| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/20/2007 09:14:13 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
I would really like to see post processing of both raw and jpeg plus a print of each. Would be interesting to see the difference in quality. |
that's what I decided when I first was convinced to at least TRY the RAW process. I shot RAW + jpeg for a while, and processed the jpeg versions first with the best processing knowledge I have. When I was really proud of the result, I said something like "okay, RAW beat that!"
Uh, it did. Hands down. I freed up a lot of memory by shooting just RAW from that time forward.
No, I don't know the technicals on why. I just know RAW does a better job for me. And it doesn't take that much longer. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 12:06:07 AM · #52 |
Usin the RAW image converter found here is the image quality reduced to any percentage?
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 01:03:48.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 05:24:08 AM · #53 |
I recently shot Raw for the first time and I do see more noise than I otherwise would, but this is no doubt due to the NR filter that kicks in on jpegs. saying that, I do find the colours always look nicer and smoother on raw images.
Also, while i'm here: I shoot RAW, stick it through ACR and convert it to a 16 bit TIFF, then save it as an 8bit JPG either for printing (I upload jpgs to the printers) or web usage.
Is this the usual thing to do?
I do shoot jpg when i know i'm going to be taking a lot of images- when travelling for example- when card space is at a premium and I find if I can get the exposure/wb right then i'm off to a pretty good start already. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 06:17:43 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by JopperTom:
2) You always get exposure (completely) perfect, |
Something else you can fix in cs2 very easily! |
Really? Can you pull 2/3th EV of detail back out of an overexposed jpeg? I never managed to from a jpeg, but I could from a raw file...
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 06:18:53 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Tez:
Also, while i'm here: I shoot RAW, stick it through ACR and convert it to a 16 bit TIFF, then save it as an 8bit JPG either for printing (I upload jpgs to the printers) or web usage.
Is this the usual thing to do? |
Do you set ACR yourself or do you let it do auto-guesses? Automated ACR sucks bigtime.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 06:26:19 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by Tez:
Also, while i'm here: I shoot RAW, stick it through ACR and convert it to a 16 bit TIFF, then save it as an 8bit JPG either for printing (I upload jpgs to the printers) or web usage.
Is this the usual thing to do? |
Do you set ACR yourself or do you let it do auto-guesses? Automated ACR sucks bigtime. |
Yeah, it can get an image out, but it usually goes a little light on brightness and blacks creating the noise that many see.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 06:33:59 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by JopperTom:
2) You always get exposure (completely) perfect, |
Something else you can fix in cs2 very easily! |
Really? Can you pull 2/3th EV of detail back out of an overexposed jpeg? I never managed to from a jpeg, but I could from a raw file... |
I think that's the thing most people don't "get". They've never really seen how much data can be pulled back from a raw file. I quite regularly adjust my exposures from -1 to +1 without any worries at all. I can pull up shadow detail that you'd never even see in a jpeg, or rescue blown highlights which simply don't exist in the jpeg.
I know some people just don't want the added workflow, and I can understand that. I don't shoot raw when I'm shooting sports. But wow... for everything else? Raw actually *saves* me time because I spend a lot less time in Photoshop simply by getting good images straight out of the raw converter (Lightroom, in my case).
|
|
|
|
12/22/2007 10:40:37 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by JopperTom:
2) You always get exposure (completely) perfect, |
Something else you can fix in cs2 very easily! |
Really? Can you pull 2/3th EV of detail back out of an overexposed jpeg? I never managed to from a jpeg, but I could from a raw file... |
There is quite a bit you can do in CS2 believe it or not..don't limit yourself, but why on earth would you keep a shot that is that bad? I junk those ones when at the shooting spot.
and...
Actually it is not to often I have problems with over exposure in my shots.
I play around with my camera settings quite often. I don't take just one or two pictures. Maybe raw would save me time from doing that..but I always try to take the picture perfect in my camera rather than mess with cs2.
The only thing I really need to do with my portrait work is fix some spots on the backdrop and sharpen. Saves time getting the shot right in the camera rather than messing with it later.
Raw image task by canon is what I have to open raw images..it is the program that takes forever to run. Does anyone have that?
Message edited by author 2007-12-22 10:44:46. |
|
|
|
12/22/2007 01:30:25 PM · #59 |
| I will definitely concede that shooting RAW helps to recover blown highlights. |
|
|
|
12/28/2007 03:11:55 AM · #60 |
No press photographers here?
RAW's not worth it for photojournalism. It's just a big waste of time and space. But if you have the memory and the time, why not shoot RAW+JPEG? At least for fun if for nothing else. |
|
|
|
12/28/2007 03:19:00 AM · #61 |
| I always shoot raw (with a basic jpg backup incase I need validation for a basic editing challenge). The main benefit for me, as most of my shots are indoors, is the white balance and exposure settings I can control with Raw. If I browse my images and see that my settings were accurate and I didnt need the raw, its a simple thing to convert a folder of Raw to JPG in a matter of minutes. Its more or less a fail safe for me... To be honest, since shooting in only raw for about 6-8 months now, I can't believe I ever shot without it. |
|
|
|
12/28/2007 08:45:06 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
but why on earth would you keep a shot that is that bad? I junk those ones when at the shooting spot. |
That's just it ... images that might be considered junk as jpegs are actually worth something as raw files because of the extra data the raw files contain making them salvageable.
And sometimes, when shooting a wedding for example, there are no do-overs. You get what you get. So if the flash didn't fire and you shot jpeg... well, too bad. But if you shot raw, there's a good chance you can bring the exposure up and still have it look good.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 09:52:07 AM · #63 |
Imagine this, you shoot a photo, then you copy it. Now throw the photo away and use the copy for future photos. Read it somewhere, (maybe Camera Raw 3, the last book of the great Bruce Fraser co authored by Jeff Schewe) I for one can not think that far.
I for one made the move a long time ago and can never, ever go back to shooting jpegs, one simply discard just too much information that way. |
|
|
|
12/28/2007 10:01:57 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by docpjv:
Imagine this, you shoot a photo, then you copy it. Now throw the photo away and use the copy for future photos. Read it somewhere, (maybe Camera Raw 3, the last book of the great Bruce Fraser co authored by Jeff Schewe) I for one can not think that far.
I for one made the move a long time ago and can never, ever go back to shooting jpegs, one simply discard just too much information that way. |
Similar to this idea... I used to use RawShooter Premium to develop my raw files. I now much prefer what I'm getting out of the new Adobe Lightroom.
A few weeks ago, I went back and reprocessed some of my old images (previously processed in RSP, now done in Lightroom) for prints I had just sold and was MUCH happier with the new results - even before attempting any photoshopping effort.
So, yeah... holding onto the raw files can pay dividends in the future.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 10:03:31 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by JBHale:
RAW's not worth it for photojournalism. It's just a big waste of time and space. But if you have the memory and the time, why not shoot RAW+JPEG? At least for fun if for nothing else. |
I often find myself setting the sports mode on my 30D when going for a grab shot in low light when I don't have the time to really think and just need to get the shot...which obviously comes out as JPG only.
I recently stopped shooting RAW+JPG for bursty stuff in the vain hope that I'll get faster transfer to the card (and therefore quicker 'reload' shooting time) by just shooting RAW. For post processing I find it's really nice to have a set of JPGs as well as the RAWs so it's not ideal - so my question is, am I speeding up the transfers or just losing out for no gain?!
N |
|
|
|
12/28/2007 10:24:55 AM · #66 |
Isn't that true RAW vs. JPG has only one thing to do which RAW keeps more information from the sensor, uncompressed against jpg image which is compressed and has less pixel information in it.
A pixel in RAW format holds more information to adjust image better in post process. It's like having three shades information per pixel vs. 10 shade information per pixel.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this comes to a conclusion that if the settings on the camera is done correctly when shooting is done, such as f stop, shutter speed ISO and WB, there will be little enhancement need to be done in post process time... if any necessary. So, RAW should not mean image quality comes out better, but gives more flexibility to fix afterward.
FP
------
Repeat from Are there any JPG Ribbon Hogs?? (podcast material) |
|
|
|
12/28/2007 08:34:30 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by inshaala:
RAW benefits
Ditto
Also for those who mentioned not being able to process RAW images - either just go the whole hog and buy Lightroom or you should be able to get your hands on RawShooter Essentials at download.com or similar (it just wont register - but will still work)
That or you can try other RAW software like Capture One i think the "Light" edition is like $100, and remember reading something about a bundle with Extreme III cards from SanDisk if you fancy getting a bigger/faster card any time soon.
I wont put my views forward on RAW vs Jpeg because that is already being discussed. It is a contentious issue, but i will say: just shoot what you are comfortable with it is your photo. |
I certainly did not mean to touch on a sensitive subject or hurt anyone's feelings. In my humble opinion, RAW is a very useful tool.
I don't claim to be anywhere near an expert on digital photography, but I do know a very useful tool when I see it.
I can imagine if I shot mostly in a controlled environment like a studio, I would have less need for RAW. If I were a better photographer I may not need all the help I can get.
My original posting described several of my most notable flaws and why I lean on RAW as a crutch from time to time. You may apply any of them to your own personal situation that you please.
It does add to the work flow, but it is like a safety-line when working in difficult or impossible to reproduce situations.
I wasn't even monitoring the thread; I find it humorous to see the direction it took without me. I do regret hurting anyone's feelings. In the future I will try not to express my opinion upon the usefulness or superiority of any brands, technologies, workflows, equipment, styles or anything at all for that matter, because people have strong loyalties and are liable to take it personally when one is held as better than the other. [That may be more restraint than I can actually muster.]
Sorry,
Tom :-)
|
|
|
|
12/28/2007 10:52:27 PM · #68 |
| I love breeze browser pro for RAW conversions. I think its better than CS3 but both have there strengths! |
|
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: 08/03/2025 02:47:33 PM EDT.
