DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Convince me RAW is better for Challenges
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 17 of 17, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/26/2005 11:41:53 PM · #1
OK I know that RAW is better because it is like a negative in the film world and it also is saved at 16-bits and if your going to make a print it would be better to use RAW but what about just for a challenge?

With the 350D .CR2 RAW files not supported in PS/CS it becomes a pain to open one program, adjust RAW, save as Tiff, and then open again in PS/CS for the final adjustments. Since I̢۪m not good a RAW conversion yet, all those sliders drive me crazy, I have a basic photograph taken in RAW+L-JPG of an old pump of some kind in the country. Not a great picture at all but if anyone would like me to email the files to them [RAW and L-JPG] so they can show me the difference between RAW and JPG when viewing on a monitor I would be glad to do so. I don̢۪t believe I̢۪m lazy with editing, I think I just need convincing. J
Anyone up to the challenge?

If you would like to see the untouched jpg version posted before asking me to email it to you let me know and I will post here.

Message edited by author 2005-05-27 00:44:14.
 05/26/2005 11:48:26 PM · #2
My answer is "sometimes", but not "always." IMO, if you don't need the additional dynamic range of the RAW file (and most challenge shots don't, really) then you will be hard pressed to tell the difference if the jpeg is processed carefully.
My "Silhouettes" entry is one that benefitted greatly from the flexibility of the RAW format. I was able to get a much better result than if I had shot it in jpeg.
 05/26/2005 11:49:36 PM · #3
If you already know in advance that your only use of the photo will be for a challenge, then by all means, shoot jpegs. Based on your current workflow it will save you a lot of time without much loss in flexibility and no loss in resolution.

But if you think you might want to make a BIG print out of it and/or want the ultimate in flexibility, then shoot raw.

I agree, having to use an external application is a pain in the butt. I switched to raw when I got PS/CS because it has built-in support for the 20D. My workflow with raw is only a little slower than it is with jpegs. So I now shoot everything raw except sports (too many pictures, not enough time or storage!).

I'd suggest upgrading to PS/CS2 because I hear it has raw support for the 350D. (kinda sucks that they don't back that support into CS)

05/26/2005 11:51:01 PM · #4
I would say very hard pressed. The value of doing the entries in RAW is twofold. First, it gives you a lot more latitude in exposure and white balance. Second, if you end up with a great photo you may want to print it. Starting with RAW gives you more information to work with and potentially a better print.

At the small size used here if neither of the above apply to your photo then skip it and use jpg.
 05/26/2005 11:52:52 PM · #5
Scott, I use two features of RAW which I think make it worthwhile:

1) After shot white balance. Auto white balance sucks.
2) After shot sharpening.

If you sharpen a JPEG, you are sharpening artifacts as well as data. Plus, in camera, high ISO, you are sharpening the noise before you get a chance to reduce it. Plus, it's already sharpened when you are sharpening it, and that has it's own problems.

Will you see the difference when going to 640x480? White balance yes, sharpening, probably not. But when you have to interpolate up for printing you probably will.

Have you tried Bibble? I think it will solve many of your issues (and it supports CR2). It has such a great workflow.
 05/26/2005 11:53:51 PM · #6
I know that if I only wanted a virtual DPC presence, I'd shoot JPEG and not bother with RAW. JPEG is very convenient and, IMO, quite appropiate for this sort of thing.

The downside is that, of course, you cannot make a RAW file out of a JPEG. If you shoot RAW to start with, everything is possible.

Message edited by author 2005-05-26 23:55:14.
 05/26/2005 11:57:13 PM · #7
If you don't know what you are doing with them, it isn't better than JPEG, and for 90% of the shots you take, if you use the camera properly JPEG will be just as good as RAW.

Its the other 10%, where, if you know what you are doing you can extract a better image out of the scene than the camera ever could alone.

RAW is also good if you don't understand exposure and don't want to learn how to use a camera properly. Also nice if you make mistakes with settings like white balance a lot. Otherwise, its useless, aside from those shots that need it. You just need to learn to recognise when it is important or not.
 05/26/2005 11:57:25 PM · #8
Thanks everyone. I guess it's a preference. I know that RAW is better and yes I'm disappointed that CS does not support the 350D RAW. Maybe it's because I'm just not use to RAW adjustments and I'm uncomfortable using the sliders. I want to do my best even if it's just a challenge entry or a print. Does anyone know of a good INTERNET tutorial on RAW process that may help me with my fear of using RAW? Any help would be grateful. I know I have to learn to improve.

EDIT: I have two RAW converter software I can use
1. Canon's Digital Photo Professional
2. RAWShooter Essentials 2005

Message edited by author 2005-05-27 00:03:09.
 05/27/2005 12:03:50 AM · #9
I think for the kind of tutorial you are looking for, you need one that talks about RAW and a particular package. I recall there was one for Breezebrowser, which I was using when I started using RAW, and I think there's one on Bibble Systems site for Bibble. I'll post a link in a minute.

Again, with regard to the initial question, here's something short to read:

RAW Format
 05/27/2005 12:05:36 AM · #10
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I think for the kind of tutorial you are looking for, you need one that talks about RAW and a particular package. I recall there was one for Breezebrowser, which I was using when I started using RAW, and I think there's one on Bibble Systems site for Bibble. I'll post a link in a minute.

Again, with regard to the initial question, here's something short to read:

RAW Format


Thank you
 05/27/2005 12:07:44 AM · #11
Here's another good read on RAW...
 05/27/2005 12:09:29 AM · #12
Originally posted by kirbic:
Here's another good read on RAW...


Thank you as well kirbic. I'm copping both reads and saving them as learning tools.

Message edited by author 2005-05-27 00:10:49.
 05/27/2005 12:11:54 AM · #13
Oh, I almost forgot the biggest reason to use raw: highlight recovery!

See Highlight Recovery

Unfortunately, I don't see a regular RAW tutorial up on Bibble Lab's site.

Lastly, I have the answer to your challenge. Here's a case where RAW is better for DPC. For dynamic range, I used to bracket all my shots, and combine them to increase dynamic range. But you cannot combine more than one image and submit to DPC, and you need a tripod when you are shooting. Enter RAW. Take a shot of something with wide dynamic range, and then process it twice, once with exposure compensation to for the dark areas to be exposed correctly, once with exposure compensation for the bright areas. Now you have two very different files. These can be combined using Fred Miranda's DRI plugin (or the feature in the new Photoshop) to produce an image with wider dynamic range. And it's DPC legal, at least in advanced editing. Here's one where I did that:

05/27/2005 12:17:49 AM · #14
Very nice nshapiro. I see a big difference there over my landscape shots. In jpg I would have to bracket on one area and then shoot. Loosing detail in other areas.

Message edited by author 2005-05-27 00:44:26.
 05/27/2005 12:47:23 AM · #15
I just did a studio test to see how well Photoshop can fix over- and under-exposed RAW images. The results came out better than I expected. I took three shots of the same subject with the same lighting: one with correct exposure, one overexposed by a full stop, and one underexposed by a full stop. Then I "fixed" the incorrect exposures in Photoshop. Here are the results, just so you can see how Photoshop deals with RAW image exposure correction (thanks to LeRoy Howard for modeling!):

Correct Exposure


+1 Stop Overexposed / Corrected


-1 Stop Underexposed / Corrected
05/27/2005 12:51:20 AM · #16
I don't know if you are a mac or a windows user, but the new Iphoto that comes with the upgraded OS X - Tiger has a RAW processor built in. Looks easy to use and similar to what I am used to with photoshop.

I shoot with the 10D and use Photoshop CS to do my conversion- it is really easy and painless. You really need to just jump in and play around with it.

THe Canon Utility program does much the same thing - in terms of the adjustments - it just is clunky compared with CS. I know of one talented photographer that converts from RAW with this utility program and then uses Photoshop Elements to finish his processing.

I got my training from Tim Grey at a workshop. He has a website and a book. There are also a lot of good tutorials on Photoshop that can help you understand the RAW conversion.
 05/27/2005 04:07:13 AM · #17
Originally posted by PhilipDyer:
I just did a studio test to see how well Photoshop can fix over- and under-exposed RAW images.


Cool. I did a similar test, albeit under different conditions and with a more static subject. :-)

On my camera at least, I found it was better to bump up ISO than to underexpose. If only we could tell our cameras how to do that for us. The tests also demonstrate the advantages to exposing to the right.

Message edited by author 2005-05-27 04:08:07.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/17/2025 01:07:18 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/17/2025 01:07:18 PM EDT.