RAW vs JPG, should I start shooting in raw?

[Fox Paw]

"I can't speak for other manufacturers but the utility Canon provides makes dealing with RAW a breeze. You simply download the RAW files then tell the program to process them all with the standard setting and go and make a cup of tea."

I'm sure you're right but this puzzles me. I've only been shooting RAW for about six weeks. When I start the Canon utility software, I get recognizable images immediately, and I don't recall seeing anything about a standard-setting option. I'll have to explore more.

 

[Canon John]

I shoot everything in RAW. I have for years. when I shoot JPEGs I always feel something lacking from the get go. Also JPEGs throw off my workflow and filing system.

Should everyone shoot RAW? No. Shoot what suites you. I shot JPEGS until I felt the need to shoot RAW. Some never feel that need, and that is okay.

 

[Moglex]

"I can't speak for other manufacturers but the utility Canon provides makes dealing with RAW a breeze. You simply download the RAW files then tell the program to process them all with the standard setting and go and make a cup of tea."

I'm sure you're right but this puzzles me. I've only been shooting RAW for about six weeks. When I start the Canon utility software, I get recognizable images immediately, and I don't recall seeing anything about a standard-setting option. I'll have to explore more.

You just click on "download images" and it downloads them all.

Then select the ones you want and right click for a menu.

Select "Process RAW image" and the screen changes to show the shots you've selected together with a dilogue box with some settings.

Ignore this and just press save and you get another dialogue box. Click OK on this and your images will be saved in the format you require (e.g. JPG, TIFF, etc) (you just need to select this the first time you go through the process).

If at any stage futher intervention is required you need to investigate a little further to process some images with non standard settings.

All in all, though, it's pretty straightforward.

 

[Fox Paw]

Thanks for the help, Moglex. I'll try that.

 

[Bifurcator]

Can I use my CS3 to process and edit RAW images into JPEGs or do I still have to use the Sony software to convert? Thx...

AE

You get to use Adobe CameraRAW and with CS3 it will open JPEG 2000, JPEG, and just about every raw format I know of including .DNG (digital negative) files which have several advantages and I personally like the most.

I use my camera soft to batch convert everything over to DNG and then bring those into PS CS3 through CameraRAW. Here's the controls offered in Adobe CameraRAW if you downloaded the newest version or allowed PS to connect to the web and update you (EDIT: Actually these screen shots were created awhile ago and I notice some differences between the newest version and this - oops):

Notice the multi-image editing capabilities.

These are all the menus. Notice the histogram clipping indicators.
​

Give it a shot.

 

[RockDawg]

Bifurcator - What are the advantages of DNG? Do you still keep your RAW files too? Ideally, I would like to use Lightroom for most things, but as I mentioned in my post above, the only thing that seems to show NEF's correctly is Nikon software. Also, I'd like to limit how many different formats I'm keeping. I'm really perplexed on what the best workflow for me might be. I knwo it's different for everybody, but as a newb I'm not even sure where to start.

 

[Bifurcator]

Primary .dng benefits for me are:

• Good Lossless compression. (About 6MB for an 8MP 12bit file.) (My files are bigger because I embed.)
• Conversion to Linear Image data option. (this is a demosaiced interpolated format)
• Option to keep original RAW file as embedded file chunk.
• Option to keep camera balanced jpeg as embedded and/or scaled (none, small, medium, full size).
• Supported by all the software packages I want to use for photo editing including but NOT limited to:
  http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/supporters.html
• Faster previews from many software packages. (faster than other RAW formats)
• Very forward compatible file structure. (promotes archival confidence)
• Public SDK Available.
• Public Specs Available.
• Single Solution for multiple camera types. (Unification)
• Should work in LightRoom perfectly for you. ***
• High speed conversion tools are available for IRIX, LINUX, Mac, Windoze, AmigaOS, and perhaps others.
• High speed conversion tools usually accompany your camera's software CD.
• Etc.

And no, I don't keep the NEFs or MRW's or ORF's or DRF's or CRW's or RAF's, or MEF's or PTX's or PEF's or DCS's or DCR's any longer. I delete them. But you can see from this list maybe a little why I want unification and a single common format.

 

[RockDawg]

Can I convert my RAWs to DNG before any PP and they keep the in-camera settings that seem to be causing me problems? Can I PP DNG files with the same benefits as RAW (beter white balance adjustment, recover some detail in blown highlights, etc)?

It would be great if I could convert all NEFs to DNG from my SD card with in-camera settings maintained and then import them into LR for any PP I may wish to perform. Then the most I might need to do is export as jpgs for general use. Minimal software, minimal formats, all the same benefits?

 

[Bifurcator]

Can I convert my RAWs to DNG before any PP and they keep the in-camera settings that seem to be causing me problems? Can I PP DNG files with the same benefits as RAW (beter white balance adjustment, recover some detail in blown highlights, etc)?

It would be great if I could convert all NEFs to DNG from my SD card with in-camera settings maintained and then import them into LR for any PP I may wish to perform. Then the most I might need to do is export as jpgs for general use. Minimal software, minimal formats, all the same benefits?

I want to say yes to all your questions. I can answer yes in my case and for all the cameras I've owned. I had the nikon d2x (not to mention a buttload of different coolpix's) for awhile and I was doing DNGs then.

Try it and find out. Is your camera in this list: http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html ?? If so go here and download the converter and give it a shot:
For Windoze: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=3894
For Mac: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=3893

 

[RockDawg]

• Option to keep original RAW file as embedded file chunk.
• Option to keep camera balanced jpeg as embedded and/or scaled (none, small, medium, full size).

Sorry to be such a newb, but can you tell me what those two things mean and what benefit they serve?

Also, My camera is a D80 which shows as supported on the link you provided. So I can only convert to DNG through Adobe's software? Does it retain the in-camera settings? I was under the impression that was a propietary Nikon thing. All the other Adobe products that I've tried have shown problems in this regard.

 

[Bifurcator]

Sorry to be such a newb, but can you tell me what those two things mean and what benefit they serve?

Also, My camera is a D80 which shows as supported on the link you provided. So I can only convert to DNG through Adobe's software? Does it retain the in-camera settings? I was under the impression that was a propietary Nikon thing. All the other Adobe products that I've tried have shown problems in this regard.

If there are those problems and you want to use dng format then just embed.

here's the info you asked for (at the link I already posted): http://www.adobe.com/special/photoshop/camera_raw/DNG_4.4.1_Converter_ReadMe.pdf

 

[Garbz]

Ideally, I would like to use Lightroom for most things, but as I mentioned in my post above, the only thing that seems to show NEF's correctly is Nikon software.

Originally I was talking about the process of using RAWs compared to the process of using JPEGs. In a program which properly manages the workflow this will be identical. My comment had nothing to do with the image itself which will appear different on every RAW processor.

The problem is that each processor has it's own ideal method of interpreting the data, and each programmer their own interpretation of what constitutes an ideal output. In the case of Lightroom this is a mixture of the default settings, and the CameraRAW profile for the camera. Now Lightroom can be made to look the same as Nikon. You would need to subtly change the tone curves, and a few of the colour hues and saturations, and then apply those settings as the default for all imported RAWs. (Capture NX takes the defaults from how the camera was set). I did this at first and then after 2 weeks reset everything to default because I felt to my eyes the D200 JPEG / CaptureNX style result for this camera gave a way too saturated and red image.

Mind you the fact that there's no right interpretation exists even on the camera level. I'm not sure if other cameras have this too but the D200 has three colour modes in two different colour spaces, with five levels of saturation, and five default tone curves that can be applied in JPEG mode. That's 150 (minus 25 because colour mode II is not available in sRGB mode), different possible combinations that the camera and spit out from it's own menu.

Find a process that is right for you. Whether that is a modified default Lightroom profile, sticking with CaptureNX (*shudders*), or using one of the many other processors that no one talks about like Bible Pro, or Phase One's RAW processor.

 

[StillImage]

I cannot believe that anyone who has a camera that is capable of shooting in RAW doesn't. It should not even be an issue, to shoot in JPEG when you can shoot in RAW makes no sense at all. With the inexpensiveness of storage it should just be what you shoot. It is like shooting and sending your photos to get printed then not getting you negatives back. Your RAW file is your negative. There is not a single benefit to shooting in JPEG besides storage issues, and if you want to be a photographer you need to pay for the storage space as part of your cost of being a photographer. I have seen all the arguments for RAW vs. JPEG and to shot in JPEG just does not make sense. Shoot in JPEG if you wish, just not a single benefit to it. I am sure there are points people will make either way but if you want to be a serious amateur or professional learn to shoot in RAW.

 

[Mav]

I cannot believe that anyone who has a camera that is capable of shooting in RAW doesn't. It should not even be an issue, to shoot in JPEG when you can shoot in RAW makes no sense at all. With the inexpensiveness of storage it should just be what you shoot. It is like shooting and sending your photos to get printed then not getting you negatives back. Your RAW file is your negative. There is not a single benefit to shooting in JPEG besides storage issues, and if you want to be a photographer you need to pay for the storage space as part of your cost of being a photographer. I have seen all the arguments for RAW vs. JPEG and to shot in JPEG just does not make sense. Shoot in JPEG if you wish, just not a single benefit to it. I am sure there are points people will make either way but if you want to be a serious amateur or professional learn to shoot in RAW.

Rubbish. I'll say the same thing I've said in other threads. People who try to claim definitively that ONE way is the "correct" way and that another way has no benefits or virtues such that there's no reason at all to shoot like that automatically has no clue what they're talking about in my book, and simply doesn't get it.

I could just as easily argue that if you want to learn to be a serious amateur or professional that you'd learn to get it right in the camera the first time and not even have to bother with RAW, or heck even photoshop. There are professional photojournalists out there who don't even bother with photoshop, and their JPEGs go straight to gallery sized prints.

 

[Mystwalker]

I cannot believe that anyone who has a camera that is capable of shooting in RAW doesn't. It should not even be an issue, to shoot in JPEG when you can shoot in RAW makes no sense at all. With the inexpensiveness of storage it should just be what you shoot. It is like shooting and sending your photos to get printed then not getting you negatives back. Your RAW file is your negative. There is not a single benefit to shooting in JPEG besides storage issues, and if you want to be a photographer you need to pay for the storage space as part of your cost of being a photographer. I have seen all the arguments for RAW vs. JPEG and to shot in JPEG just does not make sense. Shoot in JPEG if you wish, just not a single benefit to it. I am sure there are points people will make either way but if you want to be a serious amateur or professional learn to shoot in RAW.

Not everyone (me) has the knowledge or the time to convert to JPEG to print. Most people (me) are perfectly happy with their JPEG image. I do shoot RAW+JPEG though, just in case I get hit by lightning of knowledge, some day.

This is like me saying "if you want to be a serious amateur or professional, you MUST have a 1DsMkIII." Not everyone have the funds, nor feel the need for such a camera.

Do what is most convenient/useful for you because it's your time and your money.