What is so bad about RAW?

[munecito]

It is still simple to correct in JPEG with camera raw AlanKlein.

Tecboy, even if you selected the wrong WB in a jpeg it can usually be savaged this way. Not perfect but sometimes you need to save the photo

 

[unpopular]

It's simple to correct if your shooting RAW because the WB selection can be made in post processsing. It's more difficult in JPEG, because the WB is "burned in" by the camera. However, if the colors are off in the JPEG image, you should be able to adjust colors in post to make it better if not exactly natural.

This isn't entirely accurate. As I have mentioned, WB correction is always done post exposure, either in camera or in the raw processor. The sensor chip really has nothing to do with WB, and this has been something that I've always been pretty disappointed by with digital - I always wished that WB could be set via gain, rather than via postprocessing. In fact, the spectral sensitivity of most DSLRs is this odd emerald-green color, the raw processor actually pushes the red and blue channels to a significant degree to compensate for daylight WB - all behind your back!

JPEG has no disadvantage in terms of color correction, what it is lacking is bit depth. All images, regardless of how the data is written to the card start out the same raw data off the sensor. When you choose jpeg over raw, the camera pushes the 10-14-bit/ch RGBG data to compensate for the selected white balance, and writes it to an 8-bit/ch RGB file. Now, if you've missed the WB on that 8-bit image, you've already lost the rest of the data, including that extra green channel which is used to compute luminance while being unaffected by the green/magenta correction (i think). This makes the correction much more difficult do accomplish without introducing banding or emphasizing noise, as now you have a palet of only 256 shades per channel, rather than the 2^10 to 2^14 shades that you do with raw.

But the same exact capabilities do exist to correct WB in raw as you do in jpeg, it's only that the amount of data you have available to do it is less on the jpeg, and also the jpeg has already been manipulated significantly by the camera to make that adjustment, in a sense, 'burned in'. But the adjustment is no harder in JPEG or raw, only with less data to work with.

 

[tecboy]

It is still simple to correct in JPEG with camera raw AlanKlein.

Tecboy, even if you selected the wrong WB in a jpeg it can usually be savaged this way. Not perfect but sometimes you need to save the photo

Thanx, I'll take a look tomorrow.

 

[o hey tyler]

It is still simple to correct in JPEG with camera raw AlanKlein.

Tecboy, even if you selected the wrong WB in a jpeg it can usually be savaged this way. Not perfect but sometimes you need to save the photo

Video Link: http://youtu.be/hjbw--G8zrw

Cool, you can open a jpeg in camera raw. That still doesn't change the fact that correcting the white balance and various other tweaks will be anywhere near as effective unless it was an actual raw file.

 

[munecito]

It is still simple to correct in JPEG with camera raw AlanKlein.

Tecboy, even if you selected the wrong WB in a jpeg it can usually be savaged this way. Not perfect but sometimes you need to save the photo

Video Link: http://youtu.be/hjbw--G8zrw

Cool, you can open a jpeg in camera raw. That still doesn't change the fact that correcting the white balance and various other tweaks will be anywhere near as effective unless it was an actual raw file.

And that is why I said it is not perfect.

You only have to see what happens to the histogram when you start doing adjustments to understand that there is way less information there to begin with.

I am not advocating for the use of Jpeg over raw. But I think a lot of people has been caught between a rock and a hard place at least once when they forgot to set the camera to raw.

To avoid that I have a preshoot checklist that I use these days even if it makes people think that I suffer from an OCD.

Personally I shoot mostly raw but it is good to know that there is a few things that you can do to savage those must have shots.

Now back to the original video that started this thread, and without trying to be a smart ****. I found quite funny when the guy in the video said that shooting jpg was great because when shooting BW you can see everything in black and white before you got to a computer to do the conversion. I had a little chuckle thinking about film photographers in the past, maybe they had the advantage that the world was all in BW back then. :er:

Maybe it is just a waste of time to undertand exposure and dynamic ranges before you press the shutter, but hey, that is just me.

 

[tecboy]

Please keep this thread professional and adult.
Somehow, this guy is a jerk.

 

[HughGuessWho]

Please keep this thread professional and adult.
Somehow, this guy is a jerk.

WOW! Who would have thought that a processed JPEG would have better color saturation and contrast than an unprocessed raw file. This man is a freaking genius. :raisedbrow:

 

[unpopular]

He's just lazy, plain and simple.

 

[Compaq]

Please keep this thread professional and adult.
Somehow, this guy is a jerk.

WOW! Who would have thought that a processed JPEG would have better color saturation and contrast than an unprocessed raw file. This man is a freaking genius. :raisedbrow:

I don't think this video is meant for those to whom the raw/jpeg-difference is common knowledge.

Either he is lazy, or you (plural) are jealous of him not wanting to use raw files.

 

[Gavjenks]

He talks to me as a viewer sort of like I'm a puppy

 

[table1349]

He talks to me as a viewer sort of like I'm a puppy

Fetch boy....Fetch.

 

[tecboy]

It is time to switch dslr to mirrorless. Is it true mirrorless cameras have better autofocus than dslrs?

 

[Buckster]

**dons personal parachute**

**opens emergency hatch**

**leaps from burning thread**

 

[tecboy]

Nooooo.....DSLRs are dying!!!!!

 

[tecboy]

Looks like crockett is trying to eliminate DSLR, raw, and flash entirely to built his hybrid photography empire. Is he revolutionizing photography? Is he the future? Hmmmmm.....