Why use RAW with Lightroom

Ulrik_P · August 19, 2008

I'm sure this has been done to death, but I'm a bit confused. I only shoot in JPG, but most online tutorials recommend using RAW because of following advantages:

- can be processed multiple times using different parameters
- allows you to fix white balance, sharpening, saturation etc. errors after the shot is taken

I seem to be able to do all of those things easily on JPGs in Lightroom. Is it me missing something or should I just keep shooting JPG and stop worrying?

I realize that their is a Bit difference (I'm using a D80) when going from RAW to JPG. Will it help saving blown highlights using RAW or are there some other advantages I'm not familiar with?

Best Ulrik

aj986s · August 19, 2008

I'm far from being an expert. But basically, as I understand it, RAW captures lots more data than used in JPG. JPG ultimately is a compressed file, with extremes (shadows & highlights) losing some data that is "apparently" unnecessary. RAW retains many hidden details in the blow out areas, that allows you to recover much more than in JPG.

There are other good reasons for using RAW, but the hidden details is the one that makes most sense to me.

Lots of info available on dGrin and elsewhere; search is your friend.

pathfinder · August 19, 2008

Welcome to dgrin Ulrik.

Why to shoot RAW, has been a subject of discussion and argument on the web since the beginning of digital imagery.

With parametric editing, as you understand by your question, you do not harm the original image, whether jpg or RAW. That is true.

But the in camera jpg has already disposed of much of the original image data acquired at the time of exposure, while the RAW file retains all the information. Dealing with blown highlights is only one of the advantages.

The best discussion is here - read this, and then we can discuss this issue further

Again, welcome to dgrin.

colourbox · August 19, 2008

If you don't work with Raw in Lightroom not only have you thrown out maybe 60% of the value of Lightroom's processing engine, but also thrown out a good deal of the value of the camera's capture system. I mean, just the quality of white balance adjustment alone...

I thought high speed sports photography (which I don't do) was a good justification for shooting JPG, but then I was reading that Vincent Laforet Olympics gear slide show from the other thread here, and I was very surpised to read him saying "I'm also bringing more than 100 GB of Lexar high speed UDMA cards to feed these monster (close to 20 CF cards) as I'll be shooting everything in RAW - withouth exception."

Ulrik_P · August 19, 2008

Thanks for the replys guys,

I plan on shooting my first wedding soon (when I'm aptly prepared technically), so from what you said and what was written in the linked page, it seems like JPGs indeed have less PP latitude.

It would probably be a smart move at least to use RAW until I'm good enough to nail exposure consistently. But how much additional work is required using RAW together with LR/PE6? Must I apply sharpening etc. manually on all pictures or can I just import sets of RAW files with a chosen PP profile and then exporting the lot as printable JPGs?

Perhaps a time saving alternative could be to shoot RAW+JPG and then only use the RAW files on problematic or important shots e.g. the kiss or the dress?

jfriend · August 19, 2008

Ulrik_P wrote:

I'm sure this has been done to death, but I'm a bit confused. I only shoot in JPG, but most online tutorials recommend using RAW because of following advantages:

- can be processed multiple times using different parameters
- allows you to fix white balance, sharpening, saturation etc. errors after the shot is taken

I seem to be able to do all of those things easily on JPGs in Lightroom. Is it me missing something or should I just keep shooting JPG and stop worrying?

I realize that their is a Bit difference (I'm using a D80) when going from RAW to JPG. Will it help saving blown highlights using RAW or are there some other advantages I'm not familiar with?

Best Ulrik

As Pathfinder said, this is a well discussed topic so if you really want to know some detail about the answer, just do a quick "jpeg vs. RAW" search on Google and there are some excellent articles about the advantages of RAW and the differences compared to shooting JPEG.

The short answer is that:

A RAW file contains significantly more information than a JPEG file. For starters, it's got around 12-bits of data versus 8-bits for a JPEG image. To make a JPEG in the camera, the camera has to make a whole bunch of decisions about your image. Do I keep shadow detail, do I keep highlight detail, do I apply noise reduction, do I modify the contrast, what white balance do I apply, what sharpening do I apply, what colorspace do I use, etc... all before creating the JPEG. Each one of those decisions determines how the 12-bits of RAW data will get rendered in the 8-bit JPEG. While everyone of those things can be changed on a JPEG too, a lot of the original data is no longer available after the JPEG has been created so the final result might not be as good.

The way I think of it is as follows. If you get all the in-camera settings exactly right on the JPEG (white balance, contrast, exposure, saturation, sharpening, etc...), then the in-camera JPEG is going to come out pretty darn good and may be indistinguishable from a RAW that is then tweaked with the same goals and converted to a JPEG.

But, get one setting wrong in the camera and the RAW image gives you a whole lot more latitude to get it right after the fact. Or decide after the fact that you now have a different use for the photo with different settings and you can probably still do something with the RAW file, but the JPEG is already made with a bunch of pre-conceived choices.

When I look at my own shooting, I am endeavoring to get more and more right on the camera because you always get a better result if you do better with the in-camera settings, but there are still many images where I have extreme dynamic range and I need to preserve highlights while making shadow detail more visible or where there was just no time to adjust for changing lighting conditions to set the white balance in the camera or where the exposure was off a bit because of an unexpected backlit condition, etc... When any of those happen, I will end up with a better image when I start with the RAW file and it's full 12-bits of data that I can make adjustments on before rendering into a JPEG.

I am not one who preaches that RAW is the only decent way to take great photographs (though it is almost a religious subject for some). There are many very good photographers who shoot JPEG. I think it's a personal choice based on your workflow, your choice of tools and your own desires. I can produce better results from RAW and I can do it more reliably. Others can meet their goals when shooting JPEG.

Richard · August 19, 2008

AFAIK, the only reason to be shooting JPG rather than RAW is if your work situation requires a lightning fast workflow and you just don't have the time/computing power for the conversion step. Otherwise, RAW has many, many advantages with little downside.

jfriend · August 19, 2008

Ulrik_P wrote:

Thanks for the replys guys,

I plan on shooting weddings (when I'm fully ready technically), so from what you said and what was written in the linked page, it seems like JPGs indeed have less PP latitude.

It would probably be a smart move at least to use RAW until I'm good enough to nail exposure consistantly. But how much additional work is required using RAW together with LR/PE6? Must I apply sharpening etc. manually on all pictures or can I just import sets of RAW files with a chosen PP profile and then exporting the lot as printable JPGs?

Perhaps a time saving alternative could be to shoot RAW+JPG and then only use the RAW files on problematic or important shots e.g. the kiss or the dress?

If you are already using LR, then I don't think RAW is really any more PP work than JPEG. LR makes it really easy (in only seconds) to apply any given setting (like white balance) to a whole bunch of images at once. I think you would find that RAW+JPEG in LR is more of a pain than just RAW or just JPEG. Since you already have LR, just go try it for a few fun shoots.

Ulrik_P · August 19, 2008

Again thanks a lot guys, I'm already liking this forum a lot!

I'll be shooting my friends wedding soon. They have no expectations what so ever, so I'm totally free to learn stress free. I'll give RAW a bash and see how it all works out.

Cheers, Ulrik

pathfinder · August 19, 2008

The beauty of Lightroom is that you can save settings in the Develop module as presets, and then apply them to a whole series of images all at once.

The problem with this approach with sharpening, is that image sharpening is dependent on the image itself, whether it is a face or a tree of leaves - low frequency or high frequency.

THe good thing is that you can save different presets. Indeed, Lightroom comes with presets for sharpening landscapes and portraits.

The computer on your desk is much more able than the battery powered computer in your camera body.

digismile · August 19, 2008

Ulrik,

Just to remind you the price you pay for all the extra benefits of RAW - file size. Instead of 1.5 - 2.5Mb picture files, you'll probably average 8-12Mb per RAW file. There are lots of different preferences out there as to what size of card to use, but I like to use 2Gb cards. I average about 190-200 RAW files per card.

Flash cards are pretty cheap, so make sure you have lots to spare!

pathfinder · August 19, 2008

Amazon has 8 GB Transcend 133x CF cards for $36 bucks. Cheap!!

Get a couple, and never worry about running out of space in the midst of shooting!

Scott_Quier · August 20, 2008

Ulrik_P wrote:

Again thanks a lot guys, I'm already liking this forum a lot!

I'll be shooting my friends wedding soon. They have no expectations what so ever, so I'm totally free to learn stress free. I'll give RAW a bash and see how it all works out.

Cheers, Ulrik

Ummm .... with respect, there is no such thing as a bride that has no expectations. Everyone, not just brides, want the best they can get and can be disappointed when they don't get it. May I suggest you capture, in writing, what you expect to deliver and use that as a tool to manage your friends' expectaitons. Talk it over with them. Get them to sign it. This may not be needed, but it can really save a friendship if you do need it.

Second point - since they have no expectations, this gives you lots of time to learn how to use a RAW file after you have acquired them. I strongly suggest you shoot in RAW. If you haven't done so before the wedding, you can sort it all out afterwards. As has already been stated, the one downside of shooting RAW is the size of the files. Make sure you have enough memory.

Finally, as this is your first wedding, may I respectfully suggest you read my "Thoughts on photographing a wedding" post (link is in my siggy). There's lots of info there that I've found to be quite helpful.

InsuredDisaster · August 20, 2008

I love lightroom.

I used to shot Raw +Jpeg but one day, something happened and I ended up having the Raws and the JPG files right next to each other and it was a mess to sort through the. So I tossed all of the jpg's and shoot only in Raw now. LR makes it so easy to export RAW to jpg or whatever format you want or need.

I think the only reason JPG files are good for me at this point if I ever needed to have access to the photos right away, and I didn't have my computer. Then it might be a problem.

Some things are easier to change in RAW no matter what program you use, like white balance. From what I undestand, you can change the whitebalance to anything with RAW, its not a problem. With JPG,it might be.

Why use RAW with Lightroom

Comments