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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Raw files - Should I?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 78, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/05/2006 07:35:11 PM · #1
I'm fairly decent with Photoshop CS. With that said, what is the biggest benefit if shooting with my D70 in raw?

Where would I have the most room to improve a photo shot in raw vs. one shot JPEG?

Thanks,

KS
 05/05/2006 07:38:49 PM · #2
imho the 3 best reasons for shooting RAW are that you get a larger file to start with, have full control over any and all editing, and have (at least) a 2 stop exposure compensation after the shot was taken.
 05/05/2006 07:42:34 PM · #3
Shooting RAW gives you the most control. Other than the reason listed by E_S you have post shot control of WB and a full 12-bits of pixel data compared to 8-bit of JPEG.

Why let the camera throw away data you might be able to use later?

I try to shoot exclusively RAW now, I prefer the control over letting the camera make the decisions.
 05/05/2006 07:50:17 PM · #4
Exposure compensation, shadow depth, whitebalance and most of all sharpness (D70 jpeg is way softer than the NEF.
 05/05/2006 07:54:52 PM · #5
Azrifel, with all due respect, how can a processed and sharpened jpeg be softer than an un-processed, un-sharpened raw file?

--

Anyway...nah, I wouldn't shoot RAW...it takes up a lot of memory and doesn't really give enough to make it worth it in my opinion. If you are under or overexposing your shots by two stops, then you need to rethink your camera settings in the first place. If you need a minor tweak, which just about every shot can use, then you're fine in jpeg. If your white balance is so off that it can't be easily fixed with curves, or color balance, then again, you need to rethink your settings from before the time you took your picture.

That being said...I've seen 20x30's from jpeg's ... and I've seen them from RAW...I can't tell a difference, and I would bet that neither could anyone on here.
 05/05/2006 07:58:39 PM · #6
Some of the following are repeats of info previously posted, but"

Advantages
- As much as one stop of highlight recovery beyond the JPEG "clip point." Result is the ability to expose to the right with confidence and gain dynamic range, as well as decrease shadow noise by "pulling down" exposure in conversion.
- 12-bit data depth per channel, plus adjustment of exposure, white balance (WB), contrast and color are made prior to converting to 8-bit, so post-conversion changes are minimized. Result is smoother tonality.
- WB adjustment in post means far less worries about WB when shooting
- Smaller file size than TIFF, but still lossless. Fast writes in camera due to low processing overhead
- Greater processing power of PC allows more sophisticated demosaic and other image processing algorithms; better detail extraction, better noise supression, smoother color.

Disadvantages
- Larger file size than JPEG
- Additional step of RAW conversion required in post
- RAW formats are proprieteary and ever-changing. Software takes some time to catch up with new cameras

05/05/2006 07:58:58 PM · #7
Once you start shoting RAW and discover the latitude and control it gives I don't think you'll go back to JPEG.

I find that the large file sizes also disipline my shooting and keep the number of shots managable. I was amazed to read a post here today from somebody who'd gone through 10,000 frames in a year - that's just too many for me to get my head around!
 05/05/2006 08:02:57 PM · #8
Deapee, if you were to shoot film which would you use:

Color negative film or Color Slide film? And Why?

Message edited by author 2006-05-05 20:03:14.
 05/05/2006 08:04:16 PM · #9
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Deapee, if you were to shoot film which would you use:

Color negative film or Color Slide film? And Why?


What does this have to do with the discussion at hand, and why is the question directed at me?
 05/05/2006 08:07:17 PM · #10
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Deapee, if you were to shoot film which would you use:

Color negative film or Color Slide film? And Why?


What does this have to do with the discussion at hand, and why is the question directed at me?


Well, you state that you discourage RAW files, so I just wondered how you felt about it.

And, it has a lot to do with the discussion at hand. Mostly it's about exposure lattitude and control.
 05/05/2006 08:10:30 PM · #11
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Deapee, if you were to shoot film which would you use:

Color negative film or Color Slide film? And Why?


What does this have to do with the discussion at hand, and why is the question directed at me?


Well, you state that you discourage RAW files, so I just wondered how you felt about it.

And, it has a lot to do with the discussion at hand. Mostly it's about exposure lattitude and control.


It has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The discussion is about RAW, the benefits of RAW, and whether or not the original poster should shoot RAW. It is not about film and which film someone would shoot if they did shoot film, nor is it about how much wood a woodchuck would chuck, if that woodchuck just so happened to chuck wood in the first place.

And as far as wanting to know how I felt about the RAW files, I think I made myself somewhat clear, without rambling, in my first post. Post your opinion, post a few statements to back up your opinion, then move on...don't ask completely un-related questions that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand to people who want nothing to do with the questions asked.
 05/05/2006 08:17:07 PM · #12
OK... I can't debate ya on a point, if you don't know why I made the point. So, let's drop it.

cheeseman out
 05/05/2006 08:17:43 PM · #13
Originally posted by deapee:
That being said...I've seen 20x30's from jpeg's ... and I've seen them from RAW...I can't tell a difference, and I would bet that neither could anyone on here.

I bet they could.
 05/05/2006 09:02:49 PM · #14
Originally posted by deapee:
Azrifel, with all due respect, how can a processed and sharpened jpeg be softer than an un-processed, un-sharpened raw file?


Depends on what program you use. Nikon Capture will use all the camera settings that were set at the moment of shooting. It doesn't start from scratch. Here is an example.



The Jpeg crops and the NEF crops (both 100%) had exactly the same settings, but the NEF could be processed with the processing power of my pc instead of the one of the camera. Jpeg softness compared to NEF has been mentioned in various reviews as well.
Sure, the jpeg output is decent, but the NEF is better, especially as a basis for further editing. It depends if this is important for you. Both are available, so anyone can use what they want. :)

Message edited by author 2006-05-05 21:08:29.
 05/05/2006 09:11:49 PM · #15
I dont shoot in RAW, just because I have always felt comfortible with jpeg's.

But, what is NEF? Is that something different the RAW?

Message edited by author 2006-05-05 21:12:34.
 05/05/2006 09:12:52 PM · #16
Nice example Sander. Quite a difference in rendering of fine detail, as I'd expect.
 05/05/2006 09:13:50 PM · #17
Originally posted by Riggs:
I dont shoot in RAW, just because I have always felt comfortible with jpeg's.

But, what is NEF? Is that something different the RAW?


NEF is the file extension for Nikon's RAW format, Like CRW and CR2 are Canon's

Message edited by author 2006-05-05 21:14:01.
 05/05/2006 09:29:33 PM · #18
Shoot raw! First of all, memory is cheap and getting cheaper. I wouldn't base the decision on that alone. You'd probably find it most helpful in tricky lighting situations where the cameras white balance just doesn't do it right - being able to easily adjust it is great even for shots where it might just need a little tweaking. Even for shots that don't have difficult lighting you can pull a lot more out of the image without degrading overall quality or having to worry about problems like banding in the shadows. Another plus is that since all the editing of a RAW file is also non-destructive you never have to worry about losing the original image.

Before you start shooting everything RAW though why not just take a couple shots here and there. Download the demo's for a couple good raw converters and compare, see if you like the workflow or not.

There are a couple of really helpful articles here as well, see specifically the Shadow/Highlight detail and the Why Raw.

In the Shadow/Highlight detail part III there is a very good comparison via histogram of the difference editing can have on a JPEG vs a TIFF from RAW image.
 05/05/2006 09:31:42 PM · #19
Originally posted by deapee:


It has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The discussion is about RAW, the benefits of RAW, and whether or not the original poster should shoot RAW. It is not about film and which film someone would shoot if they did shoot film, nor is it about how much wood a woodchuck would chuck, if that woodchuck just so happened to chuck wood in the first place.

And as far as wanting to know how I felt about the RAW files, I think I made myself somewhat clear, without rambling, in my first post. Post your opinion, post a few statements to back up your opinion, then move on...don't ask completely un-related questions that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand to people who want nothing to do with the questions asked.



05/05/2006 09:40:09 PM · #20
The only difference I see is that the one was sharpened more than the other. Why can't you just sharpen the jpeg on your computer to make it look like the RAW? Of course, everyone has to find all these reasons that RAW is better...they have to find reasons to validate all their time spent processing RAW files, their extra needed memory, and their cluttered up workflow.

If you won't listen to me, listen to a pro:

//www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
 05/05/2006 09:53:59 PM · #21
Originally posted by deapee:
The only difference I see is that the one was sharpened more than the other. Why can't you just sharpen the jpeg on your computer to make it look like the RAW? Of course, everyone has to find all these reasons that RAW is better...they have to find reasons to validate all their time spent processing RAW files, their extra needed memory, and their cluttered up workflow.

If you won't listen to me, listen to a pro:

//www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

From the above website:
"I'm sharing what works for me gathered across three decades of continuous full-time paid professional experience in digital imaging."

Huh? Surely whatever work in "digital" he did thirty years ago has little to do with his experience with RAW file formats in 2006.

All his arguments for not using RAW ("disadvantages" at the bottom of the article) seem have to do with file formats, and the inability to open RAW files in anything other than Photoshop and each camera's proprietary software.

As well, his workflow suits JPG, or, as he says, he's sharing "what works for me". Which may not suit everyone, particularly many photo-art hobbyists. Pro or not, he's wrong. ;)

Seems you're evangelizing just as much as all those rabid RAW proponents, deapee. :)
05/05/2006 10:00:09 PM · #22
Keep it cool, guys...no one has crossed the line.

But please dont make them lock this thread.
 05/05/2006 10:10:25 PM · #23
Originally posted by Louis:
Pro or not, he's wrong. ;)


Based on your opinion he's wrong.

Originally posted by Louis:
Seems you're evangelizing just as much as all those rabid RAW proponents, deapee. :)


I'm not evangelizing here. I simply shared my view, and people keep responding directly toward me, some more politely than others, so I respond.

--

Fact of the matter is that the original poster wanted to know if they should or shouldn't shoot RAW...and it just seems to me like everyone is just posting after my post to take their shots at me. If everyone could just stick with the topic at hand, share their views, and move on, everything would be fine.
 05/05/2006 10:13:37 PM · #24
I think using Ken Rockwell as an expert source (at least that article)is dubious at best. Most of what he's written is nothing more that his rather biased oppinion.

All you need to do to figure out whether or not you want to shoot RAW is try it out. If you like it, great. If you don't like it, great. Of course it's going to be slow at first, its a new process/workflow but don't let that turn you off. There are quality benifits over shooting JPEG's but these can be pretty small so it's just a matter of figuring out whether or not you find it worthwhile.
 05/05/2006 10:18:22 PM · #25
Originally posted by bfox2:
I think using Ken Rockwell as an expert source (at least that article)is dubious at best. Most of what he's written is nothing more that his rather biased oppinion.


uhm...no offense again, but isn't that what we're sharing here, is our opinions -- some more biased than others? What I was trying to do was share the opinion of a pro.

edit: typo

Message edited by author 2006-05-05 22:18:51.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 12:47:24 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 12:47:24 AM EDT.