# Shooting Raw as a Matter of Fact



## benjikan (Apr 21, 2007)

I would strongly suggest that all of you who have the capacity to shoot in RAW do so.  The latitude potential for future requirements are such that you can always go back to the original files and tweak them using the newest software available, which in the future may be capable of extracting even more of the nuances that our software is capable of doing today.  JPEG is like analogue tape.  The more you open and adjust the more the degradation.

Just a bit of advice that I feel is crucial for all of your future file manipulation.

Ben


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 21, 2007)

Absolutely. I shoot RAW 99.9% of the time, I have to. 

JPEGs just have so much compression and so little information compared to a RAW file that to me, it makes no sense to shoot JPEG, unless I need the buffer cleared fast, which isn't all that often. I don't know about the pentax RAW files, but my NEF's from my Nikon are worlds crisper than any JPEG because of all the color enhancements, Noise reduction, and Anti-aliasing that _hasn't_ been done. There are times when i've been working with short DOF and high ISO's, that there's no real sharp focus point when shooting JPEG. Shooting the exact same shot as a NEF, it's glaringly obvious. That's how much the JPEGs are blurred on Nikons!!!

but even if they weren't blurred, I'd still shoot RAW for the sheer flexibility. When you shoot RAW, you don't have to think as much. You don't need to worry about WB, if the exposure is a little blown it's ok, you don't' have to worry about what color modes you're in, it's all good!

Like i said before, the only advantage there is to JPEG is smaller files so you can clear your buffer faster and fit more pictures on your memory card(s).


----------



## Flash Harry (Apr 21, 2007)

Since turning digital only the first test with the camera was jpeg, I've shot raw ever since without problem apart from a slower workflow, I now use a raw processing script to automate the initial workflow and it all works like a charm. H


----------



## RVsForFun (Apr 21, 2007)

As a 99% JPEG-only shooter, I agree with your assessments of RAW (believe it or not!). You certainly have better opportunities to re-apply JPEG parameters like sharpness, WB, contrast, etc., without worrying about those things at the time of the shoot.

Don't, however, fall into the "professionals only shoot RAW" mindset. It's the final results that matter, not the format you shoot. I only shoot JPEG for events due to file size limitations of RAW. I only get 40 images per CF card using RAW, but 120 using JPEG. And I'm perfectly satisfied with my JPEGs the camera makes due to my extensive testing and rigorous exposure methods.

Also realize that RAW is not a format for the ages. Both Canon and Nikon have released newer versions of their raw processing software that will NOT work with older RAW formats. It's very possible that in the future you upgrade your RAW software and discover that older images you took cannot be processed! RAW, despite its advantages, is proprietary in format and apparently works for but a time with your software. It will benefit you that you ASK before you accept a software upgrade if the current NEF or CR2 files will continue to be available to you after the upgrade. For this reason you should process your RAW files ASAP and produce as good a JPEG as you can...JPEG is forever, RAW is not.


----------



## RVsForFun (Apr 21, 2007)

You don't have to have file degradation when editing JPEG. I have completely lossless file editing with my JPEGs. The way to do it (for several good reasons) is to open your JPEG in your photo editor, and immediately convert it (by saving it) to a lossless format such as a .PSD file. Edit from then on as a .PSD file and you'll have no compression loss whatsoever. Only when you're done editing do you save it to a new file as a JPEG. This accomplishes another thing - it updates the thumbnail image of the JPEG to reflect the latest editing. You've undoubtedly discovered that the JPEG thumbnail is only "set" at file creation time, not each time you save it.

I hope this clears the name of JPEGs as far as editing losses go.



benjikan said:


> I would strongly suggest that all of you who have the capacity to shoot in RAW do so. The latitude potential for future requirements are such that you can always go back to the original files and tweak them using the newest software available, which in the future may be capable of extracting even more of the nuances that our software is capable of doing today. JPEG is like analogue tape. The more you open and adjust the more the degradation.
> 
> Just a bit of advice that I feel is crucial for all of your future file manipulation.
> 
> Ben


----------



## Digital Matt (Apr 21, 2007)

RVsForFun said:


> I only shoot JPEG for events due to file size limitations of RAW. I only get 40 images per CF card using RAW, but 120 using JPEG.



Buy more CF cards.  I've said it on this forum before, but.......Memory is cheap, but Memories are priceless.


----------



## RVsForFun (Apr 21, 2007)

It's not a question of money. It's two factors...frequency of changing CF cards, and how many pictures you want to trust to a single card the size of a postage stamp. I will put no more than 100 or so images on one card because should that card get corrupted, damaged or lost I'm not out 1/2 my wedding images. I also need a goodly number of images per card because sure as shootin', just when I need to change another CF card something important is happening.



Digital Matt said:


> Buy more CF cards. I've said it on this forum before, but.......Memory is cheap, but Memories are priceless.


----------



## Digital Matt (Apr 21, 2007)

What would you do with film then?  36 shots and then you gotta change, or even worse if you are shooting MF.  15, or even 10 shots then you gotta change!  If you can only fit 40 raw images on a card, then why are you worried about putting more than 100 images on a card, and honestly, it takes far less time to change a CF card than it does to change film.


----------



## Kingpatzer (Apr 21, 2007)

RVsForFun said:


> You don't have to have file degradation when editing JPEG. I have completely lossless file editing with my JPEGs. The way to do it (for several good reasons) is to open your JPEG in your photo editor, and immediately convert it (by saving it) to a lossless format such as a .PSD file. Edit from then on as a .PSD file and you'll have no compression loss whatsoever.
> 
> I hope this clears the name of JPEGs as far as editing losses go.



JPEG is a lossy compression. Every time you save to it you lose information. There is no such thing as a JPEG without file degradation. Your edits may be lossless, in that the total information is unchanged in the PSD file,but the final image suffers from two passes through the JPEG converter. And your final results will include losses to your edits.

Out of the same camera there is no way that you can blow up the image to anywhere close to the same size you could if you shot in RAW after two JPEG passes.



> Also realize that RAW is not a format for the ages. Both Canon and Nikon have released newer versions of their raw processing software that will NOT work with older RAW formats. It's very possible that in the future you upgrade your RAW software and discover that older images you took cannot be processed!


Hence DNG. 

And Adobe's Camera Raw still works with just about anything  you throw at it.

Most people who shoot in RAW don't keep the files in RAW. 

My work flow is something like this:

1. Shoot in RAW
2. Move to RAW processing folder 
3. Rename files, apply metadata, sort/rate photos
4. batch convert to DNG move to DNG processing folder
5. Apply various raw format edits and effects (basic contrast, etc.)
6. pick out only very best photos for further work in  Photoshop batch everything else to TIFF
6.5 photoshop the ones that will most benefit and convert to TIFF
7.  put everything in final resting place folder




> I will put no more than 100 or so images on one card because should that card get corrupted, damaged or lost I'm not out 1/2 my wedding images.


Sorry, that's just silly.

Cards are solid state devices. They have very low variance around their MTBF. Track your usage and toss the cards before they get close to failure and you will never have any problems. Or, at least the chances of having a problem will be the same as the chances of having multiple cards fail at the same time.


----------



## RVsForFun (Apr 21, 2007)

Film is dead and not a good comparison. I shoot close to 1,000 images per wedding and could not tolerate a card change, roll film change or processing costs for a roll every 36 photos or so. I'd have to adjust my shooting style (and my wedding albums style, too). I need to take advantage of digital's superior image capture capability, which means more photos than film would allow. The two media aren't comparable since I don't use film anymore.



Digital Matt said:


> What would you do with film then? 36 shots and then you gotta change, or even worse if you are shooting MF. 15, or even 10 shots then you gotta change! If you can only fit 40 raw images on a card, then why are you worried about putting more than 100 images on a card, and honestly, it takes far less time to change a CF card than it does to change film.


----------



## RVsForFun (Apr 21, 2007)

Not every camera shoots DNG, only Leicas do at this time. It's a coin toss whether or not a format OTHER than JPEG will prove viable. Remember others have tried and died (JPEG2000, Kodak's pix format, etc.). JPEG seems to be so well entrenched that I seriously doubt another format will supercede it. If you argue that DNG is an interim, editing and storage format, I'd argue that .PSD files do the same. 

As for RAW files making better or larger enlargements than JPEG, I have some flawless 20x30s to show you made from JPEGs. Regardless of the format, an 8MP camera only supplies less than 15% of the data necessary for a 20x30 print. Enlargement size and a good print has more to do with your printer's RIP than your camera's pixel count. Shooting RAW doesn't add a single pixel more to your image unless you interpolate. Your 8MP JPEG camera doesn't become a 10MP RAW camera.

As for the JPEG processor being run twice, you're correct. My Canon does a fantastic job, sorry you're not satisfied with yours. The dedicated JPEG converter in my camera is OK with me, and the difference between it and RAW is negligable. If you want to adopt the issues and overhead with RAW for a 3% difference, go ahead. 

If you'll note my subsequent post, I think it foolish to trust, say, 250 images per CF card regardless of the MTBF. If the devices were so reliable we wouldn't need recovery software. It can be something as simple as accidental format/erasure; loss or corrosion. 40 images is too low for me (too much changing), and over 100 or so is too high (too much risk for such a small device). It's not silly, it's a good tradeoff for my shooting style...






Kingpatzer said:


> JPEG is a lossy compression. Every time you save to it you lose information. There is no such thing as a JPEG without file degradation. Your edits may be lossless, in that the total information is unchanged in the PSD file,but the final image suffers from two passes through the JPEG converter. And your final results will include losses to your edits.
> 
> Out of the same camera there is no way that you can blow up the image to anywhere close to the same size you could if you shot in RAW after two JPEG passes.
> 
> ...


----------



## gmarquez (Apr 21, 2007)

Why even argue about it?  Ben stated a suggestion, and I can see debating the merits of the suggestion A BIT, but, as always when this subject is brought up, it is evolving into a religious war complete with dogma, superstition, and misdirection.  JPG vs. Raw.  Mac vs. PC.  Cannon vs. Nikon.  Who CARES if the other guy agrees with you or not?


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 21, 2007)

I shoot RAW only since I want control over the parameters and not let the camera decide while shooting. I want the same freedom with digital as if developing film myself. 




RVsForFun said:


> Film is dead and not a good comparison. I shoot close to 1,000 images per wedding and could not tolerate a card change, roll film change or processing costs for a roll every 36 photos or so.



but you could change a CF card every 180 shots... that is about the average of RAW images i can get on one 4 GByte CF card ... and those are down to 70ish USD each.


----------



## Kingpatzer (Apr 21, 2007)

RVsForFun said:


> Not every camera shoots DNG, only Leicas do at this time.



The point is that the cameras shoot in it. The point is that it is an openly documented RAW format that any software can implement. 



> It's a coin toss whether or not a format OTHER than JPEG will prove viable.



Yeah, TIFF support is so lacking. And you can't find anything that does PNG's these days. 

Sorry, that's just a stupid statement. 



> JPEG seems to be so well entrenched that I seriously doubt another format will supercede it.



It's very well entrenched due to the need many people have to view images on the web. That has nothing to do with it's utility or quality as a storage or processing format.



> If you argue that DNG is an interim, editing and storage format, I'd argue that .PSD files do the same.



DNG is more useful only because it makes using the EXIF data a bit easier.



> Your 8MP JPEG camera doesn't become a 10MP RAW camera.



No, but an 8MP RAW has more image data in it than the same sensor data saved to JPEG.



> As for the JPEG processor being run twice, you're correct. My Canon does a fantastic job, sorry you're not satisfied with yours. The dedicated JPEG converter in my camera is OK with me, and the difference between it and RAW is negligable.



To me, it's very noticeable. Sorry your eyes don't work.



> If you want to adopt the issues and overhead with RAW for a 3% difference, go ahead.



Thanks, I'm glad I have your permission to care about quality.



> If you'll note my subsequent post, I think it foolish to trust, say, 250 images per CF card regardless of the MTBF. If the devices were so reliable we wouldn't need recovery software.



Again, track your usage and get rid of cards before they approach their MTBF points and you'll have no problems. 

Statistically speaking, you're just as likely to lose multiple cards as you are to lose all the data on one card. 

In both cases, the trick is to take control of the variables. Use only a known good card (you filled it up once or twice already) and don't use a card that is approaching it's failure point. You simply won't have any problems.

While your "method" sounds like you are minimizing risks, you're not.


----------



## darich (Apr 21, 2007)

RVsForFun said:


> I will put no more than 100 or so images on one card because should that card get corrupted, damaged or lost I'm not out 1/2 my wedding images



I'm actually amazed that a wedding photographer chooses not to shoot in RAW when the option is there.
RAW can save a wrong exposure which is crucial on the big day.
Are you so certain that you'll get every exposure absolutely perfect that you can shoot jpeg for someone's big day?
Shooting a white dress in front of a dark tree or bush is tricky. Factor in changing light conditions and flash and you've got a lot of variables. You already admitted that you don't want to lose any images but a wrong exposure would be a lost image since you can't reasonably expect someone to pay you for it when it's not to a high standard.

I shoot RAW for almost everything except when i know for a fact i won't be printing. RAW means I, and not the camera, control the finished product. And I only sell the occasional print.

As a keen amateur with a bit of knowledge, if i knew the photographer i was paying hundred's of pounds to was shooting in jpeg and not RAW, i'd be wanting to know why he was charging so much. I'd also ask about his post processing if the exposure was off.
And since he would effectively be my employee for the duration of the wedding since i'm paying him, i'd demand he shoot in RAW.


----------



## Don Simon (Apr 21, 2007)

RVsForFun said:


> Not every camera shoots DNG, only Leicas do at this time.


 
Not true I'm afraid... there is at least one other system with a dSLR that lets you choose between proprietary RAR or DNG... let's just say Benjikan quite likes them, now go on and take a guess 

If you find Jpeg best for your workflow, if it fits your shooting style and you're entirely happy with the results, great. Personally I'm sticking with RAW for a number of reasons. It's nothing to do with being unhappy with how my camera processes Jpegs. It produces some very nice Jpegs, but I don't see why I should limit myself. With different processing or even using different software I have so much more control and flexibility with RAW. I'm not saying it's inherently better suited to professional purposes than Jpeg, but for me it is a much better format and I don't expect to suddenly find myself with a bunch of unreadable files any time soon.

P.s. you seem really certain film is dead... you should go tell Mr. Villa who just joined the forum


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 21, 2007)

I can fit ~180 RAW files on a 1GB memory card off of my D70s. :shock:


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 21, 2007)

Sw1tchFX said:


> I can fit ~180 RAW files on a 1GB memory card off of my D70s. :shock:



wohaa... so my camera produces raw files 4 times that large ....


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 21, 2007)

a 12MP body making uncompressed RAW's should. there's been only one time where you could actually notice the compression of the RAW's off my D70, but I was photoshopping it into oblivion. It didn't even remotely look like the original image and I ended up trashing it anyway.


----------



## Garbz (Apr 21, 2007)

I shoot in RAW for all the tweaking advantages it provides, and they are numerous. However I do not like it as a storage format. RAW files are very camera specific. Who knows if in 10-20 years from now you will still be able to open them. Who knows if your current software will run on computers of the future. It's an extreme example. 

The other problem is size. I like RAW, I really do, but for me it is an interim format which I load off my camera and play with (if needed), or just batch process to JPEG for archiving if not. I have only ever once gone back and edited a photo that I was happy with and only because the subject of the photo wanted something very irritating removed which both she and I only noticed months after :S


----------



## jimiismydaddy (Apr 21, 2007)

RAW is so much better in everything except time. It is such a pain to have to work with 200 raw images. Takes like 10 seconds to load each one, have to see if it is worthy, and then repeat. With JPEG I can just run them through filmstrip in a folder and pick the ones I want.


----------



## benjikan (Apr 22, 2007)

Here is an interesting article from "Luminous Landscape" you may wish to read.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml


----------



## darich (Apr 22, 2007)

Sw1tchFX said:


> I can fit ~180 RAW files on a 1GB memory card off of my D70s. :shock:



I shoot RAW and small jpg on my 5D and only get about 55 shots per 1gb card!!


----------



## RacePhoto (Apr 22, 2007)

gmarquez said:


> Why even argue about it?  Ben stated a suggestion, and I can see debating the merits of the suggestion A BIT, but, as always when this subject is brought up, it is evolving into a religious war complete with dogma, superstition, and misdirection.  JPG vs. Raw.  Mac vs. PC.  Cannon vs. Nikon.  Who CARES if the other guy agrees with you or not?



And my cat can beat your dog!  (at some things)

In some cases, time is more important than shooting in Raw. If I take 2000 pictures at an event and I'd like to look at them before the next decade, I'd prefer JPG.

If I was shooting a product photo, I'd shoot in Raw.

I have a tendency to dump photos from the cards, onto a laptop, throughout the day and for sure, each evening. I often back up to CDs or DVDs, using the original files, minus the obvious duds and mistakes. Then I back up the edited files.

There is no answer that's absolute, because it varies, depending on the individual circumstances and requirements.

Raw may make for better control, but for some of us, shooting JPGs is just as good and giving up a little control is necessary.

Why hasn't anyone brought up shooting both at the same time?


----------



## darich (Apr 22, 2007)

see my post above
:mrgreen:


----------



## Arch (Apr 22, 2007)

Kingpatzer said:


> Sorry, that's just a stupid statement.



Lets keep this civilized and not get into name calling shall we..... tone it down.



There have been lots of threads about Raw Vs Jpeg.... i prefer to shoot RAW at all times... others have no problems shooting Jpeg... yes, the technical differences should be discussed as its useful to newbies... but in the end, many of us have our working methods and are comfortable with them.

What i would say tho, if you are someone who hasnt tried using RAW, then do so as soon as possible.... it can save you when things dont go to plan, and has much more editing potential. The worst thing would be is if someone sticks with Jpeg because they think Raw is too difficult to manage or something.... that would be shame.... 
One of my wedding photog friends felt this way.... she thought it would be too difficult and take too much time to use RAW... but now she uses it and will not go back to Jpeg. We live and learn.


----------



## Garbz (Apr 22, 2007)

I don't understand the whole argument of taking longer. There have been days  where I shot my memory card full and made sure that every photo I took was a keeper and nearly all a not-editer (not a real word). In cases like that I plug my memory card in open Lightroom (downloading program of choice), and go grab a coffee. When I get back everything is on the computer so it's blazingly fast and I can then just set a default setting for all the photos and batch convert them to JPEG. Takes less than 2-3 minutes to setup if you know your software well.

I do suppose it is an issue if you need to transfer files to a computer on location via an old USB interface and don't have a second memory card to use while you wait...


----------



## benjikan (Apr 23, 2007)

Garbz said:


> I don't understand the whole argument of taking longer. There have been days  where I shot my memory card full and made sure that every photo I took was a keeper and nearly all a not-editer (not a real word). In cases like that I plug my memory card in open Lightroom (downloading program of choice), and go grab a coffee. When I get back everything is on the computer so it's blazingly fast and I can then just set a default setting for all the photos and batch convert them to JPEG. Takes less than 2-3 minutes to setup if you know your software well.
> 
> I do suppose it is an issue if you need to transfer files to a computer on location via an old USB interface and don't have a second memory card to use while you wait...



I would prefer to spend a bit of time in post prod and know that my original file is at the maximum capacity when extracting information from it...


----------



## RacePhoto (Apr 23, 2007)

darich said:


> see my post above
> :mrgreen:



I was writing at 4 am wasn't I? :thumbup: 

When I was taking about time, I didn't mean downloading, backing up or moving files, it was about the benefits of editing each picture from RAW and saving it as a new "possibly better" jpg.

I've taken pictures, walked into the press room, at the event, and the editor said, give me a shot of {name} for the website. I open a few, pick the one I like best, crop it and reduce to web size, and hand it to him on a USB drive. It's on the website in minutes from taking the photo.

Now someone needs to explain to me, how batch converting RAW to JPG with software is better than letting the camera do it when it takes the picture. What am I missing?

As for the big question. All I'm trying to get at is *it depends* and there isn't one answer like always shoot RAW for everything. For what I do 90% of the time, I'd gain little or nothing from shooting RAW. BUT for what some other people do, they would only want to shoot JPGs at their family picnic. 

There's no right or wrong answer. It Depends.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Apr 23, 2007)

I used to shoot jpg + raw and then just pull out the jpgs that were good enough to use, but that was in the archaic days of bridge and PS only. 

Lightroom seems to process both types of files just as quickly and without as many constrictions. I will just shoot raw and then keep the raws in the client directorys in a sub folder with the finished jpegs at various sizes in the main folders....

about raw being proprietary, I would just batch a DNG, and a JPG copy out of all your raws, and archive this onto DVD.  No matter what happens you should be set, if adobe kills dng, then most likely we will all be in huge trouble anyways !!!!


----------



## Digital Matt (Apr 23, 2007)

RacePhoto said:


> Now someone needs to explain to me, how batch converting RAW to JPG with software is better than letting the camera do it when it takes the picture. What am I missing?



I'm pretty sure I can make better decisions than a camera chip can make, even when applying them in batch.  I normally look at the first picture, tweak the raw file to my liking, and apply these settings to all shots that were taken in this similar light.  Move on to the next unique lighting scenario and do the same.  I can batch 400 images in less than 10 minutes, and get much more detail than with 8bit jpgs.

Raw files capture 4096 tones while jpgs capture 256.  This equates to much more shadow and highlight detail.  MUCH more.  By the time you get it to an 8bit jpg, you'll will have thrown some of this extra data out, but at least you have it there to play with, and decide where to place it.  Shooting in jpg mode doesn't give you the option, ever.

http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm


----------



## RVsForFun (Apr 23, 2007)

I see this religious opinion on most boards, despite the fact that I said I agree with the original [positive] assessment about RAW. Amazing the reaction the bigots give, that RAW is best for EVERYTHING, regardless of constraints or results. Ho hum, this board is just like the others.

BTW, my eyes work fine (20/15 vision) and my 20x30's are flawless. I shoot RAW for commercial work but not weddings where the advantages aren't worth the overhead. Oh and by the way...my 20x30's are printed from JPEGs!

JPEG still rules...most labs here only take JPEGs. And you were arguing DNG, not TIFF. For printing, TIFF and PSD offer no advantage over and 8-bit JPEG as most labs can't even generate the colorspace of an 8-bit JPEG. But go ahead and shoot TIFF, you'll feel professional! And you can't print that 12- or 16-bit RAW file, you'll have to use a....gasp...JPEG!

I don't know where you studied statistics (I aced that in college) but please explain how it's just as easy to lose 15 cards as one. You can drop one, have it fall out of your pocket on to the floor and never hear it. I can also accidentally erase a card in camera, which is another reason I don't trust a single card with 1/2 my wedding or event's photos. Tell me...if someone made a 500-image roll of film, would you trust 500 images to a single processor pass, single shipment of FedEx? Very risky...

As I don't see you converting to JPEG (I think RAW makes you feel like a pro), no need to keep the religious war going, eh? Didn't I say we could agree to disagree? Like I said, I use JPEGs for weddings and RAW for everything else. 




Kingpatzer said:


> The point is that the cameras shoot in it. The point is that it is an openly documented RAW format that any software can implement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## RVsForFun (Apr 23, 2007)

Matt, you're correct about the export parms of RAW to JPEG. RAW has superior shadow detail, depending on your RAW converter. It [RAW] also eliminated WB, contrast, sharpness issues at shooting time. The overhead is file size and processing time (both camera and post). For high-volume events that I shoot, the additional file size isn't worth the overhead. I control exposure very closely and most of my images are ready to go right out of the camera. On commercial and portrait work I use RAW, but rarely need the RAW-to-JPG output as I control exposure. In the end, the world runs on JPGs for viewing and printing, so the goal is to produce the best JPEG for your situation.



Digital Matt said:


> I'm pretty sure I can make better decisions than a camera chip can make, even when applying them in batch. I normally look at the first picture, tweak the raw file to my liking, and apply these settings to all shots that were taken in this similar light. Move on to the next unique lighting scenario and do the same. I can batch 400 images in less than 10 minutes, and get much more detail than with 8bit jpgs.
> 
> Raw files capture 4096 tones while jpgs capture 256. This equates to much more shadow and highlight detail. MUCH more. By the time you get it to an 8bit jpg, you'll will have thrown some of this extra data out, but at least you have it there to play with, and decide where to place it. Shooting in jpg mode doesn't give you the option, ever.
> 
> http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm


----------



## Digital Matt (Apr 23, 2007)

What to shoot totally depends on situation, and preference, of course.  I'm merely stating the factual data about raw.  I started using raw while taking nature/landscape photos with the intent on making fine art.  You are often times in situations where the dynamic range is vast, and raw is the best tool for that job.  Does it make sense for wedding candids?  No, probably not.  If you have a handle on exposure, and your white balance is set before hand as accurately as possible, you'll be fine.  For my taste however, I will shoot raw anyway, because I enjoy the post processing end of it.  I enjoy looking over my shoot at the end of the day, and even if I just do a batch convert to jpg, I feel the quality of my work is higher because I went over it and personally color corrected the shots, and looked at each shot.  It gives me pride in my work.


----------



## RacePhoto (Apr 23, 2007)

Digital Matt said:


> I'm pretty sure I can make better decisions than a camera chip can make, even when applying them in batch.  I normally look at the first picture, tweak the raw file to my liking, and apply these settings to all shots that were taken in this similar light.  Move on to the next unique lighting scenario and do the same.  I can batch 400 images in less than 10 minutes, and get much more detail than with 8bit jpgs.



I'm pretty sure you can too. I'm not sure about myself, and what if I batch process a couple hundred pictures with worse decisions than the camera makes.  Not an argument against, just pointing out that I do make mistakes.



Digital Matt said:


> Raw files capture 4096 tones while jpgs capture 256.  This equates to much more shadow and highlight detail.  MUCH more.  By the time you get it to an 8bit jpg, you'll will have thrown some of this extra data out, but at least you have it there to play with, and decide where to place it.  Shooting in jpg mode doesn't give you the option, ever.



So once I'm done processing the image, (in camera or in an editor) I still have an 8 bit 256 color JPG, no matter what I started with?

In the end, whether to shoot RAW or JPG is a matter of better control, and fine adjustments.

As for any argument about memory cards. The same reason I carry multiple 1 Gig cards. I can swap them in and out, depending on what I may want on that card. I can carry a card for my personal photos and junk and not have that mixed into what I'm shooting. I can swap cards for different locations at the same event, where I may be at one, then another, then another and back to the first. I can put a card in the reader and burn to CD, and go away while it's backing up, to take more pictures.

No I wouldn't load a 500 exposure roll of film, but I've been known to roll my own until the cartridge wouldn't let more film in.  Big deal 42 pictures instead of 36? Doesn't fit on the reels very well. Misguided ideas basket.

Same reason why I've taken three cameras to events, sometimes with three different films in them. Oh wait, one camera does it all with digital. One set of lenses and two bodies. 

It makes no difference to me if I have four 1g cards or one 4g card, except when I look at the cost per card and what it costs if the card goes bad. Then I like the idea of flexibility and component logic. Big cards mean big problems, if something goes wrong. But I have to admit, the next time I lose pictures on a card, will be the first time. I don't know how common that is.

Heck I'm already collecting cast off 512 cards that I'm only using for carrying images to the store to print, the 128 and 32 mb cards are gathering dust. Some day I still want to own a 1D!


----------



## RVsForFun (Apr 24, 2007)

Wars were started with less convinced individuals, don't you think?

I readily state RAW has many advantages - shadow detail, noise issues, etc., but that's not enough for some people. You MUST shoot like THEY do all the time or you're something less of a photographer (or somewhat ignorant). 

As for me having a minimum requirement for photos on a CF card as well as a maximum limit, I think that's prudent. If you want to put several hundred images on a single card the size of a postage stamp, go right ahead. I believe, for me, I'm making the best decision based upon number of card changes vs. isolating loss. I bet many of you didn't think of the upper end of the constraint, you just buy the biggest cards you can get and jam as many photos on the card as possible. My constraints are certainly something to consider, wouldn't you say? Lose or format one card and how much have you lost? What's your liability?

I'm old enough to remember the exact same diatribe as RAW vs. JPEG, but it was a different topic. Mind you, I personally know people that have had these opinions over the years:

* Professionals don't need meters in their cameras- they just "know" the right exposure!

* Professionals would never use auto exposure, it takes a pro to know when to override the meter!

* Professionals would never use auto focus, it takes a pro to know what to focus on!

* Professionals would never use digital, the quality just isn't there and never will be!

* Professionals will only shoot RAW!

The more things change, the more they stay the same...


----------



## RVsForFun (Apr 24, 2007)

It's a JPEG world, my friend. Just send your RAW file to your lab and see what you get (they won't accept it!). I've personally called all my labs and they all say the same thing - they'd be LUCKY to even APPROACH all the colors in the sRGB colorspace. Your monitor can't show you the entire sRGB colorspace and you can't print it accurately. You view with 8-bit JPEGs and you print with 8-bit JPEGs, it isn't just a web format.

RAW certainly provides all the data for a software-based converter to work with. Incidentally, it's the same data your in-camera JPEG converter has to use. The argument here is that you can tweak the RAW-to-JPEG conversion process better in your computer than in your camera, and I agree depending on the quality of your in-camera converter.

The tradeoff for RAW, of course, is increased file size and additional post processing. This is of no consequence in low-volume shoots like commercial work and portraits. It does, however, impact you on high-volume candid shoots like weddings and events. Only you can decide what factors influence your decision to shoot RAW or JPEG, you're a photographer either way.




RacePhoto said:


> So once I'm done processing the image, (in camera or in an editor) I still have an 8 bit 256 color JPG, no matter what I started with?
> 
> In the end, whether to shoot RAW or JPG is a matter of better control, and fine adjustments.


----------



## Don Simon (Apr 24, 2007)

RVsForFun said:


> The argument here is that you can tweak the RAW-to-JPEG conversion process better in your computer than in your camera, and I agree depending on the quality of your in-camera converter.


 
But here I disagree. For me it's not about the camera converting it well or badly. It's about the camera converting it one way and one way only.

But I'm not saying you or anyone else shouldn't be shooting Jpeg... and I'm definitely not saying one is more "professional". Professionalism is overrated IMO (I don't mean this as a criticism of any professionals here, just that I think people get far too obsessed with what 'professionals' would or wouldn't do). I don't think it's automatically wrong to shoot Jpeg, but nor do I think it's the only way forward, or that it's stubborn to want to use RAW as the 'historical' examples you gave seem to suggest. It's a question of what works best for you... as plenty of people have already said here.


----------



## jtice (Apr 24, 2007)

Heh, the debate between RAW and JPG shooting always seems to be a hot topic.

I am currently shooting 90% JPG with my Canon 30D.

I have three problems with RAW.
--- 1. They are huge.
I have a Nice RAID network storage box, but even then, storing just my JPGs can be a task at times.
If I shoot in RAW, I have to eventually format things in JPG for my website. So then I end up with 2 versions of alot of the photos. Thats even more space taken up.

--- 2. This has to due with #1. Slow loading speeds.
I have a rather fast computer, and still, RAW files are a bit slow to load on my system. JPGs simply pop up on the screen with little to no lag.
RAW files seem to slowly fill the screen. This makes it hard to do some quick searches, comparisons, etc.
Often I like to flip back and forth between a few photos, checking object movement and position.
And you can just about forget trying to view a folder with 300+ RAW photos in Thumbnail mode.

---3. Post Processing.
This is probably my biggest turn off when it comes to RAW files.
I dont like post processing. Even after getting pretty good with LightRoom, which makes things faster and easier.
I just dont think I should have to process every photo. Especially from a $1200 camera body.
It would be one thing if they looked as good as JPG straight off the camera. And then you could ADD some processing to them if you really needed to.
But as is, the RAWs look horrible next to the JPGs straight off the camera.
The exposures seems a bit dark, but mainly, its the sharpness, or lack there of.

I suppose I could batch process the RAWs for the sharpness, but the very quick testing I did, didnt look any better than the camera JPGs.

Anyone have any tips/tricks/suggestions to remedy me of any of these issues I have with RAW?

~John


----------



## Digital Matt (Apr 24, 2007)

jtice said:


> Anyone have any tips/tricks/suggestions to remedy me of any of these issues I have with RAW?



There's no getting around the size of the files.  You will have two versions of your files if you shoot jpg also, unles you are uploading full res photos to your website, which I doubt.

Slow loading?  Use good software.  I use C1 LE, a $99 program, and after an initial "loading" process which probably takes about 2-3 minutes for 400 images, thumbs are created in the software, and I can fly through my shoot and make changes to any raw file on the fly, with immediate feedback, and batch any settings in a matter of seconds.  I can flip back and forth between two poses and compare.  I can even compare them side by side.

I have a default sharpening setting applied to all raw files through C1.  I can apply a curve adjustment to all the photos in my shoot in seconds.  If I don't want to process them, I don't have to.  I happen to prefer it.  If you are not into processing your shots though, then raw really isn't for you, because that is the real benefit of shooting raw.


----------



## ted_smith (Apr 24, 2007)

They say a picture says a thousand words. 

Here is a JPEG basic from my Nikon D70s :







Here is the post-processing product of the raw file by a human being (i.e, me!) :






You decide.

With my Nikon D70s shooting raw + JPEG Basic I get 320 to a 2Gb CF Card. 

Film is not dead - far from it.


----------



## jtice (Apr 24, 2007)

Nice example, but one thing, are you really good at post processing?
I see alot of amazing photos that ppl edit, and alot of them are due to them having super human editing skills. lol

Oddly enough, mine look just like that straight off the camera,,,, but reversed.
It boils down to the post processing.
I either have to take the time to master it,a dn do it to all the photos, or just use jpgs. 

There are times I come home from a day of shooting with 400 photos, and keep about 200 to 300 of them, I simply cant put the time needed into processing them all.

~John


----------



## ted_smith (Apr 24, 2007)

Thanks, but it's not edited. It's just a processed raw file which is my point exactly. With digital, you take the place of the lab technician who would do the same thing with your negatives using chemicals as you do using your computer with your raw file. There's no sharpening, blurring, noise reduction, or anything in this example. The quality of the second picture is a) down to the lens, b) the light and c) (I'd like to think) my photography.  The point here is that the JPEG version of the picture is just the cameras interpretation of what I was trying to capture. And that is nothing like the final product which I'd have achieved using good quality film on my F80 if I was using film or, in this case, by the generation of a good quality raw file using my D70s.  Thus proving (I think?) the point that shooting in raw really is the way to do it. I shoot raw with JPEG Basic - that way I can quickly skim through the jpegs to determine which are good and which are poor.

If I were the client, I know which I'd choose.

(I have nothing against 'tweaking' but I am quite proud of the efforts I go through to get it right in camera and I shoot as though each shot is a 35mm exposure instead of shooting a thousand shots and hoping I get one good one. )


----------



## RVsForFun (Apr 24, 2007)

It's a true statement that if you shoot JPEG only you're completely trusting the in-camera software to make a clean JPEG as it throws away the RAW data after the conversion. In my case, my camera's in-camera converter is EXCELLENT and I have never seen an in-camera JPEG that is inferior to a RAW-to-JPEG done on my computer. I think your camera's JPEG converter greatly affects your opinion of the process.



ZaphodB said:


> But here I disagree. For me it's not about the camera converting it well or badly. It's about the camera converting it one way and one way only.
> 
> But I'm not saying you or anyone else shouldn't be shooting Jpeg... and I'm definitely not saying one is more "professional". Professionalism is overrated IMO (I don't mean this as a criticism of any professionals here, just that I think people get far too obsessed with what 'professionals' would or wouldn't do). I don't think it's automatically wrong to shoot Jpeg, but nor do I think it's the only way forward, or that it's stubborn to want to use RAW as the 'historical' examples you gave seem to suggest. It's a question of what works best for you... as plenty of people have already said here.


----------



## RVsForFun (Apr 24, 2007)

...are the overhead of RAW! If you see no real benefit to it and are satisfied with the in-camera JPEGs more than the RAW converted files, I'd say you're a candidate for JPEG. RAW certainly has its uses but you're not the first one to say that your camera's JPEGs are better than the RAW files. I'd even offer this - if your in-camera JPEGs are very, very close to RAW then you don't need RAW as you're forcing yourself to do all the same processing in post when your camera can do just as good a job as you can in-camera. I will say you'll only have that opinion if your exposure is usually well controlled and you select the correct color balance, but I do. For commercial and portrait work I shoot RAW + JPEG.



jtice said:


> Heh, the debate between RAW and JPG shooting always seems to be a hot topic.
> 
> I am currently shooting 90% JPG with my Canon 30D.
> 
> ...


----------



## Don Simon (Apr 24, 2007)

You like your camera, we get it  but like I said, for me this is _not_ about how good my camera is at processing RAW to Jpeg. It does a great job. One advantage of my chosen company being lazy and using the same sensor for several years, is they've got the processing fairly well sorted. My camera processes Jpegs very well but it processes a certain way and I do not then have the opportunity to process it in a different way. I like to have as much choice as possible. If you think that just means I can't get the exposure or the colour balance right, that's ok, I've heard the "Why shoot RAW if you can get it right in-camera" argument as many times as you've heard the "Professionals shoot RAW" one.


----------



## jtice (Apr 24, 2007)

ted_smith said:


> Thanks, but it's not edited. It's just a processed raw file which is my point exactly.



What program did you use?
Are you saying that you didnt do anything manually to the RAW, that you just let the program do its default processing?

I have noticed that RAWs imported into LightRoom look pretty good right after LR does its processing, and I usually only have to tweak it just a bit.

I can get the RAWs to look as good as the cameras JPGs, but only sometimes better.
As far as sharpening, and most exposures go.
RAWs do seem to let you adjust the color, and have a bit more control over exposure, for example, adjusting highlights, lights and darks a bit more separately.

I am not saying RAW is bad at all.
It just comes down to a point though, where you find yourself editing for hours, and only coming out with barely better results.
For some things this matters, for some it does.
If I am doing "product" shots, or something creative, I shoot RAW, 
as you said, its nice to have the option to do a bit more with it.
Especially not having to worry about JPG compressions, 
though I have not seen a huge degrade in quality with multiple edits.

~John


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Apr 24, 2007)

ZaphodB said:


> Not true I'm afraid... there is at least one other system with a dSLR that lets you choose between proprietary RAR or DNG... let's just say Benjikan quite likes them, now go on and take a guess


 
Im sorry no one noticed this, but i thought it was hilarious.  my guess is the new DSLR made by DPreview, Benjikan's favorite comany  

I shot raw the other night because I am finally getting post processing down, and I really enjoyed it.  I am trying to switch my shooting style from quantity to quality, taking better pics instead of more pics.  RAW will help with this because I dont want to process 300 RAW images.


----------



## benjikan (Apr 25, 2007)

xfloggingkylex said:


> Im sorry no one noticed this, but i thought it was hilarious.  my guess is the new DSLR made by DPreview, Benjikan's favorite comany
> 
> I shot raw the other night because I am finally getting post processing down, and I really enjoyed it.  I am trying to switch my shooting style from quantity to quality, taking better pics instead of more pics.  RAW will help with this because I dont want to process 300 RAW images.



When I send my images, either to a Gallery or for Publishing in a Magazine, I try to keep everything in 16 bits.  This translates in to better nuances of colour gradation and truer fidelity IMO.  As I have shot everything from "EDF" France campaign to "Galleries Lafayette" Christmas book to "Dim", I know the client wants the best extraction possible for Pre-Press.  If they insist on 8 Bit, I do so at the very last moment and send them either a PSD or TIFF file (uncompressed).  None the less what ever works for you is what works for you...


----------



## ted_smith (Apr 25, 2007)

> What program did you use?
> Are you saying that you didnt do anything manually to the RAW, that you just let the program do its default processing?


 
I use Linux with The GIMP and the UFRAW plugin (http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/). The default settings will not be suitable for every picture so yes, I have to move a value by a notch or two depending on the picture. But this is the point - you're processing the image as the technicians would do with film. There is a difference between that and 'correcting' an image because the result is not as you intended. 

I read a great analogy recently about RAW. A RAW image is like the ingredients of a Sunday Roast. When you cook a roast, you have the carrots, spuds, roasties, brussels and the chicken carcass all sitting there in bowls of water etc. But you have to cook them to make the orast dinner. With RAW, you have all the ingredients, you just have to make the picture. With film, the technitian has all the ingredients and he makes a picture from it too. 

I am a film photographer traditionally and moving to Digital felt initially like a bit of a cheat until I realised the control I had over the development stages of shooting RAW - now I feel like a better photographer than I did before with the rapid learning shooting digital enables. And like someone else has already said, if you intend to work with RAW you choose your shots better and make more of an effort, which makes you a better photographer, as you would do with film (especially costly film!). Anyone can blast off 1000 JPEGs and find one good shot and call themselves a photographer. Hand my SLR to an infant for an hour set to Auto and he'd probably get one good one...eventually, but does that make him a photographer? I think not.


----------



## RVsForFun (Apr 25, 2007)

ZaphodB, the only thing people aren't getting is that I absolutely believe RAW processing is superior to in-camera JPEG, given the time and overhead factors. There's no question about it. I've never stated that good exposure or shadow control negates the benefit of RAW. I also believe you do a good job of post'ing your RAW files and should be able to produce a superior JPEG under most conditions. For me, however, the overhead of RAW, given my own methods, isn't worth the marginal (or negligible) improvement over my in-camera JPEGs for high-volume events.



ZaphodB said:


> You like your camera, we get it  but like I said, for me this is _not_ about how good my camera is at processing RAW to Jpeg. It does a great job. One advantage of my chosen company being lazy and using the same sensor for several years, is they've got the processing fairly well sorted. My camera processes Jpegs very well but it processes a certain way and I do not then have the opportunity to process it in a different way. I like to have as much choice as possible. If you think that just means I can't get the exposure or the colour balance right, that's ok, I've heard the "Why shoot RAW if you can get it right in-camera" argument as many times as you've heard the "Professionals shoot RAW" one.


----------



## jtice (Apr 25, 2007)

That was put well, and is close to my outlook on it.

It just really depends on what you are shooting.
For high volume events I just go JPG, for the same reasons.
I dont want to put the time into processing hundreds of photos,
and even then, most are only slightly better than the cameras JPGs.

If I am doing night shots, long exposures, HDR, etc. then I use RAW.

~John


----------



## Deadeye008 (Apr 25, 2007)

I've just started toying with RAW and find it fascinating. I agree with the above statement in that I would probably not use RAW if I was planning on shooting a large volume of shots. But for occasions where you need that "perfect shot" I would use RAW.


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Apr 25, 2007)

benjikan said:


> When I send my images, either to a Gallery or for Publishing in a Magazine, I try to keep everything in 16 bits. This translates in to better nuances of colour gradation and truer fidelity IMO. As I have shot everything from "EDF" France campaign to "Galleries Lafayette" Christmas book to "Dim", I know the client wants the best extraction possible for Pre-Press. If they insist on 8 Bit, I do so at the very last moment and send them either a PSD or TIFF file (uncompressed). None the less what ever works for you is what works for you...


 
I use GIMP for Windows and it only processes 8 bits, is it really that limiting?

Perhaps a side by side of an image processed through at 8 and one processed through at 16 to show a loss of information?


----------



## Kingpatzer (Apr 25, 2007)

xfloggingkylex said:


> I use GIMP for Windows and it only processes 8 bits, is it really that limiting?
> 
> Perhaps a side by side of an image processed through at 8 and one processed through at 16 to show a loss of information?



It depends on your work-flow, but you can lose information in 8 bit that would not be lost in 16 bit. 

For most people, however, it's an academic question.


----------



## ted_smith (Apr 27, 2007)

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]You can't display uncompressed 16-bit on a conventional monitor  (http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT7096363910.html) 




> [/FONT] For most people, however, it's an academic question



True


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 28, 2007)

Different strokes for different folks.  I shoot RAW 100% of the time, because that works for me.  There are many top professionals who find JPEG to work better with their workflow; Yervant comes to mind ( www.yervant.com ).


----------



## Jeff Canes (Apr 28, 2007)

I shot RAW because IMO lighting is the biggest weakness in my skill.


----------

