Shooting Raw as a Matter of Fact

Don Simon · Apr 24, 2007

You like your camera, we get it :lol:

but like I said, for me this is not about how good my camera is at processing RAW to Jpeg. It does a great job. One advantage of my chosen company being lazy and using the same sensor for several years, is they've got the processing fairly well sorted. My camera processes Jpegs very well but it processes a certain way and I do not then have the opportunity to process it in a different way. I like to have as much choice as possible. If you think that just means I can't get the exposure or the colour balance right, that's ok, I've heard the "Why shoot RAW if you can get it right in-camera" argument as many times as you've heard the "Professionals shoot RAW" one.

jtice · Apr 24, 2007

ted_smith said:
Thanks, but it's not edited. It's just a processed raw file which is my point exactly.

What program did you use?
Are you saying that you didnt do anything manually to the RAW, that you just let the program do its default processing?

I have noticed that RAWs imported into LightRoom look pretty good right after LR does its processing, and I usually only have to tweak it just a bit.

I can get the RAWs to look as good as the cameras JPGs, but only sometimes better.
As far as sharpening, and most exposures go.
RAWs do seem to let you adjust the color, and have a bit more control over exposure, for example, adjusting highlights, lights and darks a bit more separately.

I am not saying RAW is bad at all.
It just comes down to a point though, where you find yourself editing for hours, and only coming out with barely better results.
For some things this matters, for some it does.
If I am doing "product" shots, or something creative, I shoot RAW,
as you said, its nice to have the option to do a bit more with it.
Especially not having to worry about JPG compressions,
though I have not seen a huge degrade in quality with multiple edits.

~John

xfloggingkylex · Apr 24, 2007

ZaphodB said:
Not true I'm afraid... there is at least one other system with a dSLR that lets you choose between proprietary RAR or DNG... let's just say Benjikan quite likes them, now go on and take a guess

Im sorry no one noticed this, but i thought it was hilarious. my guess is the new DSLR made by DPreview, Benjikan's favorite comany :wink:

I shot raw the other night because I am finally getting post processing down, and I really enjoyed it. I am trying to switch my shooting style from quantity to quality, taking better pics instead of more pics. RAW will help with this because I dont want to process 300 RAW images.

benjikan · Apr 25, 2007

xfloggingkylex said:
Im sorry no one noticed this, but i thought it was hilarious. my guess is the new DSLR made by DPreview, Benjikan's favorite comany

I shot raw the other night because I am finally getting post processing down, and I really enjoyed it. I am trying to switch my shooting style from quantity to quality, taking better pics instead of more pics. RAW will help with this because I dont want to process 300 RAW images.

When I send my images, either to a Gallery or for Publishing in a Magazine, I try to keep everything in 16 bits. This translates in to better nuances of colour gradation and truer fidelity IMO. As I have shot everything from "EDF" France campaign to "Galleries Lafayette" Christmas book to "Dim", I know the client wants the best extraction possible for Pre-Press. If they insist on 8 Bit, I do so at the very last moment and send them either a PSD or TIFF file (uncompressed). None the less what ever works for you is what works for you...

ted_smith · Apr 25, 2007

What program did you use?
Are you saying that you didnt do anything manually to the RAW, that you just let the program do its default processing?

I use Linux with The GIMP and the UFRAW plugin (http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/). The default settings will not be suitable for every picture so yes, I have to move a value by a notch or two depending on the picture. But this is the point - you're processing the image as the technicians would do with film. There is a difference between that and 'correcting' an image because the result is not as you intended.

I read a great analogy recently about RAW. A RAW image is like the ingredients of a Sunday Roast. When you cook a roast, you have the carrots, spuds, roasties, brussels and the chicken carcass all sitting there in bowls of water etc. But you have to cook them to make the orast dinner. With RAW, you have all the ingredients, you just have to make the picture. With film, the technitian has all the ingredients and he makes a picture from it too.

I am a film photographer traditionally and moving to Digital felt initially like a bit of a cheat until I realised the control I had over the development stages of shooting RAW - now I feel like a better photographer than I did before with the rapid learning shooting digital enables. And like someone else has already said, if you intend to work with RAW you choose your shots better and make more of an effort, which makes you a better photographer, as you would do with film (especially costly film!). Anyone can blast off 1000 JPEGs and find one good shot and call themselves a photographer. Hand my SLR to an infant for an hour set to Auto and he'd probably get one good one...eventually, but does that make him a photographer? I think not.

RVsForFun · Apr 25, 2007

ZaphodB, the only thing people aren't getting is that I absolutely believe RAW processing is superior to in-camera JPEG, given the time and overhead factors. There's no question about it. I've never stated that good exposure or shadow control negates the benefit of RAW. I also believe you do a good job of post'ing your RAW files and should be able to produce a superior JPEG under most conditions. For me, however, the overhead of RAW, given my own methods, isn't worth the marginal (or negligible) improvement over my in-camera JPEGs for high-volume events.

ZaphodB said:
You like your camera, we get it but like I said, for me this is not about how good my camera is at processing RAW to Jpeg. It does a great job. One advantage of my chosen company being lazy and using the same sensor for several years, is they've got the processing fairly well sorted. My camera processes Jpegs very well but it processes a certain way and I do not then have the opportunity to process it in a different way. I like to have as much choice as possible. If you think that just means I can't get the exposure or the colour balance right, that's ok, I've heard the "Why shoot RAW if you can get it right in-camera" argument as many times as you've heard the "Professionals shoot RAW" one.

jtice · Apr 25, 2007

That was put well, and is close to my outlook on it.

It just really depends on what you are shooting.
For high volume events I just go JPG, for the same reasons.
I dont want to put the time into processing hundreds of photos,
and even then, most are only slightly better than the cameras JPGs.

If I am doing night shots, long exposures, HDR, etc. then I use RAW.

~John

Deadeye008 · Apr 25, 2007

I've just started toying with RAW and find it fascinating. I agree with the above statement in that I would probably not use RAW if I was planning on shooting a large volume of shots. But for occasions where you need that "perfect shot" I would use RAW.

xfloggingkylex · Apr 25, 2007

benjikan said:
When I send my images, either to a Gallery or for Publishing in a Magazine, I try to keep everything in 16 bits. This translates in to better nuances of colour gradation and truer fidelity IMO. As I have shot everything from "EDF" France campaign to "Galleries Lafayette" Christmas book to "Dim", I know the client wants the best extraction possible for Pre-Press. If they insist on 8 Bit, I do so at the very last moment and send them either a PSD or TIFF file (uncompressed). None the less what ever works for you is what works for you...

I use GIMP for Windows and it only processes 8 bits, is it really that limiting?

Perhaps a side by side of an image processed through at 8 and one processed through at 16 to show a loss of information?

Kingpatzer · Apr 25, 2007

xfloggingkylex said:
I use GIMP for Windows and it only processes 8 bits, is it really that limiting?

Perhaps a side by side of an image processed through at 8 and one processed through at 16 to show a loss of information?

It depends on your work-flow, but you can lose information in 8 bit that would not be lost in 16 bit.

For most people, however, it's an academic question.

ted_smith · Apr 27, 2007

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]You can't display uncompressed 16-bit on a conventional monitor (http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT7096363910.html)

[/FONT] For most people, however, it's an academic question

True

ksmattfish · Apr 28, 2007

Different strokes for different folks. I shoot RAW 100% of the time, because that works for me. There are many top professionals who find JPEG to work better with their workflow; Yervant comes to mind ( www.yervant.com ).