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

MDesigner · Jun 13, 2008

RAW files are typically either 12-bit or 14-bit, depending on the camera, as far as I know.

On the topic of RAW's dynamic range: I dunno.. everything I've read so far says that RAW files have a much higher dynamic range than JPEG files and you can pull multiple exposures from them. RAW format is storing much more than the eye can see, obviously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAW_image_format
http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html
http://paxtonprints.com/index.php?x=process_image_multiple_times

Mav · Jun 13, 2008

Even JPEG files can store more than your eyes can see. Anyways there's a couple good links in the FAQ thread where this has been discussed ad nauseum. No sense in firing up another one. LOL

MDesigner · Jun 19, 2008

One more thing: true that if you have blown highlights, you can't recover the detail in them. But if they're not blown, they're usually salvageable. I don't think (but I could be wrong) that's possible with JPEGs.

So let's do a test. See below.. first image is at EV 0. I shot the photo in RAW, so I took it into Lightroom and dropped it down to EV -4. Check out the detail that was regained! I'd like to see if anyone can take that first JPEG and salvage the details as well as I did working with the RAW image.

Overread · Jun 19, 2008

I should add that whilst I too have found the ability to change the exposure in RAW to be brilliant at saving whites that it somtimes just cannot save a white from being overexposed - so it is better I find to underexpose the shot initially and then boost exposure a little in RAW editing. Course you only use this with bright light sources so you don't have to worry about the shot not having the details in it to upp the exposure in PP - but don't go extreme with lowering the inital exposure - just enough to stop blowouts and no more.

I think you can edit JPEGs to a great amount to get similar effects, but RAW is considerably quicker and simpler to use I find -

dEARlEADER · Jun 19, 2008

wow... i think we went a whole week without doing the RAW vs JPEG thing....

Mav · Jun 19, 2008

MDesigner said:
One more thing: true that if you have blown highlights, you can't recover the detail in them. But if they're not blown, they're usually salvageable. I don't think (but I could be wrong) that's possible with JPEGs.

So let's do a test. See below.. first image is at EV 0. I shot the photo in RAW, so I took it into Lightroom and dropped it down to EV -4. Check out the detail that was regained! I'd like to see if anyone can take that first JPEG and salvage the details as well as I did working with the RAW image.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/1610/lostdetailub7.jpg

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/6932/regainedtn2.jpg

Right, if you blow out your exposure by 4-stops on a JPEG you're totally and completely hosed.

MDesigner · Jun 19, 2008

Mav said:
Right, if you blow out your exposure by 4-stops on a JPEG you're totally and completely hosed.

Sarcasm?

Well, that's why I posted the original JPEG too.. I wanna see if anyone with mad PP skills can match the 2nd photo where I regained the detail.

dEARlEADER · Jun 19, 2008

MDesigner said:
Sarcasm? Well, that's why I posted the original JPEG too.. I wanna see if anyone with mad PP skills can match the 2nd photo where I regained the detail.

lol... dude... if someone blowing out their subject by 4 stops they should forget about editing....put down the camera.... and slowly back away....

MDesigner · Jun 19, 2008

Sorry..too much of a n00b to know what +4 stops looks like. Not sure if Mav was referring to my photo or not. I do know that there was no highlight clipping in that shot, otherwise it would've been unrecoverable. But it was damn close. Having shot it in RAW made it possible to recover those details that would've been lost with JPEG. At least I'm pretty sure.. until someone proves otherwise

ANDS! · Jun 19, 2008

That is, each time you open it, edit it, and then save it, you lose a little more data.

"Save As" - problem solved.

Do you suppose us photogs pushing it are getting big kickbacks from Lexar for the extra $50 someone spent on the mem card 2x the size of the one they were originally going to purchase?

The question would be - why are you pushing it? Did you hear it from someone else - then who did they hear it from, and so on down the line.

and as someone says you should be able to compose the shot.

There are certain STYLES however, that just aren't going to come out of the camera; personal embelishes that define someones "photograph". For some, straight out of the camera is fine for them, for others, the photograph is a template to move forward from.

Read it, and I think the most attractive feature for me is white balance correction... So many of my night/indoor shots are ruined because of this. Now I have a reason to use RAW.

Knowing how to color correct is also a method that doesn't just mean you click on a switch in Camera-RAW. It takes more time sure, however it also means you can get it JUST RIGHT. So being able to adjust color that was flubbed from a bad white-balance isn't exclusive to RAW files.

(This is where I saw the actual post dates. . .sheesh - grave digger when you dig my grave!)

I'm pretty sure one advantage of RAW over JPEG is the ability to pull a RAW file into Photomatix Pro and be able to get an HDR file

That is the "dirty" way of doing it with a single RAW file.

manaheim · Jun 20, 2008

Restarting dead threads from hell should be punishable by death.

dEARlEADER · Jun 20, 2008

manaheim said:
Restarting dead threads from hell should be punishable by death.

lol...

(thread digger) <----- :whip:

Blackbelt94 · Jul 20, 2008

so raw or jpeg or raw/jpeg my camera has that?

icassell · Jul 20, 2008

raw/jpeg takes up alot of room on your memory card and takes longer to dump from camera to card (if you're worried about shooting rapidly). It's nice, however, if you want some instant gratification with the jpg and then want to go back and work it in raw later.

Bifurcator · Jul 20, 2008

I often set my cam to 640x480 JPEG and full-frame RAW.

I totally agree with this though:

manaheim said:
I actually tend to tell new people to shoot JPEG until they can't seem to get a shot to look the way they wanted it to (like due to discoloration from incandescant lights or something) and THEN switch to RAW. Gives on a much better understanding of the camera's limitations AND why RAW is so powerful and critical.

It's hard enough learning how to frame, compose, and expose properly without sinking yourself with 40 technical slider terms and more often than not making goo out of the image.