still afraid of raw?

Andy · January 23, 2005

i'm always amazed at the argument some folks make "photoshop is cheating" ... i shoot in raw exclusively, using the small jpgs to preview and cull my shots. then it's raw processing in adobe camera raw and final touches in photoshop. for the most part, my pics need very little. but i have no doubt that i can process better than any in-camera settings can.

sometimes, for events, i'll shoot large jpg as well, and i can get fairly close to final product from the in-camera settings... but for most of my work, it's raw all the way.

yes, there are in-camera parameters that can get you close, but i think that with good basic editing skills, our photos can look oh-so much better.

here's a cool link with some very good examples

discuss.

GREAPER · January 23, 2005

While I am not disagreeing with the reasons to shoot raw, I would like to point out that the RAW files have been processed and the Jpegs have not. Acording the the page the jpgs are right out of the camera, To compare apples and apples I think that post processing should be done to the jpgs, or we should be seeing the RAW right out of the camera.

Andy · January 23, 2005

all jpgs are processed

GREAPER wrote:

While I am not disagreeing with the reasons to shoot raw, I would like to point out that the RAW files have been processed and the Jpegs have not. Acording the the page the jpgs are right out of the camera, To compare apples and apples I think that post processing should be done to the jpgs, or we should be seeing the RAW right out of the camera.

greaps, all jpgs are subjected to some sort of in-camera processing, even if you set all the parms to low for contrast, color, saturation, sharpness...

GREAPER · January 23, 2005

Thats true, but unless you know exactly what parameters require edjustment, and know how to adjust them, and have time to adjust them, for each shot you are going to leave the setting on a default average for your tastes and adjust in post after the fact just like you did with RAW. Regardless of the setting in your camera I think you would be hard pressed to find someone that thinks their images are ready for print straight out of the camera regardless of which file format they choose.

I certainly see the value of shooting RAW, and I ocassionally do. The newer bodies are certainly better at taking advantage of it as well.

I know I shoot a lot of wildlife, and I shoot portraits in my studio. The buffer on My D100 (which is a fairly OLD camera by digital standards) is too slow IMHO for it to be practilcal in these situations. Once I have shot 3 frames the delay to shoot another frame gets longer and longer to the point where it is unacceptable. A bird is not going to sit there and let my buffer empty for 30 seconds so I can take another shot.

In Jpeg I dont think I have EVER had my camera not take a shot when I depressed the button because the buffer was full. In the studio in jpg the buffer is way faster than the cycle time of the strobes, and they are fast. I shot some portraits in RAW last session and the buffer backed up and I was out of action. I may have missed a shot because of it.

If I have time to set up a shot and do retakes if needed (say a landscape) I may shoot it in RAW but for most things I do, Jpgs works better for me. I know that many of the newer camera have a much faster write speed and perhaps it is not as much of an issue.

It took me 2 years to save the cash for my camera and it is the first camera I bought NEW. The others have been used. Upgrading is NOT an option.

gus · January 23, 2005

But PS 6 wont open 'em & i cant (read :havnt got of my backside to look) find the plugin to open an ORF file.

mercphoto · January 24, 2005

All generalizations are false, Greaper

GREAPER wrote:

Regardless of the setting in your camera I think you would be hard pressed to find someone that thinks their images are ready for print straight out of the camera regardless of which file format they choose.

Well, that's a rather broad statement, isn't it? I also don't think its true. Not all subject matters require the utmost attention to detail, and not all clients will pay for that attention either.

My girlfriend bought me "The Photography Book" for Christmas. Its a large, great book, one page per photographer, one image per, alphabetized, with a short summary of the photographer and their featured image. They are amazing. And one thing you learn reading that book is there are a lot of powerful images that have glaring technical flaws, and yet they are still powerful images. You can't post-process in emotion, composition, subject matter.

mercphoto · January 24, 2005

andy wrote:

but i have no doubt that i can process better than any in-camera settings can.

Certainly, because the final result is always a subjective call, not an objective call. This means it requires a sense of taste, which varies from person to person. For this reason alone, you will do better with your own processing. But, not everyone will agree with your tastes in post-processing. For some people, they experiment a lot with various in-camera processing paramters and find ones they like for various types of subjects, committ that to memory (or paper), and then use them. For some photographic markets that is more than good enough.

I took over 600 phjotos at a kart race last weekend and posted about half of them. In-camera JPG at Parameters 1 on a 20D. I chose which to offer for sale, and did zero post processing. I know what parameters to use for this tpye of work, what exposure settings to use, and when to use my 580EX for fill (which is nearly always). These people are willing to spend $5 on a 4x6 or $20 on an 8x10. What they really want is to spend a small sum on a CD-ROM of images. The next day was a dirt bike race, working second-camera for another guy. We combined for 4,000 photos on one day alone. Riders wanting to see and buy that afternoon. No time for post.

What benefit does RAW give me in these conditions? This isn't a wedding, or senior portrait, or fine art photography.

This is why there is no right answer to the "RAW versus JPG" debate.

The links to images you gave were rather good. But I always find myself asking myself "what did the real scene look like, and which of these two images is closest to reality?". And that I cannot know.

damonff · January 24, 2005

I'm with you greaper...I shoot jpeg 98% of the time. I've used Raw and still would use it for a low light event, just in case. But it's not an exclusive thing for me. When I shoot jpeg, I like how the final product looks better than when I shoot Raw. Raw for me is just one option that I infrequently use, like iso 3200. It's there, yeah, but I don't really use it. Large jpeg is my choice usually, it's just what works for me and has nothing to do with fear, workflow, or anything else. To me, my jpegs look better than my raws because I shoot mostly outside where light is not a problem. Sure, I can shoot jpeg in low light and curve it up for a better exposure, but Raw in this case is easier for me because I can just push up the exposure with less damage. That was a rambling mess of an explanation...

rutt · January 24, 2005

I've been converted to shooting raw whenever possible (baseball is an example where it doesn't work, because you really need to take a lot of shots fast to get the good ones.) But I have to admit that I often question what it's doing for me. Once in a while, it does a lot. For example, see http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=3491

I think it's important to put our feet on the ground about what exactly is the difference between RAW and out of camera jpegs. The biggest single difference is that RAW loses no color depth and out of camera jpegs are limited to 8 bits/channel. For the canon DSLRs, the sensors read 12 bits/channel, so some information may be lost in the conversion.

Another thing that happens during in-camera jpeg conversion is a choice of white balance. Unlike the loss of 4 bits of color space per channel, this actually loses no information. But it can be challenging to fix. It's great when you can just use the "Tungsten" or "Fluorescent" setting from the pulldown and make a huge step toward having everything look good. Great for the workflow, eh? But notice that this is something that could be done with curves or a filter after conversion. But it may be easier to do it in the raw converter.

Jpeg is also a lossy format. But I think people misunderstand exactly what this means. The jpeg format works like this. The jpeg encoder has a lot of freedom to make decisions about what information to lose. For example, it can choose to represent all the pixels in a region as being the same color. This takes less space the represting them all separately. But this is a choice on the part of the encoder. The decoder, on the other hand, is a robot; it makes no choices, just follows instructions. It is possible to encode into jpeg without loss (or actually no meaningful loss.) This is why the superfine, highest quality, out of camera jpegs are so huge. Jpegs made at quality level 12 in PS are similar. There should be no real loss visible at any magnification.

No real loss, except the loss of color chanel depth. That's real and can sometimes matter. In most situations, it won't matter. The dynamic range of jpeg is sufficient. When it isn't, detail will be lost, either in the hightlights or in the shadows or both. This loss is real; there is no recovery. The raw version may retain enough information in order to recover.

But here's the thing, almost all printers (and every one you going to use for the foreseeable future) use 8 bits/channel. So at some point on your way to an image you can share you are going to have to convert to 8 bits/channel with or without your consent and intervention. So if you are doing some sort of dynamic range improvement, you are going to have actually do it. It isn't just something you can do in the raw converter (see the aforementioned thread to see how much work this can entail.)

Increasing exposure in the raw converter introduces noise, so this isn't something you want to do lightly (so to speak.)

So I nearly always shoot RAW+highest quality JPEGS. I use the jpegs as a contact sheet and sometimes (often) they are good enough for dgrin posts. They are very often good enough to share and got people's impressions. If I especially like and image and am going to work on it to make it the best it can be (and possibly print it), I'll start with the raw version. I'll change the white balance if there is an obvious good thing to do (indoor available lighting is the most common with the 1Dmkii on AWB.) I don't change the exposure or shadows settings unless there is lost detail. And I mean lost, not just hard to see. After that, I use standard PS corrections on the converted image, mainly curves in the appropriate colorspace and highlight/shandow where required.

I wrote all of that mostly to clear it up for myself. I know I've been brainwashed by the Dan Margulis contact, but it seems to be a good thing now that it's happened (I suppose this is always how it feels to be brainwashed.) I often wonder if the raw thing is actually worth it. It certainly does save an occasional shot. But my prints of jpeg images even at 17x24 look pretty good (ask Ginger or Damon.)

So I suppose I'm not really convinced of anything, but have found a way to muddle through.

DoctorIt · January 24, 2005

GREAPER wrote:

While I am not disagreeing with the reasons to shoot raw, I would like to point out that the RAW files have been processed and the Jpegs have not. Acording the the page the jpgs are right out of the camera, To compare apples and apples I think that post processing should be done to the jpgs, or we should be seeing the RAW right out of the camera.

Greap, I'm sure you know better, but I sure hope a newbie to RAW doesn't do a search and read that post and stop there!!! For someone who really doesn't know what RAW is, you've worded it completely backwards! :eek1

mercphoto · January 24, 2005

DoctorIt wrote:

Greap, I'm sure you know better, but I sure hope a newbie to RAW doesn't do a search and read that post and stop there!!! For someone who really doesn't know what RAW is, you've worded it completely backwards! :eek1

Actually he is correct when he says the RAW file has been processed (because otherwise we can't seem them on the web). But when he says the JPG has not been processed, what he means is that it has not been processed outside the camera. The camera, of course, processed the raw file into a JPG inside the camera itself.

So, he doesn't really have it backwards.

damonff · January 24, 2005

Excellent, thorough information Rutt, as usual...thanks!

DoctorIt · January 24, 2005

mercphoto wrote:

Actually he is correct when he says the RAW file has been processed (because otherwise we can't seem them on the web). But when he says the JPG has not been processed, what he means is that it has not been processed outside the camera. The camera, of course, processed the raw file into a JPG inside the camera itself.

So, he doesn't really have it backwards.

i know, of course, but read it quickly from the perspective of someone who doesn't know that a RAW file is a 16-bit file that isn't really "viewable" by anything... unless you're like Neo or something

now that'd be a neat trick...
I don't even see the bits anymore, just a flower, or a tryptych

bham · January 24, 2005

I think he was asking Andy had the jpegs been processed? Because we know the RAW was processed. And could you achieve a similar look from both? Most pictures I think yes. Some the RAW is gonna look better. Maybe those people who shoot RAW can give some examples of when it has been better to have that RAW file to go to, because the jpeg wasn't good enough. That way if we come across that situation, we can shoot appropriately.

GREAPER · January 24, 2005

DoctorIt wrote:

i know, of course, but read it quickly from the perspective of someone who doesn't know that a RAW file is a 16-bit file that isn't really "viewable" by anything... unless you're like Neo or something

now that'd be a neat trick...
I don't even see the bits anymore, just a flower, or a tryptych

You are right Doc, I meant that it has not been processed outside the camera with a person making subjective choices and adjustments other than the way the camera was set up.

wxwax · January 24, 2005

Greaper's reason for not shooting RAW is the best one I've heard yet. If it slows down your shooting unacceptably, then best to avoid it.

I shoot RAW for two reasons: exposure latitude and white balance latitude. I rely on the former more than the latter, but have used both.

Andy · January 24, 2005

wxwax wrote:

Greaper's reason for not shooting RAW is the best one I've heard yet. If it slows down your shooting unacceptably, then best to avoid it.

I shoot RAW for two reasons: exposure latitude and white balance latitude. I rely on the former more than the latter, but have used both.

speed's not an issue for me, as i don't do sports for a living... but even then, the 1D Mk2 does, like 40raws before choking a bit?

the 20d, 10d, heck, even theh rebel, were fast enough for my purposes, speedwise...

wxwax · January 24, 2005

andy wrote:

speed's not an issue for me, as i don't do sports for a living... but even then, the 1D Mk2 does, like 40raws before choking a bit?

the 20d, 10d, heck, even theh rebel, were fast enough for my purposes, speedwise...

Yeah, not an issue for me either. The only waiting I have to do is for the buffer to empty so I can chimp.

DavidTO · January 24, 2005

I shoot RAW because I'm more comfortable in it. I'm pretty clear on that. I've tried going back to JPEG since upgrading to the 20D, and it just doesn't work for me as well as RAW. On top of that, if I ever really need a shot to be saved/optimal, then I know I can go back and reprocess.

I would shoot JPEG if I was doing sports, though I suppose. I just wouldn't like it.

Shakey · January 24, 2005

If you shot me in the RAW you would be afraid as well.

But on a serious note I need to invest in bigger CF if RAW is to become the norm for me.
Hmmm.... Lenses , CF, Better Tripod, other accesories when are my lotto numbers gonna come in plllleassse

Tim

Andy · January 24, 2005

Shakey wrote:

If you shot me in the RAW you would be afraid as well.
But on a serious note I need to invest in bigger CF if RAW is to become the norm for me.
Hmmm.... Lenses , CF, Better Tripod, other accesories when are my lotto numbers gonna come in plllleassse

Tim

it is a darn expensive game we play, isn't it?

rutt · January 24, 2005

andy wrote:

speed's not an issue for me, as i don't do sports for a living... but even then, the 1D Mk2 does, like 40raws before choking a bit?

17 raw vs 40 in best quality jpeg. But at 9 fps, that's a big difference. But this really only matters to me for baseball, where I just point the thing where I think the action is going to be and let fly.

It sounds like people like the user interface of the raw converter more than having to write curves &etc. That seems pretty odd to me, but then my first (and still favorite) book doesn't cover levels on purpose because:

nothing wrong with Levels, but curves are more powerful. Why waste time with the second-best way? If you want to learn to swim, jump into the deep end.

Dan Margulis, Professional Photoshop, 4th edition, p. 144.

Andy · January 24, 2005

rutt wrote:

17 raw vs 40 in best quality jpeg. But at 9 fps, that's a big difference. But this really only matters to me for baseball, where I just point the thing where I think the action is going to be and let fly.

It sounds like people like the user interface of the raw converter more than having to write curves &etc. That seems pretty odd to me, but then my first (and still favorite) book doesn't cover levels on purpose because:
nothing wrong with Levels, but curves are more powerful. Why waste time with the second-best way? If you want to learn to swim, jump into the deep end.

Dan Margulis, Professional Photoshop, 4th edition, p. 144.

i admire you guys who shoot that gatling gun

i do not have the patience to process thru 200, 300, more shots after a shoot. i was telling steve c on our last outing, i try to chimp / delete in the field as much as possible, so that i only have to deal with mostly keepers when i get back to my studio. 'course, i'm not shooting too much baseball, or college hoops, etc. even my street shooting, funnily enough, i will maaaaybe shoot 2 or 3 at a time, but then i'll shortly thereafter delete one or two of them in the field.

pathfinder · January 24, 2005

andy wrote:

i admire you guys who shoot that gatling gun i do not have the patience to process thru 200, 300, more shots after a shoot. i was telling steve c on our last outing, i try to chimp / delete in the field as much as possible, so that i only have to deal with mostly keepers when i get back to my studio. 'course, i'm not shooting too much baseball, or college hoops, etc. even my street shooting, funnily enough, i will maaaaybe shoot 2 or 3 at a time, but then i'll shortly thereafter delete one or two of them in the field.

Maybe your eyes are better than mine Andy - I doubt it, I just had mine examined professionally.:D

But I can not really tell what I have on the LCD on the camera in the field, I have to see the images on a monitor to really evaluate them. I have found some that I thought would be very poor, but when I looked at them on my monitor, they were very acceptable, and I could have deleted them inadvertently, if I chimped like you are describing.
I posted an image of several snow geese shot in Bosque del Apache last spring, and it was not until I got them on the computer screen that I could see the blood on the wing of one of them that made the image for me. If I had chimped, I would have trashed it in the field and lost a good image.

Don't you worry about accidentally trashing good images before you have had the chance to see them up close on a monitor?

rutt · January 24, 2005

andy wrote:

i admire you guys who shoot that gatling gun i do not have the patience to process thru 200, 300, more shots after a shoot.

I really agree. But my reflexes just aren't fast enough for baseball. Everything else, I shoot one at a time. But for action, I got much better results the gatling gun.

rutt · January 24, 2005

rutt wrote:

I really agree. But my reflexes just aren't fast enough for baseball. Everything else, I shoot one at a time. But for action, I got much better results the gatling gun.

And come to think of it, I remember losing some shots of big plays because I was too busy reviewing and editing. I found baseball very demanding to shoot and very demanding to edit afterwards. I could easily shoot almost 1,000 shots per game to get 75 good ones. But that's not really about raw, it it? It's more about getting the shot.

Andy · January 24, 2005

pathfinder wrote:

Maybe your eyes are better than mine Andy - I doubt it, I just had mine examined professionally.:D

But I can not really tell what I have on the LCD on the camera in the field, I have to see the images on a monitor to really evaluate them. I have found some that I thought would be very poor, but when I looked at them on my monitor, they were very acceptable, and I could have deleted them inadvertently, if I chimped like you are describing.
I posted an image of several snow geese shot in Bosque del Apache last spring, and it was not until I got them on the computer screen that I could see the blood on the wing of one of them that made the image for me. If I had chimped, I would have trashed it in the field and lost a good image. Don't you worry about accidentally trashing good images before you have had the chance to see them up close on a monitor?

if in doubt, i don't throw it out (apologies to johnnie cochrane

)

fish · January 24, 2005

andy wrote:

it is a darn expensive game we play, isn't it?

It's way cheaper than racing porsches.

fish · January 24, 2005

pathfinder wrote:

But I can not really tell what I have on the LCD on the camera in the field, I have to see the images on a monitor to really evaluate them.

Which is why you need a Powerbook with Delkin Cardbus 32 reader. Slam the card in there, upload, catalog, preview, boom. It's nice. I'll have my 15" PB at yosemite.

pathfinder · January 24, 2005

pathfinder wrote:

Rutt just emailed me to remind me that this image was post processed several times from RAW by myself and by him, and then playing with LAB curves and plate bending because the reflections of the rising sunlight off the water burned out the highlights on the birds wings. One of the virtues of shooting in RAW again - It would have been a poorer image just captured in an 8 bit jpg.

fish · January 24, 2005

rutt wrote:

And come to think of it, I remember losing some shots of big plays because I was too busy reviewing and editing. I found baseball very demanding to shoot and very demanding to edit afterwards. I could easily shoot almost 1,000 shots per game to get 75 good ones. But that's not really about raw, it it? It's more about getting the shot.

Actually, it is about RAW. If you shoot JPEGs, all you have to worry about is filtering out the junk and crop/sat/usm. Not having to convert images saves a LOT of time when you're going for volume. Few current dSLRs will bog down when you're bursting JPEGs, especially medium JPEGs. Plus the 20D makes awesome JPEGs.

still afraid of raw?

Comments