| 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: 10/03/2025 11:41:36 PM EDT.
