| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/19/2007 07:46:45 PM · #1 |
People are always telling me too shoot 'RAW' images! Why? What are the benifits of changing the file name and marker type? What does it do? DO it change picture quality?
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 07:52:23 PM · #2 |
Short answer:
1. It record image in 16-bit instead of 8-bit, giving much more information to work with.
2. It allows you to experiment with "camera settings" after the fact; white balance, contrast, any variable you set in the camera except the input variables like ISO, shutter speed, and aperture, can be varied in the 'RAW' processor.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 07:55:20 PM · #3 |
To basically sum it up: 'RAW'
That's from Wikipedia.
In other words, 'RAW' has no compression, every detail/specification of the shot is saved separately, straight out of your sensor. Thus, when you go to edit the photo, you have a lot more control of the colors, details, color temperature, shadows etc etc.
All the best,
-AC |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 07:57:08 PM · #4 |
You have much more control over the image in case a setting on the camera was incorrectly set. You should still try to get as good an image as possible, it doesn't help if the image is out of focus or just plain bad. But if the white balance is off, its easily corrected in the 'raw' file editor. Check out this link and I'm sure there are a ton of others. I think the camera also runs a decompression algorithm on jpeg files, which could alter the image. It doesn't do this with 'raw' images.
//www.adobe.com/designcenter/dialogbox/why_shoot_raw.html |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 08:01:43 PM · #5 |
Because the cool kids do it. :-D
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 08:18:56 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
1. It record image in 16-bit instead of 8-bit, giving much more information to work with. |
Technically only 12 bits with the latest Canons and Nikons going up to 14 bits. |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 08:19:41 PM · #7 |
From someone who's not sold on 'RAW' yet, if you get the exposure and white balance right, and you aren't going to be doing any extreme editing, I find 'RAW' has little benefit for most photos. The 'RAW' can be a little sharper, yes, but also noisier. If you really want ultimate quality, then you take the 'RAW', noise filter it with Noise Ninja, edit it, and sharpen it up as you want. However, for most stuff, I'm pretty happy with the far easier and faster approach of noise filtering and sharpening on the JPG.
For recovering highlights, you really can't get much back past the full white level, although, with the right software (not Canon DPP), you can get a little back past the highlights. However, you can get smoother graduations from a sky that is almost blown out. See here for some tests I did. For a normal image with lots of detail, I really don't see much benefit in highlight or shadow detail recovery compared to JPG. The image noise is often above the level of the 12 bit ADC graduations anyway.
So, I will often shoot 'RAW' for tricky lighting situations, such as multiple light source, or high dynamic range with a bright sky and dark subject, and 'RAW' will then give you the option of combining multiple conversions from the 'RAW', with different white balance or exposure. But, I when using 'RAW', it's always 'RAW'+JPG and 98% of the time, I will just use the JPG. With the right software, you can do all the same stuff on a JPG file just as easily, the only real difference being that 'RAW' allows you to push things just a little further in editing before the editing starts producing noticeable artifacts.
So, I'm normally pretty picky, and I can see the occasional small benefit from 'RAW', but DPP and the 'RAW' conversion is not part of my standard workflow, so the extra work is simply not justified for most of my shots.
If you are curious, go and shoot 'RAW' for one session, and muck around with the shots when you get home. Try out DPP and see what you can do. Print the shots out and see if you can notice any real difference.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 08:31:26 PM · #8 |
A good review of why you should be shooting in 'RAW' from the Luminous-landscape.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 08:37:01 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by surfdabbler:
The 'RAW' can be a little sharper, yes, but also noisier. |
Huh? Noisier?
Perhaps if you have in-camera noise reduction on for the JPGs, but I'm never had any issues with noisy 'RAW' conversion, unless I completely effed up the exposure.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 10:11:47 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by surfdabbler:
The 'RAW' can be a little sharper, yes, but also noisier. |
Huh? Noisier?
Perhaps if you have in-camera noise reduction on for the JPGs, but I'm never had any issues with noisy 'RAW' conversion, unless I completely effed up the exposure. |
Agreed. If 'RAW' is noisier, you're doing something wrong.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 11:11:11 PM · #11 |
But I can't edit 'RAW' images! What do I do? I'll have to buy the $300 new version of Photoshop, (CS3)...
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 11:15:23 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by ColemanGariety:
But I can't edit 'RAW' images! What do I do? I'll have to buy the $300 new version of Photoshop, (CS3)... |
There are any number of free tools that can create JPG/TIFF from 'RAW' files. You could use those or the ones that come with the camera (not sure about Nikon but the other manf include something). btw... A fresh version of CS3 costs a lot more then $300 unless you get some special deal thru something you buy :-)
Message edited by author 2007-12-19 23:16:02. |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 11:15:28 PM · #13 |
Yes you can.
Didn't your camera come with a 'RAW' Software?
Or go to www.download.com and download a Image 'RAW' program.
Make sure you do shoot in 'raw' mode though :)
You also have a Canon 5D according to your profile, so I'm almost positive that that came with some 'RAW' program or Canon 'RAW' pro or something like that...
Message edited by author 2007-12-19 23:16:57. |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 11:19:14 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by ColemanGariety:
But I can't edit 'RAW' images! What do I do? I'll have to buy the $300 new version of Photoshop, (CS3)... |
Before I got CS3 I used zoombrowser to find the image I wanted to work with, then I right clicked the image and selected processing 'raw' images. That got me into a screen where I could make the 'raw' adjustments and then transfer directly to CS2 in 16 bit tif format. I only got CS3 so I could use Adobe Camera 'Raw', which has a few nicer features.
Message edited by author 2007-12-19 23:19:54.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 11:25:05 PM · #15 |
FWIW, Adobe Photoshop Elements uses the same exact 'RAW' converter as CS3. Corel Paint Shop Pro has a decent converter built in too.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 11:31:14 PM · #16 |
Because I don't have the balls to shot JPEG. It's like shooting without a net.
Sure, I do everything I need to get the shot right, but when I need the extra exposure or laditude, I can get it from a 'RAW' file. Not from a JPEG. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 02:07:39 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by ColemanGariety:
People are always telling me too shoot 'RAW' images! Why? What are the benifits of changing the file name and marker type? What does it do? DO it change picture quality? |
Try it and then you will understand.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 02:58:36 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Agreed. If 'RAW' is noisier, you're doing something wrong.
R. |
For most Nikon's Adobe Camera 'Raw' is noisier than Nikon software. Also the standard setting for ACR is to do auto adjustments and that completely sucks. I was working with a lot of 5D studio shots and ACR with auto adjustments tries to reconstruct detail in the black bacground, creating massive amounts of noise. I never use auto adjustments, but I wanted to see what it could do. It sucks.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 03:04:19 AM · #19 |
Why shoot jpeg? And before you say that jpegs are easier to edit or suchlike... I can work faster with 'RAW' files to achieve the same goals. Storage can not be an issue at current price levels.
The only reason not to shoot 'RAW' in my opinion is if your computer not good enough to deal with the files.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 03:23:10 AM · #20 |
| Many cameras allow you to save an image as 'RAW' and JPG at the same time. If you have that option try it then you can fully appreciate the extra quality and editing potential of 'RAW'. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 06:54:44 AM · #21 |
| check out this thread at dpreview on exposure latitude with 'RAW' & the D3 ... |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 08:28:48 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by ColemanGariety:
People are always telling me too shoot 'RAW' images! Why? What are the benifits of changing the file name and marker type? What does it do? DO it change picture quality? |
Try it and then you will understand. |
I did and I do, now I always shoot 'RAW'. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 08:35:57 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by fixedintime:
I did and I do, now I always shoot 'RAW'. |
Ditto...
I only use JPEG outdoors in good lighting as it is the only time I can trust the camera to expose properly. Anything other than optimal conditions means 'RAW' gives you the all important safety net between a JPEG image that could not be saved, or a 'RAW' image that can.
Message edited by author 2007-12-20 08:36:18. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 08:42:28 AM · #24 |
| I'll put an extra word in for 'RAW'... just try it, I'm a convert... the amount of options you have after the fact more than make up for the file sizes and sometimes increased editing time... |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 09:09:13 AM · #25 |
I think if you are going out to get one great frame out of a bunch of shots, say for a challenge, or a print, or a family photo, I'd shoot 'RAW' (and I have). That way you can edit the keepers and not have to worry about post processing the rest.
However, if you are going to be shooting like crazy for an event that you just want a ton of prints from, JPG is easier because there is less post processing. i.e. I went to see Beach Volleyball and printed 80 or so 4 x 6s to show my friends--didn't need the 'RAW' for that as I shot over 250 pictures and eliminated the ones that were incorrectly exposed, etc. |
|
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 04:14:14 PM EDT.
