| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/03/2006 02:35:29 PM · #1 |
My camera supports RAW images (Nikon D50) but I have never used it before. I downloaded a version of "Raw Shooter Esentials 2006" so I can use RAW because PSP9 won't work with it. My main questions are:
1. What is the advantage of using RAW?
2. For the people that use it, do you use it all the time or just in certain situations?
3. I know that when you open a RAW file and edit it, there is no change to the original file itself but is the output file degraded when transfered to jpg? If so, is the quality still better than if the shot was originally taken in jpg?
4. Should the editing of the RAW file be done in "Raw Shooter Esentials" or should it be exported to jpg and edited in PSP9? |
|
|
|
12/03/2006 02:43:04 PM · #2 |
Let's take 'em in order:
1.) there are several advantages:
- Uses all the dynamic range the camera recorded
- Can recover slightly blown highlights
- Better demosaic algorithms are possible vs. in-camera (due to processor and time constraints when using in-camera conversion to JPEG)
- Can fine-tune white balance after the fact
- Can correct CA, vignetting, etc. prior to conversion to JPEG
2.) I use it all the time, except when JPEG is an absolute necessity. I've used JPEG twice in the poast 12 months.
3.) Once you compress with a lossy format like JPEG, there will be some degradation, which you'll see the next time it's opened (uncompressed). If you keep the quality high (10 or above) it will be incredibly hard to tell the difference. If you are going to do several editing sessions on a shot, by all means use a lossless format like PSD or TIF, and save as JPEG if need be at the end.
4.) Make your adjustmnts in RAW conversion to get you as close to the final "feel" of the image as you can. This will minimize the changes that you'll need to make after conversion. Doing this will give you better tonality (smoother transitions). The difference can be anything from very slight to dramatic, depending on a number of variables. Spot editing is still done after conversion.
Message edited by author 2006-12-03 14:48:48. |
|
|
|
12/03/2006 02:46:27 PM · #3 |
The chicks go wild when I tell them I'm shooting in RAW.
|
|
|
|
12/03/2006 02:51:33 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by bmartuch:
My camera supports RAW images (Nikon D50) but I have never used it before. I downloaded a version of "Raw Shooter Esentials 2006" so I can use RAW because PSP9 won't work with it. My main questions are:
1. What is the advantage of using RAW?
2. For the people that use it, do you use it all the time or just in certain situations?
3. I know that when you open a RAW file and edit it, there is no change to the original file itself but is the output file degraded when transfered to jpg? If so, is the quality still better than if the shot was originally taken in jpg?
4. Should the editing of the RAW file be done in "Raw Shooter Esentials" or should it be exported to jpg and edited in PSP9? |
1.) You have pretty much total control of the image with RAW. You can change white balance, exposure, and tons of other stuff, all without being destructive to the image.
2.) If what I am shooting has any real significance to me, I'm shooting it in RAW.
3.) When it is converted to jpg, the image does lose information, but over all the gradations in tones will be a little smoother. It is really just as matter of shooting in RAW then converting and seeing if to you there is a noticeable difference. Some see a difference, some don't, or don't see enough to care to shoot in RAW.
4.) I'd do as much editing as you can in RAW shooter Essentials, then do everything else after you convert.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2006 01:52:56 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
The chicks go wild when I tell them I'm shooting in RAW. |
LOL! |
|
|
|
12/06/2006 02:29:15 PM · #6 |
I still haven't figured out how to get RAW files onto my computer. I just get duplicate JPG copies. I can see the CR2 files in the EOS Utility, but when I download them, they don't show up in the folder?
Can someone help me with this? |
|
|
|
12/06/2006 02:45:11 PM · #7 |
I had that problem. I figured out that if you plug your camera into the computer, it only shows the .jpgs. If you remove the CF card and use a reader, you can see everything.
Message edited by author 2006-12-06 14:45:18. |
|
|
|
12/06/2006 02:47:17 PM · #8 |
Any time the lighting is harsh or questionable, I'll use RAW, and any time I think I'll want to make a large, detailed print from it.
Actually, anything but family gatherings, I usually take in RAW and convert in RSE2k6
|
|
|
|
12/06/2006 03:28:10 PM · #9 |
ok...my question is which is better shooting JPEG-fine or Raw+jpg.
I have always shot Jpg-Fine, now I have begun dabbling in Raw+jpg. At this point I only use the Raw version if I don't think the jpg is 'good enough'.....but what is the quality of this jpg version. or would I be better off just shooting in jpg-fine?
|
|
|
|
12/06/2006 03:32:57 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by dassilem:
ok...my question is which is better shooting JPEG-fine or Raw+jpg.
I have always shot Jpg-Fine, now I have begun dabbling in Raw+jpg. At this point I only use the Raw version if I don't think the jpg is 'good enough'.....but what is the quality of this jpg version. or would I be better off just shooting in jpg-fine? |
I don't know about the Nikon, but with the 20D you can choose your quality level for the jpg in RAW+JPG, and you can get the highest quality jpg plus a RAW image if you want to burn the card space up.
R. |
|
|
|
12/06/2006 03:37:51 PM · #11 |
Like most people who have become comfortable in RAW, I just see no reason to ever shoot in JPEG. The flexibility to edit color tempature and shift the exposure +/- a stop or two is such a valuable editing tool that I see no reason to give it up in any situation. Why not keep ALL the information your camera can record, and make decisions as to what information to throw away once you have the large screen and processing power of your computer, rather than letting the little brain of your camera make those decisions.
After you have edited the JPEG is fine if you don't want to keep the big RAW files, but once you edit in RAW, JPEG is just too limiting. |
|
|
|
12/06/2006 05:28:48 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by dassilem:
ok...my question is which is better shooting JPEG-fine or Raw+jpg.
I have always shot Jpg-Fine, now I have begun dabbling in Raw+jpg. At this point I only use the Raw version if I don't think the jpg is 'good enough'.....but what is the quality of this jpg version. or would I be better off just shooting in jpg-fine? |
The jpeg that is recorded with the NEF in NEF+jpg mode is a "basic" jpeg as Nikon calls it. It has very hard jpeg compression which is certainly not ideal. If you compare it to the jpeg-fine option you must think along the line of basic-medium-fine-NEF in order of quality with basic being the lowest.
The main reason why you want jpeg along with your NEF here is to have something that is easy and fast to view for selection. All the editing should be done on the NEF or a TIFF converted from it.
I always shoot jpeg+NEF. The jpeg is just for viewing and selecting, but I never use them for anything but that. All editing on the NEF's with Nikon Capture, PhaseOne CaptureOne or Photoshop CS2.
Some people say that they shoot jpeg because of the filesize. But on a dirt-cheap 2Gb card you can store app 400 NEF's (NEF's only, no +jpeg).
I shoot NEF, because I can save halve a stop+ of overexposure, draw details back from shadows, change the whitebalance, but most of all work in 16bit and do a ton of colorchanges and tonechanges with little damage (that does happen with 8 bit).
|
|
|
|
12/06/2006 05:41:07 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
The chicks go wild when I tell them I'm shooting in RAW. |
LOL |
|
|
|
12/06/2006 05:58:04 PM · #14 |
very good advice and explanations....thanks....
|
|
|
|
12/06/2006 06:00:22 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
...work in 16bit and do a ton of colorchanges and tonechanges with little damage (that does happen with 8 bit)... |
With the exception of the Fuji S3 (14bit,)and maybe a few others I'm unaware of, camera RAW is recorded in 12 bit.
JPG files are 8 bit.
Typically as Azrifel said you'd work in 16 bit though.
That can make a big difference when you're working on photos, especially if they have a lot of contrast. |
|
|
|
12/06/2006 07:26:42 PM · #16 |
FWIW, I use RAW all the time - no exceptions. I even bought a compact for carrying everywhere that is RAW-capable. I can't understand why, given the option, anyone would shoot any other way.
Edit-wise: I do as much as possible in RAW. With essentials, I believe that retricts you to simple tonal processing, so cropping, rotating and the like has to be done in some other programme - but all the other stuff should be done in your RAW processor - as it doesn't affect the quality of the original file.
e |
|
|
|
12/06/2006 08:38:34 PM · #17 |
Some reasons not to use raw, as high quality jpegs might be good enough:
1. Conversion requires an additional step.
2. Proprietary non standardized raw files for some cameras could conceivably become obsolete to current or updated software. Conversion software interprets and opens raw files to a variety of different standards.
3. Raw files require larger storage.
4. An individual has no interest for optimum quality or attempt optimum interpretive post processing technique.
5. An individual's camera photography skills are perfect and post processing is minimal or not required. |
|
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: 08/09/2025 04:02:43 PM EDT.
