"Why You Should be Shooting RAW" - Story on wired.com

[Arch]

Oh dear oh deary me.... i suppose it was only a matter of time before this thread turned into another huge RAW Vs JPEG debate. *Sigh*

My initial reaction after reading most of this thread is even tho i shoot RAW and would never consider shooting just jpeg for anything... the artical is over the top... to the point of almost saying 'if you don't shoot RAW your an idiot', which becuase i DO have respect for the 'mainly Jpeg' shooters, is just ridiculous. However, the way i work seems to still be misunderstood by some Jpeg shooters.. and here's why....

Mav, with all due respect you were doing so well up untill this point...

Other people like what I consider to be "messing around" in Photoshop doing a dozen different steps later.... but I respect their art form just like I do any other.

Hmmm... surely if thats not a show of respect then a misunderstanding?!
I can't ever seem to express to a jpeg fanatic how working with RAW does not mean i am 'messing around'... nor does it mean i need to fix my photos. As i have said before that is just like me naming jpeg users as 'snapshotters'... and i simply wouldn't do that.
The worst culprit of this misunderstanding is the infamous Ken Rockwell who loves to talk from his rear on this subject, and because he's google optimized people tend to be believe what he's saying is gospel.

I won't get into the whole editing debate only to say, just because you shoot in RAW doesn't mean you need to edit your photos. When you import photos in bridge or lightroom it applies it's default settings just like your camera does when it processes to jpeg.

Exactly.

WOW! Simply amazing what you can do with a web-sized [size=+1]JPEG![/size] :lmao: :hail:

I love these threads. Somebody always posts a photo that they just couldn't get right and needed to shoot RAW because of, and then someone corrects the little web-sized JPEG. Yet people still say you "can't" fix WB on JPEG. Amazing. The myths will never die.

yea sure.. for half decent screen res thats ok... try and get a decent size print tho

 

[asfixiate]

In my software I can take a RAW file convert and save it to any DPI I want. Can you do that with jpg or its already converted to a certain DPI?

I'm just curious. I researched the actual technical difference between the two and that's why I shoot raw. Working for a company that does digital imaging has also allowed me to determine my decision.

My biggest decision factor is the amount of colors in a RAW file vs JPG. If scientifically and technically there are more colors to work with in a RAW file you'll have better results in final output. Its not a matter of preference on that its science(said in Ron Burgandy voice)

 

[roadkill]

Sounds like someone lives in a world where everyone has all the time in the world to post process every picture... that or they are trying to sell you some photoshop software. Not to mention my pp skills are lacking. I wonder if those hackers can hack me a copy of some pro photoshop software
________ isohunt.com dude

 

[roadkill]

Sounds like someone lives in a world where everyone has all the time in the world to post process every picture... that or they are trying to sell you some photoshop software. Not to mention my pp skills are lacking. I wonder if those hackers can hack me a copy of some pro photoshop software:er:

isohunt.com man, anything you want. (sorry I messed that last quote up)

 

[asfixiate]

I can do a lot with the software that came with my camera. I'm really only sharpening and adding color saturation though since I generally get my exposures correct.

If 9 times out of 10 I do the same thing to the shots I just select all if not most of my shots at a time and run the same tool. On a decent computer it doesn't take all the time in the world anyways.

Spending days on one model(not person one of those ones you glue and paint) is ok why isn't editing photos.

I'm not saying what is better I'm just stating what I do. as far as speed is concerned shooting JPG will keep me from missing a large sequence but I don't really shoot that way.

 

[manaheim]

In my software I can take a RAW file convert and save it to any DPI I want. Can you do that with jpg or its already converted to a certain DPI?

You can always downsize an image without worrying about loss of quality. It will get a bit softer (to varying degrees, depending on your application) but you can correct that to a degree that usually satisfies even the pickiest of people.

If you upsize an image beyond its captured resolution, you are forcing the program to interpolate the space between the pixels and make guesses. This will reduce image quality. The larger you make it, the more guesses, the worse the quality.

DPI... DPI confuses me, frankly. I haven't figured that one out yet. DPI essentially seems meaningless to me in a digital world, but I'm sure I'm missing something. Anyone???

My biggest decision factor is the amount of colors in a RAW file vs JPG. If scientifically and technically there are more colors to work with in a RAW file you'll have better results in final output. Its not a matter of preference on that its science(said in Ron Burgandy voice)

It is an undeniable fact that raw images have more data in them than JPEG images. Thus, working with raw, you have more data available to you that allows you to make your own decisions about what you need and what you don't. So if you are picky and concerned about getting stuck in a situation where data, and thus options, are lost... then stay with RAW.

 

[asfixiate]

Manheim thanks for actually realizing I was asking and not stating anything. I never tried and I'm not home to try. Now I know and knowing is half the battle...GI JOE!

A good example i have found for why having mroe data matters is taking a BMP and save it to JPG. See the results?

Same reason while at my current company we have to scan in greyscale because black n white doesn't cut it. All about producing best noticeable result

 

[someguy5]

You can easily fix indoor/night WB issues with the Photoshop Color Balance tool. Select a white/neutral point and it'll re-map out the colors. Or just adjust the slider until things look right. It's about two or three clicks for me in the DxO software that I used. I've fixed plenty of indoor shots from JPEG with messed up WB, and yes I've printed them big too. They look great.

Thanks for the tip.

I won't get into the whole editing debate only to say, just because you shoot in RAW doesn't mean you need to edit your photos. When you import photos in bridge or lightroom it applies it's default settings just like your camera does when it processes to jpeg.

So does this end up coming out better than the in-camera conversion (if I save it to jpeg immediately afterward)?

As for the storage issue. You guys need to go out with a roll of film some day. You may come home with less crap pictures if you're limited to taking 36 in the one outing.

All true. :lmao: I had a 24exp roll with my SLR one day and suddenly I find my self really thinking before I shoot.

 

[Socrates]

The chief objection to jpg is that it is a lossy format. That is, each time you open it, edit it, and then save it, you lose a little more data. Considering I sometimes push an image through the mill a half-dozen or more times trying different things, that can leave the final result (if shot in .jpg) looking less than ideal.

Several years ago, I did a rather unscientific test. I took a decent jpg shot and did a "Save As" ten times, each time from the previous rather than from the original. I didn't do ten regular saves because I didn't want to modify anything. In any event, when finished, I was unable to visually detect the difference between the original and the tenth copy.

If your eyes are better than mine, all that is necessary is to convert the jpg to tiff or psd immediately after importing into your computer. Then, you can resave to your heart's content. When finished, convert to the format of your choice.

 

[Joves]

Personally I like to shoot in RAW+JpegBasic. That way if I have pictures that need PP, I have the file to do it with. If I dont need to do post then, I have a picture to put up on the web immediately if I choose to do so. Also the RAW file can be converted to a much better Tiff for printing or whatever I choose to do with it. I could shoot in Tiff too but, I like working with RAW files in NX first.

 

[audiobomber]

1. That corrected image is nowhere near correct. I wanted it to look like the scene looked to my eyes... and that wasn't it... and there is NO way to get it from that JPEG. Trust me.

I don't believe there was any way to correct that image in Raw mode either. As I said, it was hard to figure out what I was trying to do because I wasn't there. Frankly I wasn't even sure of what you were intending as the subject.

2. I'd really love to have gotten that shot without the street lights, but that was taken right next to the village center... I can't move the gravestones OR the street lights.

Well, you could have moved your feet? It looks to me that two of the lights would have been blocked if you had shifted just a bit to the right .

3. Important to know that Nikon D series, in my experience, handles incandescant lights really poorly.

All cameras handle incandescent poorly if you use the Auto wb. You have to use the Tungsten (incandescent setting) for a jpeg. I'm not sure those lights were incandescent. That's a mighty strange colour.

If you can get the shot consistently enough such that its "nailed" and you feel you can make corrections for when you don't such that it makes you happy... cool.

There's no need to nail every shot just because the camera is shooting jpegs. There are easy fixes for white balance, backlighting, overexposure etc in jpeg mode. You can change highlights, shadows, fill light, saturation, tint, contrast and sharpening. It seems to be a common theme in this kind of thread that one is stuck with the camera's edition of the jpeg. It's just not so, and that's why I edited your example.

You said:

See all that hideous yellow? See the poor exposure where shadows are lost? Yeah. RAW would have made that far less of a problem, and possibly even a non-issue. JPG? No way. That info was GONE.

It's clear from my edit that the shadows weren't lost, they were just underexposed. And I changed the hideous yellow to green. I'm not at all convinced that Raw would have done any better with that shot. You shook the camera which made the blown streetlights look worse. That has nothing to do with raw or jpeg. Then instead of trying to fix the photo with post-processing, you're on here saying the shot was blown because you shot in jpeg. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

 

[JerryPH]

Another near useless RAW vs JPG thread, IMHO. There are many here... and the same people post the same pics to try to prove (and fail) the same points.

I shoot RAW, becuase I did my own research and my own tests. If everyone did the same, they'd all be a lot happier and there would be a little less BS in the forum today... lol.

 

[Garbz]

So does this end up coming out better than the in-camera conversion (if I save it to jpeg immediately afterward)?

That's in the eyes of the artist. I for one never liked the over saturated and overly warm colours the D200 produced (in any colour mode). I find lightroom's defaults give me far more neutral results with better skin tones. But that said there are a few people who do not like lightroom's default curves, and they have complained here that the camera in JPEG gives them nicer results.

The point is RAW is RAW data which is up to interpretation. If you want to shoot RAW and absolutely love what your camera produces your best bet is RAW processing from your camera manufacturer (e.g. Nikon Capture NX).

Colour as side Lightroom does a better job out of the box with sharpening, but my camera in JPEG mode does a better job with noise reduction (not that it matters since Noise Ninja beat both of them by a wide margin).

The only truly unbiased and entirely unargueable point is that RAW gives you better results if you edit your photos in any way that adjusts brightness contrast or colour, because it has the extra bit depth that is lost in JPEG mode to eliminate guess work out of the actual target pixel colour.

 

[manaheim]

^^ Jerry is right, but this is my first time on one of these so I'm trying to exit gracefully.

The only way to even attempt to prove this is to go out and deliberately take some pics that are way off and then do the various corrections for both RAW and JPEG and show the results.

Even that isn't going to work however. I'm tempted to do it just to see, but I know the result is going to be someone correcting the JPEG and saying it looks amazing, when it really looks like absolute crap.

I have always felt that anyone who says "always" about things like this tends to be missing some nuance. There is a time and place for each of these options. The original article seems to think you should always use RAW. It seems that some people here think that is stupid and you should always use JPEG. Both positions seem silly.

For those that are in the JPEG camp, I guess I just would wonder why you think there is all this energy invested by professionals and the industry in JPEG? And how JPEG being a lossy compression is a non-issue?

Even so... if it works for you, great.

BTW, for the record- that shot I posted is CRAP and I know it. I only kept it because it was a representation of the time I learned I needed to start shooting RAW.

*manaheim out*

...and if I post on this thread again, please someone kill me.

 

[astrostu]

Sorry! I really didn't mean for this to turn into a JPG vs. RAW debate!

Personally, I always shoot RAW now. Yes, it takes longer to process each image, but I can correct stuff that I did poorly while taking the picture originally. I especially like it because I can export all the RAW files as 16-bit TIF images, which for my purposes for my astrophotos is a must - there's simply no JPG substitute (literally, since JPG doesn't support 16-bit files).