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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> RAW vs JPEG Debate
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 64, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/12/2007 01:48:57 PM · #26
I go back and forth depending on the situation.

I don't think one is "right" and one is "wrong," no matter how desperately you would like to argue it. :)

Whatever works for you in your situation
07/12/2007 01:49:08 PM · #27
Well if you read the rest, i pretty much cant give you a reason. Its application dependant. My point is if your doing basic conversion just to avoid damage from jpeg compression, in camera sharepning and white balance.Depedning on how you do it you can already be editing while its converting. So almost 0 time is lost.

It only avoids the damages of jpeg compression, if the editing isnt extreme then probly doesnt need it. The editor doesnt request, then not required unless you think so. Shooting outdoors you might not have any white balance issues, and maybe the evnt doesnt require much editing...

edit: As said before and above by karmat and by me 3 times lol. It goes both ways.

Message edited by author 2007-07-12 13:49:42.
07/12/2007 01:57:08 PM · #28
Now that we've settled on "depends on your needs," in contrast to the OP's point ...

Anybody got a good Web reference for a basic intro to editing in RAW in PS? I use CS2, and the basic thing that came with my D200 doesn't seem to let me do much. I can convert to 8 or 16 bit, but with the tiny preview window, it doesn't let me see much about what the WB and exposure settings will really do.

Thanks!
07/12/2007 02:00:13 PM · #29
Originally posted by levyj413:

Now that we've settled on "depends on your needs," in contrast to the OP's point ...

Anybody got a good Web reference for a basic intro to editing in RAW in PS? I use CS2, and the basic thing that came with my D200 doesn't seem to let me do much. I can convert to 8 or 16 bit, but with the tiny preview window, it doesn't let me see much about what the WB and exposure settings will really do.

Thanks!


Get yourself Nikon Capture NX it is the bomb diggity! :-D
07/12/2007 02:07:49 PM · #30
Originally posted by levyj413:

Now that we've settled on "depends on your needs," in contrast to the OP's point ...

Anybody got a good Web reference for a basic intro to editing in RAW in PS? I use CS2, and the basic thing that came with my D200 doesn't seem to let me do much. I can convert to 8 or 16 bit, but with the tiny preview window, it doesn't let me see much about what the WB and exposure settings will really do.

Thanks!


I kind of picked it up rigth quick. First thing todo is upgrade to ACR 3.7 if you havent 4.0/4.1 is CS3 so find the older download its on there.

You will find some filters and what not wont work in 16 bit color. Associate yuorself witht he mode adjustment for 8 bit 16 bit and even 32 bit color inside of normal photoshop.

You will have the choice when your converting 8 bit or 16 bit, tiff or jpeg yada yada.
07/12/2007 02:15:44 PM · #31
Adobe Camera Raw 4.0 now supports processing of jpeg files directly with many enhanced features not previously available in ACR. To enable this feature: select 'Edit'; Preferences; File Handling> Jpeg prefer ACR.

I especially like the 'fill light' and 'recover' features that enable me to salvage otherwise unusable images. I shot a wedding this past weekend under very marginal lighting conditions and lost only one photo out of 500+ images captured, primarily due to the enhanced features of ACR 4.0
07/12/2007 02:17:38 PM · #32
Originally posted by ElGordo:

Adobe Camera Raw 4.0 now supports processing of jpeg files directly with many enhanced features not previously available in ACR. To enable this feature: select 'Edit'; Preferences; File Handling> Jpeg prefer ACR.

I especially like the 'fill light' and 'recover' features that enable me to salvage otherwise unusable images. I shot a wedding this past weekend under very marginal lighting conditions and lost only one photo out of 500+ images captured, primarily due to the enhanced features of ACR 4.0


Its just ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Brad in a box the features were always there just took alot more work :-)
07/12/2007 02:54:38 PM · #33
If in doubt shoot in RAW + small JPeg. That cuts down on my converting time for me and allows me to skim through the JPegs because they are small and then I decide which ones I need to convert. Most of the time if the competitor is ordering up to an 8x10, the small Jpeg is fine and prints up to that size very well. I print on a dye sub Kodak printer. I shoot horse shows and this works for me. If I mess up an exposure because with working outside, as most event photographers know, the light is constantly changing so it gives me a bit more leeway, if a cloud skims over the sun and I havent adjusted the exposure for example. I always shoot in manual mode. Also from time to time I will squeeze in an opportune picture that I see and think will be a good stock image and RAW again will just give you a bit more leeway with what you can give the client as far as processing goes.
07/12/2007 05:24:16 PM · #34
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:


Get yourself Nikon Capture NX it is the bomb diggity! :-D


If you're not Mac oriented you might want to see if you can get Capture 4.0. I tried to run NX on a PC and the interface, IMHO, SUCKS BIG!
Of course if you're not already used to 4.0 or 4.04, then you'll have to learn something anyway, and Nikon doesn't support 4.04 or older anymore.
07/12/2007 05:54:27 PM · #35
Interface may suck in your opinion (Not mine as I can learn any application in minutes) but the tool set ROCKS THE HIZZY FOR SHIZZY. I aint see jack that competes with it.

Message edited by author 2007-07-12 21:01:45.
07/12/2007 09:42:44 PM · #36
Jpeg cost me probable publication of my Fitness challenge blue ribbon. I can't even try cause no snowboard mag accepts jpegs for photo submissions. So theres a big reason for me to stick to RAW 99% of the time...

Theres also the dynamic range issue: most DSLRs get 7ish stops of DR in jpeg, and 11-13 with RAW files. Thats about 50% more dynamic range; for landscape photographers, RAW v JPEG isnt an option, its a necessity.

Jpeg has its place, especially for PJ work where editors want photos fast and with "minimal editing" done to them. But for me...memory is dirt cheap these days and ive got lots of time to kill editing photos. RAW all the way.
07/14/2007 02:34:18 AM · #37
Originally posted by option:

Jpeg cost me probable publication of my Fitness challenge blue ribbon. I can't even try cause no snowboard mag accepts jpegs for photo submissions. So theres a big reason for me to stick to RAW 99% of the time...

Theres also the dynamic range issue: most DSLRs get 7ish stops of DR in jpeg, and 11-13 with RAW files. Thats about 50% more dynamic range; for landscape photographers, RAW v JPEG isnt an option, its a necessity.

Jpeg has its place, especially for PJ work where editors want photos fast and with "minimal editing" done to them. But for me...memory is dirt cheap these days and ive got lots of time to kill editing photos. RAW all the way.


I totally agree. All of my files are saved in TIFF or PSD when given to the publication. If I gave them a JPEG there would be an uproar and my credibility would be put in to question.

//anashcreation.com/thenashgallery/BenjaminKanarek/reload4?full=1
07/14/2007 02:46:39 AM · #38
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Originally posted by ElGordo:


I especially like the 'fill light' and 'recover' features that enable me to salvage otherwise unusable images. I shot a wedding this past weekend under very marginal lighting conditions and lost only one photo out of 500+ images captured, primarily due to the enhanced features of ACR 4.0


Its just ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Brad in a box the features were always there just took alot more work :-)

' . substr('//img116.exs.cx/img116/1231/z7shysterical.gif', strrpos('//img116.exs.cx/img116/1231/z7shysterical.gif', '/') + 1) . '
07/14/2007 02:50:20 AM · #39
I was waiting for you to see that. For a grease monkey your not a bad Post Processor!
07/14/2007 04:26:54 AM · #40
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

I was waiting for you to see that. For a grease monkey your not a bad Post Processor!

Ahem - 5 time re-certified ASE Master Technician, 4 time re-certified Advanced Engine Performance Specialist, and Certified Service Consultant as well as an ASE workshop member that writes the tests.
hehehe - fancy wurds for a mechanik huh.
Thanks btw!
07/14/2007 09:14:20 AM · #41
To the RAW naysayers.......do you leave you WB on auto and, if so, has the camera ever chosen the 'wrong' balance. If it did choose the the wrong balance, what did you do?

Message edited by author 2007-07-14 09:15:38.
07/14/2007 10:54:08 AM · #42
Originally posted by MrEd:

To the RAW naysayers.......do you leave you WB on auto and, if so, has the camera ever chosen the 'wrong' balance. If it did choose the the wrong balance, what did you do?

I use curves or levels to fix it. It's a 15-second fix. And yes, I leave WB on auto unless it messes up. In my dining room, with CFLs and yellow walls, I have to manually set the color temp as low as it will go, which is 2500K.

WB really isn't an argument for RAW. Heck, my camera can even bracket WB, RAW or JPG.

BTW, I'm not a RAW naysayer, I'm a "use the tools you need when you need them" sayer.
07/14/2007 12:03:35 PM · #43
Originally posted by MrEd:

To the RAW naysayers.......do you leave you WB on auto and, if so, has the camera ever chosen the 'wrong' balance. If it did choose the the wrong balance, what did you do?

Under yellow sodium lighting, AWB does NOT work:
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/19708/thumb/554710.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/19708/thumb/554710.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' (straight out of default raw conversion, no editing)

Set WB to Tungsten in same conditions, couple minutes later:
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/19708/thumb/554713.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/19708/thumb/554713.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' (straight out of default raw conversion, no editing)
07/14/2007 12:18:12 PM · #44
Originally posted by levyj413:

Originally posted by MrEd:

To the RAW naysayers.......do you leave you WB on auto and, if so, has the camera ever chosen the 'wrong' balance. If it did choose the the wrong balance, what did you do?

I use curves or levels to fix it. It's a 15-second fix. And yes, I leave WB on auto unless it messes up. In my dining room, with CFLs and yellow walls, I have to manually set the color temp as low as it will go, which is 2500K.

WB really isn't an argument for RAW. Heck, my camera can even bracket WB, RAW or JPG.

BTW, I'm not a RAW naysayer, I'm a "use the tools you need when you need them" sayer.


Not a raw naysayer.

I Have a file that CAN NOT be fixed by using levels. It contains alot of blue objects that are thrown completly out trying to use levels to correct the white balance. Had it been shot in RAW not only would it be fixed so easy, it would have resulted better.

Its an image that needs ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Brad Tool's 4.1! The only software to be re-recommended 5 times by CNET LMAO!

Message edited by author 2007-07-14 12:20:49.
07/14/2007 12:23:37 PM · #45
Camera Raw 4.0 is as much a part of my workflow as removing my lense cap. I shoot knowing I have headroom on the exposure and white balance as long as I don't exceed the histogram. Allows me to focus on other aspects of the shoot and not be solely dependent on a 2.5" LCD in bright sunlight to make my exposure/WB decisions.

But certainly, there are times when JPEG makes sense (burst, deadlines, small capacity CF). For me, only the exception. I am going to upgrade to a firewire CF card reader however because I am impatient.
07/14/2007 12:27:49 PM · #46
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

I Have a file that CAN NOT be fixed by using levels. It contains alot of blue objects that are thrown completly out trying to use levels to correct the white balance.


Really? You're using the white, gray, and black eyedroppers and it's not fixing it?

Or are you trying to do it manually? Would you be willing to post it so we could play with it?

I'm liking the point about extra dynamic range, though. Maybe within specific color channels you bump against one end or the other, so the extra stops give you some more room to play around to fix colors?
07/14/2007 12:31:53 PM · #47
Originally posted by levyj413:

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

I Have a file that CAN NOT be fixed by using levels. It contains alot of blue objects that are thrown completly out trying to use levels to correct the white balance.


Really? You're using the white, gray, and black eyedroppers and it's not fixing it?

Or are you trying to do it manually? Would you be willing to post it so we could play with it?

I'm liking the point about extra dynamic range, though. Maybe within specific color channels you bump against one end or the other, so the extra stops give you some more room to play around to fix colors?


Jeff I'll dig it up for you. Maybe I just need help with levels, but i was doing shots of stuff and a few shots included blue objects such as one shot alone had a Blue Windows Vista CD. I mean bright solid light blue. No matter what i did still turned out too yellow or pushed the CD into being blown and an even brighter and lighter blue.

Ill see if i can find either shot that im talking about. I know i have them. It was my fault for not setting manual white balance. I was shooting agaisnt a white peice of paper so i could edit out the background.

Mind you this was also 1 year ago (the vista disc's were Beta 2 copies), maybe I have gotten better? Ill dig it up for ya though either way.
07/14/2007 01:24:54 PM · #48
Originally posted by Brad:

Originally posted by MrEd:

To the RAW naysayers.......do you leave you WB on auto and, if so, has the camera ever chosen the 'wrong' balance. If it did choose the the wrong balance, what did you do?

Under yellow sodium lighting, AWB does NOT work:
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/19708/thumb/554710.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/19708/thumb/554710.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' (straight out of default raw conversion, no editing)

Set WB to Tungsten in same conditions, couple minutes later:
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/19708/thumb/554713.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/19708/thumb/554713.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' (straight out of default raw conversion, no editing)

Thanks ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Brad. I notice those were shot in RAW, which would be a pretty quick fix. Other than eliminating a PP step and using less space on your card and hard drive, what would be the benefit of shooting JPEG? Then again, if you wanted to, you could always delete the RAW's when you were done.

I guess my REAL question is..."Why wouldn't you shoot in RAW and have more control over your photos?" I wonder if it's just a preference thing with no REAL benefit either way?

Also, I read ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Skip's interview and noticed he shoots in JPEG. Would it had made a difference (taken longer or less time) to process The Richmond Photo if it was shot in RAW?

Message edited by author 2007-07-14 13:25:42.
07/14/2007 01:44:38 PM · #49
Fixing the WB in RAW is not all that it's cracked up to be sometimes.
If AWB is used under yellow sodium lights, fixing it after the click is not going to happen right.

Here is a shot that was taken in raw under just those conditions:
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/19708/thumb/520766.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/19708/thumb/520766.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

No amount of after the fact would correct the color cast - believe me, I tried. Only way I was able to correct it, was to manually desaturate some parts of it and hand tone it, particularly his pants and skin:
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/19708/thumb/520768.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/19708/thumb/520768.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Yellow sodium lights are perhaps one of the absolute worst sources of lighting, and I find that setting the camera to Tungsten gets it closer than anything else I have found. If my RAW image starts out that way, it's so much easier to tweak after that point.

I am finding that making adjustments using DPP and saving as a high-res jpeg to do the final editing are yielding much higher quality images to start with. I am also finding myself doing a lot less PP than I was, by using RAW. I can almost guarantee that if I had shot this in jpeg, the initial image compression would have never got it to the 30x40" print approval at 6,000 x 4,500 pixels at 300DPI.
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/19708/thumb/549516.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/19708/thumb/549516.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Hard to say if Skip's shot would have been easier with the original in RAW. Much of the editing was making selective area color & levels adjustments. If anything, an HDR may have been a good alternate route, but in the end, the same selective adjustments would have been needed to bump certain areas of the image, do things like make the grass green, desaturate parts of buildings and lettering on the train, applying a luminosity gradient over the water to even it out, etc.

Message edited by author 2007-07-14 13:45:16.
07/14/2007 01:59:30 PM · #50
If I'm shooting a kid's b-day party the camera is going JPEG. All else is RAW :-)

Why? Because I make bad decisions and I definitely would prefer not have contrast, WB, sharpness, saturation, etc decisions set in stone. Memory is cheap. Lightroom 1.1 is pretty cheap. There are very few reasons for me to be lazy and shoot in JPEG.

Besides, other than weddings and parties, I rarely if ever "develop" anything approaching 100% of the shots I take in a shoot, more like 20-30%.

Message edited by author 2007-07-14 14:00:17.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/16/2021 08:22:41 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 © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/16/2021 08:22:41 AM EDT.