The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

P

Player

Guest
EXACTLY - I couldn't agree more - like playing darts, the calculations required to work out the trajectory before throwing . . . impossible, yet some of us can certainly do it, and with practice we get better at it.

My photography is like that, and I really do need to 'go with the flow'. It is actually the principle reason why I didn't go for MF - I don't want to be more careful and deliberate, I don't want to stick the camera on a tripod and think!

Of course, for others it's different.

It's great to actually formalise these feelings though, so thank you for your succinct and excellent post.
ThankYOU Jono.

I never really thought about it much until talking with you, and Guy's thread.

Interesting, for me it is different, I like to stick the camera on a tripod, but I don't think I could ever do the kind of photography you do.

Maybe for me it's like setting the golf ball on a tee. ;)
 

smokysun

New member
i have a question. when i save a jpeg from lightroom as a 16 bit tiff, i get a 35 meg file which i can tweak in paint shop pro, elements, cs. it will take a lot of tweaking. what is the difference between that 35 meg tiff file and a raw file?
thanks,
wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp
 

LJL

New member
Wayne,
There is a difference between a RAW file and everything else. In the TIFF file you are describing from a JPEG, you will have whatever data was "fixed" at the time the JPEG was created. That will NOT include all the data you would have available in the RAW file. The TIFF would let you make a lot of adjustments, and it would preserve more of the newly interpolated data from the JPEG. (JPEGs usually come out at 8-bit, so going to 16-bit in a TIFF file, or PSD file in Photoshop, is simply adding interpolated data to fill in the gaps.)

So, if you wish to have the most data available, use the RAW file and process things as you need to create JPEGs, TIFFs, PSDs, etc. If you are going to work with JPEGs, be aware that every time you make a change and save those changes, you are going to lose data in the file. JPEG is a compression process, and after about 8 versions, your files will be blobs. Going to TIFF from a JPEG is a better way to work on things repeatedly, as it will not lose data in the saving/compression process, but if you are going to go through that effort, just shoot the RAW and work with things from there.

LJ
 

smokysun

New member
hi lj,

thanks for the info. what i was afraid to hear. now i'm wondering if the lack of information isn't what i'm after! my favorite small camera that keeps getting pictures that are interesting to me is the fuji f30/31 (no raw). now the the s6000 has the same sensor, raw, a 28-300 lens, etc. for public events it could be the camera of choice. but the f30/31 one fourth its size and good for getting a feeling of intimacy, even in landscapes, oddly enough.

sam abell, the national geographic photographer says in

http://www.amazon.com/Sam-Abell-Pho...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214940414&sr=8-1

that he carries very spare equipment and most importantly is looking for a particular kind of picture. i realize i too am beginning to look for a particular kind of picture, the intimacy i mentioned.

it doesn't always have to be this camera. here's a gallery i shot in raw with the g3. i fixed one picture in lightroom and applied it to all the rest:

www.pbase.com/wwp/choreo2

so there's many ways to skin a cat. i think abell's looking for a particular kind of picture the key for me, no matter how you get it. i recommend his other book

http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Garden...r_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214940774&sr=8-13

which is a very reasonable purchase and to get an idea of what he's looking for.

thanks again,

wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

ps. any tips on how to get the very most from a jpeg?
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
Bertie and this will always be true with any camera on AWB it is really just guessing at the correct color balance, some certainly better than others but the truth is if jpeg only your just flat out stuck with it, with Raw you can certainly use the correct WB.
I've tried changing the colour temp with jpgs, but it doesn't always work. I suspect the problem is with erratic/perverse/peculiar or whatever in-camera raw-to-jpg processing - and this cannot be changed. My jpgs come - mostly - as an in-camera side effect of shooting raw.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Bertie use daylight on your camera when in daylight, you will just be more consistent and change according to the light conditions . Now there is another way and depending on your camera you can actually shoot a white card and set the camera to that temp. in the light you are in.
 
D

dlew308

Guest
I've seen the idea of sewing on a gray material to a backpack. Hmm a photo bag in 18% gray color, genius! ;)
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
Bertie use daylight on your camera when in daylight, you will just be more consistent and change according to the light conditions . Now there is another way and depending on your camera you can actually shoot a white card and set the camera to that temp. in the light you are in.
Guy,

we are talking at cross-purposes I think. I'm suggesting that some in-camera jpg conversions are mediocre. But I don't shoot jpg primarily - I can't turn them off in some cameras, so I get and can see the results I don't want.
 

LJL

New member
Wayne,
Not sure I know how to answer your questions around developing a look or style with a particular camera, and how you capture things. I looked through your dance class gallery, and you have some very nice shots in there. You are capturing more of the environment or mood or setting to some degree, and that looks good. One of my impressions was that things looked a bit dark, but that may be what you were trying to convey as part of your theme or representation. I never think about that as only being done with a certain camera. One could do that with a Leica M8, a Canon G9, a Nikon, or whatever, if you have the settings you want and use the lenses to achieve your objective. The softer focus is not dissimilar to a Leica 35/2 pre-aspheric lens, as an example, shot wide open. So that sort of "look" is attainable different ways, and you should not think about being locked into a certain camera.

On the flip side, dealing with processing, if those shots were done in RAW, you could do a lot of adjustments and things to them to achieve other looks also, without doing anything to the files in the process. You are more limited with the JPEGs, but you still can do a fair number of things, should you want. If you are looking for a camera to create a certain look as you "signature" as might be the case in some of the books you mention, I would not know how to discuss that as much, as those photographers set their cameras, or process their images in a way that they like. It is not about the camera, though snapshots from some cameras will have a certain look to them.

As for getting the most from your JPEGs.....I would always recommend shooting them at the largest size and least compression your camera offers, and also to go with a more neutral capture mode, rather than high contrast, or high saturation or something like that. While the file may look "flat" to begin, you will have more information upon which to make some adjustments with tools available in various applications. You can always increase contrast, brightness, saturation and things like that in post, but if the file conversion at time of capture set some of these things to extremes, that information may not be there. Not sure if that helps answer your questions or not.

LJ
 
P

Paul Stenquist

Guest
For me, the most important reason to shoot RAW is that cameras are dumb. A jpeg is basically a RAW conversion performed by the camera according to preset parameters. The camera doesn't know what you want to see in the image. It doesn't know if you want to crush some of the blacks or preserve shadow detail. It doesn't know how bright you want the midrange. It doesn't know if you need to pull down the highlights. RAW conversion gives you control over the image. You define it and fine tune all the variables. While that may sound like a complex procedure, RAW conversion soon becomes almost automatic. You evaluate your image and adjust the parameters. Data that may have been lost through in-camera jpeg conversion is yours to work with.

Most importantly, RAW conversion is fun. I equate it with darkroom work. It's a playground for photographers.
 

smokysun

New member
thanks, lj. those are important tips. i've tried so many things, partly cause i get bored, but also because i haven't found the way i'd really like my pictures to look. i know the absence of a style is also a style, but it is a frustrating way to go. i do enjoy processing (most of the time) so that part doesn't bother me. thanks again for the thoughts.

wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp
 

smokysun

New member
hi lj,
just a post-script to that last post. i had a mini-epiphany thinking about the 40 years i spent as a writer. i enjoyed writing in lots of modes: absurd, realistic, mythical, etc., thinking people might find something they like without liking everything.
and i've been wondering why it's different with pictures, where i'm doing exactly the same thing. my frustration i mean. maybe it's because photos are so immediately accessible. i'd like to have a picture which is just 'my own.' guess i have to accept the variety, as i did with writing.
here are some selected poems, if you'd like to check them out and see what i mean. www.pbase.com/wwp/poems (i think poetry my first love still. words seem more enduring than pictures. isn't that rather odd?)
thanks again.
best wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp

ps. i'd like to extend my thanks to jack and guy for setting up the dpi forum. the leica forum got pretty wicked at one point. it's very easy to get discouraged.
 

MisiekBunnik

New member
I would like to make a side-step... My experience is that shooting raw is also dependend on the 'make' of the files and the software that support that format.

I am experienced in dealing with hacked canon G7 raw files that i developed in raw therapee and Lightroom. Even if they had to be converted to .DNG beforehand. It takes time to learn how to develop and adjust using all the options available. Actualy of course the de-mosaicing step is the important one, as a user you simply have a lot of things to sharpen/tone/balance/de-noise using sliders, to get the look you want.

But, now that I have a DP1, things are different. The .x3f files are only supported by SPP, so using RAW is now limited to SPP (exporting to Tiff aside). SPP has 7 sliders only.

Does this make shooting Raw easier to deal with? Will it make you shoot raw instead of jpg if it is presented in this 'simple' way?

My experience: shooting raw is also dependend on how much effort is involved and what tools are used in the chain:
G7>DNG>raw developer of choice>sharpen and or de-noise.
This was hard but results were good
DP1>SPP>slide to get the look I want, no noise options.
Results are as good (excellent), but the flow is much easier and certainly less time consuming.

Shooting raw or jpg?
on my G7>jpg
DP1>raw

Hope I made myself a bit clear, english is not my native language...
 
Top