is shooting in RAW needed

[the black fox]

last month there were several long discussions on here about RAW-v-J.PEG well to prove that in the case of wildlife sometimes its totally needed.yesterday on arrival at my local reserve i took a few grab shots in rather harsh lighting conditions .and as not everyone views the birding section i thought i would post the results here .the original image as shown as you can see is badly over exposed ,but the exposure latitude of the 80D coupled with lightroom and photoshop c.c has pulled a lot of the detail back ,the j.peg version from the raw file would have been unusable .
before and after 2 by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr

before and after 1 by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr

[Lepus]

Re: is shooting in RAW needed

It`a a fair comment Jeff , and I only shoot in raw , but without the processing skills that you have , it would still be a struggle to make the most of it . I don`t really see whats the harm in shooting both j.peg and raw if you are dubious about raw , memory is relatively cheap these days , and the raw file is a good thing to fall back on as and when your processing skills improve . I still would of probably binned that photo , but what you have achieved with it , does make you think twice . I am rather shocked at how much detail you managed to pull back , especially in the whites . Which I suppose is the point you are trying to make .

[ColytonJohn]

Re: is shooting in RAW needed

Excellent Jeff and, if you'd posted that last month, it would probably have avoided the long and tedious discussion that ensued.

Cheers,
John

[Swanny48]

Re: is shooting in RAW needed

the j.peg version from the raw file would have been unusable .

Did you actually have a go with the jpeg file Jeff. I think you might be surprised.

John

[supergeeman]

Re: is shooting in RAW needed

Yeah Jeff... Where were you when we needed you?! :)

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

[supergeeman]

Re: is shooting in RAW needed

http://photographyconcentrate.com/10-reasons-why-you-should-be-shooting-raw/

This explains why raw is better than jpeg... If after reading, people are still convinced jpeg is the way to go, then imo, they aren't that serious about their hobby, or they lack the knowledge of how to use photoshop/lightroom etc.... Yes... In ideal conditions jpeg if fine, but by shooting in raw, you decide how the photo looks, not a benign sensor...

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

[Richard W]

Re: is shooting in RAW needed

Isn't this just an extreme example of exposing to the right? Though the right leg appears to be beyond recovery?

[Nathaniel]

Re: is shooting in RAW needed

I agree that Jeff's processing skills brought out the colours in this goldfinch; however, the posted RAW image is perhaps nothing to laud about as it is still not quite right. Personally, I would have binned the original and raw image. As an example of Jpeg images I would refer members to my recently posted "Order of St.Asaph" (People & Portraits thread) taken on 3rd October. I don't think RAW could have done anything better.

[the black fox]

Re: is shooting in RAW needed

Isn't this just an extreme example of exposing to the right? Though the right leg appears to be beyond recovery?

no richard its a case of shooting from the hip without having time to adjust any settings at all ,under normal circumstances i wouldn't have bothered with this in any case as shutter speed etc is to slow .i have only done it as an example .if that was a "rare" batwomble bird that had never been seen in the u.k before then it would definitely have been worth recovering it

[the black fox]

Re: is shooting in RAW needed

I agree that Jeff's processing skills brought out the colours in this goldfinch; however, the posted RAW image is perhaps nothing to laud about as it is still not quite right. Personally, I would have binned the original and raw image. As an example of Jpeg images I would refer members to my recently posted "Order of St.Asaph" (People & Portraits thread) taken on 3rd October. I don't think RAW could have done anything better.

as with richards reply ,this is an example photo ,if i hadn't told you otherwise it would have just got the normal "nice shot etc" replies and a lot of it is also to do with the 80D exposure latitude .your recent st asaph shot IMHO is a posed shot that you have had time to set up so is not really relevant to this .

[Richard W]

Re: is shooting in RAW needed

I was actually meaning an accidental example of ETR, but it does illustrate how much information is actually present in the raw file, just waiting to be brought out.

[Tigger]

Re: is shooting in RAW needed

I really don't understand this viewpoint of should we shoot in Raw or not, the difference that you have between processing a jpeg & raw is next to nothing, and likewise the skill required to process a raw image is also nothing, its easy, quick and whilst some would say its OK to say its easy as "you" know how, but to learn how to process a Raw file would take a couple of videos and your up and running, and if your prepared to invest that time to learn your hobby then maybe yo should just get a cheap P&S and forget photography... We all here about skill levels here but there really is no skill required other than just clicking a few buttons, in fact if you use LR you could just click auto and do nothing

[Nathaniel]

Re: is shooting in RAW needed

We are getting back to this argument again. I have nothing against people taking pictures in RAW only but how many members can say that they have actually processed all their RAW images taken in the last 5 years or more? My main objection is the time factor and I can honestly say that I don't have any unprocessed images, taken in Jpeg. I am also confident that if you are prepared to spend reasonable time in camera settings and take time over your subjects,you can be quite happy with your Jpeg images. IMHO unprocessed RAW images are like,for example TV programmes,which one "records" to look at a later time but over a period of time, you have "recorded" so many that you don't have time to look at all of them. In the end you have to delete quite a lot of these "recorded" programmes as you don't have any time to look at them. I know that this has happened to me and I know of many other friends of mine who haven't watched all their "recorded" TV programmes.

"cheap" P&S cameras do no have the flexibility of DSLR's nor do they have the low light capabilities of modern DSLRs.

[Tigger]

Re: is shooting in RAW needed

Nat you cherry pick, its that simple, yes I've not processed all my Raw images but I can look through the thumbnails and see which I do and don't want to process...But this is a road we've been down many times

[Nathaniel]

Re: is shooting in RAW needed

Ian, I take your point. However, after cherry picking the ones you wish to process,what do you do with the others which have not been processed? Are they bad and are they deleted or do you keep them for another day? If they are for "another day" ,when is the "other day"? It is this aspect which I am not keen on and these unprocessed ones can go on till doomsday.