| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/21/2005 05:37:14 PM · #1 |
ummm.. so... what are they?
i've always shot in the fine mode at largest resolution with my 5700. it seems as though everyone shoots in raw. what are the advantages to shooting in raw? dis-advantages...
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 05:42:36 PM · #2 |
Less software-programmed overlay on the image. Your camera is programmed to modify the image in certainw ays, and you see that in how you can set your contrast level, your sharpness, your stauration, your white balance. All of these are software functions that modify the information transmitted to the camera by the lens/sensor combination. If any of them are incorrectly set, it can be relatively difficult to backtrack and undo the settings in photoshop. With RAW the camera basically just stores the actual ouput from the sensor without any interface at all (not strictly true, some changes can be made in camera to a RAW image) and then you do all the sharpening, contrast, saturation etc in post-processing, where you have more control over it.
RAW images look like mud, mostly, until you 'shop them up to specs.
On the negative side, they take up a lot of space and require a lot of work to make presentable.
That's it in a nutshell.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 05:45:07 PM · #3 |
Some day when I grow up I'll shoot RAW. I just can't get myself to use it.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 05:55:23 PM · #4 |
I almost never use it myself. Doesn't seem to be very important for most of what I do.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 05:56:46 PM · #5 |
thanks for the comments.
now back to bored'em
Message edited by author 2005-03-21 17:57:00.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 06:01:30 PM · #6 |
i would shoot RAW, if i could find an raw processing app that would be less of a bog for my 1.8ghz machine...
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 06:05:58 PM · #7 |
Here is an example I posted to demonstrate the advantages of shooting RAW:
BEFORE:
//dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=108125
AFTER:
//dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=108126
Disadvantages? RAW files from a 10D occupy about 5-6MB of card space. If you have 256MB cards now, seriously consider 512MB or 1GB cards. A 1.8GHz machine should handle Photoshop CS just fine. I use my 1GHz G4 PowerBook and it runs CS just fine.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 06:17:28 PM · #8 |
There's also the advantage of being able to save images with no JPEG compression artifacts at all. Just go straight from RAW to TIFF. Again, this file type is a hard disk hog, but you'll get the best quality images for larger prints, or perhaps even for submission to some of the better stock agencies.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 06:20:02 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by MrAkamai:
Here is an example I posted to demonstrate the advantages of shooting RAW:
BEFORE:
//dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=108125
AFTER:
//dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=108126
Disadvantages? RAW files from a 10D occupy about 5-6MB of card space. If you have 256MB cards now, seriously consider 512MB or 1GB cards. A 1.8GHz machine should handle Photoshop CS just fine. I use my 1GHz G4 PowerBook and it runs CS just fine. |
That's a good illustration of what a RAW image looks liek before processing, it's a good before & after example, but it doesn't speak to the advantages of RAW. To show us that, we'd need to see the same image shot in jpg FINE and in RAW side-by-side.
I don't believe it's POSSIBLE to see a difference at 72 lpi and 640 pixels wide anyway. The differences, if any, will show at full size and high resolution.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 06:21:49 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by PhilipDyer:
There's also the advantage of being able to save images with no JPEG compression artifacts at all. Just go straight from RAW to TIFF. Again, this file type is a hard disk hog, but you'll get the best quality images for larger prints, or perhaps even for submission to some of the better stock agencies. |
The Nikon 5700 will save as TIFF, with no compression (very large file) or as RAW (actually a smaller file) or of course jpg. When I'm thinking max quality I usually use TIFF, which I find much easier to work with.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 06:23:48 PM · #11 |
one of the advantages is that alot (ALL??) RAW formats are 12-16 bits
so if you mess up exposure (on the low side) you can digitally push the exposure
it an also hold more details in both highlights & shadows (and midtones)
+ really matters for large prints
(neither will show up on the web where default is 8 bits & a constrained pallet)
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 06:30:15 PM · #12 |
I have no choice but raw format with my DCS460. But shooting raw gives me the opportunity to control the amount of noise reduction, exposure, white balance, sharpening, and many other characteristics before post processing in photoshop. If the camera was a bit more modern this probably would not be so important. The DCS460 is 1995 technology, a Canon 20D is infinitely more sophisticated!
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 06:32:32 PM · #13 |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 06:48:25 PM · #14 |
I trust this site for fantastic information, read this article as to why RAW is used by many photogs, it actually made me switch over from Jpeg.
The RAW Truth
And a FANTASTIC piece of software that I recently discovered for editing RAW images is RAWshooter Essentials and you can find it here. THE DOWNLOAD IS FREE BTW.
RAW Essentials
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 06:57:49 PM · #15 |
| Do you find this RAW program better/easier to use than the RAW feature in PS CS?? Just wondering.. |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 07:01:12 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
RAW images look like mud, mostly, until you 'shop them up to specs.
On the negative side, they take up a lot of space and require a lot of work to make presentable.
Robt. |
They don't alway look like mud. I shoot standard parameters in Raw as a rule and many of the images that come from the camera don't need to be re-touched or ajusted at all. Tack sharp, clear and bright. Of course that may also depend a lot on the camera being used.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 07:01:16 PM · #17 |
Great info, thanks to all.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 07:04:18 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Damian:
I trust this site for fantastic information, read this article as to why RAW is used by many photogs, it actually made me switch over from Jpeg.
The RAW Truth
And a FANTASTIC piece of software that I recently discovered for editing RAW images is RAWshooter Essentials and you can find it here. THE DOWNLOAD IS FREE BTW.
RAW Essentials |
Yes, please, can you elaborate if this piece of software is superior to Photoshop CS converter, and if so, in what repects?
I must say that I just recently switched to RAW shooting, and I am not looking back. With memory Aand storage being so cheap, having the peace of mind knowing that you did not screw up WB and can salvage wrong exposure is PRICELESS.
Message edited by author 2005-03-21 19:06:57. |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 07:06:14 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by bear_music:
RAW images look like mud, mostly, until you 'shop them up to specs.
On the negative side, they take up a lot of space and require a lot of work to make presentable.
Robt. |
They don't alway look like mud. I shoot standard parameters in Raw as a rule and many of the images that come from the camera don't need to be re-touched or ajusted at all. Tack sharp, clear and bright. Of course that may also depend a lot on the camera being used. |
Same here. My raw shots look practically the same as my JPEGs.....I just like being able to make adustments before compression.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 07:20:40 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
That's a good illustration of what a RAW image looks liek before processing, it's a good before & after example, but it doesn't speak to the advantages of RAW. To show us that, we'd need to see the same image shot in jpg FINE and in RAW side-by-side. |
I don't understand what you mean by those two photos not showing the advantages of RAW vs JPEG? Just imagine if the before shot was only JPEG vs RAW. How much work would be invovled to salvage that and to get it to the same appearance as my after example? In Photoshop CS, I just fiddled with some sliders and voila, I have my after photo. Total edit time, maybe a minute, if that. If you can do that to a pure JPEG photo such as my before photo in the same time frame, please let me know. :)
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 07:32:52 PM · #21 |
The greatest advantage, and I'm not sure if it has really been expounded on here, is that Even in the Finest Mode JPG, there is compression and loss of the data (image reality) compared with RAW which is far closer to the TIFF (lossless, no compression) format image.
I have successfully expanded my base 11x14x300dpi Raw files to 20x30x300dpi with practically no evidence of resampling, whereas to do this with a JPG file would render nothing worth printing. |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 07:35:13 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Damian:
And a FANTASTIC piece of software that I recently discovered for editing RAW images is RAWshooter Essentials and you can find it here. THE DOWNLOAD IS FREE BTW.
RAW Essentials |
I second this - this a beautiful workflow-oriented RAW converter with some really neat features: it's non-destructive, it'll only let you use the sharpening, detail-extraction etc. controls if you're looking at the image at 100% magnification ... I could go on. Top stuff - and for nothing!
E |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 07:36:52 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by bear_music:
RAW images look like mud, mostly, until you 'shop them up to specs.
On the negative side, they take up a lot of space and require a lot of work to make presentable.
Robt. |
They don't alway look like mud. I shoot standard parameters in Raw as a rule and many of the images that come from the camera don't need to be re-touched or ajusted at all. Tack sharp, clear and bright. Of course that may also depend a lot on the camera being used. |
Then you're shooting RAW with in-camera software adjustments. Without them, you get raw RAW, and it looks muddy until you post-process. Unless I'm wrong, wicih I've been known to be... But that's what happens with my Nikon.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 07:37:38 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Arcanist:
The greatest advantage, and I'm not sure if it has really been expounded on here, is that Even in the Finest Mode JPG, there is compression and loss of the data (image reality) compared with RAW which is far closer to the TIFF (lossless, no compression) format image. |
Isn't a RAW file basically a direct dump from the image sensor to your flash memory without any processing by the camera whatsoever?
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 07:45:04 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by MrAkamai:
Originally posted by Arcanist:
The greatest advantage, and I'm not sure if it has really been expounded on here, is that Even in the Finest Mode JPG, there is compression and loss of the data (image reality) compared with RAW which is far closer to the TIFF (lossless, no compression) format image. |
Isn't a RAW file basically a direct dump from the image sensor to your flash memory without any processing by the camera whatsoever? |
Yup, but on some cameras you can overlay data on the RAW, especially white balance info.
This brings us to your response to me earlier, where you said "imagine trying to rescue this image if it were jpg" or something similar. My point is, that's what a raw RAW image looks like. because none of these processing levels are overlaid on it, you have to do it all after the fact.
RAW's not a panacea for miserable exposures; it's just raw data dumped into memory, and the sharpening, contrast, white level, hue/saturation etc that our cameras usually do for us, you do for yourself when you process the RAW image; only then does it stop being mud.
Robt.
|
|
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: 08/12/2025 08:25:59 AM EDT.
