Raw file, whats the point?

[templatephotoshop]

If you want acceptable images shoot JPEG, if you want exceptional ones shoot RAW.

 

[Neocane]

This is why I posted my question here in the TPF, you guys are a great resource of "real-world" advice and suggestions, thanks! After having read your suggestions and checked out links supplied in this thread, I now know quite a bit more regarding the RAW format. I believe the end answer to my question "what's the point?" was best summized by templatephotoshop when he (?) said

If you want acceptable images shoot JPEG, if you want exceptional ones shoot RAW.

That pretty much says it all. Thank you all for your comments and suggestions...............RAW it is!

 

[sojourn]

<snip>, if you want exceptional ones shoot RAW. That pretty much says it all. Thank you all for your comments and suggestions...............RAW it is!

I recently switched over to RAW and I am very pleased with the format. It really isn't that difficult to work with, although I have many years of experience with photo-touchup so I know my way around, if you use a good program (I use the Canon program 'Digital Photo Professional' right now for RAW an PhotoPaint for JPEG) it will become second nature in no time to modify the image to your tastes.

My only concern with RAW is how fast my memory cards fill up! I can live with that, because the quality of the image is so much better than JPEG.

Go RAW!

 

[Hamtastic]

All digital cameras shoot raw all the time. ... On the other hand that takes a lot more time. Some people think it's worth it, others don't....

A good job of copying the text from one of my earlier posts. You should have credited the source. At least you added some additional text after the "EDIT".

Ummm, this is common knowledge, and I've been posting it at this forum (under ksmattfish) and others for over 6 years.

EDIT: You know what? I hate photo forums. Why do I keep coming back?

 

[Flash Harry]

Unless you can nail exposure perfectly every time I suggest you shoot raw, in a fast paced environment, (wedding) raw is always going to be best, you shoot one shot, see something happening and grab a quickie with the same settings and it may be slightly over or under exposed or WB is off, in raw corrections are possible and optimum quality available, jpeg just doesn't cut it and I only use the format for my own snapshots when I can't be bothered to think about what I'm doing. H

 

[iskoos]

Absolutely raw would give better results and shooting raw all the could be suggested but it is not that easy. One can shoot raw all the time if he/she knows how to properly process them. Otherwise he/she will come here in panic and ask others to get help he/she will have bunch of pictures that needed to be delivered

So the path to follow should be: "One needs to grow out of what he/she has first, then step up..."

I shoot JPEG all the time because it suits me for now. I have many other things I need to improve before shooting raw.

With all the above said, I have one question: Say for example I took an indoor picture w/o flash and when I came home, I realized that it would have been much better to take the shot at increased exposure (1 stop up for example). Since it was JPEG I am limited to edit it. So if I had taken that shot in raw, then would I be able to convert it as if it was already taken at 1 stop up exposure?

 

[iskoos]

I'd love for somebody to answer the above question for me if possible. I though about it the past few days and I think the answer would most likely be "No" but I still want confirmation.

Thanks

 

[Mr. Remote]

IN addition to the above question. I've been shooting JPEG most of my time doing photography, but once or twice I experimented with RAW, because my Photo teacher said it held more color, and I was shooting inside a darkroom, under the safety lights. so when I went to edit them, I edited them in Bridge Camera RAW. but I also have Lightroom on my PC and have never used it.

Is Lightroom good for editing RAW files? is that whats it's mainly meant to do, because I have yet to figure this program out.

FYI, this thread has throughly convinced me to switch to shooting RAW all the time.

 

[Garbz]

So if I had taken that shot in raw, then would I be able to convert it as if it was already taken at 1 stop up exposure?

Short answer, no.

With any technology that records stuff and stores it in a limited format, to gain the best quality it is necessary to span the range you want (exposure) to fit neatly within the dataspace you have.

With both JPEG and RAW you can increase the exposure 1 stop. This comes as a cost as suddenly data must be created which was not originally there. Also noise will be increased by one stop along with the signal data.

The major problem is the darker areas of an image hold less data. Say you record something and the RGB values turn out to be RGB(1,1,1) and you double the exposure and get RGB(2,2,2), sounds sensible right? But what you have lost is similar to maths rounding errors. The actual item in the room that has shown up very dark grey may infact be slightly more red with values around RGB(0.9,0.5,0.5) If this were actually recorded at the original exposure you would get RGB(2,1,1).

This is a very basic example and in reality values that low get eaten by noise anyway. However whenever you boost something that is dark (little information), to something that is brighter (lots more information) then you invariably always end up with a worse image than if you recorded it correctly to being with.


But that's not the end of the story. The benefit of RAW is that data is firstly got a higher bitdepth. Usually 10 to 14bits per pixel rather than 8bpp of a JPEG image. This reduces the rounding error type problems I mentioned above, and improving quality if you increase the exposure of a RAW file compared to a JPEG.
The other benefit is that RAW data is linear, JPEG data is logarithmic. Linear would look like an image with no contrast that comes up very bright and grey. This gives a bit of a boost to the amount of information about shadows, and is also why boosting the shadows from a RAW file gives better results.

So no, it's not the same, but yes it is better.