# How to tell if an edited photo was shot in RAW



## SusanSayl (Feb 10, 2014)

I'm an amateur photographer (been doing it for about 1.5 years) and have always shot in Auto. I am very comfortable in Auto. And, for the most part, I do very little editing. And my clients have always loved their photos. I am wanting to start playing around with RAW. Although I think my photos look fine, I've heard they will be so much better in RAW. So, I've been going through some photos that other photographers have taken (personal shoots that I have had done of me and my husband) to see if there is any difference. So, my question is, how do you tell if a photo that has already been edited and burned on a disc was shot in RAW?


----------



## Austin Greene (Feb 10, 2014)

SusanSayl said:


> I'm an amateur photographer (been doing it for about 1.5 years) and have *always shot in Auto*. I am very comfortable in Auto. And, for the most part, I do very little editing. And *my clients have always loved their photos*.



My god. This thread is about to go _nuclear_.

To answer your question, I would personally look at noise in the image. Camera noise, and noise produced from editing often look slightly different. Since a JPEG is more compressed from the get-go, it will typically show more noise in areas you'd expect to have been edited (shadows, etc) than a RAW image with the same degree of editing.

I have to ask, when you say clients, do you mean to say that you have been charging people money to take a photo of them, and then letting the camera make all the creative decisions for you (outside of frame composition) by shooting in Auto? I just want to be sure I, and others reading your thread, understand exactly what's been going on.


----------



## astroNikon (Feb 10, 2014)

the nucleur words are "clients" which is synonomous with "professional", and "auto" which when used with "professional" is basically you should know.

In short, A RAW file allows more control in post processing.  But online you are probably looking at a processed photo, one that has been worked on and then exported as, say, a JPEG.

and Manual, allows much more control while taking the shot.

You need to look at the lighting, composition, depth of field/subject isolationism to name a few to then compare to yours.


----------



## lambertpix (Feb 10, 2014)

If you can see EXIF information for the photo, you can probably tell if it was shot RAW.  Mine show "Lightroom" in some software tags, and there's a history tag that indicates that the photos were converted from CR2.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 10, 2014)

Take a single shot, with the camera set to raw+JPEG.  Look at both of 'em on your monitor.  I'd bet a dollar you won't be able to see any difference.

Now, do some editing to both.  And not anything lightweight.  Really do some heavy-handed editing.  THAT'S where you'll start to see the difference.

As for whether anyone can tell the difference in the result:  I would ask: "Who cares?"

As for giving the customer the files, it may backfire on you to provide them with the raw files as many people can't edit them.


----------



## WayneF (Feb 10, 2014)

SusanSayl said:


> I'm an amateur photographer (been doing it for about 1.5 years) and have always shot in Auto. I am very comfortable in Auto. And, for the most part, *I do very little editing*. And my clients have always loved their photos. I am wanting to start playing around with RAW. Although I think my photos look fine, I've heard they will be so much better in RAW. So, I've been going through some photos that other photographers have taken (personal shoots that I have had done of me and my husband) to see if there is any difference. So, my question is, how do you tell if a photo that has already been edited and burned on a disc was shot in RAW?



Raw gives you very easy, powerful, fast, and good means to quickly and vastly improve your images.  Real easy.  But if you won't bother to do it, you might as well just accept the JPG version.

They will NOT be any better (if as good) just because you simply started the Raw software.


----------



## sashbar (Feb 10, 2014)

I think her question was:

_*"*So, my question is,* how do you tell if a photo that has already been edited and burned on a disc was shot in RAW?"*_


----------



## lambertpix (Feb 10, 2014)

sashbar said:


> I think her question was:
> 
> _*"*So, my question is,* how do you tell if a photo that has already been edited and burned on a disc was shot in RAW?"*_



Right.  I answered that.


----------



## DSRay (Feb 10, 2014)

The whole supposition is ridiculous, why would you *NOT* shoot raw?  Yes, the EXIF (for canon anyway) will specify RAW if your silly enough to pass that info along.


----------



## Designer (Feb 10, 2014)

SusanSayl said:


> I've heard they will be so much better in RAW.



This applies to photos that have been processed by someone who knows how to do it well and get good results.  Since most people don't have a software that can display RAW files anyway, most people (such as your clients, for instance) will not be able to view RAW files.  Presumably you have an editing software that can display RAW files, or some representation of the RAW file, so you can "see" them.

Editing photographic files to the point that they are better than what the software engineers think you want is a skill in itself, and will take time to get any good at it.  Meanwhile, shoot BOTH RAW and JPG so you can start learning the art of editing.


----------



## Tailgunner (Feb 10, 2014)

480sparky said:


> Take a single shot, with the camera set to raw+JPEG.  Look at both of 'em on your monitor.  I'd bet a dollar you won't be able to see any difference.



Now are you talking straight out of the camera or after processing? 

I can tell my RAW files from my Jpeg files straight out of the camera. Your in camera settings only effect Jpeg files and not RAW files. So my Jpegs come out a little sharper and brighter than my RAW files. 

As for the OP and RAW files, RAW files allows for my processing control and these are yours and yours alone. You sell the clients prints or finished Jpegs.


----------



## WayneF (Feb 10, 2014)

SusanSayl said:


> I'm an amateur photographer (been doing it for about 1.5 years) and have always shot in Auto. I am very comfortable in Auto. And, for the most part, I do very little editing. And my clients have always loved their photos. I am wanting to start playing around with RAW. Although I think my photos look fine, I've heard they will be so much better in RAW.




My own notion is that beginners simply don't have any idea of what Raw can do for their pictures, no clue how they would use Raw.  The word EDIT is involved, which scares away many, but it is so easy, and so powerful.  For example, White Balance is never correct, but it is easy to fix.

Video is NOT my thing, but I just whipped out a quicky short amateurish video to try to show the first ideas of Raw.  Not deep, just fast.   I'm hoping it can give a better impression of the goal.


----------



## Overread (Feb 10, 2014)

Journalists and sports photographers often shoot in JPEG mode for professional reasons; they need the photos they take almost as soon as they are taken. Sports togs might have an assistant running back and forth with memory cards or running a wireless receptor laptop - performing only a selection process before sending the images on to the editors to be selected and sent to print/displayed online. 

As a result RAW is not the be all and end all of photography. 


However I would argue that a photographer should be capable of shooting in any mode the camera has from auto to manual as well as being able to use JPEG or RAW. That you have clients and yet can't control the tool you use is a great concern since it means that you've very little real control nor ability to adapt with your photography. 

As a result whilst you're likely shooting portraits under decent ambient (natural) light for a low fee if you attempt anything outside of that niche area you'll find it very hard to branch out. You might also find that running a company as a very cheap photographer with a lower standard of product bites you as you try to improve and up your pricing (to make it more commercially viable) because suddenly your existing customer base will no longer want/be able to afford and you'll have to rebuild your customer base. That is a hard thing to do if you've already set a local standard and influence as a lower grade product - because now those early impressions of you that new clients will find will be of your lower grade work.


Now I'm not saying you have to start out the best of the best; but you should at least be capable of using the tools that you have. I'd argue that being able to shoot in manual - being able to use RAWs -being able to use multiple flash units - being able to modify light (be it ambient or flash) - I'd say that those are some core skills that you should really have before you try to take a serious stab at a job. 




Ps if anyone thinks about taking this thread nuclear - you'll be hit with a big nasty stick - keep it civil


----------



## BillM (Feb 10, 2014)

Real nice job on the video Wayne, nice of you to put that together :thumbup:


Just my opinion, shooting in AUTO is a creative exposure choice. Selecting JPEG or RAW for your file format is another creative choice independant of your choice of exposure. Even if you choose to shoot in AUTO you may still want to give serious consideration to creating RAW files. As Wayne points out in his video it will give you an amazing amount of control over your photos after the fact. I don't think I could ever go back to JPEG.


----------



## Overread (Feb 10, 2014)

I can't see auto as being a creative choice. To my mind a creative choice is choosing something based on creativity, which is a desire to create which implies a level of preconception of the photo which therefore implies that the creator needs to have some influence upon the tools in order to create. 

Auto mode isn't a creative mode, its got no control (beyond possibly letting you adjust the ISO) over the cameras settings and thus very little creative influence for the photographer to use barring the composition of the shot. You've no power of the aperture nor the shuterspeed. At the very least I would get out of auto and into program mode since at least then you have some power to select the aperture and shutter speed (the camera pre-sets the exposure based on the meter reading and then you can pick the combination of apertuer and shutter speed that work to your creative desire).


for the OP I'd very strongly suggest reading "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson as well as the "Digital Camera Photography" book series 1 to 4 by Scot Kelby. They are good books and will give you a good grounding in learning to use the other modes on the camera and having control over the tools you have (as well as the wealth of creative possibilities that they give you).


----------



## BillM (Feb 10, 2014)

Well in order to create a photo the photographer needs to set that little dial to something. So in that respect I consider it a creative choice. Sort of like agreeing to disagree is still an agreement.


----------



## WayneF (Feb 10, 2014)

BillM said:


> Real nice job on the video Wayne, nice of you to put that together :thumbup:



Thank you Bill.   I grit my teeth about a few things said wrong or omitted, but am hoping it could be a help.  I also posted it in the Beyond The Basics forum here, maybe a little more main stream.


----------



## Tailgunner (Feb 10, 2014)

WayneF said:


> SusanSayl said:
> 
> 
> > I'm an amateur photographer (been doing it for about 1.5 years) and have always shot in Auto. I am very comfortable in Auto. And, for the most part, I do very little editing. And my clients have always loved their photos. I am wanting to start playing around with RAW. Although I think my photos look fine, I've heard they will be so much better in RAW.
> ...



Great Stuff Wayne:thumbup:

I've just recently started shooting solely in RAW and got a lot out of your video. I think you may have missed your calling...making videos for us noobs :blushing:


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 10, 2014)

There's not really any surefire, giveaway thing to look for I don't think.  But yeah, if it's really heavily edited and still looks smooth and good, it was probably RAW. If there's obvious bands of solid color everywhere and tons of jpeg artifacts and weird blothces of noise, then it was JPEG.

But if it looks lightly edited, you probably can't say for sure.


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 10, 2014)

Overread said:


> Ps if anyone thinks about taking this thread nuclear - you'll be hit with a big nasty stick - keep it civil




Ready just in case.


----------



## e.rose (Feb 10, 2014)

My FIRST thought upon reading the title of the thread:



480sparky said:


> As for whether anyone can tell the difference in the result: I would ask: *"Who cares?"*



My SECOND thought upon reading the actual post:



togalive said:


> My god. This thread is about to go _nuclear_.



My THIRD thought after having my second thought:

:addpics:




Overread said:


> Ps if anyone thinks about taking this thread nuclear - you'll be hit with a big nasty stick - keep it civil



You betta' get yo' beatin' stick ready... layball:


----------



## Steve5D (Feb 10, 2014)

I've yet to come up with a reason as to why I'd need to know...


----------



## manaheim (Feb 10, 2014)

DSRay said:


> The whole supposition is ridiculous, why would you *NOT* shoot raw? Yes, the EXIF (for canon anyway) will specify RAW if your silly enough to pass that info along.



One reason would be that you're shooting thousands of pictures in a very short period of time and do not have the time to do all the post-processing work associated. I know a few guys who shoot kids sports that follow this very mantra.

Standard rule with photography... and in fact most things in life... there is no one hard-fast rule for every situation, so it's best not to dismiss ideas out of hand on surface evidence alone.


----------

