Shooting in RAW?

[trainspotter]

Re: Shooting in RAW?

Very Nice image. You would struggle with that in Jpeg.

Colin

Thank you!

If only I had my 1000d earlier last year!
Never mind there's this summer to take more photos, unlike the snow from last month!!!!!!

[colin C]

Re: Shooting in RAW?

He, he. I can even see the leaf on the tracks!

Colin

[Canon-Fodder!]

Re: Shooting in RAW?

Hi Fr1so;

I'm a bit late joining this thread; but I'd just like to add my support that you, at least, experiment with shooting RAW, and just see how you get on.

An in-camera JPEG conversion discards so much data, what is left is the minimum required to present an 'acceptable' image. But that can only be 'acceptable' IF you got everything absolutely right on the shot!

As has been indicated, think of the RAW file as the 'digital negative'. It contains ALL the data that was captured in the shot, giving you the ability to play much more with any adjustments that might be required than you can do with an out-of-camera JPEG file.

To start the learning process, just set your camera to capture both RAW & JPEG options. that way you have the 'comfort' of having the familiar JPEG file that you've always known & loved, but, at the same time, you have the advantage of being able to play with the RAW file as well.

Use DPP to 'convert' your RAWs. DPP came free with your Canon Utilities disc, and really is a very good program.

As an example, just shoot a 'regular' image. Print the JPEG file, and then process, convert & print the RAW file. You will be amazed at how much extra detail & clarity there is in the RAW conversion.

If you have any worries or questions about using DPP, just post up a thread, and you'll get plenty of help...

Good luck; it'll be a fun challenge for you for 2011 !

[colin C]

Re: Shooting in RAW?

A generalisation:

You take good photo's. Friends and family admire your work and even suggest you give up the day job and turn professional. You join a Forum such as this and your work stands up well against a lot of the membership, but ........................ there are one or two members whose work you admire. How do they get the shot that good? How do they get such superb detail?

Assuming their skill levels are broadly similar to yours, it's down to shooting and processing in RAW and a little final polish in Photoshop.

Believe me, nobody wants to spend unnecessary time in front of a computer, but when you have used every ounce of your skill to get things right in the camera, your hard work demands that extra effort to show it at its best.

Colin

[MX5]

Re: Shooting in RAW?

My advice to friends who ask about RAW is:
• If you are the sort of person who works in ‘disposal camera’ mode (i.e. take your CF/SD to Boots and get them to print 6x4’s of all images) then stay with JPEGS (Best quality).
• If you are prepared to tinker a bit but lack confidence (using imaging software) then opt for JPEGS (Best quality) plus RAW.
• If you really know what you are doing then opt for just RAW.

[Mark]

Re: Shooting in RAW?

Being A Devils Advocate

People say use RAW because you can correct the exposure and or do a white balance colour correction, well if your correcting something by default that means you did it wrong in the first place.

If you can get your setting right in the first place then shoot JPEG.
What do you do before you print your image if you shoot in RAW, you convert it to a JPEG

Personally I nearly always shot RAW, but I'm trying to go the other way to others and go back to shooting JPEG for the vast majority of my shots, to save time and space.

[Canon-Fodder!]

Re: Shooting in RAW?

Hi Mark;

...What do you do before you print your image if you shoot in RAW, you convert it to a JPEG...

Yes; that's absolutely correct... but... even a straight conversion on a PC from RAW to JPEG will give you a much better quality JPEG file than an in-camera conversion will; and you still have the benefit of having the 'safety' of the RAW, just in case!!!

Space is really a no-brainer today. Storage is cheap. Time, admittedly, can be an issue, but, if you do as you say and get it right in-camera, then there's little time to be spent doing RAW > JPEG conversions anyway... If you use DPP rather than Adobe's ACR, it can be done in an instant, because DPP recognises all the in-camera settings, which Adobe (being a generic converter) doesn't...

Horses for courses... but I prefer to utilise the power available. Why spend a fortune on bodies & lenses, and then scrimpt on a bit of space or time ?

[Glenn]

Re: Shooting in RAW?

...What do you do before you print your image if you shoot in RAW, you convert it to a JPEG...

Errr, I don't..... All my printing is done from the final TIFFs I produce. I only create JPEGs if the image is going on the web.

But as CF said

Horses for courses...

[EOS_Jim]

Re: Shooting in RAW?

Glen I doubt you would see any difference printing from tif or jpg. All you're doing is massively increasing file size for no real benefit. I used to print from tifs and still have a few that I keep meaning to convert to jpg to save some space.

[Longshot]

Re: Shooting in RAW?

As a DSLR novice I'm having enough trouble getting to grips with all a 50D can do Digital correction is for another day so I stick to JPEG.
It will take months to understand the camera unless used daily/weekly. Digital correction, well next year maybe

[Glenn]

Re: Shooting in RAW?

Glen I doubt you would see any difference printing from tif or jpg. All you're doing is massively increasing file size for no real benefit. I used to print from tifs and still have a few that I keep meaning to convert to jpg to save some space.

True, but then I suspect that my workflow is different to yours.

[djguk47]

Re: Shooting in RAW?

As a DSLR novice I'm having enough trouble getting to grips with all a 50D can do Digital correction is for another day so I stick to JPEG.
It will take months to understand the camera unless used daily/weekly. Digital correction, well next year maybe

Longshot... don't wait for another day....put that 50D to work shooting RAW as the first step and you will be amazed at what you can produce... when I changed my 50D to shooting RAW the difference as to what I could do with the images was just amazing.

David

[MX5]

Re: Shooting in RAW?

Some background reading:

Ken Rockwell on RAW vs JPEG.

Luminous Landscapes on RAW

... and remember DPP lets you print RAW directly** (well that may be an illusion as things are happening behind the scene) and you can PictBridge RAW as well straight** from camera.

** with the ability to do post processing before the final print phase.

[Undercrank]

Re: Shooting in RAW?

Over recent years I’ve spent quite some time (too much!) considering the trumpeted merits of RAW. There’s a lot of well-intentioned information on forums like these, much of it mingled with misleading textbook-type assertions.

I eventually suspected that part of the problem revolved around very successful business model projections (Adobe) that have gone some distance to making sure the average enthusiast is well and truly hooked on the need for RAW "for better images" etc. But in actual practice what we choose to shoot depends on our needs, output media and even processing abilities.

Anyway, getting into it on a forum is rarely helpful overall as a 1000 threads prove, but here’s a couple of interesting quotes I’ve come across over the years. It’s a good place to start if you’ve been led to believe that RAW is always the best choice.

FROM A PRO PHOTOGRAPHER:

"In my humble opinion, shooting in RAW format, in many cases, is a waste of time... even in most professional work situations.

"The extra steps in workflow, required by the RAW format, are simply not justified in the majority of photography work situations. I have sold many prints, posters, and stock images produced from jpeg files. I have also been published in magazines and travel books using jpeg images almost exclusively. Many photographers have come to view the jpeg format as the 'amatuer' format and RAW as the 'professional' format, which I believe is really not accurate. I know a lot of professional photographers who make extensive use of the jpeg format (no matter what camera they are using).

"I have not found a photographer or editor, yet, who can actually tell the difference in a print produced from a RAW file and one produced from a high quality jpeg file out of the same camera" (from an Amazon review by Joe West; check out JPEG images on Joe West Photography website).



FROM A FORUM:

“I develop image processing software and have performed in depth studies on both RAW and JPEG formats. Though most would argue that a JPEG is quite limited, using adjustment layers in PhotoShop will allow you almost the same latitude of color, tone, and exposure correction that a RAW image offers. The highest quality JPEG images from most digital cameras (low compression) offer the same quality as RAW images (concerning artifacts).

“You can test this theory yourself by taking a JPEG and a RAW image (same shot) in PhotoShop and setting them on separate layers and using the Difference layer blending technique. Though a JPEG is limited to 8bit and most RAW files have a 12bit depth the tonal range will look quite similar to the human eye (an illusion if you will). A JPEG will posterize faster than RAW (when making tonal adjustments) given similar conditions, but the latitude of the JPEG is much better than most think and the difference between RAW and a JPEG is quite narrow.

“Most people feel that RAW offers a wider range of exposure compensation, but only a 1/3 +- ev adjustment is within reason, beyond that with a standard 12 bit file you are simply compressing dynamic range. The 1/3 +- ev rule can be applied to JPEG images with simple tonal adjustment layers using curves or levels.

“Most prosumer digital cameras hold enough shadow and highlight detail in JPEGs to render this to be true. [If the] truth be told, RAW is nothing more than a purist 'fantasy' if you will. I see nothing wrong with shooting RAW, but in all my research I have found no strong evidence that JPEG is any bit less inferior. Using techniques described above and several other well known and documented procedures I can perform the same workflow on my JPEG that I can with RAW.”

[Glenn]

Re: Shooting in RAW?

Hmmmm, marmite anyone