracketing.  Getting the right exposure in-camera will provide better results.  Altering exposure in your RAW converter induces noise into your image that will reduce the IQ.

Don't get me wrong there's more lattitude in shooting RAW but you should still aim for the best exposure you can get.


----------



## pictureEVERYTHING (Mar 5, 2008)

thanks.  See... I was under the impression that raw editing was lossless... I guess it's more or less lossless though right?


----------



## Double H (Mar 5, 2008)

I am a big worshipper of the mighty histogram.  :hail: Your lcd screen on the back of your camera is deceiving you. Learn to read the histogram, and you will be dead on everytime, and minimal adjustment in Camaera RAW will be needed.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 5, 2008)

After you go through a few sets of photos...you should have a better idea of what you can and can't do in RAW editing.  
Technically, you don't really change the exposure....you can adjust the bightness and that does affect the image quality.

I also use the histogram.  If you haven't seen this...here is a good tequnique...Expose to the Right


----------



## TCimages (Mar 5, 2008)

I disagree with the above statement. I see no need to use Exposure Bracketing when shooting RAW. In my experience, the minimum amount of adjustment usually needed has never introduced noise for me.


----------



## Garbz (Mar 6, 2008)

pictureEVERYTHING said:


> thanks.  See... I was under the impression that raw editing was lossless... I guess it's more or less lossless though right?



Lossless is for compression. The image off the camera suffers no compression artefacts with true RAW data. The latitude for editing the image isn't any larger than for JPEG. The difference lies in the extra bit depth which can't be seen but can be used to calculate when making adjustments. This means that adjusting the white balance will be colour correct rather than guess work, and the same goes for adjusting exposure. You could take your exposure up 2 stops in JPEG too but it will introduce abrupt changes in colour called posterizing which the extra bit depth avoids.



TCimages said:


> I disagree with the above statement. I see no need to use Exposure Bracketing when shooting RAW. In my experience, the minimum amount of adjustment usually needed has never introduced noise for me.



Factually wrong. ANY adjustment that increases brightness introduces noise. There's no IFs or BUTs about it. It's simple maths. Conversely any adjustment that decreases brightness reduces noise. 

Beyond that taking an exposure that's 2 stops over exposed and reducing the brightness will not alter clipping effects. In fact it's likely to make it appear more severe. The same goes for brightening an image. You have some latitude for correcting a wrong exposure, and sure very minor adjustments usually do more good than harm, but there is simply no substitute for getting it right in the first place.


----------



## pictureEVERYTHING (Mar 6, 2008)

wow... smart people this forum has!

Thanks... you guys just saved me a few weeks worth of learnin'!


----------



## TCimages (Mar 6, 2008)

Garbz - 
I did specifically say "in my experience" which translates to my opinion. Perhaps you shouldn't assume that a minor adjustment would be to increase brightness, furthermore, if the exposure is reasonably close, adjustments in any direction is so subtle the noise isn't noticable. That's a fact based on the thousands of RAW images I've shot. Now, If you take an image thats underexposed and try to brighten it by two stops, of course you'll see noise. 

I also don't agree with your statement that RAW does not allow more latitude for adjusting your image than JPEG. I can make many adjustments to the RAW without degrading the image quality. If I take the same JPEG and and make similar adjustments it often times will degrade the image.

The proprietary compression algorithm that compresses the RAW image may infact suffer from artifact as well, but probably not as noticable.


----------



## Garbz (Mar 6, 2008)

I made the assumption that RAW is RAW and not compressed RAW. But I was ultimately very clear in my post of how noise is induced and how RAW compares to JPG.

You can make adjustments I conceded that, but the point I was trying to make is that even though you have acceptable, the opinion however right it is is not factually correct. You will increase noise with a brightness increase. It may not be noticeable but you will increase noise.

I also said exactly how RAW allows adjustments compared to JPG and again it is factually correct. You gain no extra dynamic range and all RAW adjustments can be made to JPEG too. You can NOT pull any extra detail into the image from shadows or highlights giving you no extra editing capabilities but the edits that do happen don't suffer from posterization.

Please don't feel personally attacked by my comments. I agree with your opinion and too make minor adjustments to nearly all of my images. I am just speaking from an entirely unbiased and opinionated point of view which is that shooting RAW is NOT an excuse for not getting the exposure right if you're after the BEST image.


----------



## TCimages (Mar 6, 2008)

no offense taken.  I welcome differences in thoughts, opinions and facts.  I appreciate and agree many of your points.  

I'm just coming from more of a personal experience perspective than a factual one.


----------

