Shooting in RAW

[DennisK]

Ok,I'll admit it....I'm a noob;that's why I'm here in the beginner's thread.Anyway,I have a question that no one has ever told me.I understand that when you shoot in JPEG,the camera processes a lot of detail out of your image;that's why we shoot in RAW. But what I'm confused about is,after post-processing your RAW images in Photoshop,you usually have to save it in JPEG,TIFF,or some other format;especially if you send your images out to be printed.So if you save to JPEG,don't you lose the detail just like it would be if you originally shot in JPEG? If so,why even shoot in RAW in the first place?

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Understanding RAW Files Explained

 

[JordanTarrant]

With RAW you get more control of the end result, with jpeg you're stuck with that quality. You can edit the jpegs but the quality can't get much better.

 

[WesternGuy]

Basically, when you shoot jpg in the camera, then you are allowing the camera to determine the final image - well not quite, you can do some limited editing in your editing software, but not nearly as much as you can with a Raw file. With the in-camera jpg a lot of the image processing is done by the camera and if you don't like it then there is not a lot you can do about it. If you shoot raw, then you get to determine what the final image looks like - not the camera. So when you convert to jpg for web display or any other reason, the converted image will retain your editing and will look more like you wanted it to. You may lose some detail, but as long as you have your original raw file, you will be able to do multiple "edits" and convert them to jpgs. HTH.

Cheers,

WesternGuy

 

[thereyougo!]

Ok,I'll admit it....I'm a noob;that's why I'm here in the beginner's thread.Anyway,I have a question that no one has ever told me.I understand that when you shoot in JPEG,the camera processes a lot of detail out of your image;that's why we shoot in RAW. But what I'm confused about is,after post-processing your RAW images in Photoshop,you usually have to save it in JPEG,TIFF,or some other format;especially if you send your images out to be printed.So if you save to JPEG,don't you lose the detail just like it would be if you originally shot in JPEG? If so,why even shoot in RAW in the first place?

Jpegs are a lossy format. If you leave it to your camera you will have no control of things like white balance so will have to be accurate in the field, which is far more difficult. Also after making changes you can process it to a number of different formats. If you don't print the shot yourself many printers will take TIFF files which hold lots more detail. To keep file sizes down you can resize the shot to fit your size of media, but ensure you use a mode that sharpens the image as downsizing can lead to loss of sharpness. My final files are 16 bit TIFFs when I print them myself. Having a 40 megapixel camera means my file sizes are around 250mb which local photostores won't accept. But I print my own in any case. Keep shooting RAW and learn how much you can manipulate the image. It's amazing what you can do just with the white balance

 

[DennisK]

WOW!! This is a great site.I never expected such quick and informative replies.Thanks to all who helped me learn something today!

And to 2WheelPhoto,thanks for that very informative link.That explained a lot.

 

[JKF159]

DennisK, the thing that I noticed most when I began using RAW is how much detail is actually in the shadows and the highlights. What might come out of your camera in jpeg with black shadows or blown highlights very often has detail in the RAW image. Through exposure adjustment in PP or through layering of images you can often gain big improvements in your final image. This combined with the white balance control is easily enough reason to use RAW when your photos are important.

Due to the large file size I dont always use RAW. If a relatively large number of photos are taken that are destined to be nothing more than snapshots then I dont use RAW. When I do shoot RAW in my 7D I always shoot a jpeg also. The RAW images can only be viewed in Elements 9 one at a time and this is slow. Having the jpeg to view allows me to cull before I actually use the RAW image.

 

[DennisK]

DennisK, the thing that I noticed most when I began using RAW is how much detail is actually in the shadows and the highlights. What might come out of your camera in jpeg with black shadows or blown highlights very often has detail in the RAW image. Through exposure adjustment in PP or through layering of images you can often gain big improvements in your final image. This combined with the white balance control is easily enough reason to use RAW when your photos are important.

Due to the large file size I dont always use RAW. If a relatively large number of photos are taken that are destined to be nothing more than snapshots then I dont use RAW. When I do shoot RAW in my 7D I always shoot a jpeg also. The RAW images can only be viewed in Elements 9 one at a time and this is slow. Having the jpeg to view allows me to cull before I actually use the RAW image.

Yeah,that makes sense.Thanks.

 

[SCraig]

RAW format is, for all intents, what appears on the image sensor. Any in-camera adjustments such as saturation, contrast, noise reduction, etc. are normally (notice I said "Normally") ignored by the camera when shooting in raw mode. The assumption is that any corrections that the photographer wants to make to the image will be done in post processing and not within the camera. RAW files also typically contain a small JPEG file that is used for the preview / thumbnail / whatever.

RAW files are normally proprietary and there is no standard format for them. Nikon, for example, does not provide a complete listing of the format of their RAW files which is why some RAW converters do not do well on NEF files. Adobe handles them very well, Nikon's own Capture NX2 handles them perfectly as would be expected.

To view RAW files the best viewer I've found is Fast Stone image viewer. This viewer is very fast and works very well. It is also free.

 

[480sparky]

...............RAW files are normally proprietary and there is no standard format for them. .....

Except for .DNGs.

 

[SCraig]

Except for .DNGs.

Hence the word "Normally" in my statement. DNG is a RAW format, true, however as I understand it (and admittedly my understanding is limited) RAW files are converted to DNG format. It isn't supported as an in-camera option yet, is it?

 

[KmH]

Many don't realise that the only thing the image sensor records is luminosity. The image sensor in a digital camera cannot, and does not, actually record any colors.

Most digital camera image sensors have a Bayer Array in front of them that alters the liminosity of adjacent pixels so that color can be inferred later by software that does the conversion of the image data into an actual image. Foveon type image sensors don't use a Bayer Array, but ultimately do the same thing. Silicon, the stuff the image sensor is made of, has the property that red, green, and blue light penetrate the silicon to different depths. So the Foveon image sensor has 3 layers of photodetectors. One layer that detects the luminosity of blue light, one layer that detects the luminosity green light, and 1 layer that detects the luminosity of red light.

Like bayer Array imsge sensors, the Raw image data still has to be demosaiced by a mathematical algorithm to infer the colors in the scene.

As far as JPEG goes, it is not detail that is lost, it is colors that are lost.

 

[CCericola]

I always thing of Raw v. JPEG like Negative v. Polaroid. With raw you have a negative you can print over and over, using different techniques, filters, etc... With a JPEG you are stuck with what you have. You can scan it in and try to use filters but it will never be the same quality. Now this is a very basic, extreme look at it but it seems to help people think about the difference. Yes, you can edit JPEGs more than a Polaroid but you get the gist of the comparison.

 

[thereyougo!]

Except for .DNGs.

Hence the word "Normally" in my statement. DNG is a RAW format, true, however as I understand it (and admittedly my understanding is limited) RAW files are converted to DNG format. It isn't supported as an in-camera option yet, is it?

It is on some cameras. My Pentax 645d gives an option of PEK or DNG. I choose DNG as it is supported by all my software and PEK isn't. (well wasn't when I first bought the camera in Tokyo )