Encouragement to shoot raw

[Ysarex]

So the data in the RAW file is a linear function of the amount of light in the scene where scaling an input by a factor means that the output is always scaled the same factor. That would be why white balance, exposure, shadow and hightlight recovery adjustments can be made without affecting the linear nature of the file, correct?

Yes. Sensors record linearly unlike film which responds to light disproportionately -- film density over exposure graphs a curve. So with sensor data a factor that would multiply all the data won't alter it's linearity. A camera output image (JPEG) is a simulation of a film curve -- non-linear.

 

[SunriseAvenue]

This is the best way to encourage people to shoot RAW, fr. I also avoided it for a long time because it seemed so time consuming, yet finally I decided to give a go after reading this article on processing raw images. Simple yet effective The key is to always show the difference between RAW and JPEG, otherwise I'd never try it, to be honest.

 

[NerdyTimelapser]

I mostly make timelapses and shooting RAW is often crucial there. In the example below I exposed for the sky, and brought back the foreground in post. If I would have exposed for the foreground the sky would have completely blown out, and if something is heavily overexposed you can't bring it back in post. Not every camera creates such flexible RAW files though, I'm using a Lumix S5 fullframe camera.

Resulting time-lapse:

 

[greybeard]

I mostly make timelapses and shooting RAW is often crucial there. In the example below I exposed for the sky, and brought back the foreground in post. If I would have exposed for the foreground the sky would have completely blown out, and if something is heavily overexposed you can't bring it back in post. Not every camera creates such flexible RAW files though, I'm using a Lumix S5 fullframe camera.

View attachment 285520
View attachment 285521

Resulting time-lapse:

Why I shoot RAW

 

[smoke665]

Going back on thread, there are differences in RAW file extensions that should probably be considered when saving. Leica, Pentax/Ricoh, Samsung have the ability to save as DNG files natively. Other manufactures use proprietary extensions like Canon's-CR3, Fuji-RAF and Nikon''s-NEF. The primary difference between them seems to be the structure and file compression algorithms. Something that's been discussed here on TPF in the past, and I've yet to understand fully, is what proprietary "adjustments" each camera sneaks into a RAW file. Lastly, I'm not sure it's as much a problem now as it used to be but DNG is a standardized open source file structure recognized by 3rd party editors, whereas there might still be a few conflicts out there with proprietary extensions. Adobe recommends converting other extensions to DNG.

I prefer DNG, for it's unlimited Metadata storage and other options. The standardized open source structure, and checksum verification tool means less chance of corruption from 3rd party software. Another difference is that a DNG embeds the camera preview JPEG, but also allows a rendered version with adjustments to be embedded in addition. It would be interesting to hear others experiences with camera specific extensions.

With JPEGs the problem that occurs, is differences in display calibration and in the absence of a specific embedded ICC profile it defaults to the sRGB profile for the device. For most social media postings this works close enough. Where it becomes a problem is when you send it to a lab for printing. Most labs (for an upcharge) offer color correction. I've had limited success with that, but on critical work prefer to soft proof my images with the ICC profile downloaded from the lab for the specific product.

 

[greybeard]

Going back on thread, there are differences in RAW file extensions that should probably be considered when saving. Leica, Pentax/Ricoh, Samsung have the ability to save as DNG files natively. Other manufactures use proprietary extensions like Canon's-CR3, Fuji-RAF and Nikon''s-NEF. The primary difference between them seems to be the structure and file compression algorithms. Something that's been discussed here on TPF in the past, and I've yet to understand fully, is what proprietary "adjustments" each camera sneaks into a RAW file. Lastly, I'm not sure it's as much a problem now as it used to be but DNG is a standardized open source file structure recognized by 3rd party editors, whereas there might still be a few conflicts out there with proprietary extensions. Adobe recommends converting other extensions to DNG.

I prefer DNG, for it's unlimited Metadata storage and other options. The standardized open source structure, and checksum verification tool means less chance of corruption from 3rd party software. Another difference is that a DNG embeds the camera preview JPEG, but also allows a rendered version with adjustments to be embedded in addition. It would be interesting to hear others experiences with camera specific extensions.

With JPEGs the problem that occurs, is differences in display calibration and in the absence of a specific embedded ICC profile it defaults to the sRGB profile for the device. For most social media postings this works close enough. Where it becomes a problem is when you send it to a lab for printing. Most labs (for an upcharge) offer color correction. I've had limited success with that, but on critical work prefer to soft proof my images with the ICC profile downloaded from the lab for the specific product.

I'm a Nikon shooter and I appreciate DNG but, there are times when I want to use Nikon's NX Studio for editing my RAW files and NX does not recognize DNG encoded files, I wish it did.

 

[NerdyTimelapser]

Going back on thread, there are differences in RAW file extensions that should probably be considered when saving. Leica, Pentax/Ricoh, Samsung have the ability to save as DNG files natively. Other manufactures use proprietary extensions like Canon's-CR3, Fuji-RAF and Nikon''s-NEF. The primary difference between them seems to be the structure and file compression algorithms. Something that's been discussed here on TPF in the past, and I've yet to understand fully, is what proprietary "adjustments" each camera sneaks into a RAW file. Lastly, I'm not sure it's as much a problem now as it used to be but DNG is a standardized open source file structure recognized by 3rd party editors, whereas there might still be a few conflicts out there with proprietary extensions. Adobe recommends converting other extensions to DNG.

I prefer DNG, for it's unlimited Metadata storage and other options. The standardized open source structure, and checksum verification tool means less chance of corruption from 3rd party software. Another difference is that a DNG embeds the camera preview JPEG, but also allows a rendered version with adjustments to be embedded in addition. It would be interesting to hear others experiences with camera specific extensions.

With JPEGs the problem that occurs, is differences in display calibration and in the absence of a specific embedded ICC profile it defaults to the sRGB profile for the device. For most social media postings this works close enough. Where it becomes a problem is when you send it to a lab for printing. Most labs (for an upcharge) offer color correction. I've had limited success with that, but on critical work prefer to soft proof my images with the ICC profile downloaded from the lab for the specific product.

I have to use .RW2 RAW files on my Lumix, but would love the option to shoot lossless compressed DNG files. No idea if that's hard for a camera processing wise, but it would save me so much space on my memory cards. Especially while shooting vintage glass using a dumb adapter, I wouldn't need any camera exif data or 'adjustments' saved.

 

[smoke665]

I have to use .RW2 RAW files on my Lumix, but would love the option to shoot lossless compressed DNG files. No idea if that's hard for a camera processing wise, but it would save me so much space on my memory cards. Especially while shooting vintage glass using a dumb adapter, I wouldn't need any camera exif data or 'adjustments' saved.

Unfortunately Lumix doesn't save DNG natively, it wouldn't help you on card space in the camera, but RW2 files can be easily converted to DNG in LR or other 3rd party editors.

@greybeard don't you just love how camera manufacturers lock you in to their way. LOL Any experience with the "enhancement adjustments" that Nikon might make to RAW files?

 

[NerdyTimelapser]

Unfortunately Lumix doesn't save DNG natively, it wouldn't help you on card space in the camera, but RW2 files can be easily converted to DNG in LR or other 3rd party editors.

@greybeard don't you just love how camera manufacturers love to lock you in to their way. LOL Any experience with the "enhancement adjustments" that Nikon might make to RAW files?

Yeah I'm using Adobe DNG converter when I store the files, good freely available software

 

[greybeard]

Another knock on DNG is Adobe's own Lightroom's Ai enhance only works with my RAW files and not DNG. Go figure.

 

[greybeard]

Another knock on DNG is Adobe's own Lightroom's Ai enhance only works with my RAW files and not DNG. Go figure.

Ooops
I just downloaded the latest version of the converter and the converted DNGs work with all Lightroom features.

 

[Ysarex]

Another knock on DNG is Adobe's own Lightroom's Ai enhance only works with my RAW files and not DNG. Go figure.

Are you sure the DNG file you tried to use contains raw data? Many DNG files, for example Apple Pro Raw files from iPhones, don't contain any raw data -- they're DNGs but not raw. The DNGs that LR makes when you apply enhanced resolution do not contain raw data. The function you're trying to use may require raw data. I don't know for sure as I don't use LR, but maybe that's it.

 

[Ysarex]

Ooops
I just downloaded the latest version of the converter and the converted DNGs work with all Lightroom features.

Try this then. Open Adobe DNG converter and click on Change Preferences. In the drop menu for Compatibility select Custom and in the dialog that opens up check the box for Linear. Now convert a raw file to DNG and see if that one works. A Linear DNG contains RGB image data and not raw data.

 

[PhotoHobbyist]

Reading this thread has inspired me to start shooting in RAW+JPG with my Canon DSLR. If it preserves two stops of dynamic range it could be a game changer for pics I had tossed in the past. Unfortunately, RAW free editors Darktable and Rawtherapee are only available in 64bit downloads, but then discovered Rawtherapee has 32bit versions for download in their 5.0 previous release in 2017. My laptop has 32bit Windows10.

 

[smoke665]

Another knock on DNG is Adobe's own Lightroom's Ai enhance only works with my RAW files and not DNG. Go figure.

The AI denoise and the enhance feature will only work on unprocessed NEF raw files. If you've done any processing in NX Studio before converting to a DNG then it may not work. Also DNG conversions in other apps besides Adobe can sometimes result in conflicts.

I know for a fact that LR Enhance creates a new DNG, used it several times. On the AI Denoise I don't know as I haven't used it, but according to what I've read it does. I typically just use the sliders, technology is nice but experience works better in a controlled workflow for uniformity across multiple image sets.