gotchaforce
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2006
- Posts
- 339
- Likes
- 11
i wouldnt recommend shooting raw if you dont have lightroom either, without it editing raws is a huge pain. lightroom is a must
Photography Enthusiasts : RAW vs JPG?
- Thread starter Squirsier
- Start date
krmathis
Head-Fi's Most Prolific Poster
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Posts
- 34,759
- Likes
- 82
Quote:
To each their own I guess.
I shoot in RAW then edit in Aperture, and am perfectly happy with it. Without having Lightroom...
| Originally Posted by gotchaforce /img/forum/go_quote.gif i wouldnt recommend shooting raw if you dont have lightroom either, without it editing raws is a huge pain. lightroom is a must |
To each their own I guess.
I shoot in RAW then edit in Aperture, and am perfectly happy with it. Without having Lightroom...
beerguy0
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Posts
- 2,413
- Likes
- 34
Quote:
Shooting RAW is no different than developing your own film. (Which I used to do.) If you want to get the most from your camera, shoot RAW, but get it as close to right in the camera as possible. If you shoot RAW, expecting to "fix" it in PS later, then you're doing it wrong. A good RAW file will need little PP.
I shoot RAW 100% of the time. If I just need a quick .jpg, I do minimal post processing and let Lightroom spit out the files I need. Oh, and if you ever make the mistake of using the wrong WB, you can easily correct it on a RAW file. It's a lot harder if you shoot jpegs.
| Originally Posted by TedwardRoberts /img/forum/go_quote.gif RAW really lets you get the image the way you originally intended it to be, via post-processing. There's not much in a RAW image you can't change. If your images are turning out great, and you like them, I don't see a need to use RAW, other than to experiment. SOME photogs consider RAW to be cheating anyway  |
Shooting RAW is no different than developing your own film. (Which I used to do.) If you want to get the most from your camera, shoot RAW, but get it as close to right in the camera as possible. If you shoot RAW, expecting to "fix" it in PS later, then you're doing it wrong. A good RAW file will need little PP.
I shoot RAW 100% of the time. If I just need a quick .jpg, I do minimal post processing and let Lightroom spit out the files I need. Oh, and if you ever make the mistake of using the wrong WB, you can easily correct it on a RAW file. It's a lot harder if you shoot jpegs.
Squirsier
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2008
- Posts
- 750
- Likes
- 13
Thanks for everyone's opinion on the matter! I think what I'll do is, as I mentioned before, shoot RAW and JPG at the same time for the beginning. Then, I'll have a JPG reference to start with when I'll begin processing the RAW image and as I get used to it, probably won't need the JPG in the end..
MD1032
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2003
- Posts
- 5,977
- Likes
- 20
It all boils down to whether you're really into post-processing or not. Shoot RAW+JPG for a while. If you find that you're taking pictures that look great just using your camera's built-in settings and printing them immediately, you probably don't need RAW, like 99% of photographers (my opinion).
archosman
Songs From The Crystal Cave
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2002
- Posts
- 3,633
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
After reading all of your posts I can see that you probably know as much about photography as you do about bird care.
Most professional photographers do some sort of processing. Had a guy who moved into our building that had 3 assistants who did both work and processing for the guy.
WittyzTH has got a good suggestion with the EZIO. Only problem with that is your talking serious money. The 22 inch Eizo Coloredge I was looking at runs about $1400. That's a lot of money if you're just an amateur photographer. To the best of my knowledge no one is making color grade CRTs anymore so that is a dead end technology. Saw the current Sony broadcast color grade LCD this year but it's $1000 an inch for a 20inch monitor.
To the OP... are you shooting everything in auto or are you playing with the manual modes? If it's just auto then I see no point. If you're planning on learning the manual side then by all means shoot RAW. Might be worth it to pick up Photoshop Elements for a bit more control. Did your camera come with any software for processing? I know the Canon DSLRs do. I think you've got the right idea to do a bit of both and see what you come up with. Experiment around with your camera. Other great thing about RAW is many times you can recover up to 2 stops on either side if need be.
I shoot everything in RAW and use Lightroom 2 and CS2 if I need more processing. I've been pretty impressed with Lightroom.
| Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif But if you edit it after shooting, re-crop and save as a new image no recompression going on. As to the OP saying "not enough contrast" probably need to learn how to take a shot. The best image shouldn't need any post-processing at all. |
After reading all of your posts I can see that you probably know as much about photography as you do about bird care.
Most professional photographers do some sort of processing. Had a guy who moved into our building that had 3 assistants who did both work and processing for the guy.
WittyzTH has got a good suggestion with the EZIO. Only problem with that is your talking serious money. The 22 inch Eizo Coloredge I was looking at runs about $1400. That's a lot of money if you're just an amateur photographer. To the best of my knowledge no one is making color grade CRTs anymore so that is a dead end technology. Saw the current Sony broadcast color grade LCD this year but it's $1000 an inch for a 20inch monitor.
To the OP... are you shooting everything in auto or are you playing with the manual modes? If it's just auto then I see no point. If you're planning on learning the manual side then by all means shoot RAW. Might be worth it to pick up Photoshop Elements for a bit more control. Did your camera come with any software for processing? I know the Canon DSLRs do. I think you've got the right idea to do a bit of both and see what you come up with. Experiment around with your camera. Other great thing about RAW is many times you can recover up to 2 stops on either side if need be.
I shoot everything in RAW and use Lightroom 2 and CS2 if I need more processing. I've been pretty impressed with Lightroom.
Squirsier
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2008
- Posts
- 750
- Likes
- 13
Quote:
I use the manual modes. My favorites are Macro shots, with different blurriness for the background (playing with aperture). I either do this in the camera's Macro shot function or from the "P" Mode by setting up the focus myself. Some shots I enjoy taking are the ones setting the camera on 15,30 or 60 secs, taking night time pictures that turn out looking like daytime, but with over-exposed colors, or when me and my gf comes back home with the car, lovely "rays of lights" shots
Otherwise, I mostly take nature pictures.
I've really started digging into my camera's manual and trying out different stuff lately.
I do have Photoshop Elements 5, and my camera also came with a software to edit RAW images.
| Originally Posted by archosman /img/forum/go_quote.gif To the OP... are you shooting everything in auto or are you playing with the manual modes? If it's just auto then I see no point. |
I use the manual modes. My favorites are Macro shots, with different blurriness for the background (playing with aperture). I either do this in the camera's Macro shot function or from the "P" Mode by setting up the focus myself. Some shots I enjoy taking are the ones setting the camera on 15,30 or 60 secs, taking night time pictures that turn out looking like daytime, but with over-exposed colors, or when me and my gf comes back home with the car, lovely "rays of lights" shots
Otherwise, I mostly take nature pictures.
I've really started digging into my camera's manual and trying out different stuff lately.
I do have Photoshop Elements 5, and my camera also came with a software to edit RAW images.
mr_baseball_08
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Posts
- 1,187
- Likes
- 11
Quote:
Interesting, I've never heard this. If anything, JPG is cheating. The camera sees in RAW and records in JPG. When the camera converts to JPG it's actually applying the contrast/color cast/white balance/sharpness that you pick. In essence, it's OVERprocessing the RAW file that it originally captured. Editing in post means doing the same exact thing but with more control. How is that cheating?
| Originally Posted by TedwardRoberts /img/forum/go_quote.gif RAW really lets you get the image the way you originally intended it to be, via post-processing. There's not much in a RAW image you can't change. If your images are turning out great, and you like them, I don't see a need to use RAW, other than to experiment. SOME photogs consider RAW to be cheating anyway |
Interesting, I've never heard this. If anything, JPG is cheating. The camera sees in RAW and records in JPG. When the camera converts to JPG it's actually applying the contrast/color cast/white balance/sharpness that you pick. In essence, it's OVERprocessing the RAW file that it originally captured. Editing in post means doing the same exact thing but with more control. How is that cheating?
nakedhand
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2008
- Posts
- 145
- Likes
- 13
Quote:
No. It boils down to your need. Whether you are an amateur who do not care about getting the most out of your equipment or someone in any other category who does.
Putting the above discussion aside for a second ponder this:
jpeg : 256 brightness levels for post (8 bit)
RAW: 65,536 brightness levels for post (16 bit, from either 12 or 14bit)
Think of brightness levels as keys on a piano. They dictate the span of the dynamic range.
I find it amazing that people are willing to sacrifice this MASSIVE superiority to save some MBs in this Tera Byte age. I believe that no one here, would make such a silly decision had the matter turned to sound. It simply ignorance. Lets hook up the Zana Deux to a $12 Skull Candy head phone and stick with that, because we can still kind of hear the music shall we?
Regarding post processing in general, there is a few things to keep in mind. People who are not familiar with the techniques of analogue film photography, often fail to realize that there has never been a printed image in existence without post production done to it. Dark room work, no matter how simplistic in nature, is a long chain of controlled manipulation from developing to exposing the paper and treating the paper in chemical baths. Selecting your filter, time, chemicals (type, solution, temperature ie.) and movement or no movement, is all post production.
The tools we have available in Adobe Camera RAW are an evolved extension of techniques already in use way before most people even considered post production to exist. Its fairly common that the layman regard post production as cheating on some level. Sure we can do so much more today to manipulate an image, but the argument is really the same as someone claiming a flute is better than an electric guitar. Dark room technique has evolved into the digital realm, but the quest remains the same as a hundred years ago, namely for the photographer to convey what he or she intends. This might involve more or less adjustments or image manipulation and has nothing to do with the skill level of the photographer. All pros shoot RAW, those who do not are not pros (white balance is not burned in to your digital image when shooting RAW, that is reason enough for all pros to shoot RAW).
Great pictures can come from LOMOS, 4MP digital cameras shooting ghastly jpgs, but as a photographer you want to record the largest set of data to work on for your vision to manifest in an image. There is nothing cool about a low grade flawed burst of aberrations and compression algorithms, unless that is what you strive for.
So please remember to shoot RAW, always!
| Originally Posted by MD1032 /img/forum/go_quote.gif It all boils down to whether you're really into post-processing or not. |
No. It boils down to your need. Whether you are an amateur who do not care about getting the most out of your equipment or someone in any other category who does.
Putting the above discussion aside for a second ponder this:
jpeg : 256 brightness levels for post (8 bit)
RAW: 65,536 brightness levels for post (16 bit, from either 12 or 14bit)
Think of brightness levels as keys on a piano. They dictate the span of the dynamic range.
I find it amazing that people are willing to sacrifice this MASSIVE superiority to save some MBs in this Tera Byte age. I believe that no one here, would make such a silly decision had the matter turned to sound. It simply ignorance. Lets hook up the Zana Deux to a $12 Skull Candy head phone and stick with that, because we can still kind of hear the music shall we?
Regarding post processing in general, there is a few things to keep in mind. People who are not familiar with the techniques of analogue film photography, often fail to realize that there has never been a printed image in existence without post production done to it. Dark room work, no matter how simplistic in nature, is a long chain of controlled manipulation from developing to exposing the paper and treating the paper in chemical baths. Selecting your filter, time, chemicals (type, solution, temperature ie.) and movement or no movement, is all post production.
The tools we have available in Adobe Camera RAW are an evolved extension of techniques already in use way before most people even considered post production to exist. Its fairly common that the layman regard post production as cheating on some level. Sure we can do so much more today to manipulate an image, but the argument is really the same as someone claiming a flute is better than an electric guitar. Dark room technique has evolved into the digital realm, but the quest remains the same as a hundred years ago, namely for the photographer to convey what he or she intends. This might involve more or less adjustments or image manipulation and has nothing to do with the skill level of the photographer. All pros shoot RAW, those who do not are not pros (white balance is not burned in to your digital image when shooting RAW, that is reason enough for all pros to shoot RAW).
Great pictures can come from LOMOS, 4MP digital cameras shooting ghastly jpgs, but as a photographer you want to record the largest set of data to work on for your vision to manifest in an image. There is nothing cool about a low grade flawed burst of aberrations and compression algorithms, unless that is what you strive for.
So please remember to shoot RAW, always!
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2006
- Posts
- 10,021
- Likes
- 715
Quote:
+1
To the OP - IMHO, it's all about the light. Study how light and the camera interact with one another and you will be significantly ahead of 95% of the snap-shooting public. You are on the right track learning about aperture, shutter speed, etc. There is an entire world outside of "Auto" - and learning a bit of the theory involved in exposure, DOF, dynamic range, white balance, etc will make what the camera and the post-processing does a little less mysterious. I am by no means a photographer - the more I shoot, the more I learn how little I know - but the learning process is fun and challenging!
FYI - here's an excellent site: The Luminous Landscape
| Originally Posted by mr_baseball_08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Interesting, I've never heard this. If anything, JPG is cheating. The camera sees in RAW and records in JPG. When the camera converts to JPG it's actually applying the contrast/color cast/white balance/sharpness that you pick. In essence, it's OVERprocessing the RAW file that it originally captured. Editing in post means doing the same exact thing but with more control. How is that cheating? |
+1
To the OP - IMHO, it's all about the light. Study how light and the camera interact with one another and you will be significantly ahead of 95% of the snap-shooting public. You are on the right track learning about aperture, shutter speed, etc. There is an entire world outside of "Auto" - and learning a bit of the theory involved in exposure, DOF, dynamic range, white balance, etc will make what the camera and the post-processing does a little less mysterious. I am by no means a photographer - the more I shoot, the more I learn how little I know - but the learning process is fun and challenging!
FYI - here's an excellent site: The Luminous Landscape
M0T0XGUY
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Posts
- 1,723
- Likes
- 13
I shoot RAW, but wonder whether I really need to anymore. My shifting view is that most of the adjustable elements of a RAW image are things I should really be able to nail in camera. RAW undeniably has greater exposure latitude than JPEG, for example, but my camera's LCD is accurate to a point that I can judge when to re-shoot a scene because of incorrect exposure; saving me time at home fiddling with adjustments. There are plenty of exceptions, of course, and I agree that file size is no longer a great detractor to the appeal of RAW capture.
One point I think some of us are missing involves the quality of RAW capture. In reality, it is nearly impossible to distinguish an out of camera JPG and an out of camera RAW in terms of sharpness, exposure, or overall quality. Images shot in RAW will never be inherently more appealing than those shot in JPEG; RAW files simply offer a greater range of (non-destructive) adjustment.
One point I think some of us are missing involves the quality of RAW capture. In reality, it is nearly impossible to distinguish an out of camera JPG and an out of camera RAW in terms of sharpness, exposure, or overall quality. Images shot in RAW will never be inherently more appealing than those shot in JPEG; RAW files simply offer a greater range of (non-destructive) adjustment.
Squirsier
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2008
- Posts
- 750
- Likes
- 13
Quote:
I'm kinda there. Tomorrow I'll hunt and print wikipedia articles on various terms that I am not comfortable with (that my camera's manual assume I already know what they mean).
For example, I know the higher aperture, the sharper the background's focus become and vice versa, but I can't tell exactly what "aperture" means.
I bought a more "complicated" camera, below DSLR to learn those things and my vacations are coming up with plenty of opportunities to take pictures.
With my old camera I did experience with white balance a lot, so I'm already comfortable with this. Same for exposure (thanks to a bunch of ruined pictures when I accidentally over-exposed a bunch of them - THEN I knew what exposure was...). Shutter speed, not so much. At least, not to take any pictures outside of the "15, 30, 60 secs" mode. And then shutter speed vs ISO... Need to get myself a good tripod too.
However, the idea of having the camera record just what the imaging chip recorded and being able to endlessly edit the image without any loss of quality is very tempting.
I'm honestly excited about this. I've made music, as a hobby (tho the thousands of dollars I invested mostly in synth gear over 10 years might say otherwise
) and now I feel like I felt 11 years ago!
But this time around, I'll make sure to learn everything proper before "upgrading" (one of the reasons I did not wanted to get a DSLR yet)...
Thanks for the link btw, I browsed through a few articles, very enlightening!
| Originally Posted by billybob_jcv /img/forum/go_quote.gif +1
To the OP - IMHO, it's all about the light. Study how light and the camera interact with one another and you will be significantly ahead of 95% of the snap-shooting public. You are on the right track learning about aperture, shutter speed, etc. There is an entire world outside of "Auto" - and learning a bit of the theory involved in exposure, DOF, dynamic range, white balance, etc will make what the camera and the post-processing does a little less mysterious. I am by no means a photographer - the more I shoot, the more I learn how little I know - but the learning process is fun and challenging! FYI - here's an excellent site: The Luminous Landscape |
I'm kinda there. Tomorrow I'll hunt and print wikipedia articles on various terms that I am not comfortable with (that my camera's manual assume I already know what they mean).
For example, I know the higher aperture, the sharper the background's focus become and vice versa, but I can't tell exactly what "aperture" means.
I bought a more "complicated" camera, below DSLR to learn those things and my vacations are coming up with plenty of opportunities to take pictures.
With my old camera I did experience with white balance a lot, so I'm already comfortable with this. Same for exposure (thanks to a bunch of ruined pictures when I accidentally over-exposed a bunch of them - THEN I knew what exposure was...). Shutter speed, not so much. At least, not to take any pictures outside of the "15, 30, 60 secs" mode. And then shutter speed vs ISO... Need to get myself a good tripod too.
However, the idea of having the camera record just what the imaging chip recorded and being able to endlessly edit the image without any loss of quality is very tempting.
I'm honestly excited about this. I've made music, as a hobby (tho the thousands of dollars I invested mostly in synth gear over 10 years might say otherwise
But this time around, I'll make sure to learn everything proper before "upgrading" (one of the reasons I did not wanted to get a DSLR yet)...
Thanks for the link btw, I browsed through a few articles, very enlightening!
Zodduska
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2007
- Posts
- 1,368
- Likes
- 14
Raw, because it's better.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2006
- Posts
- 10,021
- Likes
- 715
Cool. I had many years of shooting film SLRs, so when I could finally afford a DSLR it was like finding an old friend. Of course, being able to spend all my available cash on lenses was also fun!
Remember - it's all about the light! Each scene has an exposure value (EV) - the amount of light that will hit the sensor/film. There are many ways to achieve a "correct" EV - different combinations of aperture, shutter speed & ISO can be combined to provide the same EV, and all them will lead to the same "exposure" for the scene - but each combination also has other effects on the picture - and will result in different depth of field, stopping or blurring motion or noise artifacts - and that's just the variables associated with the exposure of a shot with available light. There are a pile of other variables that can be juggled while taking the picture - and then there's that pesky little problem of actually finding something interesting to shoot!
Quote:
Remember - it's all about the light! Each scene has an exposure value (EV) - the amount of light that will hit the sensor/film. There are many ways to achieve a "correct" EV - different combinations of aperture, shutter speed & ISO can be combined to provide the same EV, and all them will lead to the same "exposure" for the scene - but each combination also has other effects on the picture - and will result in different depth of field, stopping or blurring motion or noise artifacts - and that's just the variables associated with the exposure of a shot with available light. There are a pile of other variables that can be juggled while taking the picture - and then there's that pesky little problem of actually finding something interesting to shoot!
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Squirsier /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm kinda there. Tomorrow I'll hunt and print wikipedia articles on various terms that I am not comfortable with (that my camera's manual assume I already know what they mean). For example, I know the higher aperture, the sharper the background's focus become and vice versa, but I can't tell exactly what "aperture" means. I bought a more "complicated" camera, below DSLR to learn those things and my vacations are coming up with plenty of opportunities to take pictures. With my old camera I did experience with white balance a lot, so I'm already comfortable with this. Same for exposure (thanks to a bunch of ruined pictures when I accidentally over-exposed a bunch of them - THEN I knew what exposure was...). Shutter speed, not so much. At least, not to take any pictures outside of the "15, 30, 60 secs" mode. And then shutter speed vs ISO... Need to get myself a good tripod too. However, the idea of having the camera record just what the imaging chip recorded and being able to endlessly edit the image without any loss of quality is very tempting. I'm honestly excited about this. I've made music, as a hobby (tho the thousands of dollars I invested mostly in synth gear over 10 years might say otherwise
But this time around, I'll make sure to learn everything proper before "upgrading" (one of the reasons I did not wanted to get a DSLR yet)... Thanks for the link btw, I browsed through a few articles, very enlightening! |
arcer63
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Posts
- 136
- Likes
- 0
Im reading the post by some of the users here and while some do know what they are talking about there are others that have no clue. My suggestion would be to look on a photography forum rather than a headphone audio forum to find a better answer to this question.
heres another great resource: fredmiranda.com: Specialized in Canon - Nikon SLR Cameras, Forum, Photoshop Plugins, Actions, Reviews, Hosting and Digital Darkroom
heres another great resource: fredmiranda.com: Specialized in Canon - Nikon SLR Cameras, Forum, Photoshop Plugins, Actions, Reviews, Hosting and Digital Darkroom
Users who are viewing this thread
