Just a thought about RAW or JPG
I read these really interesting posts regarding what to shot RAW or JPG. In other forums I followed similar discussions on cameras, software, lenses and so fort and so on. I might be a bit superficial and of course I admit my limited knowledge I have of the digital image world. I'm still at the time when we used to develop our films and print our pictures, stain good shirts and pants and wife yelling because that.
My question is: "do we really need to know everything about optics, physics, math, refraction, lens coating and more?" Do you really think that it is really necessary to know if RAW is better than JPG?
To me these discussions are sounding like that "who was born first the egg or the chicken." I really do not care for that. I would like to know about where some of these beautiful wildlife pictures were taken, how long the author had to wait before freezing and shot those marvelous images.
I'm an old fart and I remember that back in the last century the discussion was "it is better the TRI-X or the HP5 film?" And what ever was the answer, we never reached a consensus of course, I kept my TRI-X and many of my friends the HP5.
To come close to this century, with my high respect for everybody's opinion I will keep shooting RAW, why? I do not know. I do not have the luxury to make 10 different copies of an image but in just a handful occasion I appreciated the "flexibility" of the RAW files and recovered images the otherwise were lost. Does anybody remember those super light or super dense negatives? I do. That's why I use RAW.
I read these really interesting posts regarding what to shot RAW or JPG. In other forums I followed similar discussions on cameras, software, lenses and so fort and so on. I might be a bit superficial and of course I admit my limited knowledge I have of the digital image world. I'm still at the time when we used to develop our films and print our pictures, stain good shirts and pants and wife yelling because that.
My question is: "do we really need to know everything about optics, physics, math, refraction, lens coating and more?" Do you really think that it is really necessary to know if RAW is better than JPG?
To me these discussions are sounding like that "who was born first the egg or the chicken." I really do not care for that. I would like to know about where some of these beautiful wildlife pictures were taken, how long the author had to wait before freezing and shot those marvelous images.
I'm an old fart and I remember that back in the last century the discussion was "it is better the TRI-X or the HP5 film?" And what ever was the answer, we never reached a consensus of course, I kept my TRI-X and many of my friends the HP5.
To come close to this century, with my high respect for everybody's opinion I will keep shooting RAW, why? I do not know. I do not have the luxury to make 10 different copies of an image but in just a handful occasion I appreciated the "flexibility" of the RAW files and recovered images the otherwise were lost. Does anybody remember those super light or super dense negatives? I do. That's why I use RAW.
Well, you sort of have a point, however, depending on what you're doing and what your doing with what you're shooting, it can make a difference. For the casual shooter does it really matter? Probably not. There are technical reasons why many people shoot in RAW vs JPEG. Do those reasons make a difference to you? Doesn't sound like it and that's fine. However, it does make a difference for many people (for different reasons).
Ditto for many of the other things you mentioned.
So I certainly understand where you're coming from. Many times debates like this really make no sense, however, sometimes they actually do. This is one of those times. But I wouldn't say shooting in RAW or JPEG is the best. It all depends on you and what you need. For some RAW is best, for others JPEG is best. Just depends.
I read these really interesting posts regarding what to shot RAW or JPG. In other forums I followed similar discussions on cameras, software, lenses and so fort and so on. I might be a bit superficial and of course I admit my limited knowledge I have of the digital image world. I'm still at the time when we used to develop our films and print our pictures, stain good shirts and pants and wife yelling because that.
My question is: "do we really need to know everything about optics, physics, math, refraction, lens coating and more?" Do you really think that it is really necessary to know if RAW is better than JPG?
To me these discussions are sounding like that "who was born first the egg or the chicken." I really do not care for that. I would like to know about where some of these beautiful wildlife pictures were taken, how long the author had to wait before freezing and shot those marvelous images.
I'm an old fart and I remember that back in the last century the discussion was "it is better the TRI-X or the HP5 film?" And what ever was the answer, we never reached a consensus of course, I kept my TRI-X and many of my friends the HP5.
To come close to this century, with my high respect for everybody's opinion I will keep shooting RAW, why? I do not know. I do not have the luxury to make 10 different copies of an image but in just a handful occasion I appreciated the "flexibility" of the RAW files and recovered images the otherwise were lost. Does anybody remember those super light or super dense negatives? I do. That's why I use RAW.
I shoot RAW for a few reasons. For one I have a RAW workflow down pat -- its fast, efficient. The only downside disk space. And it gives me the most flexibility, though I admit I don't usually take full advantage of that flexibility. And while I understand the crowd that says "get it right in camera rather than save it in post" they're missing the whole point of shooting RAW. You always want to start with the best possible initial capture, because while you can somewhat save a poor capture if you start with RAW it can only get so good after editing. No matter what you always get the best result if you start with the best input. So I shoot RAW, but I also strive to get the best possible capture.
But at some point in my early photography "career" I realized that the "get it right in the camera" slogan is just that -- its just a slogan. It was never that way in the days of film, why does digital somehow change that? The professional film guys would always get a good proper capture, but then rely on custom darkroom work to produce the final result.
[QUOTE=mercphoto;1446574
But at some point in my early photography "career" I realized that the "get it right in the camera" slogan is just that -- its just a slogan. It was never that way in the days of film, why does digital somehow change that? The professional film guys would always get a good proper capture, but then rely on custom darkroom work to produce the final result.[/QUOTE]
Get it right oin camera also meant to bracket the hell out of your shooting.....so we"wasted" lots of ilm for 1 shot....at times you could not bracket and you hoped for the best when the shutter went clik..........
I still bracket the hell out of my shots.....more now than I ever did with film......... :-}} but now I can stack those for HDR rendering.........so they are not just wasting card space..... or harddrive space :-}}
Get it right oin camera also meant to bracket the hell out of your shooting.....so we"wasted" lots of ilm for 1 shot....at times you could not bracket and you hoped for the best when the shutter went clik..........
I still bracket the hell out of my shots.....more now than I ever did with film......... :-}} but now I can stack those for HDR rendering.........so they are not just wasting card space..... or harddrive space :-}}
Thanks for posting. I just started shooting in RAW (well actually RAW/JPG) and I do not think I am going to look back; especially after reading this.
Think of RAW as insurance.......from copyright infringement.........anyone with a camera can produce a jpg.....and that jpg can be stolen at any time off the net........
trying to prove it is yours could be really hard unless you register all your work daily or weekly or just before posting on an online gallery, or forum.........but raw cannot be stolen at least not easily......
it is stored on your harddrive...it cannot be uploaded and viewed on a forum or online gallery (not right now anyway....unless there has been a break thru in technology )...there for if you have to
go to court it is PROOF of ownership....it is not a substitute for registering your work but it is PROOF beyond any form of doubt to prove ownership........
lol ... then the shear weight of such a monstrous act would surely cause you to perform a slow, painful, guilt-ridden suicidal death as penance for that horrific deed.
From where did you get the image........are you shooting from a print.....or off the screen??
Thieves don't usually want to work so hard to get an image........I am currently copying what will end up being several thousand images i took on film, by shooting them as raw files from the prints I have, as the negs and slides have died a horrible death..........it takes quite a bit of work to not show any signs of the paper pores ......................oh yes the exif shows my raw as the eldest...I still win :-}}
Last time I used Opanda Exif Editor it show my Exif as having been edited.........
said something to the effect that exif was changed on such and such date or had been edited........
that may have changed now with newer versions.............I was changing GPS codes as the gps and camera clocks
differed some how and photos were getting GHPS codes that were miles off ......:-}}
However we should HiJack this Thread.......should we?????????
WOW, quite a discussion. I only made it to page 3. I have been excusively shooting RAW + JPEG for some time now (portrait work)... but I have recently been engaged as a sports shooter and found that JPEGS were the only way to go. As many have noted, it is a personal choice. Sports is FAST and people want the images quickly. What works for me is to do my very best to get everything perfect in-camera and to worry only about what images are going to go in the bin in post. Either it is in or it is out...easy peasy. I cull through the images, put up the keepers on my site and the rest go in the bin. No editing necessary in JPEG..either it is in or out. I found (in my minimal experience with sports) that the space on the card is worth the risk of not being able to edit. Get things right in camera and all is fine in the world. In my portrait work however, I don't think I'd ever revert to JPEG. I DO hand edit every image and like the flexiblity RAW gives. Sports and artistic photos are different ballgames, no pun intended. I just think it depends on how you work as a shooter.
WOW, quite a discussion. I only made it to page 3. I have been excusively shooting RAW + JPEG for some time now (portrait work)... but I have recently been engaged as a sports shooter and found that JPEGS were the only way to go. As many have noted, it is a personal choice. Sports is FAST and people want the images quickly. What works for me is to do my very best to get everything perfect in-camera and to worry only about what images are going to go in the bin in post. Either it is in or it is out...easy peasy. I cull through the images, put up the keepers on my site and the rest go in the bin. No editing necessary in JPEG..either it is in or out. I found (in my minimal experience with sports) that the space on the card is worth the risk of not being able to edit. Get things right in camera and all is fine in the world. In my portrait work however, I don't think I'd ever revert to JPEG. I DO hand edit every image and like the flexiblity RAW gives. Sports and artistic photos are different ballgames, no pun intended. I just think it depends on how you work as a shooter.
So why do you shoot RAW + JPEG for your portrait work? Never understood why people use that actually.
I shoot sports (mostly) and shoot RAW all of the time. I'm not on any deadlines so I have some time (not a ton) to do pp. So it's not a big deal for me.
So why do you shoot RAW + JPEG for your portrait work? Never understood why people use that actually.
I shoot sports (mostly) and shoot RAW all of the time. I'm not on any deadlines so I have some time (not a ton) to do pp. So it's not a big deal for me.
Rick..the reason I shoot RAW + JPEG for portrait work is once again-- time! I have VERY VERY little (4 kids, work, children's and my activities etc). I will proof my work in JPEG all the time. It is a cinch for me to right click to upload to smugmug on the jpegs without doing a single thing. I can rework the RAWs time permitting and ONLY those that are the very favorites and merit my time. It is not worth processing everything until they approve. AND sometimes I'm completely content with a SOOC jpeg , but RAW is still nice to have for archiving. Today I'm uploading 650 sports images from the weekend all in JPEG no pp whatsoever. It takes me about 30 minutes to cull through and then rightclick to smugmug with the JPEGS (vs taking me a few days to get the RAWs converted to jpegs). I had about 1000 images to sort through. There were 4 races this weekend and I have to do my best to get everyone photographed. The athletes like to see the pictures right away so the JPEGS are a lifesaver (when everything is spot on that is- wb, exposure, etc. RAW as a backup for missed exposure is also a lifesaver too, it is nice for artistic edits and for archiving.
FWIW, I attended a Webinar last week with Sports Illustrated Staff Photographer Bill Frakes (http://manfrottoschoolofxcellence.com/2010/08/18/sport-photography-understanding-motion-and-emotion/), and I found it interesting to learn he shoots in RAW + JPG. His reasoning (you can watch the archive) was that his editors need the photos ASAP and he can send them directly, but he keeps the RAW for PP and archival purposes.
I prefer RAW myself, but found one advantage of JPG is that my internal buffer on my camera is managed faster with JPG (writes to disk faster since they're smaller files) giving me more fps when shooting sports.
What do you mean when you say "much more data is stored than a jpeg"? and What kind of freedom do i have more of working with RAW?
Basically im confused with what RAW files actually are, and what can be done with them i guess.... like i said i feel dumb asking this.
Basically it boils down to a "I used the wrong settings to shoot some pictures but thank you God I was shooting
RAW and I can recover 95% of my images."
Or "I shot some JPG pictures with the white balance on artificial light, it was mid-day, oh my Lord I have to delete those images and the bride will not be happy about it."
That's all.
Don't understand why Canon shooters would shoot RAW+JPEG. You can easily extract the full size JPG out of the Raw file with many different programs out there. Why do you think MkII files are so insanely large? There is a 12-15MB Jpg hiding in there folks!
Don't understand why Canon shooters would shoot RAW+JPEG. You can easily extract the full size JPG out of the Raw file with many different programs out there. Why do you think MkII files are so insanely large? There is a 12-15MB Jpg hiding in there folks!
What's it matter what brand of camera it is? lol
And, you have an MKII you should know JPEG and RAW can be set independently from each other
And, you have an MKII you should know JPEG and RAW can be set independently from each other
NOT the point I was trying to make. Shooting RAW+JPG at the SAME TIME is senseless to me. When the FULL SIZE JPG exists inside the Raw file. All you have to do is run a batch extract. You can save space (20-25MB RAW + 15MB JPG OR just RAW) If you shoot RAW only and shoot say 300 shots that's a 4.5GB space savings on cards. Yeah, cards are cheap, but when I'm out hiking, I want as much possible space dedicated to only what I need, not extra crap that's already there.
Not only that, but if you are shooting quickly in sequence, I'm sure your card write/buffer fills are gonna come quicker shooting a combined vs just one file... More data has to be written per shot
Basically it boils down to a "I used the wrong settings to shoot some pictures but thank you God I was shooting
RAW and I can recover 95% of my images."
Or "I shot some JPG pictures with the white balance on artificial light, it was mid-day, oh my Lord I have to delete those images and the bride will not be happy about it."
That's all.
Not sure you answered the question there. Basically a RAW file is an unprocessed image which contains a lot of data, when a JPEG is created much of that data is lost and the only data that is retained is what is required to form the JPEG image. If you set your camera to JPEG then you are allowing your camera to decide what the JPEG looks like and there are only limited things you can do to alter it in post. If you shoot RAW you can manipulate the file using software like Aperture or Lightroom to make the final JPEG look the way you want it.
Setting a white balance for the image is one thing you might do, another might be to include highlights which are stored in the RAW file, but which may have been blown in a JPEG created in-camera. Generally you might need to increase the saturation to make the image pop. Hope that helps. One of the main advantages is for event photographers as there is not always time to setup every shot perfectly and RAW gives you more latitude.
I shoot in RAW + jpeg for the same reasons listed above. I like the ease of having my jpegs available to do a quick print, put up as previews on my site, etc.
Not sure you answered the question there. Basically a RAW file is an unprocessed image which contains a lot of data, when a JPEG is created much of that data is lost and the only data that is retained is what is required to form the JPEG image. If you set your camera to JPEG then you are allowing your camera to decide what the JPEG looks like and there are only limited things you can do to alter it in post. If you shoot RAW you can manipulate the file using software like Aperture or Lightroom to make the final JPEG look the way you want it.
Setting a white balance for the image is one thing you might do, another might be to include highlights which are stored in the RAW file, but which may have been blown in a JPEG created in-camera. Generally you might need to increase the saturation to make the image pop. Hope that helps. One of the main advantages is for event photographers as there is not always time to setup every shot perfectly and RAW gives you more latitude.
It was not my intention to give a lecture on the two modes of saving a file, I only tried to simplify a concept that it is easy but everybody is trying to make a big deal of it. Not only in this Forum but in other forums I had chance to visit.
That's all.
Comments
I read these really interesting posts regarding what to shot RAW or JPG. In other forums I followed similar discussions on cameras, software, lenses and so fort and so on. I might be a bit superficial and of course I admit my limited knowledge I have of the digital image world. I'm still at the time when we used to develop our films and print our pictures, stain good shirts and pants and wife yelling because that.
My question is: "do we really need to know everything about optics, physics, math, refraction, lens coating and more?" Do you really think that it is really necessary to know if RAW is better than JPG?
To me these discussions are sounding like that "who was born first the egg or the chicken." I really do not care for that. I would like to know about where some of these beautiful wildlife pictures were taken, how long the author had to wait before freezing and shot those marvelous images.
I'm an old fart and I remember that back in the last century the discussion was "it is better the TRI-X or the HP5 film?" And what ever was the answer, we never reached a consensus of course, I kept my TRI-X and many of my friends the HP5.
To come close to this century, with my high respect for everybody's opinion I will keep shooting RAW, why? I do not know. I do not have the luxury to make 10 different copies of an image but in just a handful occasion I appreciated the "flexibility" of the RAW files and recovered images the otherwise were lost. Does anybody remember those super light or super dense negatives? I do. That's why I use RAW.
Just my opinion. Thank you for reading.
Gabriele
photos.travelingtoitaly.com
Nikon D200
Lumix S7
Nikon S9
Nikon D70
Nikon S900
Lumix FS15
And assorted lenses
Ditto for many of the other things you mentioned.
So I certainly understand where you're coming from. Many times debates like this really make no sense, however, sometimes they actually do. This is one of those times. But I wouldn't say shooting in RAW or JPEG is the best. It all depends on you and what you need. For some RAW is best, for others JPEG is best. Just depends.
It's one of those gray areas...
Facebook Fan Page
Blog
:lol
Maybe we should just do it in French and compromise on "frites"?
French? Oh NO!
Facebook Fan Page
Blog
Tri-X of course (no argument there...)
I also am from the pre-digital days when auto was a car not a camera setting.
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
The only french I speak is french fries...
Facebook Fan Page
Blog
Good article on this topic, with photos that help illustrate...
http://www.prophotolife.com/2008/04/29/tech-raw-vs-jpeg-the-real-story/
/thread
seriously though, great info and thanks for sharing. nice to see a direct comparison done vs. opinions and workflow discussion.
But at some point in my early photography "career" I realized that the "get it right in the camera" slogan is just that -- its just a slogan. It was never that way in the days of film, why does digital somehow change that? The professional film guys would always get a good proper capture, but then rely on custom darkroom work to produce the final result.
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
But at some point in my early photography "career" I realized that the "get it right in the camera" slogan is just that -- its just a slogan. It was never that way in the days of film, why does digital somehow change that? The professional film guys would always get a good proper capture, but then rely on custom darkroom work to produce the final result.[/QUOTE]
Get it right oin camera also meant to bracket the hell out of your shooting.....so we"wasted" lots of ilm for 1 shot....at times you could not bracket and you hoped for the best when the shutter went clik..........
I still bracket the hell out of my shots.....more now than I ever did with film......... :-}} but now I can stack those for HDR rendering.........so they are not just wasting card space..... or harddrive space :-}}
Thanks for posting. I just started shooting in RAW (well actually RAW/JPG) and I do not think I am going to look back; especially after reading this.
My Gear
My Websites - Personal www.ericsmemories.com |"Professional" www.vividphotography.org
My Favorite Photos - Chicago, NYC, DC, London, Prague, Alaska, Yellowstone, Glacier NP, Vermont, Mt. Rushmore, Badlands NP, The Appalachian Trail
trying to prove it is yours could be really hard unless you register all your work daily or weekly or just before posting on an online gallery, or forum.........but raw cannot be stolen at least not easily......
it is stored on your harddrive...it cannot be uploaded and viewed on a forum or online gallery (not right now anyway....unless there has been a break thru in technology )...there for if you have to
go to court it is PROOF of ownership....it is not a substitute for registering your work but it is PROOF beyond any form of doubt to prove ownership........
Link to my Smugmug site
lol ... then the shear weight of such a monstrous act would surely cause you to perform a slow, painful, guilt-ridden suicidal death as penance for that horrific deed.
Unsharp at any Speed
Thank you.....................
From where did you get the image........are you shooting from a print.....or off the screen??
Thieves don't usually want to work so hard to get an image........I am currently copying what will end up being several thousand images i took on film, by shooting them as raw files from the prints I have, as the negs and slides have died a horrible death..........it takes quite a bit of work to not show any signs of the paper pores ......................oh yes the exif shows my raw as the eldest...I still win :-}}
oh yeah ... I get those two confused ...
Unsharp at any Speed
Oh Art, I'm terribly sorry, but you lose on the date code.
Link to my Smugmug site
said something to the effect that exif was changed on such and such date or had been edited........
that may have changed now with newer versions.............I was changing GPS codes as the gps and camera clocks
differed some how and photos were getting GHPS codes that were miles off ......:-}}
However we should HiJack this Thread.......should we?????????
You have heard of the time space continuum haven't you?
Facebook Fan Page
Blog
Kelly
My Photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/freezethemomentphotography/
http://www.kfsphotography.smugmug.com
So why do you shoot RAW + JPEG for your portrait work? Never understood why people use that actually.
I shoot sports (mostly) and shoot RAW all of the time. I'm not on any deadlines so I have some time (not a ton) to do pp. So it's not a big deal for me.
Facebook Fan Page
Blog
Rick..the reason I shoot RAW + JPEG for portrait work is once again-- time!
Kelly
My Photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/freezethemomentphotography/
http://www.kfsphotography.smugmug.com
I prefer RAW myself, but found one advantage of JPG is that my internal buffer on my camera is managed faster with JPG (writes to disk faster since they're smaller files) giving me more fps when shooting sports.
Basically it boils down to a "I used the wrong settings to shoot some pictures but thank you God I was shooting
RAW and I can recover 95% of my images."
Or "I shot some JPG pictures with the white balance on artificial light, it was mid-day, oh my Lord I have to delete those images and the bride will not be happy about it."
That's all.
What's it matter what brand of camera it is? lol
And, you have an MKII you should know JPEG and RAW can be set independently from each other
NOT the point I was trying to make. Shooting RAW+JPG at the SAME TIME is senseless to me. When the FULL SIZE JPG exists inside the Raw file. All you have to do is run a batch extract. You can save space (20-25MB RAW + 15MB JPG OR just RAW) If you shoot RAW only and shoot say 300 shots that's a 4.5GB space savings on cards. Yeah, cards are cheap, but when I'm out hiking, I want as much possible space dedicated to only what I need, not extra crap that's already there.
Not only that, but if you are shooting quickly in sequence, I'm sure your card write/buffer fills are gonna come quicker shooting a combined vs just one file... More data has to be written per shot
Not sure you answered the question there. Basically a RAW file is an unprocessed image which contains a lot of data, when a JPEG is created much of that data is lost and the only data that is retained is what is required to form the JPEG image. If you set your camera to JPEG then you are allowing your camera to decide what the JPEG looks like and there are only limited things you can do to alter it in post. If you shoot RAW you can manipulate the file using software like Aperture or Lightroom to make the final JPEG look the way you want it.
Setting a white balance for the image is one thing you might do, another might be to include highlights which are stored in the RAW file, but which may have been blown in a JPEG created in-camera. Generally you might need to increase the saturation to make the image pop. Hope that helps. One of the main advantages is for event photographers as there is not always time to setup every shot perfectly and RAW gives you more latitude.
It was not my intention to give a lecture on the two modes of saving a file, I only tried to simplify a concept that it is easy but everybody is trying to make a big deal of it. Not only in this Forum but in other forums I had chance to visit.
That's all.