WOW! So I have been reading everyone's response, and from what I gather, shooting RAW would be the best bet if you are not that experienced and make mistakes because in RAW it is easier fixed than in JPEG, correct?
Thanks
I've been saying this for years, and then everyone gets mad.
I shoot JPG's only, and I can't see me switching to RAW anytime soon.
If you take your time, and set up the camera correctly, your JPG's will look just as good as the RAWs.
And really what I should say is, with enough time in photoshop, you'll be able to make your RAWs, look like a JPG from the camera.
I really find it funny that everyone feels the the camera is so incompetent, that it can't convert their shots.
I'm surprised that you let the camera meter your shots, or let the lens autofocus. You're giving up control.
OH NO!!!:D
The cameras and lenses of today are amazing.
You can do things now that were only dreamed of 20 years ago.
The camera does nothing that you don't tell it to do. If you screw up a lot, shoot RAW.
BTW, you know that you can run JPGs through camera RAW, right? (at least with CS3)
Now you have gone and done it, HERESY!!
I agree with you. The people who insist RAW is the only way to go always seem to win these discussions through sheer will power....
Especially for novice shooters stick with jpegs until the level of knowledge of your equipment and your skill level of taking photos has advanced to the point that shooting raw is then worth exploring.
I've been saying this for years, and then everyone gets mad.
I shoot JPG's only, and I can't see me switching to RAW anytime soon.
If you take your time, and set up the camera correctly, your JPG's will look just as good as the RAWs.
And really what I should say is, with enough time in photoshop, you'll be able to make your RAWs, look like a JPG from the camera.
I really find it funny that everyone feels the the camera is so incompetent, that it can't convert their shots.
I'm surprised that you let the camera meter your shots, or let the lens autofocus. You're giving up control.
OH NO!!!:D
The cameras and lenses of today are amazing.
You can do things now that were only dreamed of 20 years ago.
The camera does nothing that you don't tell it to do. If you screw up a lot, shoot RAW.
BTW, you know that you can run JPGs through camera RAW, right? (at least with CS3)
Now you have gone and done it, HERESY!!
I agree with you. The people who insist RAW is the only way to go always seem to win these discussions through sheer will power....
Especially for novice shooters stick with jpegs until the level of knowledge of your equipment and your skill level of taking photos has advanced to the point that shooting raw is then worth exploring.
This is akin to saying "Just concentrate on shooting, send the film to a one hour lab". And that's OK! But you're going to get what you get so be happy or change the game plan.
This is akin to saying "Just concentrate on shooting, send the film to a one hour lab". And that's OK! But you're going to get what you get so be happy or change the game plan.
Once again, you know that you can run JPGs through camera RAW, right?
If you have to change half the settings that 'you' entered into the camera, you either need more practice, or to read more about photography.
100% crop, half from RAW, half from JPG.
Pick whatever side you want, and I can make the other side look like it.
For this and 99% of my shots, no difference will be seen between a RAW and a JPG of the same shot
by the time I'm done with it in post.
Hmmm, ok... Well I have been playing with RAW and JPEG both, I have been shooting alot in JPEG, but was reading alot of post here and started to wonder about RAW and would it be beneficial / easy to do...
Seems like whatever you shoot you can fix with photoshop. But I am not one who really likes to sit and mess with photoshop to much, well one I don't have photoshop (ok trial version) which seems pretty fun... But I would really like to just shoot and only fix minor flaws. I know it takes practice but I have all the time in the world to practice and play...
I just wanted to make sure if I did choose to shoot jpeg would it be easy to fix problems with photoshop or whatever program and still be able to get a good enlargement out of the picture if needed? And not compromise the resolution / pixels?
DAVEV = like the pic by the way...
_____________________________________________ "I am just here to learn more and be a better photographer..."
I just wanted to make sure if I did choose to shoot jpeg would it be easy to fix problems with photoshop or whatever program and still be able to get a good enlargement out of the picture if needed? And not compromise the resolution / pixels?
This is the issue... With any major flaws in the original photo, with a jpeg it will be compromising the quality of the photo. Let's say your in a place where WB is changing constantly, instead of having to always switch, you can just shoot and fix it later. The ONLY downfall to RAW files is they take up more space. That's it. If you don't mind spending an extra 100-200 on some memory cards so you have the room if you do long shoots (upwards of say 500 photos before you can offload), then a RAW file will benefit you greatly in so many ways. Even if the photo you take is near perfect and you only have a minor tweek, that minor tweek is going to be WAY WAY WAY less noticeable in a RAW file vs a JPEG. YOU are controlling the conversion to JPEG when you shoot RAW where as the camera is when you shoot JPEG. Even if you're in the same place with the same lighting doing a shoot, things change, shadow's move, you might want more or less contrast in one photo to the next. And most of the time when I shoot, I don't spend 10 minutes per photo making sure every little tiny thing is correct in my camera. I'd much rather control all that later and worry about composition and subject matter during the time of shoot. Editing the details can come later. That's why the genius of PS and LR are there. You can fine tune everything much much much more than the camera can for you, even if you do set the camera up, it only has so many things you can set. And once it's taken, it's taken. You put it in LR or PS and that's what you got. Yes some minor adjustments can be made to a JPEG without any artifacts or anything bad like that, but why even limit yourself? You do that, and you'll shoot that one shot that...subject matter wise, and compositionally is THE MONEY shot, but oh no, you forgot to adjust this, or forgot to adjust that. Well good news! You shot in RAW! So you can fix it, and still have a flawless image.
Now having said all that, RAW can't fix everything. If your photo is blurry, it's blurry. If your focus point is wrong, your focus point is wrong. But, the moral of the story is, I'd rather work with 20MB worth of information than 5MB. It's like recording a movie in HD(1080p) versus recording it in 480i, You have a LOT more information to work with. Might as well take advantage of it.
I have a feeling this thread could go on for years. Here's the deal.
Shooting RAW and using a RAW processor is just one of many tools you can use for your photography. There are many documented cases where you can get more out of your images by shooting RAW, particularly when there's something unusual about the scene (high dynamic range, exposure goof, a need to pull extra detail out of shadows, large white balance correction, etc...). But, if you don't have those challenges or manage to deal with them appropriately with your camera settings, there are zillions of wonderfully fine images that came out of the camera as JPEGs and may not have been any better if shot RAW.
There's no point in trying to convince someone else which they should do. I shoot RAW because I choose to use the tool that preserves the most data from the camera and gives me the most latitude to make corrections or changes in post processing. That is purely a personal choice. I don't have any need to foist that choice on anyone else. These are just tools. You should each pick the tool that is going to work the best for you. If JPEGs work the best for you, then by all means, that's what you should use.
I find it pointless to argue one is better than the other. They are tools with different tradeoffs. Understand the difference between the tools and pick the one that works the best for you and allow for the fact that a different person might choose a different tool and still produce great images.
There is one other problem with RAW that no one talks about.
I have Photoshop CS3. Bought it 8-10 months ago.
I have a Canon G10 and a Canon 5D MKII. This program will not open the RAW files from either of these cameras.
I'm sure some will say, buy the new program. If you can afford the cameras, you should be able to buy CS4.
Yeah, I could do that, but my point will be this instead.
Every computer (I think) has something that will read JPGs.
Can that be said about RAW files? No.
Right now I see that because my software isn't new enough, it won't read the newer files.
Do you think that there may come a day that the software companies will start to drop cameras from the lineup, say PS would no longer read RAWs from a 10D?
I don't know. But it seems that JPGs have been around for a long time. My oldest computer can read them, my newest computer can read them.
Having something that's proprietary isn't always the best choice.
I have not made it to page 3 yet and no one hit on this important little note......every time you open and close a jpg it re-compresses an already compressed file.....so you toss pixels every time....with raw it never happens......I shoot a combo..raw+jpg and yes I could almost double the count on my cards by dropping the jpg....but I have found that if I need to magnify ashot on my lcd then I have to keep shooting r+j.....cause the embedded jpg will not magnify........but when I down load from the card I only move the raw files and never store camera generated jpegs for any reason.
WOW! So I have been reading everyone's response, and from what I gather, shooting RAW would be the best bet if you are not that experienced and make mistakes because in RAW it is easier fixed than in JPEG, correct?
So after fixing the mistakes in RAW, do you just save as jpeg in order to download to the net, or make a DVD in order for viewing, or what would be the process?
Thanks
some save as tiffs (really huge....and I do this if I am saving a layered file) but a lot of us, me included, save as a jpg and upload to SM for archiving....
Ok, well than everyone has been alot of help answering my questions... I have not yet purchased photoshop or lightroom, but I am playing around with the trial versions to see how they work... My goodness I really need to learn ALOT!!!! Maybe I should just go take a class or something....
With film you just took it to a lab and that was that, don't get me wrong I LOVE digital, I just need to learn all the steps I guess...
My brain is trying to suck up all this wonderful knowledge everyone has, I think it's going to explode... But that's a good thing, at least I am learning...
I am prob. gonna go more for using raw+jpeg just to keep my options open... and eventually just maybe shoot raw if I can mastermind the programs...
I do like the idea of Raw being sort of a safety net, for those just in case incidents... And the whole not compressing everytime you open the file... So I guess there are alot of pros to it...
But I know everyone is going to shoot what they feel comfortable with and what they like, no one is wrong and I thank u for all the information you have given me....
_____________________________________________ "I am just here to learn more and be a better photographer..."
I have not made it to pagge 3 yet and no one hit on this important little note......every time you open and close a jpg it re-compresses an already compressed file.....so you toss pixels every time....with raw it never happens......I shoot a combo..raw+jpg and yes I could almost double the count on my cards by dropping the jpg....but I have found that if I need to magnify ashot on my lcd then I have to keep shooting r+j.....cause the embedded jpg will not magnify........but when I down load from the card I only move the raw files and never store camera generated jpegs for any reason.
I'm a bit confused.... Are you saying that you cannot zoom into an image viewed on your camera's LCD, unless you've saved it as JPG?
Tony P. Canon 50D, 30D and Digital Rebel (plus some old friends - FTB and AE1) Long-time amateur.....wishing for more time to play Autocross and Track junkie tonyp.smugmug.com
I'm a bit confused.... Are you saying that you cannot zoom into an image viewed on your camera's LCD, unless you've saved it as JPG?
That's what I got from that. But when you shoot only RAW, it creates a small JPEG just for the purpose of viewing on the LCD. Ive always been able to zoom on a "just RAW" picture I've taken.
There is one other problem with RAW that no one talks about.
I have Photoshop CS3. Bought it 8-10 months ago.
I have a Canon G10 and a Canon 5D MKII. This program will not open the RAW files from either of these cameras.... Having something that's proprietary isn't always the best choice.
You are correct that is a problem. The problem stems solely from the fact that the camera manufacturers, for reasons I do not comprehend, feel its important to keep that file format proprietary and to constantly muck with it. That's why I like DNG and why I wish my camera could create a DNG natively rather than a CR2. At least one camera manufacturer has this ability - to natively create DNG raw files straight in the camera.
You are correct that is a problem. The problem stems solely from the fact that the camera manufacturers, for reasons I do not comprehend, feel its important to keep that file format proprietary and to constantly muck with it. That's why I like DNG and why I wish my camera could create a DNG natively rather than a CR2. At least one camera manufacturer has this ability - to natively create DNG raw files straight in the camera.
There is a free plugin for cs3 that will read those files.
As stated, I bought my new 50D, and had this problem. I've since been able to get a free download plugin for CS3, and now they work fine, also a free update for preview (mac's photo viewing program), and now they work fine.
Go to adobe's website and check for the free plugin for CS3. This is not an issue.
I shoot JPG's only, and I can't see me switching to RAW anytime soon.
If you take your time, and set up the camera correctly, your JPG's will look just as good as the RAWs.
And really what I should say is, with enough time in photoshop, you'll be able to make your RAWs, look like a JPG from the camera.
Not to fuel the fires, but I think I'm going to fuel the fire. Most cameras let you modify how it will create the in-camera JPG. You can adjust the saturation, sharpness and color tone, in the very least. Canon lets you set "picture styles" on many of their models, which further affects how the final JPG will look. DPP will even let you apply a picture style to a RAW image, giving you the ability to change picture styles after the shot was taken. How a picture should "look" is rather subjective and is reflected in the number of parameters a camera gives you when it takes the pic.
But as far as "making your RAW images look like the JPG from the camera", most people I know who shoot RAW do so in order to make the final result look better than what the camera can do. If your ultimate goal is to make your RAW file look like an in-camera JPG, either your expectations are too low, or your skills with post-processing are not very high, because then you're wasting your time with RAW.
In my opinion, no image is complete as it comes off the camera, and this includes in-camera JPGs. You can always do something to it to make it better. And given that there really is little reason to start with a JPG. I have images from night motocross that, after extensive editing in post production, turned out fantastic, and I would not have been able to get to that final result starting with a JPG. There simply is too much data thrown away during the JPG compression.
Digital photography is all about bits. Don't throw away data until you absolutely have to.
no one hit on this important little note......every time you open and close a jpg it re-compresses an already compressed file.....so you toss pixels every time....
That is slightly misleading and while I realize the intent is there, the file is not recompressed/sampled unless you select SAVE. So if you open the file and view it no problem. Make changes and save changes, yes it is recompressed. However if you open it in a photo editing program and the first thing you do is save it in non compressed format you will no longer recompress each time you save. Then when complete save it compressed if you want.
I have images from night motocross that, after extensive editing in post production, turned out fantastic, and I would not have been able to get to that final result starting with a JPG. There simply is too much data thrown away during the JPG compression.
Unless you shot in RAW + JPG, you don't know for sure that this statement is true.
Not knowing what you had to do to fix the shots, maybe some in camera setting would have made the job easier.
(This is just in general and not directed at you mercphoto)
Here's one thing that I can say, and not many RAW shooters can.
I get dogged every time I post a shot, and then when people ask, I say it was a JPG from the camera.
Does a shot automatically get better just because it was shot in RAW.
NO.
Yet I always get some .... person that will say "It's to bad it's not a RAW"
Here's another thing that I can say that very few RAW shooters can.
People asked me to just give RAW a try. So I did. I shot in RAW and JPG so I could compare.
Because I set my camera up in a manner to get what I think are well exposed shots. The RAWs just took
more work to get them to look the way I want them to.
As for converting to DNG, then to JPG, I don't think so.
Until I bought the 5DMKII, I had never heard of DNG. I'm probably just out of the loop on this one,
but why would I want to convert all my shots to another format that may not have the following to become a standard.
If you want to look at a bunch of crummy JPGs, you can go to my site davev.smugmug.com
I don't want to post any more examples in the thread.
You like shooting RAW, shoot RAW, but don't tell someone there images will look like crap because they don't use RAW.
That's just wrong.
Have a good evening, and go take some photos. (whatever way you like)
Unless you shot in RAW + JPG, you don't know for sure that this statement is true.
Not knowing what you had to do to fix the shots, maybe some in camera setting would have made the job easier.
I shot motocross for two years, and spent a lot of time getting night shots right (its not easy, and is a combination of equipment, proper settings and capture, and then finally post processing). You don't just "set the camera up" and click the shutter and get a great image.
Because I set my camera up in a manner to get what I think are well exposed shots
A proper exposure is just one element of good image. Not saying you can't get good images from an in-camera JPG if you know what you are doing. But to say the image can't be made better still in post-production (whether from RAW or JPG) just isn't true. And if you are going to post-process then it makes little sense to start with a JPG.
Because I set my camera up in a manner to get what I think are well exposed shots. The RAWs just took more work to get them to look the way I want them to.
i agree fully, and would like to add shooting a additional bracket of the left side of the histogram and preform a layerd image using the best from both layers to make one image that contains more of a dynamic range.
i have not made it prefection, (and may never get there) but ive only been doing this technique for a year now...
it takes time, but worth it.
now for myself i only apply multi exposures to Landscape sunrise/sunset shooting...
if i were to be doing wildlife shooting, (like Davev) i would likly shoot raw still, but post processing would be minimal compared.... and maybe i would start to just shoot wildlife in jpg, but i dont so i wont say...
Well, everyone has some good point's on here... And I have looked thru almost everyone's site, and since I am a newbie, I really can not tell what is Jpeg or Raw... All the picutre's look good to my eye's...
So, I have been shooting in raw+jpeg and really do not see a big o difference, but I guess maybe since I am still on the learning curve, it would be a safe bet to just keep shooting raw+jpeg in case of a big mess up?
I have been shooting jpeg and not to worried about the mess up's because i wouldjust trash them, but since I am going to do my niece's 15th, I am really trying to do the best I can and learn as much as I can... I do have some time, but need to practice, practice, practice....
Most of this talk about histogram's and dealing with layer's confuses me at time's, all I want to do is take the pic and just print... But I realize that there is so much more than that... So I am trying to get it, I have gone to sleep and waken up thinking digital, jpeg, raw... I live on the internet and this forum!!!! And will keep doing it until I get it right!
So do you all think it would better suite me to shoot Raw for the event pics for just in case, because I could prob. fix most of it with software?
I know I keep asking this question, but with reading everyone's post, I still don't know what to do. If I shoot jpeg and let's say I have to fix the photo do you think it would loose a lot of resolution if they wanted to blow it up vs having to fix it if it were raw? My biggest dilema is what will the final product look like if they decided to enalarge the pic to let's say a 20x24, using either raw or jpeg?
I've actually taken test shot's and ordered blow up's just to see what I am dealing with, but they have not arrived yet.
Well back to playing I go....
_____________________________________________ "I am just here to learn more and be a better photographer..."
I'm a bit confused.... Are you saying that you cannot zoom into an image viewed on your camera's LCD, unless you've saved it as JPG?
If I shoot only raw I cannot zoom in on the cameras lcd....that is correct.....it may just be a Konica Minolta thing...because all 3 of my camera's refuse to allow magnification of a raw only file.
Well, everyone has some good point's on here... And I have looked thru almost everyone's site, and since I am a newbie, I really can not tell what is Jpeg or Raw... All the picutre's look good to my eye's...
So, I have been shooting in raw+jpeg and really do not see a big o difference, but I guess maybe since I am still on the learning curve, it would be a safe bet to just keep shooting raw+jpeg in case of a big mess up?
I have been shooting jpeg and not to worried about the mess up's because i wouldjust trash them, but since I am going to do my niece's 15th, I am really trying to do the best I can and learn as much as I can... I do have some time, but need to practice, practice, practice....
So do you all think it would better suite me to shoot Raw for the event pics for just in case, because I could prob. fix most of it with software?
I know I keep asking this question, but with reading everyone's post, I still don't know what to do. If I shoot jpeg and let's say I have to fix the photo do you think it would loose a lot of resolution if they wanted to blow it up vs having to fix it if it were raw? My biggest dilema is what will the final product look like if they decided to enalarge the pic to let's say a 20x24, using either raw or jpeg?
I've actually taken test shot's and ordered blow up's just to see what I am dealing with, but they have not arrived yet.
Well back to playing I go....
This is one of the times that you should shoot in RAW.
I'm going to guess that this will be indoors, and maybe have a mix of lighting. A little sun light through
the windows, some flash, regular light bulbs. This is the perfect place to use RAW.
When lightning gets dicy, this is where I think RAW shines.
Say the background of your shot is getting lit with tungsten bulbs, and the foreground is lit with the
flash. You can run the shot through camera raw twice, once with the white balance setting to flash, once
with tungsten, and then combine/fade the 2 shots together.
Even I shoot in RAW mode in this kind of setting, in particular if it's a one time event.
This is one of the times that you should shoot in RAW.
I'm going to guess that this will be indoors, and maybe have a mix of lighting. A little sun light through
the windows, some flash, regular light bulbs. This is the perfect place to use RAW.
When lightning gets dicy, this is where I think RAW shines.
Say the background of your shot is getting lit with tungsten bulbs, and the foreground is lit with the
flash. You can run the shot through camera raw twice, once with the white balance setting to flash, once
with tungsten, and then combine/fade the 2 shots together.
Even I shoot in RAW mode in this kind of setting, in particular if it's a one time event.
Hmm, ok that sounds like an idea especially for the church b/c of their limit's on flash sometime's....
Thanks for the input...
Love your waterfall pic by the way...
_____________________________________________ "I am just here to learn more and be a better photographer..."
Comments
I've been saying this for years, and then everyone gets mad.
I shoot JPG's only, and I can't see me switching to RAW anytime soon.
If you take your time, and set up the camera correctly, your JPG's will look just as good as the RAWs.
And really what I should say is, with enough time in photoshop, you'll be able to make your RAWs, look like a JPG from the camera.
I really find it funny that everyone feels the the camera is so incompetent, that it can't convert their shots.
I'm surprised that you let the camera meter your shots, or let the lens autofocus. You're giving up control.
OH NO!!!:D
The cameras and lenses of today are amazing.
You can do things now that were only dreamed of 20 years ago.
The camera does nothing that you don't tell it to do. If you screw up a lot, shoot RAW.
BTW, you know that you can run JPGs through camera RAW, right? (at least with CS3)
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
I agree with you. The people who insist RAW is the only way to go always seem to win these discussions through sheer will power....
Especially for novice shooters stick with jpegs until the level of knowledge of your equipment and your skill level of taking photos has advanced to the point that shooting raw is then worth exploring.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
This is akin to saying "Just concentrate on shooting, send the film to a one hour lab". And that's OK! But you're going to get what you get so be happy or change the game plan.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Once again, you know that you can run JPGs through camera RAW, right?
If you have to change half the settings that 'you' entered into the camera, you either need more practice, or to read more about photography.
100% crop, half from RAW, half from JPG.
Pick whatever side you want, and I can make the other side look like it.
For this and 99% of my shots, no difference will be seen between a RAW and a JPG of the same shot
by the time I'm done with it in post.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
Seems like whatever you shoot you can fix with photoshop. But I am not one who really likes to sit and mess with photoshop to much, well one I don't have photoshop (ok trial version) which seems pretty fun... But I would really like to just shoot and only fix minor flaws. I know it takes practice but I have all the time in the world to practice and play...
I just wanted to make sure if I did choose to shoot jpeg would it be easy to fix problems with photoshop or whatever program and still be able to get a good enlargement out of the picture if needed? And not compromise the resolution / pixels?
DAVEV = like the pic by the way...
"I am just here to learn more and be a better photographer..."
Nikon D90
Nikkor VR 18-105mm 3.5-5.6
Sigma DG 28-300mm 3.5-6.3
SB-600 Flash
This is the issue... With any major flaws in the original photo, with a jpeg it will be compromising the quality of the photo. Let's say your in a place where WB is changing constantly, instead of having to always switch, you can just shoot and fix it later. The ONLY downfall to RAW files is they take up more space. That's it. If you don't mind spending an extra 100-200 on some memory cards so you have the room if you do long shoots (upwards of say 500 photos before you can offload), then a RAW file will benefit you greatly in so many ways. Even if the photo you take is near perfect and you only have a minor tweek, that minor tweek is going to be WAY WAY WAY less noticeable in a RAW file vs a JPEG. YOU are controlling the conversion to JPEG when you shoot RAW where as the camera is when you shoot JPEG. Even if you're in the same place with the same lighting doing a shoot, things change, shadow's move, you might want more or less contrast in one photo to the next. And most of the time when I shoot, I don't spend 10 minutes per photo making sure every little tiny thing is correct in my camera. I'd much rather control all that later and worry about composition and subject matter during the time of shoot. Editing the details can come later. That's why the genius of PS and LR are there. You can fine tune everything much much much more than the camera can for you, even if you do set the camera up, it only has so many things you can set. And once it's taken, it's taken. You put it in LR or PS and that's what you got. Yes some minor adjustments can be made to a JPEG without any artifacts or anything bad like that, but why even limit yourself? You do that, and you'll shoot that one shot that...subject matter wise, and compositionally is THE MONEY shot, but oh no, you forgot to adjust this, or forgot to adjust that. Well good news! You shot in RAW! So you can fix it, and still have a flawless image.
Now having said all that, RAW can't fix everything. If your photo is blurry, it's blurry. If your focus point is wrong, your focus point is wrong. But, the moral of the story is, I'd rather work with 20MB worth of information than 5MB. It's like recording a movie in HD(1080p) versus recording it in 480i, You have a LOT more information to work with. Might as well take advantage of it.
OneTwoFiftieth | Portland, Oregon | Modern Portraiture
My Equipment:
Bodies: Canon 50D, Canon EOS 1
Lenses: Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS, Canon 50mm f/1.4, Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8
Lighting: Canon 580EXII, Canon 420 EX, 12" Reflector, Pocket Wizard Plus II (3), AB800 (3), Large Softbox
Stability: Manfrotto 190CXPRO3 Tripod, Manfrotto 488RC4 Ball Head, Manfrotto 679B Monopod
Shooting RAW and using a RAW processor is just one of many tools you can use for your photography. There are many documented cases where you can get more out of your images by shooting RAW, particularly when there's something unusual about the scene (high dynamic range, exposure goof, a need to pull extra detail out of shadows, large white balance correction, etc...). But, if you don't have those challenges or manage to deal with them appropriately with your camera settings, there are zillions of wonderfully fine images that came out of the camera as JPEGs and may not have been any better if shot RAW.
There's no point in trying to convince someone else which they should do. I shoot RAW because I choose to use the tool that preserves the most data from the camera and gives me the most latitude to make corrections or changes in post processing. That is purely a personal choice. I don't have any need to foist that choice on anyone else. These are just tools. You should each pick the tool that is going to work the best for you. If JPEGs work the best for you, then by all means, that's what you should use.
I find it pointless to argue one is better than the other. They are tools with different tradeoffs. Understand the difference between the tools and pick the one that works the best for you and allow for the fact that a different person might choose a different tool and still produce great images.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
I have Photoshop CS3. Bought it 8-10 months ago.
I have a Canon G10 and a Canon 5D MKII. This program will not open the RAW files from either of these cameras.
I'm sure some will say, buy the new program. If you can afford the cameras, you should be able to buy CS4.
Yeah, I could do that, but my point will be this instead.
Every computer (I think) has something that will read JPGs.
Can that be said about RAW files? No.
Right now I see that because my software isn't new enough, it won't read the newer files.
Do you think that there may come a day that the software companies will start to drop cameras from the lineup, say PS would no longer read RAWs from a 10D?
I don't know. But it seems that JPGs have been around for a long time. My oldest computer can read them, my newest computer can read them.
Having something that's proprietary isn't always the best choice.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
OneTwoFiftieth | Portland, Oregon | Modern Portraiture
My Equipment:
Bodies: Canon 50D, Canon EOS 1
Lenses: Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS, Canon 50mm f/1.4, Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8
Lighting: Canon 580EXII, Canon 420 EX, 12" Reflector, Pocket Wizard Plus II (3), AB800 (3), Large Softbox
Stability: Manfrotto 190CXPRO3 Tripod, Manfrotto 488RC4 Ball Head, Manfrotto 679B Monopod
some save as tiffs (really huge....and I do this if I am saving a layered file) but a lot of us, me included, save as a jpg and upload to SM for archiving....
With film you just took it to a lab and that was that, don't get me wrong I LOVE digital, I just need to learn all the steps I guess...
My brain is trying to suck up all this wonderful knowledge everyone has, I think it's going to explode...
I am prob. gonna go more for using raw+jpeg just to keep my options open... and eventually just maybe shoot raw if I can mastermind the programs...
I do like the idea of Raw being sort of a safety net, for those just in case incidents... And the whole not compressing everytime you open the file... So I guess there are alot of pros to it...
But I know everyone is going to shoot what they feel comfortable with and what they like, no one is wrong and I thank u for all the information you have given me....
"I am just here to learn more and be a better photographer..."
Nikon D90
Nikkor VR 18-105mm 3.5-5.6
Sigma DG 28-300mm 3.5-6.3
SB-600 Flash
I'm a bit confused....
Canon 50D, 30D and Digital Rebel (plus some old friends - FTB and AE1)
Long-time amateur.....wishing for more time to play
Autocross and Track junkie
tonyp.smugmug.com
That's what I got from that. But when you shoot only RAW, it creates a small JPEG just for the purpose of viewing on the LCD. Ive always been able to zoom on a "just RAW" picture I've taken.
OneTwoFiftieth | Portland, Oregon | Modern Portraiture
My Equipment:
Bodies: Canon 50D, Canon EOS 1
Lenses: Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS, Canon 50mm f/1.4, Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8
Lighting: Canon 580EXII, Canon 420 EX, 12" Reflector, Pocket Wizard Plus II (3), AB800 (3), Large Softbox
Stability: Manfrotto 190CXPRO3 Tripod, Manfrotto 488RC4 Ball Head, Manfrotto 679B Monopod
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
As stated, I bought my new 50D, and had this problem. I've since been able to get a free download plugin for CS3, and now they work fine, also a free update for preview (mac's photo viewing program), and now they work fine.
Go to adobe's website and check for the free plugin for CS3. This is not an issue.
OneTwoFiftieth | Portland, Oregon | Modern Portraiture
My Equipment:
Bodies: Canon 50D, Canon EOS 1
Lenses: Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS, Canon 50mm f/1.4, Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8
Lighting: Canon 580EXII, Canon 420 EX, 12" Reflector, Pocket Wizard Plus II (3), AB800 (3), Large Softbox
Stability: Manfrotto 190CXPRO3 Tripod, Manfrotto 488RC4 Ball Head, Manfrotto 679B Monopod
But as far as "making your RAW images look like the JPG from the camera", most people I know who shoot RAW do so in order to make the final result look better than what the camera can do. If your ultimate goal is to make your RAW file look like an in-camera JPG, either your expectations are too low, or your skills with post-processing are not very high, because then you're wasting your time with RAW.
In my opinion, no image is complete as it comes off the camera, and this includes in-camera JPGs. You can always do something to it to make it better. And given that there really is little reason to start with a JPG. I have images from night motocross that, after extensive editing in post production, turned out fantastic, and I would not have been able to get to that final result starting with a JPG. There simply is too much data thrown away during the JPG compression.
Digital photography is all about bits. Don't throw away data until you absolutely have to.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
That is slightly misleading and while I realize the intent is there, the file is not recompressed/sampled unless you select SAVE. So if you open the file and view it no problem. Make changes and save changes, yes it is recompressed. However if you open it in a photo editing program and the first thing you do is save it in non compressed format you will no longer recompress each time you save. Then when complete save it compressed if you want.
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
Unless you shot in RAW + JPG, you don't know for sure that this statement is true.
Not knowing what you had to do to fix the shots, maybe some in camera setting would have made the job easier.
(This is just in general and not directed at you mercphoto)
Here's one thing that I can say, and not many RAW shooters can.
I get dogged every time I post a shot, and then when people ask, I say it was a JPG from the camera.
Does a shot automatically get better just because it was shot in RAW.
NO.
Yet I always get some .... person that will say "It's to bad it's not a RAW"
Here's another thing that I can say that very few RAW shooters can.
People asked me to just give RAW a try. So I did. I shot in RAW and JPG so I could compare.
Because I set my camera up in a manner to get what I think are well exposed shots. The RAWs just took
more work to get them to look the way I want them to.
As for converting to DNG, then to JPG, I don't think so.
Until I bought the 5DMKII, I had never heard of DNG. I'm probably just out of the loop on this one,
but why would I want to convert all my shots to another format that may not have the following to become a standard.
If you want to look at a bunch of crummy JPGs, you can go to my site davev.smugmug.com
I don't want to post any more examples in the thread.
You like shooting RAW, shoot RAW, but don't tell someone there images will look like crap because they don't use RAW.
That's just wrong.
Have a good evening, and go take some photos. (whatever way you like)
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
A proper exposure is just one element of good image. Not saying you can't get good images from an in-camera JPG if you know what you are doing. But to say the image can't be made better still in post-production (whether from RAW or JPG) just isn't true. And if you are going to post-process then it makes little sense to start with a JPG.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
You have to expose properly for Raw!
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
i agree fully, and would like to add shooting a additional bracket of the left side of the histogram and preform a layerd image using the best from both layers to make one image that contains more of a dynamic range.
i have not made it prefection, (and may never get there) but ive only been doing this technique for a year now...
it takes time, but worth it.
now for myself i only apply multi exposures to Landscape sunrise/sunset shooting...
if i were to be doing wildlife shooting, (like Davev) i would likly shoot raw still, but post processing would be minimal compared.... and maybe i would start to just shoot wildlife in jpg, but i dont so i wont say...
So, I have been shooting in raw+jpeg and really do not see a big o difference, but I guess maybe since I am still on the learning curve, it would be a safe bet to just keep shooting raw+jpeg in case of a big mess up?
I have been shooting jpeg and not to worried about the mess up's because i wouldjust trash them, but since I am going to do my niece's 15th, I am really trying to do the best I can and learn as much as I can... I do have some time, but need to practice, practice, practice....
Most of this talk about histogram's and dealing with layer's confuses me at time's, all I want to do is take the pic and just print... But I realize that there is so much more than that... So I am trying to get it, I have gone to sleep and waken up thinking digital, jpeg, raw... I live on the internet and this forum!!!! And will keep doing it until I get it right!
So do you all think it would better suite me to shoot Raw for the event pics for just in case, because I could prob. fix most of it with software?
I know I keep asking this question, but with reading everyone's post, I still don't know what to do.
I've actually taken test shot's and ordered blow up's just to see what I am dealing with, but they have not arrived yet.
Well back to playing I go....
"I am just here to learn more and be a better photographer..."
Nikon D90
Nikkor VR 18-105mm 3.5-5.6
Sigma DG 28-300mm 3.5-6.3
SB-600 Flash
If I shoot only raw I cannot zoom in on the cameras lcd....that is correct.....it may just be a Konica Minolta thing...because all 3 of my camera's refuse to allow magnification of a raw only file.
This is one of the times that you should shoot in RAW.
I'm going to guess that this will be indoors, and maybe have a mix of lighting. A little sun light through
the windows, some flash, regular light bulbs. This is the perfect place to use RAW.
When lightning gets dicy, this is where I think RAW shines.
Say the background of your shot is getting lit with tungsten bulbs, and the foreground is lit with the
flash. You can run the shot through camera raw twice, once with the white balance setting to flash, once
with tungsten, and then combine/fade the 2 shots together.
Even I shoot in RAW mode in this kind of setting, in particular if it's a one time event.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
Hmm, ok that sounds like an idea especially for the church b/c of their limit's on flash sometime's....
Thanks for the input...
Love your waterfall pic by the way...
"I am just here to learn more and be a better photographer..."
Nikon D90
Nikkor VR 18-105mm 3.5-5.6
Sigma DG 28-300mm 3.5-6.3
SB-600 Flash