RAW convert ;} - DPChallenge Forums

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

05/03/2005 10:59:26 AM · #1

so i recently installed winXP - more memory - a new hard drive - and RawShooter essentials. i have to say - i think i am convinced to do most of my shooting in RAW now. up until this morning it was too much of a pain with the tools i had available to make it worthwhile. my opinion has changed. the results are pleasing ;}

my only gripe now is the extra write time to the CF card...

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

05/03/2005 11:00:50 AM · #2

Originally posted by soup:

...my only gripe now is the extra write time to the CF card...

Well, there's a solution for that... 20D!

Nikolai1024

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8-4.0D

05/03/2005 11:18:57 AM · #3

There are situations when you don't want to shoot RAW. Read this page, it has some good points:
//www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Nick

dwoolridge

05/03/2005 11:46:14 AM · #4

And the counter-points from Petteri.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/03/2005 11:48:27 AM · #5

Originally posted by Nikolai1024:

There are situations when you don't want to shoot RAW. Read this page, it has some good points:
//www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Nick

While I like his work, I don't care much for Ken Rockwell's very often misinformed views on the technical stuff. For example he says "If I need to correct a goof I just do it from the JPGs" this is done a LOT better in RAW, he says you run out of memory fast, true but today 4GB and higher cards are relatively cheap, disk space is cheap, DVD's are cheap...so who cares...

Most of the time my RAW shot don't need ANY tweaking except for some sharpening if I need to print the photo. So if you get it right the first time you can do so in RAW too with the additional advantage of more latitude if you screw up.

Nice explanation of what RAW is for those who don't.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

05/03/2005 11:51:22 AM · #6

How difficult are you finding the learning curve of pp RAW files?

Originally posted by soup:

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

05/03/2005 11:54:25 AM · #7

Originally posted by Nikolai1024:

There are situations when you don't want to shoot RAW. Read this page, it has some good points:
//www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Nick

Pardon my saying so, but that piece is such a load of crap. Ken Rockwell occasionally has relevant things to say, but this diatribe is not an example of that. If I had most of an afternoon, I'd discuss in detail how flawed nearly all of his arguments are. Not having that kind of time, I'll restrict my technical comments to this:

If someone asked you if you would like to gain at least a half-stop of "highlight protection", gain the advantage of being able to optimize the conversion to an 8-bit gamma space, greatly reduce (not totally eliminate) your white balance worries, and apply more sophisticated sharpening and noise reduction techniques than are practical in-camera, and all you had to do was make a menu setting, would you do it?
Most current-model DSLRs don't incur a large penalty in writing RAW data, and yes, the files are bigger but card space and hard drive space are cheap.
Ken's arguments are riddled with holes, and he does himself a further disservice by mocking those that pay attention to detail. Sure, photojournalists shoot JPEG, they have NO time to post-process and often upload on the spot. Bandwidth is at a premium, and so shooting RAW for them incurs multiple penalties. He chooses the example of PJs specifically to cast RAW in a poor light, and does not give equal time to opposing viewpoints.

Nikolai1024

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8-4.0D

05/03/2005 12:05:14 PM · #8

Originally posted by dwoolridge:

And the counter-points from Petteri.

I think both sites have good points so you need to read them both and decide for yourself how to make most of the technology given to you. This is what I do:

RAW: I shot RAW+JPG when I want few shots for something. For exaple portrait or particular challenge on DPC. I know that I need ONE perfect shot. Once I have it that is all I need. Then I'll play with it for hours to make it absolutely perfect.

JPG: If I go on vacation of even go on DPC meeting or anywhere else I know I will shot a lot I will use JPG. I think it is a good practice to try to get shot right using camera settings. I will make minor adjustements to image later. I just can't see myself post processing 1000s of RAW images half of which I'll throw out anyway.

That's just me and different things work for different people.

Nick

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

05/03/2005 12:19:05 PM · #9

I particularly like this part:

RAW is NOT a digital negative. Unlike a real negative, it still has restricted resolution and dynamic range

Apparently, whatever film he uses provides negatives with infinite resolution and dynamic range! I've gotta get me some of that...

05/03/2005 12:22:18 PM · #10

i don't find it difficult really - was more the time it took to convert previously that kept me away from RAW.

the rawshooter app is pretty intuitive as far as controls go. seems to be pretty efficient with resources too - adjustments are pretty much in real time - with little bogging of the system. i have enough CF space not to worry about file size other than the mentioned write time. and it's FREE !!

P4 1.6ghz - 1gig RAM

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

How difficult are you finding the learning curve of pp RAW files?

i'll be looking at the rebel XT toward the end of summer ;}

Originally posted by kirbic:

Well, there's a solution for that... 20D

05/03/2005 12:23:38 PM · #11

for fast paced shooting - such as birds in flight - i'll probably stick to JPEG fine...

dwoolridge

05/03/2005 01:02:16 PM · #12

Originally posted by kirbic:

If I had most of an afternoon, I'd discuss in detail how flawed nearly all of his arguments are.

The Petteri link does a pretty job of that. Hooray!

Originally posted by kirbic:

If someone asked you if you would like to gain at least a half-stop of "highlight protection", gain the advantage of being able to optimize the conversion to an 8-bit gamma space, greatly reduce (not totally eliminate) your white balance worries, and apply more sophisticated sharpening and noise reduction techniques than are practical in-camera, and all you had to do was make a menu setting, would you do it?

I think you're forgetting all the other post-processing that must happen when you choose raw. If all you're doing is sending your images straight to the printer, introducing raw is inefficient. Having a DSLR does not mean you also want to become a super file format guru, learn esoteric computer incantations, or join the half-stop-lost-self-flagellation club. KR posits an extreme viewpoint because raw converts often get caught up in the theoretical. How many have actually taken the challenge of doing a raw vs. jpeg test under real conditions? Prints can be very, very forgiving.

Since Ken wrote the article, raw converters have come a long way in terms of speed (without much quality sacrifice), but his point is no less relevant now. Look around at commercial work in everyday (print) use: magazines, posters, billboards, food packages. The data/colour loss after the photographer is out of the loop makes the raw/jpeg issue largely insignifcant. Not all photography involves lovingly caressing each pixel into perfect harmony with the universe. I think that's all Ken is saying, even though he says it like a curmudgeon.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

05/03/2005 01:30:04 PM · #13

Question:

The Luminous Landscape site says:

With a JPG file you are largely committing yourself at the time of exposure to several of the most important aspects of image quality, namely white balance, overall contrast, colour saturation and the like. With a raw file you are free to make decisions about these settings at your leisure.

But if I'm shooting with the AdobeRGB paramaters, this isn't true is it? Isn't it true that only the WB has been committed in .jpg?

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

05/03/2005 01:32:53 PM · #14

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

I believe what they are trying to say is that these processing decisions can be made at the time of RAW conversion whereas when shooting jpeg these decisions are made at the time of exposure.

Anything can be adjusted in post processing (after RAW conversion) however with jpeg some of the information is already lost when the jpeg image is created due to camera processing.

edit: misplaced quote

Message edited by author 2005-05-03 13:33:23.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/03/2005 01:43:02 PM · #15

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Anything can be adjusted in post processing (after RAW conversion) however with jpeg some of the information is already lost when the jpeg image is created due to camera processing.

But that's what I'm asking...other than WB, isn't my camera leaving everything untouched just like a raw file?

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

05/03/2005 01:49:38 PM · #16

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Anything can be adjusted in post processing (after RAW conversion) however with jpeg some of the information is already lost when the jpeg image is created due to camera processing.

But that's what I'm asking...other than WB, isn't my camera leaving everything untouched just like a raw file?

No, not when you are shooting JPG.

05/03/2005 01:52:05 PM · #17

I did not know that. I thought that it was the same as setting the sharpening, contrast and saturation paramaters to "0".

It's not like I have a choice anyway...the 300d takes twenty minutes after each RAW shot and I don't have Photoshop CS anyway...

When I get my 20d I'll make the switch...

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

05/03/2005 01:52:28 PM · #18

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Isn't it true that only the WB has been committed in .jpg?

I believe that some of the data captured by the sensor is effectively 'thrown away' when the jpg is created. This would be some of the shadow or highlight detail. This is retained in the RAW file, which is, as far as I'm concerned, the best benefit of RAW, as one can create more than one develop of a contrasty scene and then blend these together to create an image where each part is correctly exposed. Pushing or pulling the exposure of the jpg leads to either noise or no gain in detail.

edit: Dash and blast. Beaten to it.

Message edited by author 2005-05-03 13:53:43.

05/03/2005 01:54:09 PM · #19

Originally posted by AJAger:

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Isn't it true that only the WB has been committed in .jpg?

I believe that some of the data captured by the sensor is effectively 'thrown away' when the jpg is created. This would be some of the shadow or highlight detail. This is retained in the RAW file, which is, as far as I'm concerned, the best benefit of RAW, as one can create more than one develop of a contrasty scene and then blend these together to create an image where each part is correctly exposed. Pushing or pulling the exposure of the jpg leads to either noise or no gain in detail.

Yeah, I know that. What I didn't know is that all .jpg's have had in-camera processing on them (sharpening, contrast, etc) no matter what the paramaters are set to. I thought it was just WB.

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

05/03/2005 01:55:09 PM · #20

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

When I get my 20d I'll make the switch...

Funnily enough, I've just got a 20d and have done most of my shooting in jpg so far, so as to take advantage of the increased buffer depth.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/03/2005 08:46:52 PM · #21

data is the subject. RAW saves more data than JPEG - so for printing there is no doubt RAW is a better format. convenience and processing capabilities have driven my shooting thus far. i have found an acceptable combination of factors leading me to focus on RAW form here on out - barring circumstances where JPEG would suit it's purpose, and RAW would cause missed keepers.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

05/03/2005 10:59:39 PM · #22

I absolutely agree with the last comment ... "data is the subject, RAW saves more data...".

To illustrate why I prefer to only shoot JPEG... let's take an example of a photoshoot that went terribly wrong.

I was shooting INDOORS, with not enough ambient light, with on camera flash resulting in a horrible mix of colors. And to make matters worse, I forgot to set my white balance!

So I took the picture and this is what came out (I sure hope nobody pukes!). As you can see, it is TERRIBLE!!!

So, I bring it into photoshop as an 8-bit jpeg and I do two things (I'm purposely limiting my changes to two very easily reproducible changes so that you can see for yourself):

1) I set the white balance by using CTRL-M (curves) and then, using the middle dropper (gray point), I clicked on the center of the dark smudge on the bottom right corner (this is gray marblestone and I figured it would be a good 18% gray).

2) Feeling that the picture was still too red, I pressed CTRL-U (hue/sat) and set the hue to a +4 and the saturation to a -8.

This all helped... but I still felt like it was a THROWAWAY image! Here is the result after just curves and hue/sat:

Now, I have the same image in RAW format. And the huge advantage, to me, is being able to set the white balance *AND* the fact that I can remain in 16-bit mode for quite awhile (using PhotoShop CS here). My processing steps now are:

1) Bring the raw file into PhotoShop's raw convert and click the white balance dropper. Then click it on the same smudge down at the bottom right.

That's it. I have not touched hue/sat or curves and this is what I have so far. I'll put them side by side for comparison.

Jpeg:

Raw:

NOW HERE'S THE REAL KICKER! The advantage of staying in 16-bit mode are easily visible when looking at a histogram:

Pressing CTRL-L (levels) on both images, this is what I see:

8-bit:

16-bit

Notice the comb-like effect on the first one? That right there is evidence of DATA LOSS. And so far, I've only done two things to the images (curves and hue/sat).

And the more processing you do to the image, the MORE data is thrown away. If you do a lot of processing of the image (levels/curves, white balance adjustments, sharpening, burning, dodging, etc) you will see even more data loss in the histogram.

The view of the levels histogram on the right is still in 16-bit mode. So far my data loss (with the single conversion to is so minimal that you don't see any comb-like effect.

For what it's worth, this was what my final image looked like... it's not perfect, but I thought it wasn't half bad, considering what I started with!

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

05/03/2005 11:10:06 PM · #23

You're going to find discrepencies with any in-depth write-up that anyone does on anything. Calling his whole article a 'load of crap' is a bit extreme though, I think.

Ken makes a lot of nice points in his article. Personally, I don't have the paitence for RAW -- if I get the shot to my computer, and it's not just about perfect, in the trash it goes. Using RAW would only clutter my workflow and use up HUGE amounts of hard drive space...and probably not allow me to get most of the shots I've got. You can fit at least 3 times the amount of JPG's as you can RAW's -- the benefits don't outweight the drawbacks in my eyes.

2Shay

Nikon Z7 FX

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

05/04/2005 12:46:44 AM · #24

After reading this thread earlier today, and the JPG article link, I switched back to JPG from RAW (NEF) I found that I was losing the enjoyment factor from taking pictures. I would shoot a bunch, I typically shoot anywhere from 50 to 200 shots at a time, and then agonize over the raw processing. Tonight I took our 6 week old puppies outside and took another 85 shots in JPG. Brought them inside and shared them within 10 minutes with my wife. Sure, they're just photos for us, but I was much happier with them than I would have been if I was sitting here processing them. I will still use RAW for stuff I really want to make sure will look absolutely flawless, not that I produce anything like that, but it's nice to think that I might someday be able to!