Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Using RAW

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

paulbroad
paulbroad  681 forum posts United Kingdom840 Constructive Critique Points
23 Aug 2007 - 3:47 PM

I've been at this Photography game for a long time - 45 years seriously, and digital since 2001 when I bought a Fuji Finepix 4900Z as an early retirement present to myself.

I do a little semi-Pro work for my old employer and usually use best JPEG on my CANON EOS digital SLR's unless I expect exposure problems, in which case I switch to RAW + Best JPEG.

I am continually being told by the magazines and many keen photographers that I should ALWAYS shoot RAW. I use RAWSHOOTER ESSENTIALS to process RAW files and have saved quite a few shots because of that, but many have been indoor flash shots at presentations etc. in large rooms.

I'm finding that in most cases a best JPEG is virtually indistinguishable at A3 from a correctly processed RAW file and that when I shoot RAW + JPEG, in 50% of the cases my labouriously processed RAW file comes out exactly the same as the JPEG saved at the same time by the camera.

I accept that RAW gives us a 'negative' for long term storage and can be processed to give different effects, but unless you learn to process in RAW correctly, I'm becoming convinced that best JPEG is a better default setting.

How does everyone feel.

Is it better to use common sense when choosing format, or is it better to shoot in RAW all the time - bearing in mind that I shot just over 1700 images in two weeks in Majorca recently and life is short!

Paul

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
23 Aug 2007 - 3:47 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

jaspernina
23 Aug 2007 - 3:51 PM

I am really new to photography, I find that a RAW file is a lot more forgiving, as I can alter the exposure ect, if i get it wrong in camera, a lot easier than if it was taken as a jpeg. But as you have been taking photographs for 40 years you may not make mistakes like i do.

Stephen

Last Modified By jaspernina at 23 Aug 2007 - 3:53 PM
Coleslaw
Coleslaw e2 Member 813402 forum postsColeslaw vcard Wales28 Constructive Critique Points
23 Aug 2007 - 3:59 PM

Strange, I thought I saw the same thread before...I am going crazy Sad

jaspernina
23 Aug 2007 - 4:04 PM

With all respect, Paul is new to this website. Smile

conrad
conrad  910873 forum posts116 Constructive Critique Points
23 Aug 2007 - 4:12 PM

Even just something like using a simple slider to adjust the colour temperature of a picture makes using RAW worthwhile to me. But it is a subjective matter, of course. We each have our own preferences.

Coleslaw
Coleslaw e2 Member 813402 forum postsColeslaw vcard Wales28 Constructive Critique Points
23 Aug 2007 - 4:14 PM

Raw is a rescue for me, a god sent, as I can never get it right on the camera....Smile

lobsterboy
lobsterboy Site Moderator 1014006 forum postslobsterboy vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
23 Aug 2007 - 5:10 PM


Quote: Is it better to use common sense when choosing format, or is it better to shoot in RAW all the time

Unless you absolutely have to, I would say stick with just one (IMHO raw). That way you always go through the same processes with your images and it becomes automatic.

Take two workflows into the shower? not me I just want to raw and go!

AnthonyM
AnthonyM  9388 forum posts United States2 Constructive Critique Points
23 Aug 2007 - 7:19 PM

Like you said, I too rarely see much difference from a well processed RAW and JPEG. The difference comes in when JPEG can't quite hold enough info to expose everything well.

The following link is to an image I made due to a mistake in a photo I recently took, but I think it shows to some extent how much more detail there is in RAW, that you could never get out of JPEG. (It is a before & after shot for this forum post... do not vote on it, that would be silly!)
http://www.ephotozine.com/photo/684268

I don't think that the final photo linked above is very good, RAW can only do so much, but I was surprised to see what was pulled from the RAW file. I'm usually more careful and get images more properly exposed, but in a few cases it wasn't possible, or for whatever reason the camera metered slightly different than I expected and RAW has saved an otherwise poor photo.

I have slowly started to become a convert and shoot in RAW+JPG mode, converting the few poor photos from RAW when necessary.
I'm have a feeling as I shoot more, I'll probably go exclusively to RAW.

Last Modified By AnthonyM at 23 Aug 2007 - 7:22 PM
David0944
David0944  6 United Kingdom
23 Aug 2007 - 7:47 PM

I'm new to this site and was obviously guided here. I'm interested in the RAW debate, as I now have a camera that will shoot in the Raw format.

Everyone seems to recomend shooting in Raw and I've been looking a a demo of the Raw processor in Photshop CS2 - the results seem to make me at least try with Raw.

David

Little Jo
Little Jo e2 Member 122272 forum postsLittle Jo vcard United Kingdom
23 Aug 2007 - 10:50 PM

The raw versus JPEG debate will probably continue for many years to come. It is horses for courses. I would expect any serious photographer to shoot raw, it's the digital equivalent of using slide film. The original image as captured by the camera with no adjustments. Raw files are much more tolerant of post-processing (what we do to it on the computer ie. contrast adjustments etc) than JPEG. JPEG by its very nature has lost quite a lot of data and each time you save it you lose a bit more.

If you are just taking snapshots, then taking them to ASDA or some kiosk for printing, then JPEG is fine. JPEG is also fine if you know all you will do with that image is sent it by email or upload to the web.

Do what is best for you, relative to the final presentation of the image. If you don't know - shoot raw. You can reduce the size of a large file easily, but you cannot recreate data that is no longer there.

Jo

Boyd
Boyd  1011213 forum posts Wales11 Constructive Critique Points
23 Aug 2007 - 10:56 PM


Quote: The raw versus JPEG debate will probably continue for many years to come.

Similar to the full frame/cropped frame argument that reared it's ugly head between the fanboys of Canon and Nikon. Oh, hang on...D3.
Wink

Last Modified By Boyd at 23 Aug 2007 - 10:59 PM
paulcr
paulcr  91536 forum posts Ireland9 Constructive Critique Points
24 Aug 2007 - 11:12 AM


Quote: I've been looking a a demo of the Raw processor in Photshop CS2 - the results seem to make me at least try with Raw.

In CS3 you can now open jpeg files as raw files..
Paul

rossd
rossd  111061 forum posts England
24 Aug 2007 - 2:54 PM


Quote: JPEG by its very nature has lost quite a lot of data and each time you save it you lose a bit more.

A popular misconception. You can open and and close a jpeg image as many times as you want with no loss of quality although you will lose some quality when you repeatedly open, edit and close the image.

rossd
rossd  111061 forum posts England
24 Aug 2007 - 2:58 PM

Sorry, forgot to add a link for those that are interested
here

paulbroad
paulbroad  681 forum posts United Kingdom840 Constructive Critique Points
25 Aug 2007 - 8:14 AM

I'm not sure you are strictly correct, kamerman. I think that you loose data each time you open and save a JPEG - you don't need to do any editing.

I assume that is what you meant. If you just wish to view a JPEG open it, then close it - DON'T save it.

On the rest of the thread - I'm still not fully convinced. I accept that RAW is capable of the best possible image providing the RAW processing is carried out correctly - but beginners need to know what a good digital image looks like before they tackle RAW.

The one saving grace of the camera club competition in the wet darkroom days was that the newcomer could actualy see an accomplished workers big monochrome print and see what a good tonal range actually looked like. Then they could develop their own style having established ground rules.

Most of my published work has been shot as JPEG. I know at least one local (very good) professional who shoots a lot of stuff in JPEG but fdoes wedding in RAW in order to solve the white dress/black suit problem.

The bottom line is - suit yourself.

It's a bit 'Catch 22'. Experience tells you when to shoot RAW and when JPEG - but you need to gain that experience. The bottom line is probably to gain experience by shooting RAW + JPEG if your camera has that facility - in fact I am being persuaded to do that more often myself, but it will depend on the situation.

A set piece shoot, or even a day out with potentially limited exposures is OK in RAW + JPEG but how about that 1700 shots in Majorca! That is, very approximately, 36000 MB of Data in RAW - rather a lot of cards and my portable Flashtrax hard drive is getting on a bit - only 20 GB. My 'holiday' shots are not family record - they are potentially competition or library saleable material, so storage and then processing becomes a real issue.

Paul



Paul

Last Modified By paulbroad at 25 Aug 2007 - 8:28 AM

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.