shooting in RAW

If your photos from raw are noisier than your photos from jpeg then you are not properly exposing for raw. There is no point in comparing unprocessed raw files to processed jpegs, because in the real world people who shoot raw go ahead and process them. Increasing the signal to noise ratio is the most powerful noise reduction technique I've tried. I own Noiseware Pro, but almost never use it. 75% of my photos are ISO 1600+, and I don't need noise reduction because I'm shooting raw, and properly exposing.

If you do need noise reduction there are several varieties built into every raw processor I've used.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find many pros or serious amateurs who would say they get less noise shooting jpeg than raw. In fact this is the first time I remember anyone arguing about it.
 
Last edited:
There is no point in comparing unprocessed raw files to processed jpegs,

Yeah there is, cuz that's what's what we're talking about. Check the OPs post and my reply (Raw vs Jpeg? Raw is better but photog will need to deal with noise (since it's unprocessed) ).

I think you'd be hard pressed to find many pros or serious amateurs who would say they get less noise shooting jpeg than raw. In fact this is the first time I remember anyone arguing about it.

Crazy, ain't it? A guy asks about shooting in raw vs jpeg, and it turns into this clusterf.. :confused:
 
I shoot RAW for my product images because with the lighting I use for those, I can make better adjustments shooting RAW.
I use JPEG for most else because...well, I run a Linux machine. The ONLY RAW processing programs available (as far as I know) that are compatible with linux are Ufraw and Raw Studio.
Ufraw is a no-go for me. Raw Studio works much better.

BUT, I guess I'm inexperienced with PPing RAW images because when I shoot RAW with people, I have a VERY hard time working with exposure, contrast, AND saturation. I can figure out saturation, but exposure and contrast REALLY gets me stuck.
If I get my exposure and contrast "right" (to where the photo is properly exposed) then I end up with hot spots on people's faces. So, I end up either have to under expose the processing in my images, or I have to leave out contrast which leaves a gray-like shading over the picture. It's very slight, but it's enough to drive me MAD.
 
"have fun with the noise" does not mean the same thing as "you'll have to make sure the raw program you use has it's default chroma noise reduction settings turned on."

I shoot RAW for my product images because with the lighting I use for those, I can make better adjustments shooting RAW.
I use JPEG for most else because...well, I run a Linux machine. The ONLY RAW processing programs available (as far as I know) that are compatible with linux are Ufraw and Raw Studio.
Ufraw is a no-go for me. Raw Studio works much better.

BUT, I guess I'm inexperienced with PPing RAW images because when I shoot RAW with people, I have a VERY hard time working with exposure, contrast, AND saturation. I can figure out saturation, but exposure and contrast REALLY gets me stuck.
If I get my exposure and contrast "right" (to where the photo is properly exposed) then I end up with hot spots on people's faces. So, I end up either have to under expose the processing in my images, or I have to leave out contrast which leaves a gray-like shading over the picture. It's very slight, but it's enough to drive me MAD.

If you are doing photography seriously, why not look at getting a dedicated windows/mac machine for doing photo editing? Open source is great and all but why give yourself a headache? I imagine you could even just put windows on your machine in a partition?
 
"have fun with the noise" does not mean the same thing as "you'll have to make sure the raw program you use has it's default chroma noise reduction settings turned on."



If you are doing photography seriously, why not look at getting a dedicated windows/mac machine for doing photo editing? Open source is great and all but why give yourself a headache? I imagine you could even just put windows on your machine in a partition?


If I EVER decide to do serious people portraiture, I may just do that. But if I ever decide to do serious people portraiture, I will have to modify A LOT. hahahaha. I can get decent people shots right now shooting in jpeg.
I don't, however, think it's my RAW programs that are causing my inability to process my RAW images correctly.
It's most likely ME causing my inability to post process my RAW images correctly.:lol:

The ones I am thinking of, in particular, were some simply family shots I took at Thanksgiving. I think my lighting was off/there was a lack of needed lighting to get the shots to be exposed right when actually being shot.
I only have an SB600 for flash. I cannot expect miracles, especially when shooting in RAW is a relatively new thing for me.:mrgreen:
 
Am I correct in thinking that the raw file will come out a sharper image than that of the jpeg?
 
Am I correct in thinking that the raw file will come out a sharper image than that of the jpeg?

Raw comes out completely unprocessed. Any sharpening, noise reduction, or other things you are used to getting with a jpeg will need to be handled afterwards in post processing. This isn't as controversial as some might want to make it. Raw just means, nothing at all is done to the photograph. Jpeg means that the camera internally converts the raw photo to jpeg, using it's own process to do so (which includes sharpening, based on your cameras settings).

So basically, jpeg lets you get a complete picture, usually pretty nice. Raw gives you.. well, raw data that will look good or bad depending on the situation, but you can do a HECK of a lot more with it afterwards to pretty it up (or ugly it up :) ).

Like meat. Raw meat you can cook and season however you like it, but it needs cooking and seasoning. A cooked steak - you cut it up and eat it, whether its medium or well done.
 
i shoot RAW for the simple reason you can always make a jpg image directly from RAW using CS3 and any other similiar program in about 10 seconds. (and you could set up a macro to have it do batch processing if you wanted).

The reverse cannot be said however....you cant take a jpg image and make it RAW.

When it comes down to it I am not forced to limit myself to anything I may want to do after.
I don't know about any of you, but I find I actually like spending time doing some post processing. Gives me something to do on slow days.
 
When it comes down to it I am not forced to limit myself to anything I may want to do after.
I don't know about any of you, but I find I actually like spending time doing some post processing. Gives me something to do on slow days.


:lol: I do too. half the fun is taking the photos (for me, but I like taking pics of animals and stuff), the other half is sitting down later, seeing what came out ok, what you can fix, what you will (sadly) delete because that crazy chipmunk doing that crazy thing was so out of freaking focus! The whole process is addicting, and I agree - I learned early on to shoot RAW+jpeg. Had to buy a couple extra memory cards but it's well worth it. That swan get blown out? Slide the exposure down a bit ;)
 
I shoot RAW because I don't want the camera making adjustments to the image. I want control over what happens to the image with a computer which has far more power than a camera's firmware.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here. A fast Quad Core based computer isn't going to give you any different result than the cpu in your camera that is using the SAME algorithim to render the final image. Whether you render it in camera, or out through your camera manufacturers RAW editing software - the result should be the same.

ALWAYS SHOOT RAW!

Even when shooting fast action events or sports?
 
Must be nice to have the money to go buy a great camera and all the equipment without actually knowing anything about how they work.

So if one shoots in raw, they have to deal with it afterwards which often requires buying another program, such as noise ninja or neat image, to deal with properly.

Or, duplicate layer, mild gaussian blur, than set layer blend mode to color.

Must be nice to actually have the money to go buy image editing programs and all the software without actually knowing anything about how they work.
 
Or, duplicate layer, mild gaussian blur, than set layer blend mode to color.

Must be nice to actually have the money to go buy image editing programs and all the software without actually knowing anything about how they work.

Cuz dat alwees worKS!!1!

Side note: Yay! Regs being a d-bag to me, so I guess I'm officially a TPF member now. The discussion was dead, but thanks for reviving it just so you can show what an argumentative ____ you've always been. I won't be dragged into this so you can get your negative attention fix. Move along.
 
Wow. Camera envy?


You're ridiculous.... A multi-thousand $ camera and the attendant advice can't be compared to "normal" people.. Why do you have to be abrasive?
 

Most reactions

Back
Top