Encouragement to shoot raw

[Tartness9094]

Time ago I was reluctant to shoot raw, thought the processing was tortuous and time consuming, and not every shot deserved the effort.
To encourage those who are as I was, I bring a photo as rendered by the camera in jpeg and the raw file of the same shot after some tweaks.
It is a portion of cloudy sky from a spot near My home
The jpeg pic, as you can see is, to say the least, boring. It is a flat pic, with no contrast, showing no texture and tonalities. It seems to have no better destiny than the trash can.
The processed image, gains in texture and contrast. It is still not the great shot, but at least is viewable.
If raw processing could do this in such a poor pic, imagine the wonders you can get with better pics.
Processing raw requires some training but it's worth the effort and is very funny.
JPEG file:
View attachment 267965
Processed RAW file:View attachment 267966

Totally agree, shooting in RAW is the only way to shoot and I actually enjoy editing to bring out the best. What's the point in having a camera that produces a RAW file with masses of info then shoot jpeg where so much of that info is lost?

 

[MontanaDave]

The JPG file format is an 8-bit format, so the maximum possible RGB range is only 0-255.
A 14-bit RAW file format has a maximum possible RGB range of 0-16,383.

 

[Ysarex]

The JPG file format is an 8-bit format, so the maximum possible RGB range is only 0-255.
A 14-bit RAW file format has a maximum possible RGB range of 0-16,383.

This is misleading -- it's not appropriate to compare those file formats based on their bit depth. For that comparison to be useful you have to compare like units. A yard stick is longer than a 1 foot ruler because the ruler is marked with 12 inches while the yard stick is marked with 36 inches and in both cases the inches marked are like units. That's not the case with the JPEG and raw file formats. The units are not like units. In fact two different raw files both 14 bit from different sensors don't necessarily have like units that are comparable. Raw file units are linear JPEG file units are not linear.

 

[AlanKlein]

Totally agree, shooting in RAW is the only way to shoot and I actually enjoy editing to bring out the best. What's the point in having a camera that produces a RAW file with masses of info then shoot jpeg where so much of that info is lost?

Most cameras, cars, and other equipment have many features people selectively don't use. It depends on your needs. If a jpeg is acceptable to the photographer, why bother with all the extra RAW editing?

 

[Grandpa Ron]

One of the things I have discovered is RAW or Jpeg is once you modify your photo, it is your opinion as to what looks best.

I have saved several photos from the trash bin with post processing, usually to correct some dumb mistake, or clever exposer trick I tried.

However, it is equally true that after slaving over a good photograph and turning it into a thing of beuty and joy to behold, then choosing the best of the last three "perfect images"; I may come back in a month to find I was so consumed in the moment, that the perfect image was different, but not all the much better than the original.

I often wonder, if the two prints were placed side by side on a table, which photograph others would think was best?

 

[smoke665]

As noted above...it depends on your needs. If JPEGS suffice and you don't like post editing then it's silly to use up disk space saving RAW. If you have card space you could save RAW+ (JPEG+RAW), but there again it depends on your needs.

 

[cgw]

As noted above...it depends on your needs. If JPEGS suffice and you don't like post editing then it's silly to use up disk space saving RAW. If you have card space you could save RAW+ (JPEG+RAW), but there again it depends on your needs.

Guess I'm still in the grips of 24/36 and shoot accordingly despite big cards. Yup, RAW only but it took awhile--hah! Only exception is the high contrast b&w jpgs that the Ricoh GR II and later can crank out.

 

[RacePhoto]

Like others, it all depends on what you shoot and what you want to do and how much control you want to have, over the final product. With JPG you trust that settings in the camera will suffice for the final product, without doing everything, manually. But the other side, is, someone who wants to control every aspect of the final image,.

I shoot JPG because it works for me. I understand how someone doing fine art, or detailed work, or maybe who feels they need to CONTROL everything in their art and image, might feel different. That's the main difference, the artists desire to control.

There's really no right or wrong answer to a feeling or an opinion. Do what works best for your personal preferences and needs.

Yes, I need to have the buffer stay available, I like the faster processing, I mean inside the camera, as well as later, I need the burst rate sometimes. Someone shooting a single image, and who is going to take the time to edit in detail, later, doesn't have the same needs. I have big external backup drives. I have large CF cards and vest pockets pockets. I get the images I need and want.

More than all the arguments about bit rates or quality or being able to adjust things afterwards, the answer is mostly a personal choice. When it's all done, the file is going to be a JPG. You can pour 14 gallons of water into an 8 gallon jug, but in the end, you only have 8 gallons.

 

[greybeard]

I went through the same thing in my journey in digital photography. Back in the late 70's I had a B&W darkroom with tanks, trays, washers, and an a 2 1/4 enlarger. It would take me all day to process and print a roll of 35mm film. But, the prints where exactly what I wanted and not what some lab did. Shooting jpegs is a lot like sending your film out for processing. The camera does most of the processing leaving you with few options other than cropping and some exposure compensations. Raw files are like negatives you developed yourself and processing them in the program of your choice. This is a lot is a lot like developing the negatives and then printing them on photo paper from an enlarger. You have so much more control.

 

[Ysarex]

Like others, it all depends on what you shoot and what you want to do and how much control you want to have, over the final product.

And it also depends on what you want/expect in technical image quality in your final photo. That's an objective reality as in the SNR level from the sensor that directly impacts the IQ of your final photo. IQ differences and variable IQ options exist between saving camera JPEGs versus saving and processing raw files. For example I can chose to have a better SNR saving a raw file than would be possible if I chose to save a camera JPEG.

With JPG you trust that settings in the camera will suffice for the final product, without doing everything, manually.

And depending on your expectations for the IQ in your final photo the camera processing may not suffice. For example you may have to take some low-light photos where state-of-the-art noise filtering can really have a big impact on the final IQ result. State-of-the-art noise filtering isn't an option for in camera processing. In camera noise filtering is sub-standard poor cr*p.

But the other side, is, someone who wants to control every aspect of the final image,.

I shoot JPG because it works for me. I understand how someone doing fine art, or detailed work, or maybe who feels they need to CONTROL everything in their art and image, might feel different. That's the main difference, the artists desire to control.

There's really no right or wrong answer to a feeling or an opinion.

There are however right answers about objective technical quality factors for example fine detail rendition. How the raw data is demosaiced can make a noticeable difference in fine detail rendition. The level of detail resolution you're getting in your final photo isn't a feeling -- we can measure that objectively.

Do what works best for your personal preferences and needs.

Yes, I need to have the buffer stay available, I like the faster processing, I mean inside the camera, as well as later, I need the burst rate sometimes. Someone shooting a single image, and who is going to take the time to edit in detail, later, doesn't have the same needs. I have big external backup drives. I have large CF cards and vest pockets pockets. I get the images I need and want.

More than all the arguments about bit rates or quality or being able to adjust things afterwards, the answer is mostly a personal choice. When it's all done, the file is going to be a JPG. You can pour 14 gallons of water into an 8 gallon jug, but in the end, you only have 8 gallons.

I export my processed raw files to 16 bit TIFF files. When I do create an 8 bit JPEG it's at the end of a process where I was able to maintain superior technical IQ over what the camera software can produce and so the JPEGs I create are IQ superior to a JPEG created by the camera processing software.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Jpeg vs. RAW, film vs. digital. these discussions remind me of why I periodically drag out my 1909 4x5 view camera. Why I spend 20 minutes to get two negatives, and a digital duplicate just in case.

It is not so much a matter of control, as it is the sense of accomplishment. There is satisfaction in knowing the image on film or digital, is a result of your thinking, not some automated processing program or machine.

Admittedly, most of the time, I am quite content to let my digital camera do the work. This is because photography to me, is capturing the moment. The content, and thoughts the image conveys, far out weight any concerns I have about the superb quality of the photographic image.

That said, periodically I will come across, or seek out, a scene that triggers the little voice in my head that says, " This is worthy of the time and effort, to see how well I can capture and reproduce, the image as it I see it in my mind." Ansel Adams is an excellent example of making the camera and the image processing, capture what your mid envisions.

 

[Don Fischer]

Unless you are a pro shooting for money, for me the learning trip to raw is a waste of my time. My photo's may not be as well done but I like them as they are with a bit of editing on the side. Editing jpeg was a brain twister for me. enough is enough unless I was to go pro. Even then I'm not sure it's worth it to me personally as most folks like what I do as is. How good a photo is is really a matter of opinion.

 

[DanOstergren]

Unless you are a pro shooting for money, for me the learning trip to raw is a waste of my time. My photo's may not be as well done but I like them as they are with a bit of editing on the side. Editing jpeg was a brain twister for me. enough is enough unless I was to go pro. Even then I'm not sure it's worth it to me personally as most folks like what I do as is. How good a photo is is really a matter of opinion.

I guess it really depends on the individual. I know many who aren't professionals who still shoot in raw format because despite not doing it for money, they like the editing process, or have a vision that needs a certain level of control in post-processing to attain. I shoot professionally, but even when I'm just making something because I want to be artistic, I shoot in raw because I strive for a look that jpeg just doesn't provide without reducing image quality due to post processing.

 

[MontanaDave]

This is misleading -- it's not appropriate to compare those file formats based on their bit depth. For that comparison to be useful you have to compare like units. A yard stick is longer than a 1 foot ruler because the ruler is marked with 12 inches while the yard stick is marked with 36 inches and in both cases the inches marked are like units. That's not the case with the JPEG and raw file formats. The units are not like units. In fact two different raw files both 14 bit from different sensors don't necessarily have like units that are comparable. Raw file units are linear JPEG file units are not linear.

In each pixel, there is a red, green, blue value.
The JPG file format is an 8-bit format, so the maximum possible RGB range is only 0-255.
A 14-bit RAW file format has a maximum possible RGB range of 0-16,383.
The technical term for this is "radiometric resolution" from the science of satellite sensors.

 

[smoke665]

In each pixel, there is a red, green, blue value.
The JPG file format is an 8-bit format, so the maximum possible RGB range is only 0-255.
A 14-bit RAW file format has a maximum possible RGB range of 0-16,383.
The technical term for this is "radiometric resolution" from the science of satellite sensors.

While technically correct the misleading point comes when you convert that 14 bit file to an 8 bit JPEG for display or print it's truncated to 8 bit, deleting excess color data and detail. I think this is where Ysarex was going with the yardstick/ruler analogy.