Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

What have I missed?


tanglefoot 10 963 England
16 Mar 2014 9:42PM
Just read an piece about shooting in RAW. The lady who's site it is was going on about the values of RAW, she posted some of her work...it looks no different from any other....What have I missed?

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

meyeview e2
5 731 Scotland
16 Mar 2014 10:00PM
more info required.
what lady?
what did the article say?
I have no idea what you have missed as I don't know what you are referring to.
16 Mar 2014 10:26PM
Shooting in Raw just allows more flexibility when processing, compared to shooting in JPG.

So, for example, it is possible to choose a different White Balance setting than the one used when the picture was first taken. Also, there is more information in the Raw, which can allow some software to make larger exposure adjustments in post processing compared to what you could do when processing on a JPG.

Ultimately though, the end result ends up rendered as a JPG (or TIFF, or whatever) so wouldn't look any different to a picture taken as a JPG to begin with - assuming that the picture didn't need too much adjustment in post processing.

Andy
Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
16 Mar 2014 10:46PM
Shooting in Raw just allows more flexibility when processing, compared to shooting in JPG.

Its not only that, you can not make custom camera profiles from jpegs either.
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
17 Mar 2014 10:21AM
In well lit conditions and with a correctly exposed image, if all you want to do is record the scene you will find it hard to beat what the in-camera jeg can do. Raw holds more information so gives you more flexibility in doing something different or gives better recovery from shadows and highlights.

Also, if you have set the wrong profile in your camera when taking the jpeg (wrong white balance or portrait style instead of Landscape style etc) it can be very hard to reverse the effects without losing something. With raw you can change it at any time.
ade_mcfade e2
10 15.1k 216 England
17 Mar 2014 10:53AM
do this

shot 1 frame in RAW + JPG

put them both into Lightroom/Capture one

play with the sliders

if you can't see the advantage of RAW then - carry on shooting JPG
Nick_w e2
7 4.1k 99 England
17 Mar 2014 11:19AM
As you shoot Nikon, if your not confident use Capture NX. It then reads the RAW and puts in place all the settings from your camera, so the RAW looks identical to the JPEG - Then you can make adjustments to see how it changes (and still revert back if your not happy). If you use Lightroom (or captureone) the presets while mimiking Nikon arn't the same, so there will be a difference. (I think View NX does the same but you cant make any adjustments - but tbh I've never used it)

When your confident then look to other packages like Lightroom / Captureone.
lemmy 7 2.0k United Kingdom
17 Mar 2014 1:05PM
The point of RAW is that it is like a negative was in film. It holds all the information your camera has captured. A JPG is like the print made from that negative. In other words, a lot of the information is lost in transferring the information to print. No problem, if you want a bigger print you make another from the neg.

The difference with digital is that when the JPG is made in camera, much of the information from the original capture is discarded then and there, permanently.

I never used to throw away my negatives (which is why I still have a healthy income from my library) and i wouldn't discard my RAWs either. For example, I have very noisy high ISO RAW pix from my original DSLR some years ago. I can actually get much, much better JPGs from them now because (in my case) the Lightroom algorithm for extracting better dynamic range and lowering noise has improved so much from LR 2 to 5.

There's no right or wrong about it, of course. Many people made prints from their negs and then dumped the negs because they'd never want to print them again. The same with digital. If you are happy with your JPGs and confident that you will not want to revisit them, shoot JPG.

It used to be that disk storage space came into the equation but it's so cheap now that that can be discounted.
ade_mcfade e2
10 15.1k 216 England
17 Mar 2014 1:47PM
i get through a lot of hard drives...

it's more a case of housing them than cost... I've got 7 which are not currently plugged in and 6 which are... 2-3 copies of every shot.... adds up

really need a giant raid setup with 30+ Terabytes space, so I can dump all the photos on there...
Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
17 Mar 2014 2:49PM

Quote:I get through a lot of hard drives...

it's more a case of housing them than cost... I've got 7 which are not currently plugged in and 6 which are... 2-3 copies of every shot.... adds up

really need a giant raid setup with 30+ Terabytes space, so I can dump all the photos on there...



Just get yourself some sort of NAS setup Ade, its a bit like having your very own private cloud as well, you could access your files from anywhere, it is so much better than having all your files locked away inside a PC, and you can hot swap drives to your hearts content .

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Synology-DS213J-Bay-Desktop-Enclosure/dp/B00CDG2XHC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395066011&sr=8-1&keywords=nas

There other solution is to build yourself a new PC, I`m sure your very capable, in January I build a PC for someone that plays keyboards in a band, he also controls all the visuals that get projected onto the back of the stage and he was fed up with using laptops, external hard drives etc. I sorted him out a good case and we went from there, he was well chuffed with what he got.

It looks like I`ll be building another with almost that exact same needs, only this time its for a photographer that does a lot of location shoots and wants a small compact yet be powerful enough for his needs PC and will be able to handle a few knocks.

In both cases they wanted the ability to hot swap hard drives on the fly, this PC case was just perfect for the first build and I guess it will be for this second build as well.

The PC case is about the same size as a practice amp Smile

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lian-TU-200B-PC-Geh%C3%A4use-Mini-ITX-schwarz/dp/B005OR4WWG/ref=sr_1_8?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1395067443&sr=1-8&keywords=lian+li

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h77el9JOAs
lemmy 7 2.0k United Kingdom
17 Mar 2014 2:57PM

Quote:really need a giant raid setup with 30+ Terabytes space, so I can dump all the photos on there


What's amazing is that you could set that up for less than 1,000, the cost of a camera body. I remember when a 10Mb disk was 400 - probably the equivalent of 2000 today.

That's an amazing collection of images you have there. That equates to about 1,600,000 at an average of 20Mb each! if you have worked 8 hours per day since 2000 to produce that library with two weeks holiday per year you have taken pictures at the rate of just over one for every second of your working day since then. Even if you have 3 copies of each, that is one every 3 seconds. Obviously if you don't take pictures 8 hours a day every day but say an average of 1 hour every day actually operating the camera, that's 3 per second.

Given an average shutter life of 100,000 that's 16 cameras. What's your eBay sellers name? I don't want to buy one of yours Tongue
tanglefoot 10 963 England
17 Mar 2014 5:29PM
Thank you for all your replies, I read about uploading and using sliders, but thought it was some different way to picture taking, so sticking to JPEG as a hobby photographer means I can live without RAW, I've only just got to grips with PSE10. I can sleep easy at night!!
lemmy 7 2.0k United Kingdom
17 Mar 2014 6:21PM

Quote:I can sleep easy at night!!


If it's for fun as a hobby and you're happy with the jpgs you're getting there's little reason to bother with RAW.
ade_mcfade e2
10 15.1k 216 England
17 Mar 2014 6:25PM

Quote:Thank you for all your replies, I read about uploading and using sliders, but thought it was some different way to picture taking, so sticking to JPEG as a hobby photographer means I can live without RAW, I've only just got to grips with PSE10. I can sleep easy at night!!


hmmm - if there was a conclusion to be drawn, this wouldn't be the recommended one... but good luck!


you bored today Lemmy Wink

I don't actually have 30TB of photos yet - but may one day

For a HDR....

3 RAW files = between 75 and 90 meg
3 16 bit TIFF files = 360 meg
1 final result TIFF = 120 Meg
1 high res JPG (often for print) = 10 meg

do the sums there - around 600 MEG per HDR

If you're batching up a days shoot, maybe 100 HDRs

so that can be 60 GIG

Space soon gets eaten with high res stuff.....

you can and should delete the intermediary 16 bit tiffs.... but one forgets Wink
lemmy 7 2.0k United Kingdom
17 Mar 2014 6:33PM

Quote:you bored today Lemmy


I've finished my blog and I'm going to Paris tomorrow so can't be bothered to start on a new review and earlier today I found my daughter's old 80s Casio solar powered scientific calculator that she used at school. It's been in a drawer for 25 years. Took it out and it worked straight away. Then I read your post and suddenly I had something to work out.

So the short answer is, bored, yes Smile

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.