What will Raw do for me?

[WayneF]

FWIW, I put a short video online about Why Shoot Raw? Because, my own notion is that beginners simply don't have any idea of what Raw can do for their pictures, no clue how they would use Raw. The word EDIT is involved, which scares away many, but it is so easy, and so powerful. For example, White Balance is never correct, but it is easy to fix. Beginners do need to work on the basics first, but then Raw can do so much for us.

Video is NOT my thing, but I just whipped out a quicky short amateurish video to try to show the first ideas of Raw. Not deep, just fast. I'm hoping it can give a better impression of the goal.



EDIT: Video replaced with second try, same but added words to try to better describe function of Raw to those who have never seen it.

 

[pondball]

Thanks Wayne.
Just new to digital photography but this is one of the first explanations I've seen that really explains why I might want to shoot only in raw. I have more than adequate computer skills and have seen some vids where the photographers claim proudly that they only shoot in raw... But they never explain why.
Your explanation also inadvertently points out what some of the white balance settings are on my camera... Cloudy, sunny etc better than I've seen before. I take it that by taking a number of photos I've shot in raw then editing them with Lightroom I should also be able to see what some of my on scene foibles are... Ie shooting the original worth the wrong wb settings or not compensating for different lighting conditions. Seems this would let me spend more time focusing on the subject tiles than peering Into the wee screens and adjusting the dials...
So... Do you recommend shooting solely in raw... No combo raw/jpg?

 

[WayneF]

Thanks, I'm pleased if it was of interest. There are different opinions, but I shoot only Raw, never any combo with JPG. Frankly, I can't see any point of that. We can get a better JPG from Raw any time. OK, maybe if somehow you needed JPG at that minute, before you could go home and process it. Or probably the likely reason would be if we didn't think we knew how to process it. Otherwise, IMO, it seems pointless.

I've only been doing this 50 some years, so I'm not yet good enough to always get it right in the camera. It just does not always work, too many surprises, the camera is too crude a tool. WB is near impossible to get "right", except maybe bright sun, it is the only fixed thing. Reflective meters are not greatly better on exposure, although we can learn to predict them. I find it extremely handy to use Raw to finally get it right. I think those claiming to get it right in camera either don't know or don't care.

I cannot imagine depending on Auto WB, but I do use it with Raw... not for Raw of course, it could not matter less to Raw what the camera WB was - simply not any concern, we're going to take care of it our own better way. But Auto WB controls the JPG image we see at the scene on the rear LCD, and it's good the color there is halfway right.

 

[DaninMD]

A beginner might not be able to get the benefits of shooting RAW images, and might be more inclined to allow the camera to process JPEGS as they will look better right out the camera. When I first shot I used JPEG exclusively. the main reason was that I wasn't any good at editing, didn't have a program like lightroom, etc. now that I am much better at processing images and know how to get the results I want, I went back to try and "save" a few of my old photos. A lot of them were pretty good composition, etc. unfortunetly I only have them as JPEG and wasn't able to do the things I wanted to in Lightroom effectively.

my suggestion. even if you don't "need" RAW as a beginner, always shoot in in. you can do JPEG+RAW and only use the JPEG, but keep the RAW files for your best images. One day it will pay big dividends when you really have expertise editing photos.

 

[Designer]

WayneF; I watched the video, and in my mind, it had almost nothing to do with answering the question; "What will RAW do for me?"

It is a lot about editing, but I didn't get the relationship to RAW files.

 

[astroNikon]

I know for myself there was no initial benefit in shooting raw and doing post processing. I was basically going from RAW right to JPEG.
Then I did one of those projects in Aug 2013 of selective color.
THEN I started learning how to use LightRoom.
Then I started learning more features of lightroom and how to fix a photo.
Then I started seeing the benefits of using RAW especially on the shots there were a bit too far off and had to be corrected alot.

a long road, but you have to start somewhere and getting the photo into LR or CS etc is a benefit down the road.

 

[WayneF]

A beginner might not be able to get the benefits of shooting RAW images, and might be more inclined to allow the camera to process JPEGS as they will look better right out the camera. When I first shot I used JPEG exclusively. the main reason was that I wasn't any good at editing, didn't have a program like lightroom, etc. now that I am much better at processing images and know how to get the results I want, I went back to try and "save" a few of my old photos. A lot of them were pretty good composition, etc. unfortunetly I only have them as JPEG and wasn't able to do the things I wanted to in Lightroom effectively.

my suggestion. even if you don't "need" RAW as a beginner, always shoot in in. you can do JPEG+RAW and only use the JPEG, but keep the RAW files for your best images. One day it will pay big dividends when you really have expertise editing photos.

I agree with both points... Beginners certainly do need smaller steps, and do need to be concerned with working on basic skills first, like learning exposure, etc. And I had not considered it, but when they they do start getting the hang of it (and acquire a little understanding), then also having a library of Raw could help to recover some of those early efforts - if they have not already deleted them.

WayneF; I watched the video, and in my mind, it had almost nothing to do with answering the question; "What will RAW do for me?"

It is a lot about editing, but I didn't get the relationship to RAW files.

Yes, thanks, I appreciate hearing that. I guess it should have said out loud the words about "correcting your images". We set White Balance and Exposure in the camera, and do not consider it to be editing. Raw allows easy corrections to fix same WB and Exposure in our pictures, after we can actually see the pictures to know what they need to make them better. I consider this to be Corrections instead of Editing. The alternative to this necessary step is that our pictures do not get fixed.

White Balance for example, is NEVER right. Daylight has levels of bright sun, cloudy, overcast, open shade, etc. Incandescent has levels of cool, warm, daylight bulbs, and also their color varies with wattage and age. Flash color varies with flash power level. So WB is never "right". Camera light meters read reflected light, which exposure is affected by the reflectivity of the subject colors. Only beginners imagine any of this stuff is "correct". We need to actually see what is happening, so we can correct it.

Some users don't know or don't care of course, and are happy as long as they can recognize Mom in the picture. Other do care more however, and Raw is for them.

A few reasons: Raw is 12 bit data, which has more range for corrections than 8 bit JPG ... as much range in the computer as the camera originally had. And raw "editors" are unlike photo editors, in that they have camera type tools (called White Balance and Exposure) instead of photo editor tools which really are for graphics, and are awkward for the camera purpose. And we don't have to guess at some crude settings in advance, before we even arrive at the scene... Raw offers the overwhelming advantage of being able to actually see the pictures first, to know exactly what they need, and to approve the final result. It is pretty much day and night (but... we do have to care... many don't).

I guess I thought seeing it work was self-obvious, but yes, it could have said a few more words.

 

[Designer]

I guess I thought seeing it work was self-obvious, but yes, it could have said a few more words.

See, I'm already somewhat familiar with editing, and whether I do it in the JPG or the NEF, I am already doing the same things you did in the video, but I was looking for "What will RAW do for me?"

As far as I could tell, you didn't answer the question in the video. And I already knew about the 12-bit depth, but as you didn't address that aspect in the video, or what the differences between the RAW and JPG files and how your editing adjustments made any difference as to which type of file you were working on.

IMO

 

[WayneF]

I guess I thought seeing it work was self-obvious, but yes, it could have said a few more words.

See, I'm already somewhat familiar with editing, and whether I do it in the JPG or the NEF, I am already doing the same things you did in the video, but I was looking for "What will RAW do for me?"

As far as I could tell, you didn't answer the question in the video. And I already knew about the 12-bit depth, but as you didn't address that aspect in the video, or what the differences between the RAW and JPG files and how your editing adjustments made any difference as to which type of file you were working on.

IMO

Yes agreed, there was much missing. I take your point, and I do plan to redo it, and say the words better. Vastly more could be said, but cannot, because it also needs to be short. Ten minutes just doesn't do it, at least not in my case. I'm aiming for 25 minutes next time, but that will rule it out too.

Lossless editing is another big advantage. Editing in JPG, WB just wont go very far, but then if you want a second pass later, 1) you are shifting and reshifting data, a bad no-no. And 2) you are creating additional JPG artifacts every time. Raw is lossless editing, no data shifts at all (and no JPG artifacts) until the one final JPG output.

If more work is needed later, you discard the JPG, and start over from the Raw lossless editing point, and output another JPG, one time.

You can also edit JPG in the Raw editor (like red eye in my wifes compact camera), and then while it is still 8 bit JPG and limited, it can also become lossless editing. Only two sets of artifacts then - the original artifacts done in camera, and this final one (and no shifting/reshifting of tones). However then in same way as Raw, you do have to write that second JPG for other programs to use.

 

[Designer]

Now see, all that is getting a lot closer to what I had expected. If you could actually SHOW the differences between working on the RAW file vs. working on a JPG, so that viewers could SEE the differences, then you'll have something. I envision something of a side-by-side comparison, but IMO, you don't really have to actually go through all the editing motions in the video. It actually was kind of boring watching you perform the editing functions. That is the part that takes time, and it didn't help me at all, considering I was more interested in finding out "What will RAW do for me?"

 

[pondball]

I dunno Designer, but it worked for me... I think you might going be a little harsh on Wayne, looking specifically for "what RAW will do you". I'm pretty sure Wayne knew he wasn't going to be able to cover all the bases... In fact I presume "me" was just a general term of endearment!
I also realize this isn't the basic section of the forum and perhaps his post would have been better placed in that section cuz as I suggested in my post it clearly showed why RAW should be the format of choice for me... And so it has become.
Wayne... Looks like you're batting .500 right now... Pretty good in most leagues!

 

[weepete]

I can sum it up in one sentence: Shoot raw if you want to edit, shoot JPEG if you don't.

What will raw do for me?: It'll give me more editing room than if I shoot JPEGs.

I don't agree with shooting raw all the time as JPEGs have their uses too and that shouldn't be ignored either.

 

[Designer]

I dunno Designer, but it worked for me... I think you might going be a little harsh on Wayne, looking specifically for "what RAW will do you".

I propose a simple change to the title to: "How to get started in editing".

Then I would no longer expect any part of the discussion to be about the differences between RAW and JPG.

 

[lennon33x]

I can agree with the premise, on the face. Shooting RAW allows for the ability to adjust the image just as you wanted, rather than only being able to tweak small nuances in post.

But there are a lot of assumptions being made about beginning photographers when saying that they should "learn the basics first." It's discouraging, and hindering. What should be said is this:

1) RAW allows the computer to do your processing over the firmware in your camera, which is a much more powerful tool.
2) RAW allows you to have greater bit depth than JPEG
3) you can record greater levels of brightness with RAW
4) RAW imaging is higher quality
5) you can edit the images to taste without destruction (to a much greater extent)
6) you can adjust WB more easily
7) etc


When I first started, I was shooting JPEG. But then my buddies pointed out these ideas, and I was quickly a convert.

I will drastically disagree with you on one point. You said that WB is NEVER correct. I'll disagree vehemently. If you know your gear, know your subject, know your environment, you can get correct white balance. I understand that there are limitations with WB in the camera, but to say it always has to be adjusted is a misnomer.

The goal initially with teaching beginning photographers should be to shoot in RAW, teach them post processing, and teach them to get it right in camera, that way, all they are tweaking are little things

 

[WayneF]

I propose a simple change to the title to: "How to get started in editing".

Then I would no longer expect any part of the discussion to be about the differences between RAW and JPG.

It is only you that wants to discuss JPG. You can't do this in JPG. In JPG, just how would you correct flash WB on a couple hundred studio shots? In Raw, that is one click, lightning fast.

Plus, you have the raw range for end to end like Daylight to Incandescent. Plus you have lossless editing, you are not shifting previous JPG back and forth over itself.

How would you correct vignetting with JPG tools? (on several at once?). Raw tools are simply designed to do camera jobs. It becomes correction, not editing.

Pondball was right, my use of "me" obviously meant me, not you. To each his own, but Raw is the easy way.