Shooting Raw as a Matter of Fact

[benjikan]

I would strongly suggest that all of you who have the capacity to shoot in RAW do so. The latitude potential for future requirements are such that you can always go back to the original files and tweak them using the newest software available, which in the future may be capable of extracting even more of the nuances that our software is capable of doing today. JPEG is like analogue tape. The more you open and adjust the more the degradation.

Just a bit of advice that I feel is crucial for all of your future file manipulation.

Ben

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Absolutely. I shoot RAW 99.9% of the time, I have to.

JPEGs just have so much compression and so little information compared to a RAW file that to me, it makes no sense to shoot JPEG, unless I need the buffer cleared fast, which isn't all that often. I don't know about the pentax RAW files, but my NEF's from my Nikon are worlds crisper than any JPEG because of all the color enhancements, Noise reduction, and Anti-aliasing that hasn't been done. There are times when i've been working with short DOF and high ISO's, that there's no real sharp focus point when shooting JPEG. Shooting the exact same shot as a NEF, it's glaringly obvious. That's how much the JPEGs are blurred on Nikons!!!

but even if they weren't blurred, I'd still shoot RAW for the sheer flexibility. When you shoot RAW, you don't have to think as much. You don't need to worry about WB, if the exposure is a little blown it's ok, you don't' have to worry about what color modes you're in, it's all good!

Like i said before, the only advantage there is to JPEG is smaller files so you can clear your buffer faster and fit more pictures on your memory card(s).

 

[Flash Harry]

Since turning digital only the first test with the camera was jpeg, I've shot raw ever since without problem apart from a slower workflow, I now use a raw processing script to automate the initial workflow and it all works like a charm. H

 

[RVsForFun]

As a 99% JPEG-only shooter, I agree with your assessments of RAW (believe it or not!). You certainly have better opportunities to re-apply JPEG parameters like sharpness, WB, contrast, etc., without worrying about those things at the time of the shoot.

Don't, however, fall into the "professionals only shoot RAW" mindset. It's the final results that matter, not the format you shoot. I only shoot JPEG for events due to file size limitations of RAW. I only get 40 images per CF card using RAW, but 120 using JPEG. And I'm perfectly satisfied with my JPEGs the camera makes due to my extensive testing and rigorous exposure methods.

Also realize that RAW is not a format for the ages. Both Canon and Nikon have released newer versions of their raw processing software that will NOT work with older RAW formats. It's very possible that in the future you upgrade your RAW software and discover that older images you took cannot be processed! RAW, despite its advantages, is proprietary in format and apparently works for but a time with your software. It will benefit you that you ASK before you accept a software upgrade if the current NEF or CR2 files will continue to be available to you after the upgrade. For this reason you should process your RAW files ASAP and produce as good a JPEG as you can...JPEG is forever, RAW is not.

 

[RVsForFun]

You don't have to have file degradation when editing JPEG. I have completely lossless file editing with my JPEGs. The way to do it (for several good reasons) is to open your JPEG in your photo editor, and immediately convert it (by saving it) to a lossless format such as a .PSD file. Edit from then on as a .PSD file and you'll have no compression loss whatsoever. Only when you're done editing do you save it to a new file as a JPEG. This accomplishes another thing - it updates the thumbnail image of the JPEG to reflect the latest editing. You've undoubtedly discovered that the JPEG thumbnail is only "set" at file creation time, not each time you save it.

I hope this clears the name of JPEGs as far as editing losses go.

I would strongly suggest that all of you who have the capacity to shoot in RAW do so. The latitude potential for future requirements are such that you can always go back to the original files and tweak them using the newest software available, which in the future may be capable of extracting even more of the nuances that our software is capable of doing today. JPEG is like analogue tape. The more you open and adjust the more the degradation.

Just a bit of advice that I feel is crucial for all of your future file manipulation.

Ben

 

[Digital Matt]

I only shoot JPEG for events due to file size limitations of RAW. I only get 40 images per CF card using RAW, but 120 using JPEG.

Buy more CF cards. I've said it on this forum before, but.......Memory is cheap, but Memories are priceless.

 

[RVsForFun]

It's not a question of money. It's two factors...frequency of changing CF cards, and how many pictures you want to trust to a single card the size of a postage stamp. I will put no more than 100 or so images on one card because should that card get corrupted, damaged or lost I'm not out 1/2 my wedding images. I also need a goodly number of images per card because sure as shootin', just when I need to change another CF card something important is happening.

Buy more CF cards. I've said it on this forum before, but.......Memory is cheap, but Memories are priceless.

 

[Digital Matt]

What would you do with film then? 36 shots and then you gotta change, or even worse if you are shooting MF. 15, or even 10 shots then you gotta change! If you can only fit 40 raw images on a card, then why are you worried about putting more than 100 images on a card, and honestly, it takes far less time to change a CF card than it does to change film.

 

[Kingpatzer]

You don't have to have file degradation when editing JPEG. I have completely lossless file editing with my JPEGs. The way to do it (for several good reasons) is to open your JPEG in your photo editor, and immediately convert it (by saving it) to a lossless format such as a .PSD file. Edit from then on as a .PSD file and you'll have no compression loss whatsoever.

I hope this clears the name of JPEGs as far as editing losses go.

JPEG is a lossy compression. Every time you save to it you lose information. There is no such thing as a JPEG without file degradation. Your edits may be lossless, in that the total information is unchanged in the PSD file,but the final image suffers from two passes through the JPEG converter. And your final results will include losses to your edits.

Out of the same camera there is no way that you can blow up the image to anywhere close to the same size you could if you shot in RAW after two JPEG passes.

Also realize that RAW is not a format for the ages. Both Canon and Nikon have released newer versions of their raw processing software that will NOT work with older RAW formats. It's very possible that in the future you upgrade your RAW software and discover that older images you took cannot be processed!

Hence DNG.

And Adobe's Camera Raw still works with just about anything you throw at it.

Most people who shoot in RAW don't keep the files in RAW.

My work flow is something like this:

1. Shoot in RAW
2. Move to RAW processing folder
3. Rename files, apply metadata, sort/rate photos
4. batch convert to DNG move to DNG processing folder
5. Apply various raw format edits and effects (basic contrast, etc.)
6. pick out only very best photos for further work in Photoshop batch everything else to TIFF
6.5 photoshop the ones that will most benefit and convert to TIFF
7. put everything in final resting place folder

I will put no more than 100 or so images on one card because should that card get corrupted, damaged or lost I'm not out 1/2 my wedding images.

Sorry, that's just silly.

Cards are solid state devices. They have very low variance around their MTBF. Track your usage and toss the cards before they get close to failure and you will never have any problems. Or, at least the chances of having a problem will be the same as the chances of having multiple cards fail at the same time.

 

[RVsForFun]

Film is dead and not a good comparison. I shoot close to 1,000 images per wedding and could not tolerate a card change, roll film change or processing costs for a roll every 36 photos or so. I'd have to adjust my shooting style (and my wedding albums style, too). I need to take advantage of digital's superior image capture capability, which means more photos than film would allow. The two media aren't comparable since I don't use film anymore.

What would you do with film then? 36 shots and then you gotta change, or even worse if you are shooting MF. 15, or even 10 shots then you gotta change! If you can only fit 40 raw images on a card, then why are you worried about putting more than 100 images on a card, and honestly, it takes far less time to change a CF card than it does to change film.

 

[RVsForFun]

Not every camera shoots DNG, only Leicas do at this time. It's a coin toss whether or not a format OTHER than JPEG will prove viable. Remember others have tried and died (JPEG2000, Kodak's pix format, etc.). JPEG seems to be so well entrenched that I seriously doubt another format will supercede it. If you argue that DNG is an interim, editing and storage format, I'd argue that .PSD files do the same.

As for RAW files making better or larger enlargements than JPEG, I have some flawless 20x30s to show you made from JPEGs. Regardless of the format, an 8MP camera only supplies less than 15% of the data necessary for a 20x30 print. Enlargement size and a good print has more to do with your printer's RIP than your camera's pixel count. Shooting RAW doesn't add a single pixel more to your image unless you interpolate. Your 8MP JPEG camera doesn't become a 10MP RAW camera.

As for the JPEG processor being run twice, you're correct. My Canon does a fantastic job, sorry you're not satisfied with yours. The dedicated JPEG converter in my camera is OK with me, and the difference between it and RAW is negligable. If you want to adopt the issues and overhead with RAW for a 3% difference, go ahead.

If you'll note my subsequent post, I think it foolish to trust, say, 250 images per CF card regardless of the MTBF. If the devices were so reliable we wouldn't need recovery software. It can be something as simple as accidental format/erasure; loss or corrosion. 40 images is too low for me (too much changing), and over 100 or so is too high (too much risk for such a small device). It's not silly, it's a good tradeoff for my shooting style...

JPEG is a lossy compression. Every time you save to it you lose information. There is no such thing as a JPEG without file degradation. Your edits may be lossless, in that the total information is unchanged in the PSD file,but the final image suffers from two passes through the JPEG converter. And your final results will include losses to your edits.

Out of the same camera there is no way that you can blow up the image to anywhere close to the same size you could if you shot in RAW after two JPEG passes.

Hence DNG.

And Adobe's Camera Raw still works with just about anything you throw at it.

Most people who shoot in RAW don't keep the files in RAW.

My work flow is something like this:

1. Shoot in RAW
2. Move to RAW processing folder
3. Rename files, apply metadata, sort/rate photos
4. batch convert to DNG move to DNG processing folder
5. Apply various raw format edits and effects (basic contrast, etc.)
6. pick out only very best photos for further work in Photoshop batch everything else to TIFF
6.5 photoshop the ones that will most benefit and convert to TIFF
7. put everything in final resting place folder


Sorry, that's just silly.

Cards are solid state devices. They have very low variance around their MTBF. Track your usage and toss the cards before they get close to failure and you will never have any problems. Or, at least the chances of having a problem will be the same as the chances of having multiple cards fail at the same time.

 

[gmarquez]

Why even argue about it? Ben stated a suggestion, and I can see debating the merits of the suggestion A BIT, but, as always when this subject is brought up, it is evolving into a religious war complete with dogma, superstition, and misdirection. JPG vs. Raw. Mac vs. PC. Cannon vs. Nikon. Who CARES if the other guy agrees with you or not?

 

[Alex_B]

I shoot RAW only since I want control over the parameters and not let the camera decide while shooting. I want the same freedom with digital as if developing film myself.

Film is dead and not a good comparison. I shoot close to 1,000 images per wedding and could not tolerate a card change, roll film change or processing costs for a roll every 36 photos or so.

but you could change a CF card every 180 shots... that is about the average of RAW images i can get on one 4 GByte CF card ... and those are down to 70ish USD each.

 

[Kingpatzer]

Not every camera shoots DNG, only Leicas do at this time.

The point is that the cameras shoot in it. The point is that it is an openly documented RAW format that any software can implement.

It's a coin toss whether or not a format OTHER than JPEG will prove viable.

Yeah, TIFF support is so lacking. And you can't find anything that does PNG's these days.

Sorry, that's just a stupid statement.

JPEG seems to be so well entrenched that I seriously doubt another format will supercede it.

It's very well entrenched due to the need many people have to view images on the web. That has nothing to do with it's utility or quality as a storage or processing format.

If you argue that DNG is an interim, editing and storage format, I'd argue that .PSD files do the same.

DNG is more useful only because it makes using the EXIF data a bit easier.

Your 8MP JPEG camera doesn't become a 10MP RAW camera.

No, but an 8MP RAW has more image data in it than the same sensor data saved to JPEG.

As for the JPEG processor being run twice, you're correct. My Canon does a fantastic job, sorry you're not satisfied with yours. The dedicated JPEG converter in my camera is OK with me, and the difference between it and RAW is negligable.

To me, it's very noticeable. Sorry your eyes don't work.

If you want to adopt the issues and overhead with RAW for a 3% difference, go ahead.

Thanks, I'm glad I have your permission to care about quality.

If you'll note my subsequent post, I think it foolish to trust, say, 250 images per CF card regardless of the MTBF. If the devices were so reliable we wouldn't need recovery software.

Again, track your usage and get rid of cards before they approach their MTBF points and you'll have no problems.

Statistically speaking, you're just as likely to lose multiple cards as you are to lose all the data on one card.

In both cases, the trick is to take control of the variables. Use only a known good card (you filled it up once or twice already) and don't use a card that is approaching it's failure point. You simply won't have any problems.

While your "method" sounds like you are minimizing risks, you're not.

 

[darich]

I will put no more than 100 or so images on one card because should that card get corrupted, damaged or lost I'm not out 1/2 my wedding images

I'm actually amazed that a wedding photographer chooses not to shoot in RAW when the option is there.
RAW can save a wrong exposure which is crucial on the big day.
Are you so certain that you'll get every exposure absolutely perfect that you can shoot jpeg for someone's big day?
Shooting a white dress in front of a dark tree or bush is tricky. Factor in changing light conditions and flash and you've got a lot of variables. You already admitted that you don't want to lose any images but a wrong exposure would be a lost image since you can't reasonably expect someone to pay you for it when it's not to a high standard.

I shoot RAW for almost everything except when i know for a fact i won't be printing. RAW means I, and not the camera, control the finished product. And I only sell the occasional print.

As a keen amateur with a bit of knowledge, if i knew the photographer i was paying hundred's of pounds to was shooting in jpeg and not RAW, i'd be wanting to know why he was charging so much. I'd also ask about his post processing if the exposure was off.
And since he would effectively be my employee for the duration of the wedding since i'm paying him, i'd demand he shoot in RAW.