Understanding the benefits of RAW vs TIFF/JPG

SaloSV

Available resources for learning this stuff through my PMs with Pathfinder:

pathfinder wrote:

SaloSV wrote:

Hey thanks for responding to my 40D/Photoshop CS question.

Ok, so if I have to use the Canon converter, what do I need to think about or be concerned with when going from RAW to TIF?

Honestly, I've never shot RAW, so this concept is a bit new to me. But I have used TIFs before, and the quality there is quite good. I suspect that I would not edit a RAW file, and instead need to find a way to convert to a minimum TIF anyways, right?

Thanks.

-t

WRONG!

I think you need to do some research on the significance of RAW files and how they can dramatically improve the quality of your images, compared to jpgs or tiffs.

Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schwew's "Real World Camera RAW with Photoshop CS3" is the place to start. Almost all global editing is better done on a RAW file than a tiff or a jpg.

If your prefer to watch a video - Michael Reichman and Jeff Schewe have an excellent series of videos demonstrating the advantages of RAW editing and how to do it in great detail - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=2



Adobe Photoshop CS3 with Adobe Camera RAW v 4.4 or so is a great program for for edting RAW and jpg files.

If you are set on using Digital Photo Pro, it will edit your 40D RAW files so that you can then introduce them to CS and finish editing there. But you will miss all the advantages of Adobe Camera Raw which I believe are substantial, but too numerous to list in detail here.

This is best discussed in a thread on line in the Finishing School forum.

PF

pathfinder

A very short answer for favoring RAW over in camera jpgs or tiffs, is that the RAW file contains ALL of the original image data captured by the camera' sensor. Nothing has been deleted or altered whatsoever.

When a camera converts a RAW file to a jpg or a tiff, the camera ( or the shooter who controls its menus may influence the changes some ) sets the color balance, a black and a white point, probably some form of curve and a setting for saturation, and sharpening, and then converts the file to a tiff or a jpg and disposes of all the original data. (This massaging of the jpg is why some folks like the images they get from a Point and Shoot better than their new DSLR, because to get the very best quality from the DSLR requires learning a number of new skills to process the image to bring out its best. But no one will confuse my point and shoot files for DSLR files if they can inspect them very close up )

If you have a RAW file, YOU can choose the color balance when you set down to edit the image in the RAW converter. Thus, any errors in original color settings can be improved or corrected. Raw files can be processed many different ways, one for the highlights, and one for the shadows, and then these blended/merged in Photoshop as 16 bit files in ProPhoto color space. This can helo with high contrast images a great deal.

You can also sharpen the file in the RAW converter in Adobe Raw Converter in CS3 for Capture Sharpening. You can also correct R/G and B/Y chromatic aberration very effectively and very quickly. You can diminish Luminance and Color Noise as well.

And I think it really does not take that much more time than refining jpgs, once one is familiar with the RAW converter.

The videos about Adobe Camera RAW run several hours so I have not delineated all the numerous reasons for my preference for RAW editing in this post. I am sure I have forgotten a great many more.

BinaryFx

Some links to further reading:

http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/dialogbox/why_shoot_raw.html

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

http://www.lonestardigital.com/shooting_raw.htm

http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/dialogbox/karllang.html

What works for one person may not work for another, depending on the camera and subject and or other variables for the person at hand. (which is why not all folk say to shoot RAW and some recommend JPEG).


Hope this helps,

Stephen Marsh
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/

speric

BinaryFx wrote:

Some links to further reading:

http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/dialogbox/why_shoot_raw.html

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

http://www.lonestardigital.com/shooting_raw.htm

http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/dialogbox/karllang.html

What works for one person may not work for another, depending on the camera and subject and or other variables for the person at hand. (which is why not all folk say to shoot RAW and some recommend JPEG).


Hope this helps,

Stephen Marsh
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/

Thanks for these articles. it really helped explain a couple questions i've had with going digital very, very recently. after a long hiatus from the camera, when film was "still how it's done" and a 3mp camera was "amazing", learning all the digital jargon can get a bit confusing and where it all fits in.

from reading these articles it seems that for casual family snaps - jpgs would most likely be fine and easy to show later, and if for something more "fine art" or "serious" then just recording RAW is fine and save space on the card by not saving jpgs too. and if you're not sure where your image is gonna go, then record both? at least that's what i've surmised. i'm i off in thinking that?

Ric Grupe

When your buffer fills up shooting high frame rate, and you miss the one you have been waiting hours for...you won't think much of RAW then.

Hard to develop an image you don't have.

I have two RAW converters, a 40D and a 1DMKIIN.

glennchan

The RAW workflow will also use your RAW processor's demosaic/deBayering algorithm instead of your camera's. In some cases it will do better, in other cases it will do worse than the camera.

In this case, I shot an evil test pattern (real world images usually don't exhibit these artifacts). The Photoshop algorithm shows color artifacts (there shouldn't be color since the pattern is black and white). Both debayer algorithms show mazing artifacts, though Photoshop shows more.

2- This is from a consumer Panasonic digital still camera (DMC-LX2). There are some other areas where Photoshop's RAW processing does a better job (e.g. it tries to remove chromatic aberration).

arodney

glennchan wrote:

In this case, I shot an evil test pattern (real world images usually don't exhibit these artifacts). The Photoshop algorithm shows color artifacts (there shouldn't be color since the pattern is black and white).

Using what rendering settings? Default or your custom?

Nikolai

Ric Grupe wrote:

When your buffer fills up shooting high frame rate, and you miss the one you have been waiting hours for...you won't think much of RAW then. Hard to develop an image you don't have.

Ric,
naturally if the key factor is to get as many frames as possible, especially over a very short period of time, shooting RAW may not be optimal way to go.
However if the shooting pattern is NOT tied down to the max fps, it's pretty hard to justify NOT using RAW. Latest RAW processing software is already pretty good, and it's only gonna get better

Ric Grupe

Nikolai wrote:

Ric,
naturally if the key factor is to get as many frames as possible, especially over a very short period of time, shooting RAW may not be optimal way to go.
However if the shooting pattern is NOT tied down to the max fps, it's pretty hard to justify NOT using RAW. Latest RAW processing software is already pretty good, and it's only gonna get better

Yes...it all depends...doesn't it. I stand by my statement.

While on the lightroom 2 beta forum...I read people desiring for the image to open already processed to resemble in camera processing. Guess they don't know where to start! For those people I would recommend DXO...you ain't gotta know nuttin'.

glennchan

Using what rendering settings? Default or your custom?

Hi Andrew,
There are many settings in Photoshop's RAW converter but I don't believe any of them affect the demoasic algorithm. Color temperature was as shot, sharpening was probably the default (25) although I just tried it at 0 and it doesn't get rid of the color or mazing artifacts, and everything else is neutral/default.

arodney

glennchan wrote:

Hi Andrew,
There are many settings in Photoshop's RAW converter but I don't believe any of them affect the demoasic algorithm. Color temperature was as shot, sharpening was probably the default (25) although I just tried it at 0 and it doesn't get rid of the color or mazing artifacts, and everything else is neutral/default.

I'd like to see the Raw. That said, there are a number of settings that may affect this result, including Noise Reduction, chromatic aberration or even the various calibrate sliders. IOW, you need to do a bit more than just set the defaults.

Cheekygeek

Would it be fair to say...
Would it be a fair statement to say:

If you don't want to spend the time learning/doing post-processing then you probably don't want to shoot RAW?

A RAW shot is probably not going to look better in its default presentation (correct?). But with the additional info stored "inside" there is a lot you can bring out with post-processing.

I have not even settled on the DSLR I'm going to get yet (leaning very strongly toward the Pentax K200D) but I do know that I would probably ALWAYS shoot RAW+ (RAW and JPEG of each shot). I frankly would not have time to post-process everything so a lot of the time I might be happy with the JPEG, but if I get something that could be exceptional with some post-processing, I have the RAW to work with.

arodney

Cheekygeek wrote:

Would it be a fair statement to say:

If you don't want to spend the time learning/doing post-processing then you probably don't want to shoot RAW?

Not unless the in camera processing is ideal and preferred.

Fixing baked pixels is far more laborious and damaging then simply creating a set of rendering instructions for the Raw.

glennchan

arodney wrote:

I'd like to see the Raw. That said, there are a number of settings that may affect this result, including Noise Reduction, chromatic aberration or even the various calibrate sliders.

Hi Andrew,

I think it is an issue with the debayer/demosaic algorithm. You can see a number of different cameras and different debayer algorithms at dpreview.com
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page15.asp - Leica M8 review
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD200/page20.asp - Nikon D200

glennchan

I took a different test and posted the RAW and JPEG file here:
http://colorcorrection.info/wp-content/uploads/RAWdemosaic.zip
Notes: The upper test pattern didn't print out correctly so there are aliasing artifacts in the printed piece of paper. Ignore that.
The JPEG and RAW processing have their own strengths and weaknesses.

Some information on where demosaic artifacts come from.

Does anyone want more information on the whole debayer process?