Is RAW really THAT much better?

hschlessphoto

THere's all this hoo-hah about using RAW format images. What are the real advantages to them...if any? Sports, nature, colors, what? PLEASE answer and thanks for the thoughts

Raphy

hschlessphoto wrote:

THere's all this hoo-hah about using RAW format images. What are the real advantages to them...if any? Sports, nature, colors, what? PLEASE answer and thanks for the thoughts

Here's a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

http://photo.net/learn/raw/

Angelo

hschlessphoto wrote:

THere's all this hoo-hah about using RAW format images. What are the real advantages to them...if any? Sports, nature, colors, what? PLEASE answer and thanks for the thoughts

You want true, unadulterated image originals you shoot RAW.

JPGs are formatted and compressed according to certain parameters of each camera manufacturer.

Here's the comparison I like to make using a pre-digital model. If I shoot film I have a negative to do with as I please to make the type of prints I want. If I shoot polaroid I'm stuck with what comes out of the camera.

Think of RAW files as your original negatives because they are actually. No one... NO ONE! can have a RAW file of any given image except the person who shot it. Easy peasy way to prove ownership. Not so with jpgs.

Make sense?

HiSPL

Does your printer want 300 dpi images?

You can't do that shooting jpg unless you up-res first. With RAW, you just say "hey Mr. Raw file, I'd like you to be 300 dpi so I can upload to my printer for that big print I want, but first I'll make you a 240 dpi so I can print out an 8x10 for aunt Rose. Then I think I'll make you 72 dpi for my web gallery. BTW, don't ever change Mr. Raw, you're the best!"


Git it yet?

-=Tim=-

colourbox

HiSPL wrote:

Does your printer want 300 dpi images?
You can't do that shooting jpg unless you up-res first.

That's not really true. Either way, the image starts out at the native sensor dimensions in pixels, and is later given a print dimension and resolution, which may or may not require resampling.

Scaling is probably the least of the advantages of Raw. Most of the advantages of Raw are in how tones and colors are rendered.

To answer the original post, shooting in Raw doesn't improve images straight out of the camera. They might look worse. The advantages are all in editing flexibility. Raw has more potential, stores more of the original full sensor data than JPEG. If you want to "develop your own film" for the best possible image, you should shoot Raw. If you wish nice pictures would just pop out of the camera and you always have time to nail the settings in-camera, stick to JPEG.

A photographer who shoots Raw, knows how to shoot for Raw, and knows how to properly develop Raw, can potentially blow away the images of a JPEG shooter. But a photographer who simply turns the dial to Raw and doesn't do anything else different may produce worse images than the in-camera JPEGs.

gus

Arty farty stuff & night shots... RAW.

Sports in great light ...jpeg.

SloYerRoll

At this point. This never ending debate is almost becoming a non issue.

All applications accept RAW files and apps like Lightroom don't even treat the files like RAW (from a human perspective). The advantage of shooting RAW is you have more digital info to work w/. Why wouldn't you give yourself more data to work w/ if you have the option?

LiquidAir

If you never make changes to your in camera JPEGs, then you won't gain much by going to RAW. The big RAW advantage is when you start making white balance, exposure and contrast adjustments in the computer.

Seefutlung

RAW is another tool capable of making your images better. In some situations RAW can be a significant help ... and in others not so much. Depends on your photographic skills, experience and expectations of your final images will dictate how significant RAW will be to your photography. If all you do is set the camera in auto and take snaps of birthdays and holidays ... then the extra time and skills required for RAW probably isn't worth all the effort ... you'll be as happy with an out-of-the-camera jpeg as you would with a RAW image.

If you are serious about your photography and toss out a lot more images than you keep .. then RAW is probably for you ... the extra time required to squeeze out every bit of good imagery out of a file ... would be considered time well worth spending.

Gary

claudermilk

HiSPL wrote:

Does your printer want 300 dpi images?

You can't do that shooting jpg unless you up-res first. With RAW, you just say "hey Mr. Raw file, I'd like you to be 300 dpi so I can upload to my printer for that big print I want, but first I'll make you a 240 dpi so I can print out an 8x10 for aunt Rose. Then I think I'll make you 72 dpi for my web gallery. BTW, don't ever change Mr. Raw, you're the best!"


Git it yet?

-=Tim=-

Absolutely wrong. The DPI setting is meaningless until you output to a physical device, at which point it's determined by how many pixels are spread over the desired physical space. If it happens to match the number entered there, great; if not, no biggie, it's ignored anyway. RAW has nothing at all to do with this.

Regarding the advantages & disadvantages of RAW vs JPEG, a simple search on any photo forum should turn up months of reading of heated debate. I look at it this way: RAW allows you more control over the processing of the image at the cost of making you do it (potentially more time), JPEG allows for immediate distribution at the cost of relinquishing some control over the final image to the camer (and by extension the manufacturer's engineers). Pick which suits your needs better--and that might change from shoot to shoot.

Wacrer

Most DSLR's will give you the option to shoot RAW+jpg. Flip your setting over to this and start wailing away at some different subjects, eg. Sunlight, night shots, High contrast, low contrast, high ISO, low ISO the combinations could be endless. Pick a few that suit your shooting style and get 10 or so good images, then do some side by side comparisons. One from the Jpg and the other with the Raw file.

Now...... Knowledge of raw processing is essential at this point. It can be done without, and I think the jpg's would win if you did not know anything about the processing of raw fills.

If you ever worked in a dark room, lets say your in the middle of a print and some shmuck turns the light on......bad news. Essentialy the "Raw Procesor" (http://bibblelabs.com great free software.) Is your dark room. Here is where it gets good! You can make permanent changes to the negative itself and the negative will remember what you told it to look like, BUT you can always go back and change it back to it's "as shot" state. Ansel Adams would be like a kid in a candy shop if he was here today.

In closing Raw is for quality controle of any number of factors about your photo, dont think of it as a seperate step of your creative process, just like a red filter on an enlager is a step, so is raw processing. JPG, I would personaly keep it in the family But then again most of my work is larger then 30x40. Proofs are about all I use jpgs for.

My work flow
(all free software

1. Import and organize using Picasa
2. Tag and Edit out the duds using http://bibblelabs.com/
3. Make Minor adjustments in Bibble and export as 16 bitt tiffs.
4. I use Gimp as my editor for basic shots
5. And I am currently trying "Panorama maker 4" as a stitching software....it is GREAT on edges, lacking in blending)

Here is an example of the above proces



Being raised in the PS family I am quite fond of what it has to offer, but the tools are subject to the venue

Peace in Searching man.

Angelo

Wacrer wrote:

Most DSLR's will give you the option to shoot RAW+jpg. Flip your setting over to this and start wailing away at some different subjects, eg. Sunlight, night shots, High contrast, low contrast, high ISO, low ISO the combinations could be endless. Pick a few that suit your shooting style and get 10 or so good images, then do some side by side comparisons. One from the Jpg and the other with the Raw file.

Unless there is something special about your camera I will have to disagree with this.

Usually, in choosing RAW + jpg (which I do AT ALL TIMES) the jpg is just a lo-res thumbnail to facilitate quick viewing access in your digital lightbox and not of sufficient quality to use for much of anything .

Icebear

Gotta disagree Angelo. RAW + JPEG with my D200 offers me the choice of three different jpeg settings, up to what passes for full res. Even the D70's RAW + JPEG gives you a pretty good JPEG to work with, but not near what you get with the D200.

All cameras generate a lo res jpeg thumbnail as part of the RAW file, but that's not what you get in any RAW + JPEG choice I've ever used. You do raise a good point though. The quality of the jpeg he'll get from RAW + JPEG is definitely camera dependent.

Pezpix

For my surf shots, because of the mist and glare that I'd have to cut through, RAW is by far the superior way to go, because it works with the black level and dark tones to cut through the haze and mist.

Also, color correction is so important because unless you carry a grey card with you at all times, chances are good that your in-camera auto setting is gonna capture the kelvin colors a bit off in jpg.

Angelo

Icebear wrote:

Gotta disagree Angelo. RAW + JPEG with my D200 offers me the choice of three different jpeg settings, up to what passes for full res. Even the D70's RAW + JPEG gives you a pretty good JPEG to work with, but not near what you get with the D200.

All cameras generate a lo res jpeg thumbnail as part of the RAW file, but that's not what you get in any RAW + JPEG choice I've ever used. You do raise a good point though. The quality of the jpeg he'll get from RAW + JPEG is definitely camera dependent.

that's cool that the D200 offers that option

I'll have to double-check my D70 but I fairly certain I don't

DavidTO

RAW gives you more freedom in processing, but also requires more overhead in time and disk space.

Some applications are better suited to RAW, some to JPEG. It's a matter of trading off the greater processing power against the overhead issues.

davev

I've always thought of RAW as a safety net for those that don't take the time
to check their settings before they start shooting.

I have a chimping screen, and I use it.
I have a histogram, and I use it.
I look at my settings quite often through the course of shooting.
Rarely do I think that I've missed anything by shooting JPG's.

And really, with the newer Photoshops, CS3 and Lightroom, I think you can do just about anything to a JPG that you can do to a RAW file.
Please note I said "Just about anything."

Oh, btw, I shoot JPG's only.

Flame away.

LiquidAir

davev wrote:

I've always thought of RAW as a safety net for those that don't take the time
to check their settings before they start shooting.

I have a chimping screen, and I use it.
I have a histogram, and I use it.
I look at my settings quite often through the course of shooting.
Rarely do I think that I've missed anything by shooting JPG's.

And really, with the newer Photoshops, CS3 and Lightroom, I think you can do just about anything to a JPG that you can do to a RAW file.
Please note I said "Just about anything."

Oh, btw, I shoot JPG's only.

Flame away.

If you are shooting in a situation with low dynamic range this is more-or-less true. However, when you are pushing the both the shadow and hightlight end of the sensor, there is a lot more information in a RAW file to work with. As an example, when shooting sunsets I'll deliberately blow out the sun by a stop in the JPEG because I know I can pull that data back when I do the the RAW conversion. That gives me an extra stop for more detail and lower noise in the foreground. Another situation where RAW is very nice is mixed lighting; when there is no correct WB setting, any choice you make in camera is wrong. Shooting RAW lets you sort out the WB issue using tools you don't have access to in camera. I thought like you do for quite a while, after shifting to Lighroom and RAW I will never go back.

BikePilot

I find that the difference is biggest at high iso settings or situations where I tend to blow the WB (ok, that's most of them;), especially with my LX1 which has a small sensor. The raws end up with less noise and then clean up very nicely in adobe, the jpgs tend to be a bit messier. I have CS3 and even with all sorts of processing the noise is lower and cleans up better when I shoot in raw. Click here to see the difference (disregard WB, just check out the noise levels)
http://picasaweb.google.com/joshua.minix/LX1NoiseTest

Wacrer

Motel 6 Vs. The Bellagio
Jpg = Motel 6
RAW = Bellagio

It is that Simple. You get what you give. The more time spent with a single image the better results you will have. This can be said for both.

Has anyone tried to interpolate a jpg from lets say 8mp camera. Excluding all the "gear factors" your max image output is around 11x17.(I know I know...theres allot of other factors) Take that EXACT same image with a good raw processor and after about 30 min work your looking at 30x40 with the exact same resolution. I appreciate quality vs Quantity. Call me daft, my allegiance is with RAW.

Davev! Thats the stuff right there man! It's all about what you love to do . A moto I never lose sight of in life is "always be willing to admit that I might be wrong." Now I don't go around questioning everything in my life till I am blue in the face. Its a journey, if I said that I was right and you were wrong then obviosly I would be missing something.

(Ok.... I just had a conversation with a very strict christian that does not believe in free speach or the right to choose. And I took it out on you guys! sorry about that.

Love what your doing if your doing what you love. peace.

Seefutlung

One additional thing ... you will get a lot more noise in JPEG than RAW when you play with those post processing sliders. (The exception being sharpening ... sharpening seems to have the same effect in RAW as it does in JPEG.)

Gary

PS- Maybe it's just my eyesight going bad .. but that is how it appears to moi.
G

Dee

Most of the time I shoot jpg. IF I'm shooting something that's really special, I shoot raw + jpg.

Jeffro

Over the last couple of years I have become an almost fulltime RAW shooter. I like the freedom it gives me in post. I used to use it for those "special shots"....come to find out, you never know when a shot is going to be special...even a simple snapshot around the house could turn out to be special.

Wacrer

Jeffro wrote:

Over the last couple of years I have become an almost fulltime RAW shooter. I like the freedom it gives me in post. I used to use it for those "special shots"....come to find out, you never know when a shot is going to be special...even a simple snapshot around the house could turn out to be special.

Well said

hschlessphoto

WOW thank you all so much for your opinions and insights. NOW i am going to bother you with one last question probably wont turn into a 3 page debate.


What is the difference between RAW and RAW + JPEGbasic?

Art Scott

hschlessphoto wrote:

WOW thank you all so much for your opinions and insights. NOW i am going to bother you with one last question probably wont turn into a 3 page debate.


What is the difference between RAW and RAW + JPEGbasic?

Let's take my camera, a Konica Minolta 7D, if I shoot just raw I cannot enlarge that image on my LCD, if I shoot Raw + jpg then I can enlarge that image for closer scrutinizing by the Scrutinizer (me of course....some how I got a Zappaesque feeling in my head from all the coughing from a chest cold)......also depending on camera, gonna use mine again and also my 8gb transcend cf card for this.....with raw only I can shoot 836 photos and with raw+jpg it is ONLY 635....so I loose 200 shots, but I have the ability to scrutinize better in the field.....................

SloYerRoll

hschlessphoto wrote:

WOW thank you all so much for your opinions and insights. NOW i am going to bother you with one last question probably wont turn into a 3 page debate.


What is the difference between RAW and RAW + JPEGbasic?

Yup.
But it's easy.
RAW only takes one shot and stores it**
RAW + JPEG takes two shots. One RAW and one JPEG (usually the size is the same dimentions as your smallest jpeg setting.

**Actually RAW only does take a small jpeg shot and stores it for preview use (and some cameras use it for histogram reference) but this image can't be transferred to your computer like RAW + JPEG can. It's just for in camera use.

Clear as mud?

Seefutlung

on a Canon:

You will end up with two identical images (one in RAW and one in JPEG).

RAW is always just RAW, but with the Canon you can control the JPEG size from small to large (the larger the JPEG the higher the quality.)

As mentioned before RAW+JPEG will/may significantly reduce the total number of different images available on a card as you are doubling up. I shot RAW+JPEG as a backup when I first ventured into RAW ... I did it once and discovered that RAW gave me a much better final image than JPEG ... so I dumped the JPEG.

Gary

tsk1979

I was a jpeg shooter mostly, and used a 1GB CF card. RAW was a pre planned thing.
soon I discovered that I could do a lot more PP with the pictures if I went RAW all the way.
Having 2 4GB CF cards for my 8MP 350D helps with storage.
I havent shot in jpg for a year, except for a few shots in auto mode when I have asked people to take pictures of us against some landmark.

cmason

The reason I shoot in RAW only is because I am an inpatient shooter. At times I will take the time to really consider a shot, getting the exposure right, shooting a white card, etc. But most often, I don't do this. RAW allows me to change the whitebalance, alter exposure, adjust other parameters that the camera does itself when set to JPEG.

For JPEG, these settings are 'locked-in", and for the most part, look pretty good. But once you 'save' an image using RAW, you won't go back. The only downside is the time it takes, as very often RAW images are not presentable, while JPEG, with automatic white balance, exposure, and sharpening, look much better.

My Canon offers RAW+JPEG, and the JPEG is identical in quality to the JPEG only setting. Of course, this really consumes memory.

BigAl

You get so much more to work with from the RAW image. I only use RAW after doing a shoot with a very pretty girl when the pics came out very muddy, and I couldn't recover any detail.

Here is a jpeg + RAW shot where the RAW was adjusted in RSE - no ways you can retrieve the detail shown in the RAW from the jpeg.



Sloyerroll: when you shoot jpeg + RAW, the camera only takes one shot, but stores two images.

The small jpeg in the RAW file is used by various applications as a thumbnail. Some applications (such as Canon's Zoombrowser) use this small jpeg and not the RAW image for their display. Just as a matter of interest, the embedded jpeg is not so small - on a Canon 40d it's over 1000 pixels wide.