Encouragement to shoot raw

[wfooshee]

A couple of posts have shown the ability to rescue a bad image that was saved as RAW. My own example is this, from a sand drag event a friend asked me to shoot. On this one I didn't give the flash quite enough recycle time and it failed to fire. It probably worked out better without the flash, as the flash would have removed the motion blur of the rear wheels spinning, and in the surface and the background.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Very interesting discussions for sure. But for the most part it comes down to that the photographer's opinion of "What makes a good photograph."

In most cases "As shot" captures what is important to the photographer in the shot. Though occasionally, minor adjustments are used to clarify what the photographer wishes to show. Blurring the background, tilting the image, changing the contrast, are few some folks I find handy. These are easily handles by Jpeg.

Also, the camera shoots what the camera sees, in spite of our manual adjustments. Hence pictures may not always be as envisioned. But they are pretty darn close. So close, that two photographers may have varying ideas of how to improve the picture.

Likewise, is seems photographers and the photo-buying publics opinions are changing. I believe what is referred to as over-enhancement is becoming the new norm. Postprocessing adds "Pop and Pizazz" to photos. This is the realm of the RAW user.

 

[Ysarex]

Very interesting discussions for sure. But for the most part it comes down to that the photographer's opinion of "What makes a good photograph."

It's not just a matter of the photographer's opinion. We have standards and expectations for what makes a photo good or bad. If we didn't we wouldn't have competitions with judges, winners, and losers. I spent 38 years grading the photos of college students -- to do that well I had to make an effort to fairly apply recognized standards.

In most cases "As shot" captures what is important to the photographer in the shot.

What is "As shot"?

Though occasionally, minor adjustments are used to clarify what the photographer wishes to show. Blurring the background, tilting the image, changing the contrast, are few some folks I find handy. These are easily handles by Jpeg.

Also, the camera shoots what the camera sees, in spite of our manual adjustments.

When I change various settings on my cameras those changes alter the appearance of the photo. I don't know what you're trying to say here.

Hence pictures may not always be as envisioned. But they are pretty darn close.

What pictures? Are you talking about the SOOC JPEGs? The SOOC JPEGs from my cameras never look anything at all like the photos I'm in fact taking.

So close, that two photographers may have varying ideas of how to improve the picture.

Likewise, is seems photographers and the photo-buying publics opinions are changing. I believe what is referred to as over-enhancement is becoming the new norm. Postprocessing adds "Pop and Pizazz" to photos. This is the realm of the RAW user.

 

[21limited]

Linear, where does that come into it?

More relevant reading….

https://laurashoe.com/2011/08/09/8-versus-16-bit-what-does-it-really-mean/

The advantge of raw, is less chance of creating gaps in your histogram, that may create odd looking areas in the photograph.

More here

Understanding Bit Depth in Image Files

Terms like 8-bit, 10-bit, and 14-bit are commonly used in camera forums. But do you understand what bit depth really is and how it affects images? Here’s a short video from ZY Productions exp…

seriouslyphotography.com

256 shades of grey - 8 vs 10-Bit bit depth explained

256 shades of grey - 8 vs 10-Bit bit depth explained

www.diyphotography.net

Now the interesting thing here, is not the number of colours. But the distribution of those numeric values between the various luminance values. So, I beleive in jpeg there are 16 shades of black, but hundreds of thousands of shades of white. It’s not linear, it’s expnential. I’m looking for a reference but can’t one at the moment find it. The amount of gradation representation increases as the subject gets brighter. IN practice, you really don’t need all those numerical values ocncentrated in the high end, they are all just bright white. But you may run out of it the in the low end. (shadows ) producing banding. (Although with early dgital cameras, I produced banding high and low end. But note, as mentioned above, the top and bottom are controlled by the display capability of the output evice. What the bit depth (the advantge of raw) controls is how many gradations you can squeeze in between, and that determines how natural the image looks. And how much you can “stretch” part of the image without creating banding.

It’s interesting to manipulte the black point in a raw iamge to see how “Shifting the “0" value affects the image. And shifting the black point in both a jpeg image and a raw image would be even more informative.

One of the maxims from film days, if you want high contrast under expose, if you want low contrast over-expose, still applies assuming you stretch the under exposed image to fill the the DR of the output device and shrink the over-exposed image to also fit into the DR of the output device.

 

[Ysarex]

Linear, where does that come into it?

Back on page 4 I noted that it's misleading to just compare raw files and JPEGs by noting their bit depth: Encouragement to shoot raw. A comparison requires like units. Raw files store data linearly JPEGs store data non-linearly -- not like units. The same misleading comparison begins the first article you linked below.

More relevant reading….

https://laurashoe.com/2011/08/09/8-versus-16-bit-what-does-it-really-mean/

The advantge of raw, is less chance of creating gaps in your histogram, that may create odd looking areas in the photograph.

More here

Understanding Bit Depth in Image Files

Terms like 8-bit, 10-bit, and 14-bit are commonly used in camera forums. But do you understand what bit depth really is and how it affects images? Here’s a short video from ZY Productions exp…

seriouslyphotography.com

256 shades of grey - 8 vs 10-Bit bit depth explained

256 shades of grey - 8 vs 10-Bit bit depth explained

www.diyphotography.net

Now the interesting thing here, is not the number of coulours. But the distribution of those numeric values between the various luminance values. So, I beleive in jpeg there are 16 shades of black, but hundreds of thousands of shades of white. It’s not linear, it’s expnential.

I think you're referring to raw files. They are linear but the data we photograph in terms of stops is exponential so if we look at a graph of raw file data we can see that the top most stop takes up half of the total linear range. Here's a RawDigger graph of a 12 bit raw file. You can see that the top stop (2 to 3 on the graph) is equal in size to the rest of the graphed data below that. So yes there's less total data to work with in the darker stops than the lighter stops.

I’m loooking for a reference but can’t at the moment find it. The amount of gradation representation increase as the subject gets brighter. IN practice, you really don’t need all those numerical values ocncentrated in the high end, they are all just bright white. But you may run out of it the in the low end. (shadows ) producing banding. (ALthough with early cameras, I produced banding high and low end. But note, as mentioned above, the top and bottom are controlled by the display capability of the output. What the bit depth (the advantge of raw) controls is how many gradations you can squeeze in between, and that determines how natural the image looks. And how much you can “stretch” part of the image without creating banding.

It’s interesting to manipulte the black point in a raw iamge to see how “Shifting the 0 value affects the image. And shifting the black point in both a jpeg image and a raw image would be even more informative.

One of the maxims from film days, if you want high contrast under expose, if you want low contrast over-expose, still applies assuming you stretch the under exposed image to fill the the DR of the output device and shrink the over-eposed image to also fit into the DR of the output device.

 

[AlanKlein]

Back on page 4 I noted that it's misleading to just compare raw files and JPEGs by noting their bit depth: Encouragement to shoot raw. A comparison requires like units. Raw files store data linearly JPEGs store data non-linearly -- not like units. The same misleading comparison begins the first article you linked below.

I think you're referring to raw files. They are linear but the data we photograph in terms of stops is exponential so if we look at a graph of raw file data we can see that the top most stop takes up half of the total linear range. Here's a RawDigger graph of a 12 bit raw file. You can see that the top stop (2 to 3 on the graph) is equal in size to the rest of the graphed data below that. So yes there's less total data to work with in the darker stops than the lighter stops.

View attachment 285557

Nothing's labelled. What do all the numbers represent?

 

[21limited]

Bottom line, if your exposure doesn't look perfect on the back screen or viewfinder with mirrorless , shoot raw. For myself I don't like futzing with cameras, so I just shoot raw. I use the jpegs in card 2 very rarely.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Ysarex,

Well, you ask questions, I will give my reasons.

*** Photographers live in the world of the Arts. Good and bad Art is a matter of opinion. Opinions vary. One of the most common examples are art competitions. As you admitted they try to judge based on well establish Standards. Good to know, but not applicable to those who operate by a different set of standards. (or biases). For example, which is best Bach, Bluegrass or Heavy Metal music?

*** "As shot" is often referred to as SOOC, straight of the camera. Just another way to state the obvious.

*** The tittle of the OP piece "Encouragement to shoot RAW". There is no argument that Raw is the superior to Jpeg. But Jpeg has become the DeFacto standard for ease of image manipulations and transfer. Convenience sells itself, why else would you buy bottled water to replace the free tap water you grew up with?

*** I disagree. Your camera has no choice of what it takes. Your camera takes what you tell it to take. You set the parameters. Unfortunately, even the smartest cameras may not be able to capture what you wish, to the standards you want. You are just one of unluck ones. Most people are satisfied with SOOC images, though many photography buffs can't resist a tweak or two in their Jpeg compatible computer program. Those that are still not satisfied, move into RAW, to chase what they want. But RAW capability is tied to each camera maker. Common perhaps, but not near a popular as Jpeg.

*** Photographers like to present images that will appeal to the public and perhaps sell well. As with any art, artists are always pushing the creative envelope. In my humble opinion we are entering the realm of over-enhancing elements to attract attention, (adding Pop and Pezzas), as I call it, to improve the image presentation. A very old and useful technique made easier with post processing. But it can be overdone. Bold enhancements may become mainstream, or like the Bell Bottom Levis of long ago, only a passing fad.

There is my reasoning for my comments. They are just my opinions, based on how I choose to shoot my images.
Some may agree with me, some will not. It would be a dull world if we all thought exactly the same.

Take care, have fun.

 

[smoke665]

Bottom line, if your exposure doesn't look perfect on the back screen or viewfinder with mirrorless , shoot raw. For myself I don't like futzing with cameras, so I just shoot raw. I use the jpegs in card 2 very rarely.

The image you're viewing on the back screen is the "camera generated" JPEG (including files saved as RAW) which generally includes all the proprietary algorithms of the manufacturer. Even the histogram is not representative of the RAW file but of the JPEG. This is where experience comes in for me. By judging the JPEG image presented, AND the histogram it gives me a best guess of the RAW file. I know from experience that I can ETTR until the blinkies start, maybe even bump up a little on the right and the whites will not be blown in the RAW, giving me a full data file to work with.

 

[smoke665]

Photographers live in the world of the Arts. Good and bad Art is a matter of opinion.

^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^
There are no rules, formulas, standards, tables or anything else when it comes to opinions on artistic value of anything. The worst grainy, out of focus, terrible color photo ever, might tweak a like button, and suddenly it's a masterpiece.

 

[Ysarex]

Nothing's labelled. What do all the numbers represent?

On the top of each graph find EV0 -- those are stops EV meaning exposure value.
The bottom scale with numbers in the thousands represents the raw file digital values. That raw file was a 12 bit ORF file. 12 bit raw files can store a max value of 2^12 = 4096. Note that the green graphs are close to that value.

 

[Ysarex]

Ysarex,

Well, you ask questions, I will give my reasons.

*** Photographers live in the world of the Arts. Good and bad Art is a matter of opinion.

Amazing then how the Fine Art world is able to be in such close agreement about what's good and bad. Anyway most photography does not live in the world of the Arts. And for most of that photography standards of good and bad certainly do exist. Here's the Instagram page for a well--known sports photographer: Login • Instagram It's clear that he makes an effort to focus on the subject, avoid camera shake, present good color -- the blue sky is blue, etc..

Opinions vary. One of the most common examples are art competitions. As you admitted they try to judge based on well establish Standards. Good to know, but not applicable to those who operate by a different set of standards. (or biases). For example, which is best Bach, Bluegrass or Heavy Metal music?

*** "As shot" is often referred to as SOOC, straight of the camera. Just another way to state the obvious.

That's what I thought but wasn't sure.

*** The tittle of the OP piece "Encouragement to shoot RAW". There is no argument that Raw is the superior to Jpeg. But Jpeg has become the DeFacto standard for ease of image manipulations and transfer. Convenience sells itself, why else would you buy bottled water to replace the free tap water you grew up with?

*** I disagree. Your camera has no choice of what it takes. Your camera takes what you tell it to take. You set the parameters.

I certainly misunderstood what you meant there.

Unfortunately, even the smartest cameras may not be able to capture what you wish, to the standards you want.

Mine do -- exactly what I want 100%. But then I think you mean in the SOOC JPEG. There I get a 100% failure rate -- no camera JPEG is acceptable for me. But then my camera JPEGs typically look like this (an exposure comp of +2 didn't help it):

The raw file exposure that goes with this JPEG is perfect. I like perfect, why do less? To get a good JPEG from the camera I would have to accept less.

You are just one of unluck ones. Most people are satisfied with SOOC images,

Most people eat fast-food. That doesn't make fast-food good. Popularity is not an arbiter of quality, in fact it often tends to suggest the opposite.

though many photography buffs can't resist a tweak or two in their Jpeg compatible computer program. Those that are still not satisfied, move into RAW, to chase what they want. But RAW capability is tied to each camera maker. Common perhaps, but not near a popular as Jpeg.

Popularity is not an arbiter of quality.

*** Photographers like to present images that will appeal to the public and perhaps sell well. As with any art, artists are always pushing the creative envelope. In my humble opinion we are entering the realm of over-enhancing elements to attract attention, (adding Pop and Pezzas), as I call it, to improve the image presentation. A very old and useful technique made easier with post processing. But it can be overdone. Bold enhancements may become mainstream, or like the Bell Bottom Levis of long ago, only a passing fad.

I save raw files because I want the final photo to be faithful to what I photographed. I avoid SOOC JPEGs in part because they are unfaithful to what I photograph.

There is my reasoning for my comments. They are just my opinions, based on how I choose to shoot my images.
Some may agree with me, some will not. It would be a dull world if we all thought exactly the same.

Take care, have fun.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Well, we live it two different photographic worlds. Imagine that.
I like my pictures and methods; you like your pictures and methods.
Unfortunately, neither method will win a noble prize or bring about world peace.

Our photographic methods may be of great important to us and a few other photographers, but I also realize that in the real world, they are just fluff.

I enjoy it what I do and hope a few others do also.

Take care.

 

[Ysarex]

Well, we live it two different photographic worlds. Imagine that.

Or, there's a lot of overlap in what we do. We both use digital cameras to take still photos. Might be worth considering why we do it so differently.

I like my pictures and methods; you like your pictures and methods.
Unfortunately, neither method will win a noble prize or bring about world peace.

Our photographic methods may be of great important to us and a few other photographers, but I also realize that in the real world, they are just fluff.

I enjoy it what I do and hope a few others do also.

Take care.

 

[21limited]

Well, we live it two different photographic worlds. Imagine that.
I like my pictures and methods; you like your pictures and methods.
Unfortunately, neither method will win a noble prize or bring about world peace.

Our photographic methods may be of great important to us and a few other photographers, but I also realize that in the real world, they are just fluff.

I enjoy it what I do and hope a few others do also.

Take care.

Some of us have been paid for helping others get better. We tend to explore possibilities an have spent considerable time researching best practices. I hope it’s not being suggested that we shouldn’t put our methods out there just because others do it differently. Persoanal preference is one thing, but if your personal preference doesn’t include the best possible images from a given photo shoot, maybe just best to stand back. On other forums I’ve had people contact me about an issue 5 years after I posted an article. My take, if you’re not interested, don’t comment. Your lack of interest shouldn’t interfere in the trasmission of “best practice” type information. This isn’t about which pant leg you put on first, this is about real actions with real consequences.

Many imply this kind of discussion is meaningless, like regardless of which pant leg you put on first, you end up with your pants on, and you can’t tell the difference. IN this case, there will be images where you can tell the difference. It does make a difference. People may be interested in how those differences are achieved and why. Even if not now, maybe years from now. It’s not all about the opinion of one person, at one particular place. It’s about disseminating good information. Whether or not any one individual cares to make use of it is up to them. If you are philosophically opposed to advanced technique and knowledge, why even enter the thread? It’s clearly not for you, but yet, here you are.
SOOC JPEG has a couple of advantges. The camera makes all the decisions for you, saving time and effort. Also it creates smaller file sizes

It also has some disadvantages, the camera decides how your image will be processed, it may not be to your liking. It throws away 1000s of bits ot data. You can’t reverse the decsions programmed into it by the guy who wrote the JPEG engine. Once you’ve committed to jepg, you’ve committed to using a general solution, that is best for the average shooter, who is incapble of making those desions on his own, or chooses to let somene else do the work. No attempt to customize can be implementd with all the data the camera captured.

SO for some it comes down to one saying “my images aren’t different enough from what the jpeg engine is design to do well, to make it worth my while to use RAW. For others of us, we’ve learned, we shoot in ways the average camera owning person probably can’t even imagine, things like maxing out on different angles, paying attention to the background, building tonal contrast and colour contrast into our images, highlighting with natrural suns spots and shade, so many more advanced techniques than just snapping a snapshot. The more care you take in your creatiing your iamges, the more you’ll be determined to get the best out of each frame. And it doesn’t even take that much work. I often process 50 images in an hour, just selecting the ones that are worth my time and effort to work further on. Culling the iamges would probably take that long even if I shot in jpeg. I find in post processing, there is certain spot, working the slider bars, where the image really pops. That’s my goal. If cranking out images as quickly and easily as possible without having to consider if it’s the best it could be is your goal, then ya, that’s an opinion.

I hate to see the slackers trying to influence people who are more serious about their photography. I would have no problem with a thread entitled why to use jpeg for those less inclined to value optimum processing. I could even write it. I would never consider jumping into that thread saying “I only shoot raw.”

Jpeg images are “good enough” for some. Some raws with a half hour of post processing can be spectacular. For some of us, saving a few minutes but missing out on the spectacular in some cases would be heart breaking. Those are the ones we discuss advanced techique with. Even if 90% of the world thinks jpegs are good enough.

Using RAW is a technique for keeners. The ambivalent need not apply.

"Easiest image capture possible “ and "best result possible” are two completely different and diametrically opposed philosophies, with little in common. It’s best they don’t interject in each others threads.