Shooting Raw as a Matter of Fact

[Digital Matt]

Now someone needs to explain to me, how batch converting RAW to JPG with software is better than letting the camera do it when it takes the picture. What am I missing?

I'm pretty sure I can make better decisions than a camera chip can make, even when applying them in batch. I normally look at the first picture, tweak the raw file to my liking, and apply these settings to all shots that were taken in this similar light. Move on to the next unique lighting scenario and do the same. I can batch 400 images in less than 10 minutes, and get much more detail than with 8bit jpgs.

Raw files capture 4096 tones while jpgs capture 256. This equates to much more shadow and highlight detail. MUCH more. By the time you get it to an 8bit jpg, you'll will have thrown some of this extra data out, but at least you have it there to play with, and decide where to place it. Shooting in jpg mode doesn't give you the option, ever.

http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm

 

[RVsForFun]

I see this religious opinion on most boards, despite the fact that I said I agree with the original [positive] assessment about RAW. Amazing the reaction the bigots give, that RAW is best for EVERYTHING, regardless of constraints or results. Ho hum, this board is just like the others.

BTW, my eyes work fine (20/15 vision) and my 20x30's are flawless. I shoot RAW for commercial work but not weddings where the advantages aren't worth the overhead. Oh and by the way...my 20x30's are printed from JPEGs!

JPEG still rules...most labs here only take JPEGs. And you were arguing DNG, not TIFF. For printing, TIFF and PSD offer no advantage over and 8-bit JPEG as most labs can't even generate the colorspace of an 8-bit JPEG. But go ahead and shoot TIFF, you'll feel professional! And you can't print that 12- or 16-bit RAW file, you'll have to use a....gasp...JPEG!

I don't know where you studied statistics (I aced that in college) but please explain how it's just as easy to lose 15 cards as one. You can drop one, have it fall out of your pocket on to the floor and never hear it. I can also accidentally erase a card in camera, which is another reason I don't trust a single card with 1/2 my wedding or event's photos. Tell me...if someone made a 500-image roll of film, would you trust 500 images to a single processor pass, single shipment of FedEx? Very risky...

As I don't see you converting to JPEG (I think RAW makes you feel like a pro), no need to keep the religious war going, eh? Didn't I say we could agree to disagree? Like I said, I use JPEGs for weddings and RAW for everything else.

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.



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.



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.



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



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



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



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



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.

 

[RVsForFun]

Matt, you're correct about the export parms of RAW to JPEG. RAW has superior shadow detail, depending on your RAW converter. It [RAW] also eliminated WB, contrast, sharpness issues at shooting time. The overhead is file size and processing time (both camera and post). For high-volume events that I shoot, the additional file size isn't worth the overhead. I control exposure very closely and most of my images are ready to go right out of the camera. On commercial and portrait work I use RAW, but rarely need the RAW-to-JPG output as I control exposure. In the end, the world runs on JPGs for viewing and printing, so the goal is to produce the best JPEG for your situation.

I'm pretty sure I can make better decisions than a camera chip can make, even when applying them in batch. I normally look at the first picture, tweak the raw file to my liking, and apply these settings to all shots that were taken in this similar light. Move on to the next unique lighting scenario and do the same. I can batch 400 images in less than 10 minutes, and get much more detail than with 8bit jpgs.

Raw files capture 4096 tones while jpgs capture 256. This equates to much more shadow and highlight detail. MUCH more. By the time you get it to an 8bit jpg, you'll will have thrown some of this extra data out, but at least you have it there to play with, and decide where to place it. Shooting in jpg mode doesn't give you the option, ever.

http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm

 

[Digital Matt]

What to shoot totally depends on situation, and preference, of course. I'm merely stating the factual data about raw. I started using raw while taking nature/landscape photos with the intent on making fine art. You are often times in situations where the dynamic range is vast, and raw is the best tool for that job. Does it make sense for wedding candids? No, probably not. If you have a handle on exposure, and your white balance is set before hand as accurately as possible, you'll be fine. For my taste however, I will shoot raw anyway, because I enjoy the post processing end of it. I enjoy looking over my shoot at the end of the day, and even if I just do a batch convert to jpg, I feel the quality of my work is higher because I went over it and personally color corrected the shots, and looked at each shot. It gives me pride in my work.

 

[RacePhoto]

I'm pretty sure I can make better decisions than a camera chip can make, even when applying them in batch. I normally look at the first picture, tweak the raw file to my liking, and apply these settings to all shots that were taken in this similar light. Move on to the next unique lighting scenario and do the same. I can batch 400 images in less than 10 minutes, and get much more detail than with 8bit jpgs.

I'm pretty sure you can too. I'm not sure about myself, and what if I batch process a couple hundred pictures with worse decisions than the camera makes. Not an argument against, just pointing out that I do make mistakes.

Raw files capture 4096 tones while jpgs capture 256. This equates to much more shadow and highlight detail. MUCH more. By the time you get it to an 8bit jpg, you'll will have thrown some of this extra data out, but at least you have it there to play with, and decide where to place it. Shooting in jpg mode doesn't give you the option, ever.

So once I'm done processing the image, (in camera or in an editor) I still have an 8 bit 256 color JPG, no matter what I started with?

In the end, whether to shoot RAW or JPG is a matter of better control, and fine adjustments.

As for any argument about memory cards. The same reason I carry multiple 1 Gig cards. I can swap them in and out, depending on what I may want on that card. I can carry a card for my personal photos and junk and not have that mixed into what I'm shooting. I can swap cards for different locations at the same event, where I may be at one, then another, then another and back to the first. I can put a card in the reader and burn to CD, and go away while it's backing up, to take more pictures.

No I wouldn't load a 500 exposure roll of film, but I've been known to roll my own until the cartridge wouldn't let more film in. Big deal 42 pictures instead of 36? Doesn't fit on the reels very well. Misguided ideas basket.

Same reason why I've taken three cameras to events, sometimes with three different films in them. Oh wait, one camera does it all with digital. One set of lenses and two bodies.

It makes no difference to me if I have four 1g cards or one 4g card, except when I look at the cost per card and what it costs if the card goes bad. Then I like the idea of flexibility and component logic. Big cards mean big problems, if something goes wrong. But I have to admit, the next time I lose pictures on a card, will be the first time. I don't know how common that is.

Heck I'm already collecting cast off 512 cards that I'm only using for carrying images to the store to print, the 128 and 32 mb cards are gathering dust. Some day I still want to own a 1D!

 

[RVsForFun]

Wars were started with less convinced individuals, don't you think?

I readily state RAW has many advantages - shadow detail, noise issues, etc., but that's not enough for some people. You MUST shoot like THEY do all the time or you're something less of a photographer (or somewhat ignorant).

As for me having a minimum requirement for photos on a CF card as well as a maximum limit, I think that's prudent. If you want to put several hundred images on a single card the size of a postage stamp, go right ahead. I believe, for me, I'm making the best decision based upon number of card changes vs. isolating loss. I bet many of you didn't think of the upper end of the constraint, you just buy the biggest cards you can get and jam as many photos on the card as possible. My constraints are certainly something to consider, wouldn't you say? Lose or format one card and how much have you lost? What's your liability?

I'm old enough to remember the exact same diatribe as RAW vs. JPEG, but it was a different topic. Mind you, I personally know people that have had these opinions over the years:

* Professionals don't need meters in their cameras- they just "know" the right exposure!

* Professionals would never use auto exposure, it takes a pro to know when to override the meter!

* Professionals would never use auto focus, it takes a pro to know what to focus on!

* Professionals would never use digital, the quality just isn't there and never will be!

* Professionals will only shoot RAW!

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

 

[RVsForFun]

It's a JPEG world, my friend. Just send your RAW file to your lab and see what you get (they won't accept it!). I've personally called all my labs and they all say the same thing - they'd be LUCKY to even APPROACH all the colors in the sRGB colorspace. Your monitor can't show you the entire sRGB colorspace and you can't print it accurately. You view with 8-bit JPEGs and you print with 8-bit JPEGs, it isn't just a web format.

RAW certainly provides all the data for a software-based converter to work with. Incidentally, it's the same data your in-camera JPEG converter has to use. The argument here is that you can tweak the RAW-to-JPEG conversion process better in your computer than in your camera, and I agree depending on the quality of your in-camera converter.

The tradeoff for RAW, of course, is increased file size and additional post processing. This is of no consequence in low-volume shoots like commercial work and portraits. It does, however, impact you on high-volume candid shoots like weddings and events. Only you can decide what factors influence your decision to shoot RAW or JPEG, you're a photographer either way.

So once I'm done processing the image, (in camera or in an editor) I still have an 8 bit 256 color JPG, no matter what I started with?

In the end, whether to shoot RAW or JPG is a matter of better control, and fine adjustments.

 

[Don Simon]

The argument here is that you can tweak the RAW-to-JPEG conversion process better in your computer than in your camera, and I agree depending on the quality of your in-camera converter.

But here I disagree. For me it's not about the camera converting it well or badly. It's about the camera converting it one way and one way only.

But I'm not saying you or anyone else shouldn't be shooting Jpeg... and I'm definitely not saying one is more "professional". Professionalism is overrated IMO (I don't mean this as a criticism of any professionals here, just that I think people get far too obsessed with what 'professionals' would or wouldn't do). I don't think it's automatically wrong to shoot Jpeg, but nor do I think it's the only way forward, or that it's stubborn to want to use RAW as the 'historical' examples you gave seem to suggest. It's a question of what works best for you... as plenty of people have already said here.

 

[jtice]

Heh, the debate between RAW and JPG shooting always seems to be a hot topic.

I am currently shooting 90% JPG with my Canon 30D.

I have three problems with RAW.
--- 1. They are huge.
I have a Nice RAID network storage box, but even then, storing just my JPGs can be a task at times.
If I shoot in RAW, I have to eventually format things in JPG for my website. So then I end up with 2 versions of alot of the photos. Thats even more space taken up.

--- 2. This has to due with #1. Slow loading speeds.
I have a rather fast computer, and still, RAW files are a bit slow to load on my system. JPGs simply pop up on the screen with little to no lag.
RAW files seem to slowly fill the screen. This makes it hard to do some quick searches, comparisons, etc.
Often I like to flip back and forth between a few photos, checking object movement and position.
And you can just about forget trying to view a folder with 300+ RAW photos in Thumbnail mode.

---3. Post Processing.
This is probably my biggest turn off when it comes to RAW files.
I dont like post processing. Even after getting pretty good with LightRoom, which makes things faster and easier.
I just dont think I should have to process every photo. Especially from a $1200 camera body.
It would be one thing if they looked as good as JPG straight off the camera. And then you could ADD some processing to them if you really needed to.
But as is, the RAWs look horrible next to the JPGs straight off the camera.
The exposures seems a bit dark, but mainly, its the sharpness, or lack there of.

I suppose I could batch process the RAWs for the sharpness, but the very quick testing I did, didnt look any better than the camera JPGs.

Anyone have any tips/tricks/suggestions to remedy me of any of these issues I have with RAW?

~John

 

[Digital Matt]

Anyone have any tips/tricks/suggestions to remedy me of any of these issues I have with RAW?

There's no getting around the size of the files. You will have two versions of your files if you shoot jpg also, unles you are uploading full res photos to your website, which I doubt.

Slow loading? Use good software. I use C1 LE, a $99 program, and after an initial "loading" process which probably takes about 2-3 minutes for 400 images, thumbs are created in the software, and I can fly through my shoot and make changes to any raw file on the fly, with immediate feedback, and batch any settings in a matter of seconds. I can flip back and forth between two poses and compare. I can even compare them side by side.

I have a default sharpening setting applied to all raw files through C1. I can apply a curve adjustment to all the photos in my shoot in seconds. If I don't want to process them, I don't have to. I happen to prefer it. If you are not into processing your shots though, then raw really isn't for you, because that is the real benefit of shooting raw.

 

[ted_smith]

They say a picture says a thousand words.

Here is a JPEG basic from my Nikon D70s :

Here is the post-processing product of the raw file by a human being (i.e, me!) :

You decide.

With my Nikon D70s shooting raw + JPEG Basic I get 320 to a 2Gb CF Card.

Film is not dead - far from it.

 

[jtice]

Nice example, but one thing, are you really good at post processing?
I see alot of amazing photos that ppl edit, and alot of them are due to them having super human editing skills. lol

Oddly enough, mine look just like that straight off the camera,,,, but reversed.
It boils down to the post processing.
I either have to take the time to master it,a dn do it to all the photos, or just use jpgs.

There are times I come home from a day of shooting with 400 photos, and keep about 200 to 300 of them, I simply cant put the time needed into processing them all.

~John

 

[ted_smith]

Thanks, but it's not edited. It's just a processed raw file which is my point exactly. With digital, you take the place of the lab technician who would do the same thing with your negatives using chemicals as you do using your computer with your raw file. There's no sharpening, blurring, noise reduction, or anything in this example. The quality of the second picture is a) down to the lens, b) the light and c) (I'd like to think) my photography. The point here is that the JPEG version of the picture is just the cameras interpretation of what I was trying to capture. And that is nothing like the final product which I'd have achieved using good quality film on my F80 if I was using film or, in this case, by the generation of a good quality raw file using my D70s. Thus proving (I think?) the point that shooting in raw really is the way to do it. I shoot raw with JPEG Basic - that way I can quickly skim through the jpegs to determine which are good and which are poor.

If I were the client, I know which I'd choose.

(I have nothing against 'tweaking' but I am quite proud of the efforts I go through to get it right in camera and I shoot as though each shot is a 35mm exposure instead of shooting a thousand shots and hoping I get one good one. )

 

[RVsForFun]

It's a true statement that if you shoot JPEG only you're completely trusting the in-camera software to make a clean JPEG as it throws away the RAW data after the conversion. In my case, my camera's in-camera converter is EXCELLENT and I have never seen an in-camera JPEG that is inferior to a RAW-to-JPEG done on my computer. I think your camera's JPEG converter greatly affects your opinion of the process.

But here I disagree. For me it's not about the camera converting it well or badly. It's about the camera converting it one way and one way only.

But I'm not saying you or anyone else shouldn't be shooting Jpeg... and I'm definitely not saying one is more "professional". Professionalism is overrated IMO (I don't mean this as a criticism of any professionals here, just that I think people get far too obsessed with what 'professionals' would or wouldn't do). I don't think it's automatically wrong to shoot Jpeg, but nor do I think it's the only way forward, or that it's stubborn to want to use RAW as the 'historical' examples you gave seem to suggest. It's a question of what works best for you... as plenty of people have already said here.

 

[RVsForFun]

...are the overhead of RAW! If you see no real benefit to it and are satisfied with the in-camera JPEGs more than the RAW converted files, I'd say you're a candidate for JPEG. RAW certainly has its uses but you're not the first one to say that your camera's JPEGs are better than the RAW files. I'd even offer this - if your in-camera JPEGs are very, very close to RAW then you don't need RAW as you're forcing yourself to do all the same processing in post when your camera can do just as good a job as you can in-camera. I will say you'll only have that opinion if your exposure is usually well controlled and you select the correct color balance, but I do. For commercial and portrait work I shoot RAW + JPEG.

Heh, the debate between RAW and JPG shooting always seems to be a hot topic.

I am currently shooting 90% JPG with my Canon 30D.

I have three problems with RAW.
--- 1. They are huge.
I have a Nice RAID network storage box, but even then, storing just my JPGs can be a task at times.
If I shoot in RAW, I have to eventually format things in JPG for my website. So then I end up with 2 versions of alot of the photos. Thats even more space taken up.

--- 2. This has to due with #1. Slow loading speeds.
I have a rather fast computer, and still, RAW files are a bit slow to load on my system. JPGs simply pop up on the screen with little to no lag.
RAW files seem to slowly fill the screen. This makes it hard to do some quick searches, comparisons, etc.
Often I like to flip back and forth between a few photos, checking object movement and position.
And you can just about forget trying to view a folder with 300+ RAW photos in Thumbnail mode.

---3. Post Processing.
This is probably my biggest turn off when it comes to RAW files.
I dont like post processing. Even after getting pretty good with LightRoom, which makes things faster and easier.
I just dont think I should have to process every photo. Especially from a $1200 camera body.
It would be one thing if they looked as good as JPG straight off the camera. And then you could ADD some processing to them if you really needed to.
But as is, the RAWs look horrible next to the JPGs straight off the camera.
The exposures seems a bit dark, but mainly, its the sharpness, or lack there of.

I suppose I could batch process the RAWs for the sharpness, but the very quick testing I did, didnt look any better than the camera JPGs.

Anyone have any tips/tricks/suggestions to remedy me of any of these issues I have with RAW?

~John