RAW

[Rand0m411]

Over half of what I see posted about JPEG by RAW shooters is awfully inaccurate and provably false at worse, or exaggerated at best. Some of the benefits of RAW while technically accurate you might only be able to see at 100% viewing (the equivalent of having your nose into a 3 foot wide print), or even 200% (nose into a 6 foot wide print) which isn't how anybody actually views photos. And I routinely do things with my JPEGs that people say you "can't" do unless you're shooting RAW, which I honestly think is pretty funny. The article that Mike posted is good, but you can hardly tell ANY difference in the example images posted.

Here's the biggest reason for shooting RAW as per that article.


Line by line...

Not really. "Burned in" implies you're hard-locked to whatever the JPEG is, but that's not true at all.

Most JPEG outputs from DSLRS are on the SOFT side precisely because over-sharpened JPEGs that you try to soften up end up looking like crap. It looks far better to have a soft JPEG output and add sharpening as needed, which is how pretty much everybody does it. The cameras are tuned so that the very best professional level lens you can put on the camera will look just right, but the lesser lenses will need to have some sharpening added for the best results. I've never seen an overcooked JPEG out of my Nikons with regards to sharpening.

Nope. I can completely yank around screwed up white balance in JPEGs and it looks just the same as RAW. RAW does make it easier for you since you can select among the different in-camera settings, but I have yet to see a JPEG I've taken with messed up white balance where the RAW resulted in any better of a photo. And yes I've shot both side by side.

Nikons have auto-contrast which is great. In over 20,000 shots between my D40 and D80 I've never had a single shot where shadow details were dropped because the auto contrast takes care of it. If I shot with Canon, I'd be far more likely to shoot in RAW precisely because of this, but thanks to Nikon I don't have to. This is one of the big reasons why I never switched to Canon. My buddy shoots Canon, and yes he tends to blow out his JPEGs from time to time with regards to contrast, and yes he's hosed unless he shot RAW too.

Even the lowest "Basic" JPEG quality setting on Nikon has great output with no visible artifacting or loss of detail. In fact I've processed a Basic JPEG and a RAW side by side and honestly could not tell the difference in which was which in a blind "after" test. Usually I shoot JPEG / Normal which is one step higher just because it makes me "feel better" but even from my own testing the Basic JPEG is just fine, and a lot smaller. Even after two rounds of processing re-saving both such that the file size after was the same as the file size before, you still cannot see any artifacting or other JPEG compression issues, even when viewed at 100% or more.


Going through the rest of the article, the part about JPEG compression and "squares" is hilarious. I can NEVER see the JPEG "squares" at any reasonable magnification. What magnification did the author use to display that, 600%? :roll: And nobody shooting JPEG re-saves at low quality levels anyways, so the whole point is moot. The next part talks about sharpening being worse on JPEGs because it'll just sharpen the squares?? WTF? I never see them to begin with viewing at normal magnification and saving at reasonable quality settings, so another moot point. I never see any posterization either, and I don't have time to go on all day.


So a lot of the reasons people give for shooting RAW and why JPEG is so bad is built on myths, lies, and exaggerations. Yes there ARE reasons to shoot RAW and I do shoot RAW from time to time, mainly for money shots where I can't afford a mistake, and primarily for the purpose of being better able to recover from any mistakes, not to make a better image had I actually gotten my technique right in the first place. I try to get it right on the camera the first time, and when you do that there's little real reason to shoot RAW.

I need to make a "The Myths of RAW" post. I'm sure it'll go over very well and be very popular. :roll:

You forgot to mention that in RAW, all of the original metadata is always untouched. So you can edit to your hearts content and still default back to the original picture at any time. You can also shoot in monochrome and later switch it to color in PP, because all of the original color metadata exists in the RAW file, even when shooting in monochrome. Also RAW is an uncompressed file format, JPG is a compressed file format.

Other than that I fully agree with you. Unless you really need to be shooting in RAW, its really unnessesary. You can edit the heck out of a .jpg just like you can a RAW file. I edit .jpg's on a regular basis in Photoshops "Camera RAW" PP tool. Works out great.

 

[Socrates]

You forgot to mention that in RAW, all of the original metadata is always untouched. So you can edit to your hearts content and still default back to the original picture at any time.

If you have a Mac with iPhoto, those statements are true with ALL file formats. When you import into iPhoto, the original is stored. When you make a decision to modify it (either with the limited iPhoto capabilities or with something like PS), iPhoto immediately makes a copy and you're alqays working with the copy. Three years later you can still "revert to original."

 

[Jon0807]

I used to shoot in JPG cause I didn't know how to work with RAW. But after playing with RAW files I've found I get better results and I have more control of how the photo will turn out rather than being limited to what I was able to do with JPG. But that's just me and my preference.

 

[Alex_B]

You can still adjust white balance in JPEG with little to no loss in quality. And you can still recover PLENTY of shadow detail in JPEG also with little to no loss in quality. Why were imaging systems standardized on 8-bits / 256 levels? Because the human visual system is hard pressed to identify even 100 distinct tones. 256 x 256 x 256 for each color channel is 16.7 million colors. How many do you need? The only thing RAW has ever helped me with is when I make a technical error such as overexposing, but that's about it.

See also: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

I would not say technical errors only. some scenes just go to the limits of your sensor's dynamical range, but you still might need the details in the bright parts and shadows. Then you are much better off with having more than 8 bits, since you can pull up the dark areas without getting posterisation effects. No, ND-Grad filters cannot always do the job here!

At least in most of my kind of photography (most of the outdoor work, landscape, architecture, but also people and event photography), I am happy when I can use RAW. Maybe if you do studio work, or easy light outdoor work, then JPEG is more than sufficient in most cases.

Also, those 256 distinct tones per colour channel are not distributed linearly, they are quite dense in the bright part of the spectrum, and very sparse in the dark part as far as I know.


It is true, that for 80% of my images I could have survived with JPG, but those other 20% are worth the RAW effort.

 

[Mav]

Incidently, we had this converstion just the other day if you remember... it seems like it comes up every week through no fault of our own... but just to reiterate those points....

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=116459&highlight=raw

Yes, this is what, Round 2 or 3?

As i have mentioned before... if you only need to shoot jpeg then go ahead, if that suits your type/style of photography as a hobby.

However, the kind of photography that i do, for me requires RAW, end of story, and to be honest most pro wedding photog etc wouldn't shoot jpeg nowadays either.
Take a look at this random choice of fav photogs of mine just as an example...You may already be aware of her....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/

Now she doesn't exclusively shoot RAW, but her work shows how editing and working with zones can make your images so dramatic.
I also spend alot of time editing my photos... not 'fiddling' as ken rockwell puts it but careful editing, which i get much enjoyment from.

You can compare this with the old film days. Some photographers prefer to snap thier shots, get them developed, then move on to the next one. Where as others would be in thier element in the darkroom. There is no difference here... this is what i do, and for me Jpeg doesn't cut it.

I agree. Like I think I've said elsewhere too, photogs seem to be either capturers or manipulators. The capturers like to capture what they see how they see it and then prefer to do as little fiddling as possible and move on, whereas the manipulators like to take photos of something and then heavily tweak it. If you're going to be going from program to program and do a ton of editing steps and working in a lossless format that supports greater than 8-bits, then you might as well start out that way in 12/14/16-bit RAW on the camera.

Now, for me the style of work shown by my above link 'poo's' all over anything ken rockwell does... i find his images tame and very ordinary. (so wonder why everyone seems him as any kind of authority on technical advice.) :roll:

The only thing I'm going to say here is that just because YOU personally do not like his photographic style doesn't mean that a few milllion others don't, and thus enjoy reading and taking his technical advice. Why is it seemingly a mystery to you that people might like a style of photography other than your own? There are some other well-known independent Nikon reviewers out there that a lot of people flock to whose style I personally hate. But hey, it's a different style and my tastes are otherwise, so I respect the work and related advice anyways despite not caring for it myself.

Rebba's stuff I like. Very very nice work! Although the only people shots I seem to like are the ones of herself, and that probably has mostly to do with her apparently being pretty hot. :mrgreen: The landscape photos though (much more my style) are stunning. But are those really any different than what KR does? Not really. But then again I don't think Ken Rockwell has ever been to Iceland either. :lmao: Actually that would play right into a lot of the advice that he gives on his site. Stop worrying about what gear you have and spend the money you'd upgrade to junk you don't really need on a trip to somewhere you've never been instead. Like Iceland! A D40 and 18-55 kit lens will take stunning photos of Iceland. Much better than a $5000 D3 and $1800 24-70 would because you just blew your trip money on all of the gear and have to stay at home now, lol. I actually want to go there, and seeing some of the scenic stuff from there only makes me want to go more. My wife is from the tropics though, so her and cold places don't get along very well. :/

What Rockwell says about NEF's becoming obsolete is absolute nonsence.. i can still get a ROM to play spectrum games, the first nintendo games... i can get software that will transfere all my tapes to cd. There are so many hundreds of thousands of people using NEF nowadays that even if Nikon dont make the software in 20 years time, someone will... the chances that no one will be able to use any of thier images at all... is 0.

Well you're just guessing, and so is Ken and so am I. 20 years from now I'll be able to open any JPEG I have and use the latest and greatest image tweaking software out there to make my photos even better, while laughing at the people who say you "can't do that" with JPEGs and are having to screw around with converter programs that they'll be paying money for their RAWs to work, if there even is anything. I keep all of my original "keeper" JPEGs, and the programs I use to edit them never touch the originals either, as some others have already pointed out. If you want to take your chances with RAW, be my guest. DSLRs and people who actually shoot RAW with them are not nearly as prevalent in homes as gaming systems are, so the comparison is apples to oranges anyways. If people already have trouble opening 5 year old RAW files today, then it might be prudent to assume that the problem will only get worse 20 years from now. RAW is proprietary, not a universal standard like 35mm film negatives. Agree or disagree, it's a valid point and concern. I would never depend on a RAW to work years from now which is why when I do shoot RAW I still do RAW + JPEG so that I have both. DNG looks promising, but that's still getting off the ground apparently and from what I've read you can only edit them with Adobe software. :roll:

Moral of the story, if you want to take a shot and move on to the next subject and generaly like to shoot sports and like to document things... you shouldn't have a problem shooting Jpeg most of the time.
If you like to add alot more to your images and shoot at the maximum information your camera can give, shoot RAW.
At one stage or another i would recommend that everyone tries shooting RAW, for the times that you absolutely need to use it, even if they end up going back to jpeg.

If you had just started out by saying that I would never have even bothered to disagree. And here's a similar take by Ken:

I take a lot of flack from tweakers because I, like other photographers, prefer to make my adjustments in-camera and use the JPGs directly. Others prefer to spend even more time later twiddling in raw, but that's not for me. I get the look I need with JPGs and prefer to spend my time making more photos. If you're the sort of person who likes to twiddle and redo than by all means raw is for you.

Everyone's needs vary. For many hobbyists tweaking is part of the fun and I don't want to spoil that. Please just don't take it personally that I prefer to get my shots right the first time instead of having to tweak them later. If I need to correct a goof I just do it from the JPGs.

Hey look at that, you agree with Ken!

<split post due to character limit>

 

[Mav]

I could care less if anybody shoots RAW or JPEG because I'm smart enough to know the difference and where I might need it or it could be helpful based on my personal style of how and what I like to shoot, and what I like to do afterwards with my photos (nothing that can't be done with a JPEG 99.99% of the time). Hence I shoot JPEG. What's troubling though is the apparent herding of beginners into shooting RAW on these forums by default (not in this particular thread though) as if it's the only legitimate choice, the misinformation presented about JPEG and all the things you "cannot" do with them which for the most part is untrue, and the "funny looks" that so many seem to give JPEG shooters as if they're crazy when shooting JPEG is just as reasonable of a choice as RAW is. Either can be better, all depending on what and how you shoot, and especially what you like to do afterwards. It really would be nice and helpful to BEGINNERS here trying to learn if people could check their personal biases at the door rather than trying to ram-rod one's own personal view down others' throats as if it's the only "correct" way and that anybody who disagrees is crazy and not worth listening too. Mr. Rockwell's take is perfectly reasonable and a very under-represtended viewpoint on these forums, and thus definitely worth a read. Either can be better, and there are pros and cons to both, so I have no clue at all why one of the few people out there with a decent pro-JPEG article should be taken with a grain of salt or not listened to. That's completely unreasonable. When one says something like that, all you're doing is revealing your own personal biases and convictions. This is only helpful if the person asking for help would end up having the SAME biases and convictions in the end anyways. But since everyone is different it's a crapshoot and NOT helpful in my view. RAW will work better in some situations and worse in others. It's a choice, not some wacky religious cult.

I cannot tell you how many times I've seen someone shooting in RAW for all the wrong reasons, not getting results that they like, clearly being misinformed as to the differences (could have to do with the virtual "censoring" of Mr. Rockwell's article since it's the only one I've seen representing the other side :roll: ), and for all their trouble might have been far better off shooting in JPEG to begin with. Don't fall for the "RAW brainwashing". Read about both, including Mr. Rockwell's article, shoot with and evaluate your results from both, weigh both formats against your own personal shooting style and needs and what you like to do editing wise, and make the decision from there. Very simple.

For completeness sake, here's a few more threads worth a read:

Working with RAW...
D300 RAW: No "Visible" Difference?


I'll try to squeeze a link for this into my sig.

 

[asfixiate]

Why do you write a book everytime you get your point across. Its helpful to beginners to give them recommendations is it not? What's wrong with learning the hardway before the easy way?

Its like telling a film photographer to not learn how to develop film because you can have someone else do it for you. Wouldn't you want to learn how? Sure do whatever you want to a .jpg but that's your opinion and method.

What is the difference between you being biased over jpgs to anyone else being into RAW?

Noone here makes it seem wrong to do it one way or the other except for you honestly. I'm only seeing opinions and views here. I'm sure the person posting is mature enough to draw their own conclusions. I shoot in raw even if I don't make any changes to the photos. Its more like a just in case thing for me.


You are the only one giving anyone an attitude here it seems!

 

[Mav]

I would not say technical errors only. some scenes just go to the limits of your sensor's dynamical range, but you still might need the details in the bright parts and shadows. Then you are much better off with having more than 8 bits, since you can pull up the dark areas without getting posterisation effects. No, ND-Grad filters cannot always do the job here!

At least in most of my kind of photography (most of the outdoor work, landscape, architecture, but also people and event photography), I am happy when I can use RAW. Maybe if you do studio work, or easy light outdoor work, then JPEG is more than sufficient in most cases.

My D80 with the 18-55 kit lens and a 2-stop Grad ND filter, processed from JPEG. Even that wasn't enough and the bridge, road, and buildings were all deep in the shadows. But all I needed was the dorky on-board D-Lighting feature set to mild to pull them up while still maintaining full sky detail.

Here's another, similar setup with the same 2-stop Grad ND, also processed from JPEG. On this one I could have easily lightened up the beach and pulled up their details even more, but I felt it was distracting and unimportant and wanted to concentrate the attention on the sunrise. Who cares about the beach?

I end up having to pull up shadow details a bit on these photos which tells me that I probably need a 3-stop Grad ND rather than a 2. RAW would give me a little more leeway before quality starts dropping out, but I'd rather just use the better exposure technique in the first place with appropriate filters. Now that I'm standardizing on 77mm filters I'm going to get both a 1 and a 3-stop and skip the 2. For general daytime outdoor shots, I tend to need either a CPL or a 1-stop grad ND, and 2 isn't quite enough but "good enough" for sunrise/sunset type photos. If I was really hardcore I'd get some of the Cokin square filters so that I could slide the grads up and down and have more framing options, but I don't get out enough with a 1 year old running around to justify that just yet. :mrgreen:

 

[JerryPH]

I need to make a "The Myths of RAW" post. I'm sure it'll go over very well and be very popular. :roll:

I don't want to "preach" anymore. I use what *I* want and anyone that wants to do what they want... will.

I will continue to shoot RAW for all the reasons stated a hundred times in other threads here and be happier. To me, thats all that counts.

Between all these RAW vs JPG threads, "what camera should I buy" and JIP's one man campagne against the 18-200, I am slowly getting tired of reading and repeating the same things over and over and over.

 

[asfixiate]

JerryPH
+1(Is that how I'm supposed to agree here?...lol)

 

[Arch]

You know what Mav.... i do agree with most of what your saying, i think we both understand our own styles of photography and the needs that go with it.

I realise many people do go around saying 'you can't with jpeg' and so forth, that can be a problem as there arn't massive differences between the two unless you know what you are doing and why you want to use one or the other. What i do like to do tho is to encourage people to use RAW, because the worst thing that could happen for someone is to avoid RAW completely becuase they hear that JPEG is the same, but then try RAW on a special outing or occasion but then dont know what to do with it because they haven't ever used it properly. (this happens alot).

The only real problem i have with Rockwell is his attitude towards RAW users... right from the point in his website titled 'Raw Details' he is completely negative about RAW in every way, his information is wrong and then goes on to call people like me 'twiddlers'... frankly, im not a twiddler, im a photographer the same as he is... its like me refering to jpeg shooters as 'snap-shotters'... i would never do that because i do have respect for what other people like to do with thier photography.

What i would like to come of any of these types of threads is simply 'knowledge' to the beginners. Threads like this start because someone has tried RAW for the first time and not seen thier images suddenly change into something special. Good use of RAW and editing is something that needs to be worked at for those that are inclined to try it.

Once you have found a style or type of photography you prefer, as we have, then you can make a decision what you can use most of the time.

 

[Alex_B]

My D80 with the 18-55 kit lens and a 2-stop Grad ND filter, processed from JPEG. Even that wasn't enough and the bridge, road, and buildings were all deep in the shadows. But all I needed was the dorky on-board D-Lighting feature set to mild to pull them up while still maintaining full sky detail.




Here's another, similar setup with the same 2-stop Grad ND, also processed from JPEG. On this one I could have easily lightened up the beach and pulled up their details even more, but I felt it was distracting and unimportant and wanted to concentrate the attention on the sunrise. Who cares about the beach?




I end up having to pull up shadow details a bit on these photos which tells me that I probably need a 3-stop Grad ND rather than a 2. RAW would give me a little more leeway before quality starts dropping out, but I'd rather just use the better exposure technique in the first place with appropriate filters. Now that I'm standardizing on 77mm filters I'm going to get both a 1 and a 3-stop and skip the 2. For general daytime outdoor shots, I tend to need either a CPL or a 1-stop grad ND, and 2 isn't quite enough but "good enough" for sunrise/sunset type photos. If I was really hardcore I'd get some of the Cokin square filters so that I could slide the grads up and down and have more framing options, but I don't get out enough with a 1 year old running around to justify that just yet. :mrgreen:

I did not say it never works, I just said, there are situations where it does not work as I want it! I am not telling you that you should use RAW, I just said it has its uses and I would not want to live without it.

BTW, on my Eizo I do see posterisation in the darker parts of the sky in the second image ...

Both shots, by the way, are shots with a flat horizon, which are ideal for ND grads! You are in much more trouble in the mountains or in architectural photography... or when you are much closer to the not so flat background.

Thinking about the Cokin or Lee filters myself by the way ...


I think it was Lee, who also offer a double grad filter, which could be quite nice for sunsets apparently. I would like to try it to see if it is really as useful as some people say.

 

[Rand0m411]

Im really not understanding why something so simple has to be so philosophical. Either you prefer working in a compressed or uncompressed data format.

There are clear advantages with working in uncompressed file types(TIFF, RAW). And there is an ease of use with working with compressed file types (.JPG).

Try both, pick one... or pick both.

 

[Mav]

@ asfixiate: There's a greater context that you're missing here, which is understandable since you're a relative newcomer.

@ Jerry: +1, lol

@ Arch: I consider a lot of what I see in these RAW articles such as the one Mike posted that you consider more accurate to not be "wrong" per se but rather exaggerated in terms of trying to make the RAW look as good as possible while going out of their way to make the JPEG look as bad as possible and then still not seeing much difference, heavy analysis paralysis, and then making huge deals about things that are not even visible in any reasonable print size viewed at any reasonable distance. And in all honestly, if there's an entire SEA of pro-RAW / anti-JPEG articles out there when we're talking about both being perfectly reasonable choices then I really don't think it's a big deal if there's only ONE heavy-hitting pro-JPEG / anti-RAW article. I actually thought Rockwell's article was pretty refreshing after reading a half dozen or so RAW articles. Obviously you'll agree more with one or the other and should read BOTH and encourage people to do so. That's why I posted the Rockwell article after Mike posted one of the many RAW articles. Same deal with political discussions. It's called balance. :mrgreen: I'm in complete agreement with you on the rest of your post though.

@ Alex_B: You are only seeing posterization on that second image because you're looking at the higly compressed 800 pixel wide junky Fotki.com copy and not the 2.5 MB original which looks great. I have no control over Fotki's compression. And yes, I did mention Cokin grads if I got more serious about landscape photography. I almost bought a set of those but mostly I do baby/family photography nowadays and can't get out much anymore so I passed.

 

[Arch]

An example of a heavily reworked image using RAW...

Admittedly the original exposure is wrong, but apart from the range being difficult to capture, this shot wasn't even planned... i took it on the way back to the car... i could see the composition, but didn't take the time to get a good exposure as i didn't think it was a keeper....

The result isn't my usual style as its kind of gimmicky, inspired by the film Sleepy Hollow (because it kinda reminded me of that ), but even tho i used all processing techniques possible to avoid blocking, a Jpeg would have struggled with this...

I have taken many images that would have held up in Jpeg with the editing i used... but this is why i love RAW, you never know if one of the crappy ones may turn into something.