DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Who likes 'em RAW?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 30, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/06/2005 03:28:36 PM · #1
OK, I keep hearing everyone say that RAW files are better and more flexible than the JPGs. I still dont understand why. Anything you do with the RAW files, you can still do with JPGs in Photoshop. You can change the White Balance, you can change the Saturation and so on and so forth.

Can someone please explain to me what the Advantages of RAW files are? (Oh, and please explain as you would a child, since I am a beginner's beginner)

Thanks!

Message edited by author 2005-09-06 15:28:56.
 09/06/2005 03:34:54 PM · #2
There were too many fights, arguments and debates before. You should search other threads.

Nick
 09/06/2005 03:35:38 PM · #3
I'm a RAW convert...I love it because it allows me to make the changes that might be necessary without the same loss of quality that I might have in jpg alone. I feel like I have more control, more flexibility, and more accuracy with color representation as well as the ability to bring out the details in a shot. I only shoot jpg when I need to conserve space on the cf cards or have extremely good light. :)
 09/06/2005 03:37:07 PM · #4
Originally posted by Nikolai1024:
There were too many fights, arguments and debates before. You should search other threads.

Nick


Thanks Nick, would you mind pointing me in the right direction?
 09/06/2005 03:37:11 PM · #5
OK, well I am definitely not the person to get deep into the technical aspects, but I can tell you the RAW files are not compressed and that the image quality is higher (more information per image).

Now it took me about a month or so to finally swtich over to RAW after getting my Xt and honestly, I did not see much of a difference. I used the Zoom Browser tool that came with the camera and tried adjusting the picture using that. It was not until a few weeks ago that I finally discovered Raw Shooter Essential (RSE). It's a free program and it is simply amazing what you can do to an image to correct the look and feel of it from the camera (prior to editing). It is seriously soooo much better and once you try it you can see for yourself just what you can do to your pictures to really make them as you saw them when first taking the picture.

Try it out of you get chance... it's free and can be found by a simple search.

Message edited by author 2005-09-06 15:38:08.
 09/06/2005 03:39:04 PM · #6
RAW files are saved in 16bit (more information) file than a JPG which is 8 bit. Giving you more detail to work with and allowing you to tweak the photograph instead of the camera tweaking most of it. Plus JPG is a compressed file, you loose data.

RAW vs. JPG
Should I shoot RAW?

Message edited by author 2005-09-06 15:41:00.
 09/06/2005 03:43:17 PM · #7
The really big advantage of RAW is that it contains more information than the JPEG. Your camera has more dynamic range (the range between the darkest and brightest areas where detail is reproduced, not lost in shadow or blown out) than JPEG can reproduce. The RAW file retains this information. When you do the RAW conversion, if you blew out some areas, you can bring them back in by about a stop, essentially recovering what would have been gone forever in JPEG.
Use of this added dynamic range is called "exposing to the right." When you pull down, or decrease exposure in RAW conversion, you reduce noise as well. the difference can be dramatic.
While it's true that you can adjust WB in a JPEG using a simple application of Curves, you are compressing the data into a narrower range as you do so. It's much better to get the WB correct in RAW conversion. Severe cirrections to WB in JPEG will leave very telltale artifacts in the photo, such as banding or "posterization." Shooting RAW essentially means that your choice of WB can be made during conversion, the settin gont he camera is just a preference, it does not change the data written to the card. This is inherently more flexible than trying to "correct" it later.
RAW files have no lossy compression like JPEG, but are smaller than uncompressed TIFFs. they are also written faster to the card, since less processing is done. So if you want the highest quality output (not saving to JPEG) then RAW is the best way to go.
These are jsut a couple reasons off the top of my head why I would never go back to a JPEG-based workflow.
 09/06/2005 03:43:25 PM · #8
The most obvious argument in favour of RAW is that it records the image with 12 bits ber channel (Fuji S3 Pro actually uses 14 bits), whereas JPG can use only 8 bits per channel. Ergo, converting to jpg you're confining yourself to a dynamic space 16 times smaller than with RAW.
 09/06/2005 03:48:06 PM · #9
Try this one:

//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=141969

There are many more...
 09/06/2005 03:52:06 PM · #10
Originally posted by JayWalk:
OK, well I am definitely not the person to get deep into the technical aspects, but I can tell you the RAW files are not compressed and that the image quality is higher (more information per image).

Now it took me about a month or so to finally swtich over to RAW after getting my Xt and honestly, I did not see much of a difference. I used the Zoom Browser tool that came with the camera and tried adjusting the picture using that. It was not until a few weeks ago that I finally discovered Raw Shooter Essential (RSE). It's a free program and it is simply amazing what you can do to an image to correct the look and feel of it from the camera (prior to editing). It is seriously soooo much better and once you try it you can see for yourself just what you can do to your pictures to really make them as you saw them when first taking the picture.

Try it out of you get chance... it's free and can be found by a simple search.


Thanks Jay, will definitely look out for that program, question tho, Does the Rebel XT show the CR2 files in windows? or do I need a card reader for that?
 09/06/2005 04:50:58 PM · #11
your camera should have come with a RAW file viewer that you install & run on windows...
 09/06/2005 04:52:50 PM · #12
Originally posted by Ampao64:

Does the Rebel XT show the CR2 files in windows? or do I need a card reader for that?


If your using windows XP there's a powertoy that you can download to be able to view RAW files in windows explorer.
 09/06/2005 04:55:41 PM · #13
Search function doesn't work here and the google one SUX

Message edited by author 2005-09-06 17:16:01.
 09/06/2005 05:08:53 PM · #14
Here's what I think about useing RAW when shooting....it holds all color and detail information. This is helpful because I use it in many ways. From different sizes to different formats. I's very useful. With shooting in Jpeg, you have one or two color profiles to work with, adobeRGB or sRGB depending on your camera functions. After shooting, when color correcting your image you can loose important information (pixils) and it can distort the true color or details. It may not be noticable, but I feel better when I have all my information and it can be printed without worries that I lost details or color. Now for the down side. It's time consumeing! However, it's worth the effort with a selected shot that I have. I use RAW when shooting something of a strong interest, such has my abandoned building series. All shot with RAW. I shoot in jpeg, with other things such as family events. ect....One other thing, RAW files are HUGE and your card will fill up fast and downloads can be longer than jpegs. However, I feel the be results of a great production is useing RAW.

Message edited by author 2005-09-06 17:09:56.
 09/06/2005 05:15:01 PM · #15
Originally posted by Ampao64:
Originally posted by JayWalk:
OK, well I am definitely not the person to get deep into the technical aspects, but I can tell you the RAW files are not compressed and that the image quality is higher (more information per image).

Now it took me about a month or so to finally swtich over to RAW after getting my Xt and honestly, I did not see much of a difference. I used the Zoom Browser tool that came with the camera and tried adjusting the picture using that. It was not until a few weeks ago that I finally discovered Raw Shooter Essential (RSE). It's a free program and it is simply amazing what you can do to an image to correct the look and feel of it from the camera (prior to editing). It is seriously soooo much better and once you try it you can see for yourself just what you can do to your pictures to really make them as you saw them when first taking the picture.

Try it out of you get chance... it's free and can be found by a simple search.


Thanks Jay, will definitely look out for that program, question tho, Does the Rebel XT show the CR2 files in windows? or do I need a card reader for that?


If you go to the Windows homepage, they make a free download that allows you to view your RAW files via windows based explorer. i will try and find the link for you.

edit: Just saw that cpanaioti already mentioned it.

Message edited by author 2005-09-06 17:18:35.
 09/06/2005 05:18:04 PM · #16
Here is the link: Windows RAW Viewer
 09/06/2005 06:47:21 PM · #17
Paolo, RAW files are not for everyone. I have only shot a few RAW files and really dont see any benefit from them for MY photography or the way I edit my pics and the size of prints I make.

I understand that RAW files allow a lot more adjusting and color tweeking and so on, but RAW files are not for me.

On my canon D60 I primarily shoot at the Medium JPG (fine) setting and my prints are awesome. I only print very few images at 8x10 and most are 4x6. I have done 1 large pano shot (6 images) that printed very nicely using the above settings.

if you are going to be doing prints 16x20 or larger, or you have a very critical or important shot then shoot raw, if not then JPG will work great

James

James
09/06/2005 06:57:28 PM · #18
i think if you have control over the enivornment which you're shooting in, like a studio, raw isn't necessary. it seems like raw is to correct bad wb and over/underexposure but if you think you can get it right the first time, raw might not be worth it
 09/06/2005 07:56:36 PM · #19
The fundamental difference is the bit-depth. JPEG gives you 256 values per colour channel per pixel. RAW gives you 4096. Now, does that sound like a real difference? In terms of colour, it's arguable that the eye can't distinguish that many colours.

But if you use mono - do you think it's more likely that there are 256 shades of grey, or that there are 4096?

E

Message edited by author 2005-09-06 19:56:50.
 09/06/2005 08:00:48 PM · #20
I am lso a learner driver when it come to photography. themain reason that i use raw is that i have much more detail in raw than jpg. esspesially when taking a macro.
 09/06/2005 09:32:23 PM · #21
As a photovegan I prefer my images straight from the sensor unadulterated by additives or preservatives.
 09/06/2005 09:45:30 PM · #22
Originally posted by kadac00:
As a photovegan I prefer my images straight from the sensor unadulterated by additives or preservatives.


photovegan... I love it, I think im gonna start using that term.

James
 09/06/2005 10:55:35 PM · #23
I tried going to RAW for a while, but missed the ability to see thumbnails in windows explorer. Finally I decided that unless I was printing posters, the largest JPG setting was plenty sufficient for my use.

Zoom way in to the same spot on two images shot each way and see what you think.
 09/06/2005 11:39:59 PM · #24
Microsoft has released a add on for creating RAW thumnails in Explorer.

Originally posted by conglett:
I tried going to RAW for a while, but missed the ability to see thumbnails in windows explorer. Finally I decided that unless I was printing posters, the largest JPG setting was plenty sufficient for my use.

Zoom way in to the same spot on two images shot each way and see what you think.

09/06/2005 11:50:11 PM · #25
Originally posted by JayWalk:
OK, well I am definitely not the person to get deep into the technical aspects, but I can tell you the RAW files are not compressed and that the image quality is higher (more information per image).

Now it took me about a month or so to finally swtich over to RAW after getting my Xt and honestly, I did not see much of a difference. I used the Zoom Browser tool that came with the camera and tried adjusting the picture using that. It was not until a few weeks ago that I finally discovered Raw Shooter Essential (RSE). It's a free program and it is simply amazing what you can do to an image to correct the look and feel of it from the camera (prior to editing). It is seriously soooo much better and once you try it you can see for yourself just what you can do to your pictures to really make them as you saw them when first taking the picture.

Try it out of you get chance... it's free and can be found by a simple search.


Have you tried Digital Photo Professional? It is supposed to be included with the Rebel XT...it is a very good and easy program to work your RAW/Jpg. The program itself made me a RAW convert...

ED: Link to the DPP tuts...

Message edited by author 2005-09-06 23:51:04.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 03:40:19 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 03:40:19 AM EDT.