# shooting raw?



## fsimcha (Feb 13, 2013)

I'm new at dslr and have been hearing a lot about shooting and editing raw. What does that mean and how do.I know if I am shooting in raw or not? Also, why do I want to (or not) shoot and edit raw? Thanks a bunch!


----------



## Light Guru (Feb 13, 2013)

There has already been SO SO SO SO SO SO SO much said on this both here on this forum and all over the internet.  

*Have you done a search? *


----------



## tirediron (Feb 13, 2013)

It's also explained in your camera's manual.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 13, 2013)

Let me google that for you


----------



## KmH (Feb 13, 2013)

The issue boils down to bit-depth, and how bit-depth relates to image editing.

Check out this group of tutorials - Photo Editing Tutorials

A Raw image data file is like a film negative in that a Raw file is not a finished image and has to be developed.

JPEG is designed to be a straight-out-of-the-camera (SOOC), ready-to-print file that will have no additional editing done to it.


----------



## ABJayce (Feb 15, 2013)

fsimcha said:


> I'm new at dslr and have been hearing a lot about shooting and editing raw. What does that mean and how do.I know if I am shooting in raw or not? Also, why do I want to (or not) shoot and edit raw? Thanks a bunch!



Like it was said earlier Raw is like a film negative. When shooting in RAW the camera saves all the data/details of the photo. But RAW files will need to be processed further to make them look the best as they can be and a lot more can be done with RAW images. To shoot in RAW you will need to change the mode to RAW in your Camera's menu. Usually under the shooting menu something along the lines of image quality or something. You will know that you're shooting in RAW when you look at the file extensions, instead of being a jpeg they will be an NEF file. I mostly shoot in raw, especially if they are pictures I know I will edit such as if I'm doing a shoot or an assignment or something. If I have my camera out with my friends and just lounging around I switch to jpeg because I won't waste time processing pictures like that.


----------



## Tiller (Feb 16, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Let me google that for you



How do you do that?


----------



## EIngerson (Feb 16, 2013)

Are you good now?


----------



## Snowtographer (Feb 16, 2013)

Tiller said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Let me google that for you
> ...



Let me Google *that *for you

Sorry, couldn't help myself.


----------



## EIngerson (Feb 16, 2013)

Are you good NOW?


----------



## kathyt (Feb 16, 2013)

tirediron said:


> It's also explained in your camera's manual.



Be nice tirediron. Don't make me lock this thread.


----------



## greybeard (Feb 16, 2013)

Raw vs JPEG is a like a "odd sock" it just won't go away.....lol. 

My Experience:
 First of all, you can shoot in JPEG  and your shots can look great and no one will ever know that you didn't shoot them Raw.  When you shoot in JPEG the camera takes the Raw image data and processes it for you.  It adjust the *WHITE BALANCE* to whatever you have your camera set to (usually AUTO).  It adds *SHARPENING* and *NOISE REDUCTION *and many cameras add *LENS CORRECTION  *to correct for distortion and abortions inherent in whatever lens you are using.  It then strips away all the data it decides to be unnecessary and creates a JPEG file and deletes the Raw data.   This JPEG file is only a fraction of the size of the RAW data file.  You can then take that file and edit it with a pretty much any photo editing software.

Shooting Raw simply means having the camera save the RAW data to the camera card and not go through the process of creating a JPEG.  You have to put the camera card into the computer, save it to a folder and,  use a program like Light Room to view it.  The program won't edit the Raw file but will let you create an editable .tif or .JPG file that you can then do all sorts of fancy editing.   Anyway, now that you have your Raw file in the computer and are using some sort of editing software, you can adjust the *white balance, sharpening, noise reduction, and lens correction *as well as crop, straighten, and a whole host of other editing I won't go into now.  *The real advantage* of shooting Raw is that you have control over the process and not the camera.  It is much easier to correct a bad white balance with a Raw file than it is with a JPEG because no real white balancing has been added to the Raw file, it is simply the (raw) data straight from the camera.  

In the final result how much better will pictures look if you shoot in Raw?  That depends on you and how well you manually do all the things the camera is not doing.  In my case I have my D7000 setup to save the Raw file to one card and the JPEG file to the other.  I usually like the ones that I've corrected myself better than the ones that the camera corrected.  

Some will tell you that there is more color information in a RAW file but, I haven't seen it in my prints other than subtle tone differences that don't really amount to much.  So my advice is to try both and decide for yourself if Raw is worth the extra effort.  Photography for me is not my job but it is one of my passions.  I do it to help me keep my sanity in the crazy world.  Shooting Raw makes perfect sense for me as it gets me more involved  in the process and takes me away from some of the things that make me crazy.....lol.

good luck and keep shooting.


----------



## KmH (Feb 16, 2013)

greybeard said:


> It then strips away all the data it decides to be unnecessary and creates a JPEG file and deletes the Raw data.   This JPEG file is only a fraction of the size of the RAW data file.  You can then take that file and edit it with a pretty much any photo editing software.


Well sort of. First. Decisions about what is or isn't stripped away as unnecessary for a JPEG were made long ago by the _*J*_oint *P*hotographic _*E*_xperts _*G*_roup. JPEG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While digital cameras make Raw files having a 12-bit or 14-bit color depth. JPEG is limited to having an 8-bit color depth.
Because of the limited bit-depth, JPEGs have very little editing headroom. Some poorly made in the camera JPEGs have no editing headroom at all.

None of the original luminosity data is stripped away, because we humans need that information. What we don't need in the final image is all the colors, which is why JPEG can have an 8-bit color depth.
In addition to reducing the bit depth, JPEG also locks groups of image pixels into 8x8, 8x16, and or 16x16 pixel groups which are known a Minimum Coded Units or MCU's.

Limiting the bit depth to 8-bits, and creating the MCU's is the 'compression' that makes JPEG files smaller in size. (Note: image size is not affected, and no pixels are discarded.)

The reduced bit depth and the MCU's make the editing of JPEGs problematic, particularly when a scene has smooth gradients, like a cloudless sky. Posterization and banding are common JPEG editing artifacts seen in smooth gradients after an edit has been applied.


----------



## greybeard (Feb 16, 2013)

KmH said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > It then strips away all the data it decides to be unnecessary and creates a JPEG file and deletes the Raw data.   This JPEG file is only a fraction of the size of the RAW data file.  You can then take that file and edit it with a pretty much any photo editing software.
> ...



Yes, very similar to the difference between a .WAV and .MP3 audio file.  Shooting in JPEG is a lot like recording something in MP3.  It sounds fine but doesn't take heavy editing well.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 16, 2013)

greybeard said:


> Yes, very similar to the difference between a .WAV and .MP3 audio file.  Shooting in JPEG is a lot like recording something in MP3.  It sounds fine but doesn't take heavy editing well.



Another analogy is ordering a sandwich at a restaurant.  JPEG is the sandwich the waitress brings you.  Raw is being able to take you sandwich back into the kitchen, change the wheat bread for rye, add some tomatoes, take off the sauce, pile more meat on, remove half the pickles......... and change your coffee to decaf.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 16, 2013)

480sparky said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, very similar to the difference between a .WAV and .MP3 audio file.  Shooting in JPEG is a lot like recording something in MP3.  It sounds fine but doesn't take heavy editing well.
> ...


I like that!

I've always seen them as raw being like a negative that can be used with darkroom equipment to make many different versions of a print, while a JPG is more like a Polaroid - what pops out of the camera is what you've got (for the most part), and accurate manipulation of it is very limited.


----------



## TCampbell (Feb 16, 2013)

Unlike meats, poultry, seafood, shellfish, or eggs... viewing raw or undercooked images does not seem to increase your risk of illness.  ;-)


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 16, 2013)

Buckster said:


> I like that!
> 
> I've always seen them as raw being like a negative that can be used with darkroom equipment to make many different versions of a print, while a JPG is more like a Polaroid - what pops out of the camera is what you've got (for the most part), and accurate manipulation of it is very limited.



I've used the same analogy as well:

JPEG:







Raw:


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 16, 2013)

TCampbell said:


> Unlike meats, poultry, seafood, shellfish, or eggs... viewing raw or undercooked images does not seem to increase your risk of illness.  ;-)




Yes it does.

I've contracted NAS.


----------



## dmunsie (Feb 16, 2013)

Imho, shooting in .jpg is a great learning tool while you develop basic composition skills. I think once your eye starts to develop, it's time to start shooting raw. Because at that point you'll want to learn more about post processing. Since you're asking about it now, it's probably a good time to at least start shooting jpg+raw if your camera supports shooting both formats at the same time. That way you can archive the .raw versions for later and use the .jpg versions for quick viewing, printing, etc.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 16, 2013)

Tiller said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Let me google that for you
> ...



Let me google that for you


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 16, 2013)

Tiller said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Let me google that for you
> ...



Click here.


----------



## aponi (Feb 17, 2013)

I dutifully shot in RAW because everyone said you should, but I didn't know what I was doing with it until I read a tutorial about it. You can really make a total mess with it if you're not careful.


----------



## fsimcha (Feb 22, 2013)

1. I appreciate those who actually answered my Q, i did learn from each response...
2. You do not have to eat me up alive for breaking "forum rule #1" and asking a noob Q that has prob been asked before and looking like i havent heard of google before.... 
    I am trying to learn a lot all at one time and did try looking up some information on raw but wanted to opinion of some other people who might be able to answer the Q in simple terms... 

So, i guess that even though shooting raw is the more professional way to go, i am still learning how to use photoshop so i wouldnt really know how to properly edit a raw image anyways. I hope one day I will have a good enough handle of my camera in manual to be able to do all the rest too...

Thanks again......


----------



## gregtallica (Feb 22, 2013)

fsimcha said:


> 1. I appreciate those who actually answered my Q, i did learn from each response...
> 2. You do not have to eat me up alive for breaking "forum rule #1" and asking a noob Q that has prob been asked before and looking like i havent heard of google before....
> I am trying to learn a lot all at one time and did try looking up some information on raw but wanted to opinion of some other people who might be able to answer the Q in simple terms...
> 
> ...



Does your camera support Raw+JPEG? Why not shoot a few shots with that and try your hand at editing both. That way, you at least have a simple JPEG backup.

I don't think editing raw files can screw you up _that_ badly.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 22, 2013)

To the average eye it makes very little difference.  Shooting in raw is overrated and not necessary for most photographers.


----------



## Ballistics (Feb 22, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> To the average eye it makes very little difference.  Shooting in raw is overrated and not necessary for most photographers.



And the trap is set...


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Feb 22, 2013)

480sparky said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, very similar to the difference between a .WAV and .MP3 audio file.  Shooting in JPEG is a lot like recording something in MP3.  It sounds fine but doesn't take heavy editing well.
> ...



Haha.  Very well put and true indeed.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 22, 2013)

Buckster said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > greybeard said:
> ...




Guess  the photographer better be skilled enough to get it right in camera then.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 22, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



So you shoot with Polaroids then, huh?


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 22, 2013)

480sparky said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, very similar to the difference between a .WAV and .MP3 audio file.  Shooting in JPEG is a lot like recording something in MP3.  It sounds fine but doesn't take heavy editing well.
> ...



Other than the piling on of the meat (and possibly the tomatoes), you make it sound like a bad thing, lol.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 22, 2013)

What intrigues me about this is comparing the number of steps required to find this site, setup an account, login, post the message...

...vs. going to google and searching for it.


----------



## LungFish (Feb 22, 2013)

What if they want to ask follow up questions and discuss it? You can't do that on a google search.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 22, 2013)

LungFish said:


> What if they want to ask follow up questions and discuss it? You can't do that on a google search.



Yeah, no.

See, there's about 8,000 threads per month on this very topic on this forum... all searchable via google search.

And TRUST me, there is NO angle on this topic that has not been beaten TO DEATH on this forum.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 22, 2013)

LungFish said:


> What if they want to ask follow up questions and discuss it? You can't do that on a google search.



I guess one needs to learn how to Google the correct search terms.


----------



## LungFish (Feb 22, 2013)

Well if the OP had done the google search first it might be obvious that a new discussion wasn't needed, but they may not realise that. 

Also, if the forum was restricted to discussions that were truly new, it would be very quiet.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 22, 2013)

LungFish said:


> Well if the OP had done the google search first it might be obvious that a new discussion wasn't needed, but they may not realise that.
> 
> Also, if the forum was restricted to discussions that were truly new, it would be very quiet.



Not really.

There's quite a bit of new content on here daily, and there is quite a bit of stuff that is actually personalized.  The "What camera should I buy" threads are kind of annoying because there's 8 trillion of them, but as long as there is some good discourse they are valuable to the OP because it's typically personal and therefore a new thread makes total sense.

Topics like "What is RAW?", "Is RAW worth it?" and the like are just rehashing the same old crap over and over again.

There are LOTS of threads like this ... and many of them could be answered by google, or heck even by reading your camera manual.

So yeah, again... to your comment... no.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 22, 2013)

manaheim said:


> LungFish said:
> 
> 
> > What if they want to ask follow up questions and discuss it? You can't do that on a google search.
> ...


...including the one _YOU'RE_ reiterating for the 8000th time, and yet you feel it's okay for you to go there yet again, but it's not okay for them to have the audacity to ask such questions in the first place.

For those who come here and ask these questions, it's only their first time. Your rearing up over it is kind of like a slut telling a virgin she's not allowed to lose her cherry because the slut's had enough sex already to last a lifetime.

Why does it pull your panties down if it comes up again and again anyway?  How's it scrape any skin off your nose?  After all, nobody's _forcing_ you to _participate_ in the discussion for the 8000th time.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 22, 2013)

[edited because it was just too obnoxious]

Buckster... I'm calmy discussing something that I think is an issue with the quality of the forum.  I'm not berating anyone or giving anyone too hard a time.  I'm just calling out some statements that people often use as defense of re-posting the same stuff over anad over again and pointing out some holes in the logic.  I think that's perfectly fine.

And really... in my 9,000 some odd posts, I've probably complained about people re-posting stuff MAYBE 100 times.  Things get re-posted on this forum probably a hundred times a _week_.  I think my ratio is pretty much a drop in the bucket and probably doesn't warrant you flying off the handle like that.

However... it's a free forum.  Obviously if you feel the need to rail against me for calling out quality issues, in the form of calling out a quality issue yourself, I support that.  I do, however, think you're being kind of an ass about it.

(There.  That was slightly less obnoxious than my previous one.)


----------



## Buckster (Feb 22, 2013)

manaheim said:


> [edited because it was just too obnoxious]
> 
> Buckster... I'm calmy discussing something that I think is an issue with the quality of the forum.  I'm not berating anyone or giving anyone too hard a time.  I'm just calling out some statements that people often use as defense of re-posting the same stuff over anad over again and pointing out some holes in the logic.  I think that's perfectly fine.
> 
> ...


None of that explains why you, or anyone else for that matter, should get their panties in a bunch over the fact that the same questions come up over and over because there is a constant stream of new people who have never asked them before.  It's never going to stop, so why get in a tizzy over it?  Learn to live with it.  Either answer their questions or ignore them, but quit whining about it.

If you don't like the fact that it's a DISCUSSION board and noobs will always come here after a quick search and ask questions that have been asked many times and will be asked again many times more, and then possibly even engage in DISCUSSIONS that spring from those questions and answers, you can always start your own forum and restrict those discussions.  LOL!  Oh, that's right, you tried that already and it went over like a lead balloon.  Oh well...  tsk tsk...

So what's it going to be?  Whine about it some more because you're not going to get your way?  Have you tried holding your breath until you turn blue?  Maybe that will help.  If nothing else, you'll pass out and shut the hell up about it, which I personally think would help tremendously.  But then, I would, since I'm an ass about it.

Oh, and this isn't a "quality issue".  It's a "you're being an ass about it" issue.

ETA: I think this bears repeating: 





LungFish said:


> Also, if the forum was restricted to discussions that were truly new, it would be very quiet.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 22, 2013)

Wow, that was just... _awesome_.  You've outdone yourself.  The jab about the part where I started my own forum was like the icing on the cake.  Right for the jugular. Really nice stuff there.  Seriously.  You should take a bow.

Of course the really funny thing about all this is that you're totally doing the "I'm going to defend the new person from the big bad forum jerk and his evil complaining about how people re-post threads" thing... which has also been kinda done to death.

Too funny.

And yeah, it is a quality issue, but whatever.  I'd fight to defend your right to rail against me for defending mine.  Cheers.


----------



## LungFish (Feb 22, 2013)

But what do you expect to be done about this 'quality issue'? The next person to ask this question (probably next week) hasn't joined the forum yet, so it seems pretty futile to tell them what to post and what not to post.


----------



## 2310Return (Feb 22, 2013)

Wow!

Just registered on this forum and thought I would have a quick look at the sections available. As a newcomer to this whole place - I thought that I would expect to see the usual "welcome" messages. When all is said and done - it is a section for newcomers.

...But no - the aggression with which a perfectly reasonable question is received on this forum makes it look like this is going to be a VERY interesting place.

My initial observation seems to be that to survive this place one needs to be pretty sure of oneself.

What a disgrace that people should respond to a person's correctly situated and very reasonable response. Quite clearly there are some people on this board who are entirely at home with projecting what amounts to a pretty obnoxious persona.

Perhaps those "welcoming" people might get a grip on their egos and step back a little!!!

Welcome to the forum indeed!!


----------



## manaheim (Feb 22, 2013)

LungFish said:


> But what do you expect to be done about this 'quality issue'? The next person to ask this question (probably next week) hasn't joined the forum yet, so it seems pretty futile to tell them what to post and what not to post.



Fair question.  (and nicely asked...)  

A lot of people do lurk on here long before they post, and I do see evidence of those people sometimes showing an understanding of the culture here in their very first posts.  So... if some people periodically poking folks for not doing things like searching before asking questions are seen by some of those people, then it cuts down the number of redundant (and completely pointless posts).  So is it yelling at the rain?  Maybe a little... but not entirely.  

And the thing is, what would happen if people stopped? It _could_ get a lot worse.  TPF is unique in that the culture here has a little bit of an expectation to it.  I don't personally want to see it slide completely into attaboys and people constantly asking the same questions like some other forums I've seen.

By the way, I'd also like to point out that while Buckster is laying into me like a dirty rug, the first three responders to this thread all said the same thing... so let's just keep this in perspective, yes?



Light Guru said:


> There has already been SO SO SO SO SO SO SO much said on this both here on this forum and all over the internet.
> 
> *Have you done a search? *





tirediron said:


> It's also explained in your camera's manual.





gryphonslair99 said:


> Let me google that for you


----------



## Buckster (Feb 22, 2013)

manaheim said:


> And the thing is, what would happen if people stopped? It _could_ get a lot worse.


Ooooooo...  A slippery slope argument!  Awesome!!!  Haven't seen many of those lately!!!  Of course, there's no _ACTUAL_ evidence that the whining has EVER cut down the number of threads started up around here asking the same questions over and over and over, but let's not let that get in the way of a good logical fallacy!



manaheim said:


> TPF is unique in that the culture here has a little bit of an expectation to it.  I don't personally want to see it slide completely into attaboys and people constantly asking the same questions like some other forums I've seen.


Luckily, we have you to stop it with your whining.  Whew!  Thanks!!  What's it like to have a super-power like that?



manaheim said:


> By the way, I'd also like to point out that while Buckster is laying into me like a dirty rug


Yes, you're a dirty, naughty little rug made of bunny hare.  Now lie there like a good little rug or I'll take you out back, hang you over a clothesline and have Michelle beat the dust out of you with a riding crop!


----------



## manaheim (Feb 22, 2013)

Buckster said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > And the thing is, what would happen if people stopped? It _could_ get a lot worse.
> ...



And neither can you demonstrate that mine (AND OTHER PEOPLE'S) "whining" _hasn't_ stopped it. So, what? You're trying to represent my argument as a logical falicy with a logical falicy?  Not to mention I did not represent that as a fact, but rather posed it as a question.



Buckster said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > TPF is unique in that the culture here has a little bit of an expectation to it.  I don't personally want to see it slide completely into attaboys and people constantly asking the same questions like some other forums I've seen.
> ...



Humorous remark aside, you're just being childish. 

I understand you want to defend the weak here, but you're just throwing rocks and having a temper tantrum and it's really ridiculous.

I'm going to stop here and let you have your way.  Have at it.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 23, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...


OH!  SORRY!!  WRONG ANSWER!!  Hope you didn't wager too much on that one in Double Jeopardy with yet ANOTHER logical fallacy - the Burden of Proof Fallacy!!

The burden of proof is on the one making the CLAIM, and that would be YOU.  If YOU want to claim, even by inference with your slippery slope argument, that your whining prevents the forum from erupting in an overflowing stream of repeat-question-itis, then YOU get the burden of proving it's so, while NOBODY has the burden of proving it's NOT so.

Example: If I say there are invisible pink poodles with gills that live at the bottom of the ocean and care deeply about your sex life, it's  up to ME to prove it since it's MY CLAIM.  You have NO BURDEN at all to prove they don't exist.

See how that works?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 23, 2013)

I haven't been on this site all that long either and I'm astounded at how new people on the board are often treated. What's the point of so far three (now four) pages mostly giving the OP a hard time about his post? If you don't want to discuss it because it's been discussed many many times, then don't post a reply and move on to another thread. There may be someone willing to answer the question, or maybe suggest the OP do a search on here to find prior threads on this topic, etc. This is the beginners' section...

I'm a longtime film photographer and I don't know that I'd necessarily equate RAW and JPEG to film except that RAW is probably more like shooting film using all manual settings to control how the image is recorded and JPEG might be more like using auto settings or a point 'n shoot that determines the camera settings (so basically edits how the photo is recorded). My digital camera shoots DNG so it automatically generates a RAW image and a JPEG image from it for every photo - in general I find the RAW image usually is a better quality image. 

I find that much of the time I can use the RAW image directly from the camera. Maybe it's because of the way I learned and shoot film that I mostly frame and compose photos the way I want them and set the camera to get a proper exposure. I don't do much editing in the darkroom either if f I have a well exposed set of negatives. But for some photos I have done more extensive editing/processing, it just depends on the photo.

If the OP is newer to photography it might be worth trying shooting a few RAW images and see how they turn out. If you feel like you get better results shooting JPEG then that might be the best option. Later on as your skills develop you might try shooting RAW again and then be able to get better results. Sometimes I think you just have to try something, figure out what worked and what didn't, and that's part of the learning process. 

Sharon


----------



## BrianV (Feb 23, 2013)

fsimcha said:


> 1. I appreciate those who actually answered my Q, i did learn from each response...
> 2. You do not have to eat me up alive for breaking "forum rule #1" and asking a noob Q that has prob been asked before and looking like i havent heard of google before....
> I am trying to learn a lot all at one time and did try looking up some information on raw but wanted to opinion of some other people who might be able to answer the Q in simple terms...
> 
> ...




Adobe Lightroom makes it much easier to process RAW files, and includes the function to "batch" convert all the selected images to JPEG in a couple of clicks. You can make corrections on groups of images. The RAW image includes all of the information that the camera uses to make "in camera JPEGS", and Lightroom will use that information for converting to JPEGS. Lightroom gives the option of changing the "White Balance", reduce noise, increase contrast, exposure, etc and then convert to JPEG. It is much easier to use than Photoshop for these corrections.

If you are using a point and shoot- not much advantage. Shooting a DSLR: most new ones use 14-bits to represent intensity in the pixel, entry-level DSLR's use 12 bits. Think of it as picking up 64x or 16x tonal resolution on a pixel compared to 8-bit JPEG. No one would be happy with a new monitor that has a 256:1 contrast range, 16384:1 is better. I could nitpick this comparison, the camera is going to "scale, and optimize, and be smart about conversions", blah, blah, blah: but it is not hard to do yourself and Lightroom and other raw processing software makes it easy.

There are JPEG standards for 12-bits and beyond. No one seems to support it. JPEG-2000 has a lot of flexibility, but back to no one uses it.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 23, 2013)

480sparky said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



Just never had a need to shoot raw.  Personal choice, and I usually get it right. It took a lot of years, trial and error, but that's how photography goes.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 23, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> Just never had a need to shoot raw.  Personal choice, and I usually get it right. It took a lot of years, trial and error, but that's how photography goes.



I didn't ask if you shoot in raw. I asked if you shoot with a Polaroid.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 23, 2013)

2310Return said:


> Wow!
> 
> Just registered on this forum and thought I would have a quick look at the sections available. As a newcomer to this whole place - I thought that I would expect to see the usual "welcome" messages. When all is said and done - it is a section for newcomers.
> 
> ...



Welcome to the forum.  This doesn't happen all the time, just a lot of the time. Threads get taken over when one person has nothing to say, but chooses to say it anyway. The backlash from a comment starts the ball rolling and soon after it's a discussion between two or three people completely unrelated to the thread.

There is a lot of good information that comes from this forum, sometimes you have to just cut through the crap to find it.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 23, 2013)

480sparky said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > Just never had a need to shoot raw.  Personal choice, and I usually get it right. It took a lot of years, trial and error, but that's how photography goes.
> ...



Nope, never had a need to use Polaroid.


----------



## BrianV (Feb 23, 2013)

I use a Polaroid 180 at home and a Polaroid C-4 Scope Camera with a Tektronix 2230 Oscilloscope in the lab.

"The Beginner's forum is for asking basic technical photographic questions about things like shutter speed, aperture, ISO, white balance, metering modes, focusing modes."

The forum also has an off-topic forum where some members post absolutely fascinating stuff like:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/off-topic-chat/318534-your-attention-please.html#post2877844

There is also a Feedback forum for threads to improve the site:

Feedback and Suggestions

One way to prevent bullying of new members and censorship through intimidation would be for the forum administration to create a user-group for some members that would prevent them from having access to the beginners forum. That way they will not have to even see it, and will not feel compelled to insult new members that use this forum for it's stated purpose.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 23, 2013)

omg... people seriously.

Yes, there was a bit of a dust up, but it clearly ended... so how is your perpetuating it by continuing to poke those who were in the middle of it any better than starting it to begin with?  Move on.


----------



## ratssass (Feb 23, 2013)

....just for chits and grins,type in "shooting raw" in the forum search.All it does is show you every thread that its mentioned in.Not very useful.Now try "Why shoot raw"...Its just a cluster**** of threads that have those words in the thread _&#8203;somewhere....._


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 23, 2013)

"Shooting raw" is merely a tool.  It is NOT a crutch, as some "I always get it right in the camera" purists will pretend it to be.  It is a TOOL.

A _tool........ _just like a lens, a filter, a tripod, a grip, a flash, a reflector, a focus rail, a remote release, a handheld meter, a gray card, a wireless flash trigger, a rain cover, a sandbag, a light tent, a DOF app, a lens hood, a photographers vest, an L-bracket, a light stand, a dark bag, a LensBaby, A Nodal Ninja, a monitor calibrater........ ad nasuem ad infinitum. 

Those who claim they don't 'need' to shoot raw _solely because they claim to always 'get it right in the camera'_, usually fall into three categories.  1. They can shoot JPEG because they don't need (or have the time for) raw, 2. They've never taken the time to truly understand the advantages of raw files, or 3. They just don't care.

To those purists, I ask you....... would you be OK with this SOOC image? 







If not, what would you do* in the field* to improve it?


----------



## table1349 (Feb 23, 2013)

Sparky, please do not lump all of us "Get it right in the camera" purist in the same boat.  While I do believe in getting it right in the camera and have for over 40 years now.  I still made corrections and edits in the darkroom then and still do now with digital.  Get it right in the camera usually means a couple of things, at least to me.  
1.  Easier to edit with less work in editing.  
2.  Better final product. 

 We now return you to your regularly scheduled programing.......





P.S.   The third rock up from the bottom has some dust on it.  The photo would look neater if you removed that dust.:lmao:


----------



## rambler (Feb 23, 2013)

On the first page of this thread Greybeard stated, 
"*The real advantage of shooting Raw is that you have control over the process and not the camera. It is much easier to correct a bad white balance with a Raw file than it is with a JPEG because no real white balancing has been added to the Raw file, it is simply the (raw) data straight from the camera. "
 As  a new user of Photoshop (I am not sure why I cannot get out of the bold font) I find RAW does give better or at least easier options for changing and adjusting the white balance which can dramatically change the look of an image.  A simple drop down menu gives you several choices of white balance with just one click.

One of the best ways of starting with Photoshop is to learn to use the many functions of camera raw, ACR.  One of them is simply using the white balance "eyedropper" tool in camera raw and or the temperature slider.

For those using Lightroom 4, ACR there is the same ACR version used in PC CS6.




*


----------



## Buckster (Feb 23, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Sparky, please do not lump all of us "Get it right in the camera" purist in the same boat.  While I do believe in getting it right in the camera and have for over 40 years now.  I still made corrections and edits in the darkroom then and still do now with digital.  Get it right in the camera usually means a couple of things, at least to me.
> 1.  Easier to edit with less work in editing.
> 2.  Better final product.
> 
> We now return you to your regularly scheduled programing.......


The question is: Do you shoot RAW?


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 23, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Sparky, please do not lump all of us "Get it right in the camera" purist in the same boat.



If you read my entire post, you'll find out I didn't.



gryphonslair99 said:


> While I do believe in getting it right in the camera and have for over 40 years now.  I still made corrections and edits in the darkroom then and still do now with digital.  Get it right in the camera usually means a couple of things, at least to me.
> 1.  Easier to edit with less work in editing.
> 2.  Better final product.



I'll grant you the first.  I'll debate the second.

Like I said... raw is a tool, not a crutch.  _Use it when it's needed_.

I can build a house using a 24" hand saw.  But I'd much rather use a table saw, a circular saw, and jig saw when the needs arise.

Don't label all of us raw shooters as failures. I don't shoot raw because I can't get it right in the camera.... I shoot raw because it will give the most editing options.  Tomorrow, when I first work with the images, and ten years from now when the image will be used for some purpose I never would have imagined.

Fact is, I probably shot more frames with Kodachrome 25 than I gave with digital so far.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 23, 2013)

I shoot jpegs as the type of photography I'm doing does at times require me to turn photos around and have them sent out sometimes within minutes of shooting them.  The requirement to get them as close to being correct right out of the camera is important as I do work under deadlines.  I could shoot raw and I know guys that do, they also have more time to tweek the images.  It is their choice.  Personally I don't care one way or the other who shoots raw.  In my line of business which requires speed and where losing 5 minutes can decide if the picture gets in before deadline and gets used is a little more important to me than dragging out a little extra from the shadows of a flower.

I don't consider myself as a purist, but I do consider mself as an experienced professional that produces quality work whenever I pick up a camera. It's my job to do it right the first time.

Shoot raw, shoot jpegs, whatever works, for whatever you shoot. I hope I have explained my reasons for shooting jpegs and not raw.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 23, 2013)

480sparky said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Sparky, please do not lump all of us "Get it right in the camera" purist in the same boat.
> ...



Gladly debate #2 with you.  

1st photo in raw with exposure nailed.  2nd photo, same shot 3 stops over exposed.  Which do you think will give the better product after a final tweaking?  It's easier to polish a diamond than a lump of coal.  That is why I generally shoot raw.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 23, 2013)

Scott you obviously know what you're doing and use what works for your purposes. I've done some hockey for marketing purposes for a local minor league team, and after looking at your site... :hail:. Or even better . If I was doing something like that now maybe I'd be shooting JPEG. For my purposes I find that when I open my images, with the DNG producing both RAW and JPEG, I have an instant comparison and find the RAW usually looks better (even in the thumbnails). 

For whatever reason I found that I was doing more editing with JPEGS trying to get a somewhat better quality photo, and I do little or no editing with my RAW images. For me shooting RAW/DNG seems more comparable to shooting film using all manual settings and controlling the camera the way I want.  

Brian you made an interesting point about the forum; I looked at the feedback section of the site and may try posting a comment there, although I don't get the sense that it may accomplish much. I'm wondering at this point who runs/owns the site as I don't see the name of a person or business anywhere. id

(edit) And Manaheim, you said the culture here has a little bit of an expectation to it... that's not how it comes across to me, it seems more that there's little expectation on here for people to be reasonably respectful to each other even when they disagree.

Scott you make a point in saying that there's some good info. on here but you have to cut thru the crap... I'm not sure for me that it's worth it. 

Sharon


----------



## Joves (Feb 23, 2013)

2310Return said:


> Wow!
> 
> Just registered on this forum and thought I would have a quick look at the sections available. As a newcomer to this whole place - I thought that I would expect to see the usual "welcome" messages. When all is said and done - it is a section for newcomers.
> 
> ...



Well greetings and welcome to the forum. You find this all over the interbutz in every forum. Anytime someone asks about RAW you get those who want to add nothing constructive, because it has been asked a bagillion times. Well so has what is wrong with my photo, or why are my photos soft, and so on. As I look at it if the question annoys you ignore it, and move on to what you want to comment on. Newbies will always ask the same questions that have been asked many other times, I have no problem with it. Everyone was new once. 



Buckster said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Sparky, please do not lump all of us "Get it right in the camera" purist in the same boat.  While I do believe in getting it right in the camera and have for over 40 years now.  I still made corrections and edits in the darkroom then and still do now with digital.  Get it right in the camera usually means a couple of things, at least to me.
> ...



I am with Gryphon on this. And yes I shoot RAW as well as Jpeg, all at the same time even, amazing. I get about a 70% keeper rate as well with my Jpegs, that is because I chose to actually took the time to learn all of the different cameras picture control settings, and how they affected images. I shoot and process the RAWs when I screw the pooch in the Jpegs, and process the RAWs on the good ones as well when I am bored for different effect. 

To fsichma here is my suggestion shoot in dual mode, learn how your camera picture controls affect the Jpeg images, and learn how to tweak the Jpegs for now. Then later as you gain experience with processing, return to your older RAW files and process them. You will be surprised at how you can give some older photos new life once you become proficient at working with RAW files. We all have to learn somewhere and working on your Jpegs is a good easy start to learning, RAW is for when you start to see where the limitations are in Jpeg images to be fixed or adjusted. Just work right now on learning to get the images close to right when shot so you have less work to do.


----------



## greybeard (Feb 23, 2013)

Frank568 said:


> Raw vs JPEG is a like a "odd sock" it just won't go away.....lol.


^^^^^^I agree.
Shoot raw if you have the need and time to do a lot of editing.  Shoot JPEG if you don't.  It's as simple as that.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 23, 2013)

greybeard said:


> ^^^^^^I agree.
> Shoot raw if you have the need and time to do a lot of editing.  Shoot JPEG if you don't.  It's as simple as that.


You're quoting and replying to a spammer.  We don't quote them here at TPF because it creates more cleanup work for the staff. Instead, we just report them with the Report Button:


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 23, 2013)

greybeard said:


> ^^^^^^I agree.
> Shoot raw if you have the need and time to do a lot of editing.  Shoot JPEG if you don't.  It's as simple as that.



I don't shoot raw because I have a lot of time to edit.  Fact is, I would edit a raw file _just as much as a JPEG_.  I prefer raw because it *allows *_far more editing_, both when I first encounter the image in my workflow, as well as 10 years down the road.

Another advantage to raw............ I only need one file.  I can create multiple versions of the same image, all under one filename.  You simply cannot do that with JPEGs.


----------



## BrianV (Feb 24, 2013)

Using LightRoom, shooting Raw and using the Export function allows all of the images to be resized at the same time. The conversion to JPEG uses the white balance information stored in the file as the in-camera would use it. Noise reduction and other functions can be set on all of the images at the same time, or you can just use a default.

Using LightRoom's Export command to resize the image and convert to JPEG is faster than using Photoshop to resize in-camera JPEG images. With the right software, shooting Raw does not require additional time to edit the image. We're talking a couple of minutes to put the card into the computer, run LightRoom, adding the images to the catalog, and hitting the "Export" button. The Raw images are left intact, and can be edited later as required. Most cameras have an option to record both Raw and in-camera JPEG. This means more space used on the card, and does slow things down a little for filling a buffer.

Basically- shooting raw gives more flexibillty for post-processing an image, and there is software available designed to make it easy and fast. Without software that is designed to batch process Raw files, it can take a lot of time.


----------



## gregtallica (Feb 25, 2013)

I wish my camera would save as .png files so I could do my edits in MS paint


----------



## Buckster (Feb 25, 2013)

Joves said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...


Then you're not who Sparky was addressing, which is those who say they ONLY shoot JPG and NEVER shoot RAW because they're SO GOOD they NEVER NEED it.  He also never lumped all "Get it right in the camera" purists in the same boat, but was, again, specifically addressing those who claim to never shoot RAW because they're THAT AWESOME at "getting it right in the camera" that they NEVER need a RAW file in post.

Most of us try to "get it right in the camera", and I'm sure Sparky does as well, and of course there's nothing at all wrong with that.  But as you know yourself, based on what you said above, there's also nothing wrong with having that RAW file as a backup for when you need it in post.  Those of us that aren't perfect, that is.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 25, 2013)

I wonder who the "get in right in the camera" person was?  Or they are so good the never need to shoot raw files. That never shoot raw because they are just that awesome they don't need it.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 25, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> I wonder who the "get in right in the camera" person was?  Or they are so good the never need to shoot raw files. That never shoot raw because they are just that awesome they don't need it.


Yeah, gee... I wonder...


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 25, 2013)

Buckster said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder who the "get in right in the camera" person was?  Or they are so good the never need to shoot raw files. That never shoot raw because they are just that awesome they don't need it.
> ...



I answered a simple question with how I work. I don't believe that I said the way I shoot is the only way, or the correct way, of that how anyone else shoots is wrong. I really don't care what people choose, if they want to shoot raw, that's great.  I explanied why I shoot jpegs.  I try to get it right in the camera everytime I shoot, don't you?

When I shot film, I had to get it right in the camera, it was expected by clients when they got the film back, the images were right, it wasn't an option to screw up. So I shoot digital with the same approach, do it right the first time.  It is still expected by clients, and more so, it is for me to do it right.

Does it really matter to you that much that I know what I'm doing with a camera or how I shoot, or to answer the Op's question that I choose to shoot jpegs.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 25, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...


Are you feeling guilty or something?  I don't recall pointing any fingers at you or throwing you up against a wall and demanding an explanation for why you do whatever you do...

Of course, if the shoe fits, feel free to wear it if you like.  You DO have a tendency to let everyone know on frequent enough occasions how perfect you are when it comes to photography.  Practically a god (like your photographer father before you), in that respect, from what I've read over time in your posts.  You DO never need to shoot RAW because you ARE a professional who gets it right first time, every time, in the camera, as you've readily explained, unlike us mere mortals who are far, FAR beneath you.

And no, none of that matters to me at all - it's just an observation.  While you are obviously at the center of your own universe and glow with the brightness of a million suns, you're not even in the same solar system with me in mine, so it doesn't matter to me what you do or how you do it - not one whit.  In fact, from my POV, you're quite insignificant in the overall scheme of things, to be perfectly honest.

Have a great day!


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 25, 2013)

Buckster said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



Thanks once again you are correct with your observations.  It seems that you have issues with someone working as a professional photographer and knows what they are doing with a camera.  Is it some kind of envy complex you have.  Most of the other people on this forum would look at my response as to why I don't shoot raw, and understand my reasons. You just seem to look at whatever I post as negative.  

As far as my Dad goes, you have no idea how much he has influenced some of the best photojournalists in the world.  Obviously you have little respect for professional photographers.

So when you are out taking pictures do you not try and get it right in the camera everytime, or do you just guess and use photoshop to fix it?  You've been taking pictures long enough to understand the importance of getting it right in camera, or am I mistaken?


----------



## Buckster (Feb 25, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...


Yes, I know.



imagemaker46 said:


> It seems that you have issues with someone working as a professional photographer and knows what they are doing with a camera.


LOL!  No, I don't, but it's fun watching you projecting like that.  



imagemaker46 said:


> Is it some kind of envy complex you have.


Envy?  You?  Hahaha!!  No, not at all!  I'm quite happy and content to be myself, to have made a good living in my chosen career as a telecommunications engineer for over 30 years, and to have kept my photography as an enjoyable hobby.  I honestly wouldn't have it any other way, so I've nothing to envy you _FOR_.



imagemaker46 said:


> Most of the other people on this forum would look at my response as to why I don't shoot raw, and understand my reasons.


Maybe that's so, and maybe it's just your over-inflated ego talking.  Either way, it's a moot point as far as I'm concerned, since you yourself are the one that stated your reasons and, at least in part, they _ARE_ what I described - you're so good, such an expert, such a _professional_ photographer, that you don't ever _NEED_ RAW, so you don't shoot it.  What part of that is untrue?



imagemaker46 said:


> You just seem to look at whatever I post as negative.


No, you interpret it that way.  I never said anything about it was negative.  I don't think I even implied it.  Hey, if you're so awesome that you never ever need a RAW file to fall back on, GREAT!  I'm fine with that.  No skin off my nose.  No problem at all.  Nothing negative about it, as far as I can tell.  Is it a problem for you that I don't bow down before you in light of your stated awesomeness?  Is that perceived by you as a slight?  A jab?  A poke?  LOL! 



imagemaker46 said:


> As far as my Dad goes, you have no idea how much he has influenced some of the best photojournalists in the world.


And neither do I care.



imagemaker46 said:


> Obviously you have little respect for professional photographers.


I have plenty of respect for professional photographers.  I have very little respect for egomaniacs though.



imagemaker46 said:


> So when you are out taking pictures do you not try and get it right in the camera everytime,


Yep, every time.  I DO try.  I don't always succeed, mere mortal that I am.



imagemaker46 said:


> or do you just guess and use photoshop to fix it?


Nope, after 40+ years of shooting, even as a hobby, my guessing days are over.  That still doesn't make me infallible, nor does it mean that even with the best settings I can get at the time of shooting that I can't squeeze even more out of it in post IF I have enough headroom to work with it.

Oh!  And what's it to YOU how I do things anyway, since you've asked me the same thing even though I never challenged you on why you do what you do?  What's it to you?  What do you care if I get it right in the camera or fix every shot in Photoshop?  How would it scrape any skin off your nose, either way?



imagemaker46 said:


> You've been taking pictures long enough to understand the importance of getting it right in camera, or am I mistaken?


I'd say 40+ years is long enough to understand the importance of doing my best to get it as right as I can at the time of shooting.  It's also long enough for me to understand the important role that negatives and darkrooms, and now RAW files and Photoshop, play in making images for final viewing.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 25, 2013)

There that was easy.  Simple answers to a simple questions.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 25, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> There that was easy.  Simple answers to a simple questions.


And _*SO MUCH*_ was revealed, eh? LOL! What a character!  

So, does this mean your ego is feeling better now and we can all get back to our regular, everyday, ho-hum lives again, at least until the next time you realize you're not being duly worshiped as the one, the only, the incredible, impeccable, undeniable, fantastic-beyond-words-describable, savant-like, chip off the old block son of an influential genius, professional photographer?  :lmao:


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 25, 2013)

IBTL


----------



## Benco (Feb 25, 2013)




----------



## BrianV (Feb 25, 2013)

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/members/144313.html

It looks like the OP is no longer checking into this forum.

I'm really surprised that this thread was allowed to run into this territory.

This is the beginner's forum. I really don't see why anyone would bother posting a beginner's question in this forum  with responses such as what was given in this thread.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 25, 2013)

BrianV said:


> It looks like the OP is no longer checking into this forum.


Good to know.



BrianV said:


> This is the beginner's forum.


Thanks for the update.



BrianV said:


> I really don't see why anyone would bother posting a beginner's question in this forum  with responses such as what was given in this thread.


Well...

1. Most folks who get to the forum with a Google search won't read this thread, even if they see it, even if they have the same question.
2. That's especially true when this thread will drop from the top soon, then completely off the page soon enough, and then the chances of them seeing it are very slim indeed.

BTW, threads have a life of their own, often well beyond the OP's original question.  Just sayin'...

PS.  I like how you posted that code for turning a RAW into a BMP, then edited it out when it was obvious it wouldn't fit in with your new message about this thread and the answers in it being in the beginner forum.  That was cool.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 25, 2013)

Buckster said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > There that was easy.  Simple answers to a simple questions.
> ...




I'll just print this off and hang it on my wall as a reminder.  You can't be suggesting that anything you could say would bruise my delicate ego.  Like anyone, it would take my peers to adjust my ego, but then I respect my peers opinions.


----------



## Buckster (Feb 25, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...


Thank you!  LOL!  :thumbup:


----------



## tirediron (Feb 25, 2013)

*All right everyone... Pick up your buckets and spades.  This sandbox is closed!*


----------

