RAW vs jpeg - no difference for a pro?

[Alissa Morris]

"There isn't much you can do in RAW that you couldn't do in a JPEG."

Found this statement here (http://www.photocamel.com/index.php/topic,9061.0.html), along with some convincing arguments about why a pro might choose jpeg over RAW.

What's your take?

[SWPhotoImaging]

Have you searched here in this forum on this topic? It has been done to death over and over and over again.

There are times when it is more suitable for a professional to shoot in JPG. these tend to be quick-turn-around photography like photo-journalism, on-site photo/printing at events, etc.

For most other situations, it is more advantageous for a pro to shoot RAW, not so that "you don't have to get it right, because you can fix it later", because you still strive to get it right in-camera, but because it allows more latitude in fine-tuning the output, AND it leaves you with an archival "negative" file that has not been artificially adjusted by in-camera software to any pre-defined contrast/saturation/sharpness settings. Post-processing this "un-adjusted" RAW file in one of the professional grade applications such as PS allows more granular and far more variable combinations of adjustments than the in-camera settings have available.

[JD.]

"There isn't much you can do in RAW that you couldn't do in a JPEG."

Where Ignorance Is Bliss, 'Tis Folly To Be Wise

[SYS]

I recently ran into a pro who was shooting some indoor portraits. When I asked him whether he was shooting jpg or RAW, he said jpg. The reason? He stated that as long as you know you've got the right exposure, jpg is a convenient way to go as there's no or hardly any PP afterwards.

It's my opinion that when pros shoot jpg exclusively, that's because 1) they know they have the right exposure; 2) they have no time for PP; and 3) they do not need to preserve the images.

As for me I shoot exclusively in RAW not because I can't get the right exposure but mainly because of my need to preserve the images for legacy purposes (my kids and grandkids). Another reason why I shoot in RAW is because I happen to enjoy PP more than the shooting itself.

[ssim]

I happen to enjoy PP more than the shooting itself.

I would much rather shoot than post process. You really gotta love sitting at that computer.

This whole subject is a never ending debate. Trying to change a persons opinion on this is somewhat futile as the persons that I have spoke to on this subject can tend to become almost "religious" in their opinions one way or the other.

I think that everyone should at least try RAW to see if it works for them. There have certainly been occurences when I wished I had shot JPG for the sake of expediency but then there were those few shots inside of these that I was glad that I had RAW as I was able to recover some poor exposures. I will continue to shoot in RAW and take my lumps in the extra time it takes for post processing. Now if someone is shooting in a controlled environment where they know that their exposure is going to be bang-on then JPG makes sense (like a studio setting).

[SuzyView]

I shot in large JPEG for almost 2 years. After joining this forum I decided to give RAW a shot. I never had enough CF memory to shoot in RAW before. Then I bought 2 1 GB cards and went for it. I won't turn back. The colors, the sharpness, the ease of editing, I love RAW. I shoot RAW + large JPEG for events.

[whiskaz]

Another reason why I shoot in RAW is because I happen to enjoy PP more than the shooting itself.

I enjoy both, equally, but on different levels, or something. Seriously, it's fun to sit down with your work and finish it out. I think you become more connected with a shot when you post process versus otherwise. I can certainly see the argument for both.

[SYS]

You really gotta love sitting at that computer.

Actually, I'm addicted to my computer. The number one complaint of my wife! :(

Once I started shooting RAW, I simply lost all desire to go back to jpg. RAW is like raw sushi. People are initially afraid to try it, but once they got the taste of it, they just crave for more.... :D

[SYS]

I enjoy both, equally, but on different levels, or something. Seriously, it's fun to sit down with your work and finish it out. I think you become more connected with a shot when you post process versus otherwise. I can certainly see the argument for both.

I think I enjoy the PP side more because the images are so personal to me, and I can be as creative as I want. On the other hand, if I were shooting photos as work and in bulk, then I'd say I'd enjoy shooting more than PP.

[twinsrus]

SYS -

When you shoot RAW, how many shots do you get on a memory card? I've done the math, and I think I would be changing out cards too much if I shot strictly RAW. FYI, I am using a Digital Rebel, presently shooting medium in JPG. I shot a weeding over hte weekend where I took over 400 pictures, which I thought was a lot. Then I read people are shooting between 600 and 800, maybe 1000 pics, and I'm wondering when they have time to swap out the cards and if they ever put the camera down. That seems like an incredible number of pictures for a six hour gig. I am spending a long time looking at the pictures, correcting almost every shot, especially flash, using Adobe Elements 4.0. Haven't gotten into PS yet.

Thanks.

[SYS]

SYS -

When you shoot RAW, how many shots do you get on a memory card? I've done the math, and I think I would be changing out cards too much if I shot strictly RAW. FYI, I am using a Digital Rebel, presently shooting medium in JPG. I shot a weeding over hte weekend where I took over 400 pictures, which I thought was a lot. Then I read people are shooting between 600 and 800, maybe 1000 pics, and I'm wondering when they have time to swap out the cards and if they ever put the camera down. That seems like an incredible number of pictures for a six hour gig. I am spending a long time looking at the pictures, correcting almost every shot, especially flash, using Adobe Elements 4.0. Haven't gotten into PS yet.

Thanks.

Using a 1G card I get 112 RAW images at ISO 100 (90 something at ISO 3200). That's not too bad at all, especially the prices are rapidly coming down for 2G cards for me to purchase next. Remember, too, people used to swap films out of their camera every 24 or 36 shots, so I ain't complaining!! :D

[form]

I shoot Large JPG normally; for special requests, or product shots, I typically use RAW to have a little more control. Having an old, slower computer and limited storage space, I find it more convenient to shoot in JPG. My 512mb card can only hold about 140 JPGs, or 55 RAWs.

Wedding photography is WAY beyond me: I'd need spare cards, spare batteries, flash/reflective equipment, and a good zoom lens or two. Oh yeah, and...knowledge.

[tdaugharty]

RAW for me ... JPEG is easier to manage but sometimes I need the color depth of a TIFF to process special images. C1 or ACR seem to produce a consistant workflow and my computer is fast enough + have plenty of CF cards.

[PhotosGuy]

R/J Depends on the final use & the quality you'll need. Try this: Take 2 identical shots (tripod!), one in RAW & one at max jpeg. Convert the RAW file to jpeg. Look at the two file sizes.
A max jpg from my 20D is 2,754 KB. The exact same shot with the jpg extracted from RAW is 4,315 KB which is 1.57X larger.
Whatever info is in my extracted jpg is a lot more detailed than what comes right out of the camera. Why throw those extra bits away?

[primoz]

Why throw those extra bits away? Because you don't need them for that job you are shooting at the moment? ;)

This discussions are completely useless, since most of people can't see further then their (most of time wrong or at least limitied) belief goes.

There's just no perfect format. Raw is good for one thing, while jpeg is good for other. When I need to send photos right after finish of race (this is most of my shooting anyway) there's no other option then jpeg. If you need more data for pp then raw is only option. But there's no format which would always be best option. At least there's no such format yet. The whole point of this is to know which format to choose for particular job.

When it comes to correct exposure and wb, both jpeg and raw do just fine... once when you know what you are doing ;)

[twisted pixels]

Good comment primoz.
Myself being very new to digital, I have been reading many opinions here and your statement has just made my mind up as to what way to go in my line of work. Thanks!

[MagicallyDelicious]

ive never noticed a difference when shooting in these 2 diff ways , am i doing something wrong?

i use canon file browser to see the RAW images then that converts them. but converts them to jpeg. Is that totally ruining the RAW image or not? Like defeating the whole shot being taken in RAW if its just converting into jpeg on computer anyway?

[peatoire]

I'm with primoz on this one too. 'Horses for courses'.


I shoot RAW exclusively as I don't yet have the confidence in my skills to shoot jpeg.

[PhotosGuy]

i use canon file browser to see the RAW images then that converts them. but converts them to jpeg. Is that totally ruining the RAW image or not? Like defeating the whole shot being taken in RAW if its just converting into jpeg on computer anyway? The RAW image isn't changed in the conversion process. Because you don't need them for that job you are shooting at the moment? Well, I said "R/J Depends on the final use & the quality you'll need." But there are needs beyond the fast uploads to a news client "needs of the moment". Suppose a year from now you have a client come along who wants a 60X90" print of something you shot? The average persons 300-350-20D jpeg shots probably won't hold up to that.
Storage is cheap & RAW gives options that I paid for. So I use them. ;)

[MagicallyDelicious]

The RAW image isn't changed in the conversion process.

Thanks im not really too hot with the technical stuff after the actual taking of the picture :)

[primoz]

Average person usually won't have clients ;) And even if they do, most of them are not clients who would want 2x3m posters. And even if they do... you can easier get away with low (actually it should be lower not low) quality photo for huge prints then you would if prints would be smaller. You never watch huge few meters big billboards from 1m, but you do watch let's say 40x60cm photo from half meter distance.
But as I said... every format is good for something and none is perfect. Since speed is important for me I stick with jpeg. And normaly photos from sport events doesn't sell much after year or two, even less for poster sizes like you mentioned. And since I can't have both I go with the one which brings more money. I believe it might be once in future so as you said, but I rather keep existing jobs and will deal with that "maybe once in future" option later when it will come ;)

[jj1987]

I shoot nearly all raw because its faster. Opening up each JPEG and saving it, while doing levels corrections separate takes FOREVER! Selecting batches of my raw files and tweaking white balance takes seconds. Then it batch saves when I'm asleep.

[primoz]

Hehe one of those "raw is faster" ;) The way you handle raw, I can beat you anytime with jpeg. I set correct wb in camera already (whole set of photos have same wb, just as whole set of your photos has it on the end). Then I set correct exposure in camera already, but I can actually change exposure from photo to photo while I'm taking photos ;)
Anyway... if you handle raws like this, you can handle jpegs exactly the same way... action in PS, and run it through all photos. But handling photos like this really doesn't make any sense.

[StealthLude]

"There isn't much you can do in RAW that you couldn't do in a JPEG."

Found this statement here (http://www.photocamel.com/index.php/topic,9061.0.html), along with some convincing arguments about why a pro might choose jpeg over RAW.

What's your take?

HAHAHAHAHA... Wow... seriously man, you need to do better research. RAW is such a HUGE thing for a digital photographer. RAW is about the best thing about useing a high end dSLR.

[sapearl]

Well, perhaps you're doing an excellent job of properly exposing for the shot and nothing needs to be fixed. My problem is that I'm new at digital and still feel the need for somewhat of a RAW safety net.

I've fixed both RAW and JPG files. For me, using ACR2 I can make GLOBAL changes (overall exposure, shadow detail, brightness, color correction, etc.) to a RAW file much faster than if I had to use CS2 and a lot of "tweaks" to fix a JPG file. - Stu

ive never noticed a difference when shooting in these 2 diff ways , am i doing something wrong?.....

[sapearl]

To me it's like having all the capabilities my wet darkroom back again - minus the smell, mess and jugs of chemistry. Oh, and I also I don't hear my wife saying anymore "This is a kitchen, not a darkroom - are 'ya trying to poison us? :rolleyes:

I agree - RAW is quite a Swiss Army Knife of useful tools in a compact package for those who want to make use of it. - Stu


HAHAHAHAHA... Wow... seriously man, you need to do better research. RAW is such a HUGE thing for a digital photographer. RAW is about the best thing about useing a high end dSLR.

[SYS]

The whole point of this is to know which format to choose for particular job.

That's really it.

[jj1987]

Hehe one of those "raw is faster" ;) The way you handle raw, I can beat you anytime with jpeg. I set correct wb in camera already (whole set of photos have same wb, just as whole set of your photos has it on the end). Then I set correct exposure in camera already, but I can actually change exposure from photo to photo while I'm taking photos ;)
Anyway... if you handle raws like this, you can handle jpegs exactly the same way... action in PS, and run it through all photos. But handling photos like this really doesn't make any sense. If you're setting your white balance correct........and exposure dead on........and sharpening in camera......

Why not just drop the card off at the printer and ask for no corrections ? :p

I dont think you can handle jpegs the same way. Assuming the exposures were the same quality, white balance was done perfict, I would still rather use the raw for the color adjustments. That way I dont have to constantly wait 2 seconds for an image to open and another 3 to save. 5 seconds over 400 images can mean quite a bit of time.

But, I think the biggest reason we might disagree is the fact that you're not shooting automotive. When doing the rolling shots, I might go past a set of green trees, then a bright yellow sun with nothing blocking, and then maybe a sunset. No time or possible way to stop in the middle of the road and set a custom wb. If I was shooting pictures with strobes or controlled light, JPEG would do fine, but even then I use raw, cant change your workflow each time.

[primoz]

No I really don't shoot much of car stuff, except for few rallies, but I wouldn't really call outdoor pro sport shooting (this is by far biggest percentage of my work) as shooting in controled environment ;)
PS: Since it's talk about speed I will say something what I say to everyone telling raw is faster. I'm still available to do comparison... you get 300 shots (thats pretty much my average for most of races I cover) and I get 300 shots. We run to press center... ok we can walk, because 20 years of pro xc skiing would give me slight advantage here :p then we download photos (to laptop and not some extremly fast machine), choose 20 best, crop, correct etc. and we send them (we can try over cell phone to be more realistic ;) ). I'm usually done with this in less then 20mins after race. Unfortunately every single "raw is faster" person all of a sudden didn't have wish to prove this in action after I proposed this ;) So I'm still waiting for someone to try ;)
PS #2: But that someone won't understand wrong... I still shoot quite lot of raw when there's need for raw advantages. As I said in one of previous posts... there are moments when jpeg is better and there are moments when raw is better. And if you are good enough you know when to choose right one ;)

[jj1987]

On a race track, the white balance is MUCH more controlled than backwoods on backroads.

Come to FL and Ill take you up on that race. Usually the JPEG guys back down and dont come here to test me.

[primoz]

Don't understand me wrong, since I'm not trying to argue here :) But is for example mtb or skiing enough of backroads/backwoods? :)

[jj1987]

eh idk, I would have to see images of the exact shots.

I just feel that raw is flat out faster than JPEG for me. MAYBE photoshop actions would prove that wrong, I dont know, because bibble has met my needs as a customer for now.

Plus, I dont like to worrie with white balance at the shoot. That might be perhaps the main reason I go raw.

I just checked your site out and looked at cross country skiing. It appears that your images done have many variables color wise in them. Maybe its all been removed and I cant see it though.

[In2Photos]

Well I shoot RAW exclusively because my environment changes drastically from one shot to the next. I don't have the time to set up WB everytime I go room to room(different lighting) or outdoors to indoors. Now if I were in more controlled conditions and knew that every pic I took would have the correct WB and exposure, I would shoot still shoot RAW for preserving. But if I were a paid photographer like primoz I would shoot jpeg because both reasons above might not apply as he stated earlier.

[Richard_Miami]

Just adding a new thought to the fray - I recently did a session on board a cruise ship. In RAW. When I got home and downloaded the images, I was amazed to find out that different sections of the cruise ship appeared to have different lighting characteristics - either Tungsten or Flourescent - and the only way I noticed was by flipping the WB back and forth in ACR. During the day my only thought was flourescent, but I later confirmed that the ship will use different lighting schemes in different areas to make it pleasing for the guests. Since almost all of that lighting is indirect, it is virtually impossible to tell while you are working.

Two points come out of that:

1. Had I been using Jpegs, the WB would have been difficult or impossible to compensate for (at least given my level of PSCS2 skills)

2. This situation must not be unique to cruise ships, but there are probably many large indoor situations where this is the case.

Bottom line - while I have nothing against jpegs, and end up saving (by batch) the finals to jpeg, RAW is a bit more foolproof (my being the fool.. )

-- Richard
edit - In2Photos seems to have had a similar experience and posted just before me.

[primoz]

I'm not saying jpeg is perfect. I'm saying it's faster, it fits most of my work better, and what is most important, it's good enough for this, what most of our clients need and want. I'm sure wb can be more accurate with raw, and it would be even more accurate if I would have color meter with me, and I would be shooting raw and setting exactly right color temperature in raw converter. That would be perfect then. But as I wrote before... I get angry phone calls if photos doesn't show up few minutes after race. For most of our clients, speed is more important then few degres of K shifts from one to another photo.
It's all about this what clients need and want. And once again, it's up to photographer to choose best format for particular job. I accidentaly do most of stuff as pj work, where speed does matter, and therefore I use jpeg for that. Someone else has few days or even weeks time to deliver perfect photo, so of course he or she goes for raw. For projects like that I don't have any problem shooting raw. Afterall it's easier. But it's not realistic to say jpeg (or raw) is best for every single occassion. That's all what I'm trying to tell :)

[In2Photos]

Hey primoz, do your clients (magazines, web pages, ?) do any editing of your images or do they go directly into print/display?

[primoz]

They still do edit photos. Every decent newspaper or magazine runs their photos through their own process from sharpening down to color matching. Mostly only crop is left intact, but even this is sometimes not the case. Photos can't be made once and for all, since even "small" things like paper on which newspaper is printed makes difference.

[Alissa Morris]

I think there are so many factors involved that the file format, in reference to a picture that's exposed properly, is probably secondary.

ive never noticed a difference when shooting in these 2 diff ways , am i doing something wrong?

i use canon file browser to see the RAW images then that converts them. but converts them to jpeg. Is that totally ruining the RAW image or not? Like defeating the whole shot being taken in RAW if its just converting into jpeg on computer anyway?

[In2Photos]

They still do edit photos. Every decent newspaper or magazine runs their photos through their own process from sharpening down to color matching. Mostly only crop is left intact, but even this is sometimes not the case. Photos can't be made once and for all, since even "small" things like paper on which newspaper is printed makes difference.

So then, do you actually need to PP your photos that much anyway. It seems like the more you do, the less it would allow your customers to change. Since I am the client and the photographer in my case then I have to do all the PP work which means that I will always spend more time that you when processing images, regardless of whether I shoot in RAW or JPEG. Again the RAW vs. JPEG debate comes down to...


Which works best for you, your style of shooting, and who the final copy is for.

The biggest difference between you and me is that you are good enough to get paid.:D

[Lester Wareham]

"There isn't much you can do in RAW that you couldn't do in a JPEG."

Found this statement here (http://www.photocamel.com/index.php/topic,9061.0.html), along with some convincing arguments about why a pro might choose jpeg over RAW.

What's your take?

Every tried recovering a stop of saturated highlight detail in a JPG, no problem in RAW.

There are the other issues of doing any major colour temperature and exposure/contrast changes in only 8bits. JPGs are fine as long as you don't need to make major changes, ie your colour balance and exposure is vertuly spot on.

The fact is a lot of pros will be dealing with a huge number of shots. It seems to be common for a 1000 shots to be taken at a major function and the processing will take too much time. So most pros probably try to manage with JPGs, perhaps shooting RAW + JPG for the odd emergancy, time is money.

[DJS]

Why choose, when you can shoot both RAW and JPEG? You get the best of both worlds and the only downsides are space on your memory card and a hit to your FPS. Memory cards are getting cheaper everyday and unless you're shooting a sporting event, FPS is not that critical.

[primoz]

Mike it's not about this :) If you do photos for yourself you are usually never under deadline pressure. If photos of your kid or great looking landscape you just shoot will be done tomorrow instead of today, it won't change much and it won't cost you any money. In my case it will.
And that's all what I wanted to say before. While raw fits perfectly for your needs, it doesn't fit best for every possible use. And there's actually no raw vs. jpeg debate :) As I wrote... each is doing great for specific use, and it's up to photographer to choose right one for particular project.
As far as my pp goes... yes I do really little of pp. Mainly cropping, basic (minimal) sharpening and basic levels. You can't really do much more on laptop (or any other machine not calibrated to specific printing machine) anyway :)

[In2Photos]

Mike it's not about this :) If you do photos for yourself you are usually never under deadline pressure. If photos of your kid or great looking landscape you just shoot will be done tomorrow instead of today, it won't change much and it won't cost you any money. In my case it will.
And that's all what I wanted to say before. While raw fits perfectly for your needs, it doesn't fit best for every possible use. And there's actually no raw vs. jpeg debate :) As I wrote... each is doing great for specific use, and it's up to photographer to choose right one for particular project.
As far as my pp goes... yes I do really little of pp. Mainly cropping, basic (minimal) sharpening and basic levels. You can't really do much more on laptop (or any other machine not calibrated to specific printing machine) anyway :)

I agree with you sir, don't get me wrong. I am never under a deadline unless I am trying to post a shot in a competition here, but that is just for fun and not a pying gig.

As far as the laptop thing, I completely understand. I was using mine before I upgraded my desktop and now I can't use the laptop for processing. It just doesn't cut it.

[Alissa Morris]

I agree you can't recover blown highlights as well in jpeg. But I do treat my original jpegs like a negative, never saving over them. If you know your editing tools, you can get quite a lot out of your jpeg files.

[scalletti]

"There isn't much you can do in RAW that you couldn't do in a JPEG."

Found this statement here (http://www.photocamel.com/index.php/topic,9061.0.html), along with some convincing arguments about why a pro might choose jpeg over RAW.

What's your take?

I found that thread interesting but fundamentally flawed TBH. A 'pro' may need jpeg for convenience, but if you really want the best from the captured image then RAW far surpasses that. You can get, what? - 2 or 3 stops of extra control with RAW? Jpeg doesn't even come close. I agree that you should get the exposure as good as possible at capture, but in difficult lighting conditions RAW can be a real life saver.

just my 2c

[zacker]

lol maybe this should be one of the "Forbidden Topics" lol,..

I admit now, since getting the 30D, i do shoot allot of Jpegs.. I think because summers coming and Id rather be out shooting in the fres air than doing PP in my swealtering back room where my comp is.. that and the fact that im a really lazy sod... that said, I can get some great images in jpeg and I dont really have to fuss with.. the downside, i have also got some great Images i had to REALLY fuss with to get the lighting right.. curse you RAW god! hey, anyone know if there is a new version of the Microsoft raw viewer yet? thats another reason, i hate not seeing the thumbs of my RAW files.. and i dont want to shoot raw = jpeg, it takes up too much realestate on my 1 gb cards! Plus i cant seem to get it right the first time and always seem to open the smal jpeg instead of the raw file..lol
-zacker-

[sapearl]

I did a wedding this past Saturday - a mix of both medium format film and the 5D with 580ex. Lighting was all over the map from bright church, to cloudy/bright park to sunny back-lit gardens to dark reception hall. Complicate this by the fact that I'm just getting into a digital workflow, and RAW was my safety net.

I know I will have few problems with the MF film, hand metering and a Metz on auto, the broader latitude of film and some years of experience. But I've already started processing the 5D's RAW files and see what I'm up against. I'm still getting the hang of the 580 E-TTL and concept of "fill."

White balance was just a little off this time (better than the last shoot where I actually tried to guess the best setting myself; mistake). I shot a lot of stuff on AWB because of all the light "mixes," and a lot of the images came in at about 5100 - 5300K. This was somewhat warm for a number of shots, giving the bride's white dress a creamy warm look which just was not accurate.

Having the RAW file made it so much easier to slide the adjuster in ACR down to 4700-4900K which brought the clean white back into the bride's dress. I know I could have done that with a .jpg, but it would have taken a couple of more steps, and I would have had less latitude.

And then there were some shots where I just plain screwed up the exposure due to haste - again, the RAW safety net came through with it's greater range of adjustment. - Stu :D

[sapearl]

I couldn't agree more in view of some of the places where I've had to shoot. But better make sure you have plenty of cards with you.

I shot 3.5GB of RAW files at my most recent wedding. That was only about 340 shots (not counting the MF film), but it still took BRIDGE a while to process the files into editable .jpg's. But it was well worth it to have those 2 - 3 extra stops for some of the exposures. Scalletti, I find your 2 cents to be worth at least 5$. ;) - Stu

....... but if you really want the best from the captured image then RAW far surpasses that. You can get, what? - 2 or 3 stops of extra control with RAW? Jpeg doesn't even come close. I agree that you should get the exposure as good as possible at capture, but in difficult lighting conditions RAW can be a real life saver.

just my 2c

[tim]

Stu, one big advantage of RAW is you can batch changes like white ballance, so you do one by hand then apply it to all the others from the same lighting situation. That can save you many, many hours.

[sapearl]

You're absolutely right Tim ;) . That's one of the nice features I really enjoy about bridge. I suspect DPP performs in a similar fashion - I have that also - but to my tastes the controls and features of ACR are more "camera like" in functionality.

Last night I was working on some of the RAW bridal shots I did in the park Saturday. It was pretty straightforward to adjust one image and then apply the settings to the others in the series. - Stu

Stu, one big advantage of RAW is you can batch changes like white ballance, so you do one by hand then apply it to all the others from the same lighting situation. That can save you many, many hours.

[Alissa Morris]

Stu, one big advantage of RAW is you can batch changes like white ballance, so you do one by hand then apply it to all the others from the same lighting situation. That can save you many, many hours.

Batching is not an inherent feature of RAW but rather of particular RAW processors.

[PhotosGuy]

Just as an FYI, try this: Take 2 identical shots (tripod!), one in RAW & one at max jpeg. Convert the RAW file to jpeg. Look at the two file sizes. The RAW conversion will be about 1.4X bigger than the in cam jpeg. Which file would you rather start with? ;)

[sapearl]

I stand corrected - I guess I'm so accustomed now to using ACR with Bridge that I think of the two seamlessly.

Batching is not an inherent feature of RAW but rather of particular RAW processors.

[jj1987]

I'm a bit confused as to what made you post that? Nearly ever raw converter worth anything has batch anyways. So, I guess my question is that if even the free raw converters work in batch.......why would anyone need to know that? I know it sounds rude in my post, it isnt meant to be, I just cant think of a better way to word that.

Batching is not an inherent feature of RAW but rather of particular RAW processors.

[tim]

Batching is not an inherent feature of RAW but rather of particular RAW processors.

I don't care about technicalities or playing about with language. I can batch RAW with the software I own, but I can't batch JPGs in anything like the same way - color correction for instance.

[TooManyHobbies]

"There isn't much you can do in RAW that you couldn't do in a JPEG."

You know there are reasons to shoot both ways, but to say there's isn't much you can do in RAW that you couldn't do in a jpg is ignorance! You can do incredible things with RAW that would be impossible with jpgs. The depth of the difference is so great I couldn't even begin to comment here.

I print 17"x22" now and I need all the quality I can squeeze out of an image, besides the point that I like to alter reality to suite my tastes. RAW, 16 bit, ProRGB, etc. makes a big difference when making major edits. Exposure may be right on the money, but that doesn't mean I still won't make major changes that jpgs just can't take.

I can't beleive anyone who is a pro and has been on this site for sometime would say something like that. Maybe the difference is that for some pro is a job, but for others it is an art.

[sapearl]

I'm finding this to be very true in my wedding work. Digital, white balance, color balance, etc. is new to me, but RAW is very forgiving of my "experimentation." ;)

The wedding reception I did this past Saturday had a wild mix of setting sun, indoor incandescent and my flash. The camera set for AWB which was reasonably good, but I wasn't 100% pleased until I made my RAW adjustments. A number of the shots were in series, so once I perfected one it was rapid fire to apply those settings to the others via batch action. I could NOT have done that as quickly, nor as easily with JPGs. - Stu

I....... but I can't batch JPGs in anything like the same way - color correction for instance.

[jfrancho]

You can take a .jpg, convert it to 48 bits and convert to a wide gamut and do pretty much anything you could do in a good raw converter, with negligible differences in quality in the final product. It would take a tremendous amount of work, though, and it just seems counter preoductive when it's so simple in a raw converter. Now, if you can get exactly what you need straight out of the cam, and need to get those images published asap - jpg is still the way to go. The bottom line is that no matter what, the end result is an 8-bit image that gets rendered on a screen or printed, so quality isn't really an issue in a technical sense, though in my own experience I can produce a better quality image using a raw workflow.

[primoz]

Ok once again ;) Once when you start doing batch conversion of raw, you don't do anything else then setting correct wb in camera when shooting jpeg. All files have same wb (if we stay with wb for now). So you really didn't gain much, except some extra work.

And if you really want you can actually change levels, add some saturation, sharpening etc. and add all this to PS action and run it through whole directory of jpegs. Hell you can make droplet and run all this straight from Photo Mechanic. Personally I don't really see reason why would anyone want to handle all set photos same way, but if you want you can do it.

[TooManyHobbies]

You can take a .jpg, convert it to 48 bits and convert to a wide gamut and do pretty much anything you could do in a good raw converter, with negligible differences in quality in the final product. It would take a tremendous amount of work, though, and it just seems counter preoductive when it's so simple in a raw converter. Now, if you can get exactly what you need straight out of the cam, and need to get those images published asap - jpg is still the way to go. The bottom line is that no matter what, the end result is an 8-bit image that gets rendered on a screen or printed, so quality isn't really an issue in a technical sense, though in my own experience I can produce a better quality image using a raw workflow.

You can't get back the information you threw away when you went to jpg. 12-bit camera non-compressed vs. 8 bit compressed jpg file. I'm not saying that there is something wrong with shooting jpg. I do it too. But there is a big difference in what you can do prior to throwing that info away. Researched, tested, and found to be true.

[jfrancho]

Sure you lose some info in .jpg, but you gain the sensitivity when converting and editing in 16 bit/channel mode. If you use a consumer or professional print service, or print you're own you losing that data as soon as the print job is spooled. Most printers are 8 bit output devices.

[jfrancho]

Ok once again ;) Once when you start doing batch conversion of raw, you don't do anything else then setting correct wb in camera when shooting jpeg. All files have same wb (if we stay with wb for now). So you really didn't gain much, except some extra work.

And if you really want you can actually change levels, add some saturation, sharpening etc. and add all this to PS action and run it through whole directory of jpegs. Hell you can make droplet and run all this straight from Photo Mechanic. Personally I don't really see reason why would anyone want to handle all set photos same way, but if you want you can do it.Who said I was applying the same settings to every image? I tune each image, with settings stared in the sidecar. The only "batch" part of the process is applying my personal info to the IPTC data. Keywords, titles, captions, etc. don't take long at all, if I add them at the beginning (BTW - Primoz, thanks for your advice in this practice) Once it's all set up, all the images are converted in a "batch." I then only have to run NR and sharpen, and resize (if necessary). I have a bunch of actions and scripts, premade for all this. It takes about 2 hours to process 50 images, now. Perfectly acceptable for me.

[TooManyHobbies]

Sure you lose some info in .jpg, but you gain the sensitivity when converting and editing in 16 bit/channel mode. If you use a consumer or professional print service, or print you're own you losing that data as soon as the print job is spooled. Most printers are 8 bit output devices.

Correct, it doesn't matter when your sending to final output, but it does matter during the editing process when making large changes to parameters. If you don't do a lot to an image, you won't notice, but if you do, you will. Especially large scale.

That's like upsizing a print by printing low ppi when you send it to the printer instead of upsizing the resolution prior to PP and printing at 240 ppi or higher. There is a huge difference in quality when all of your PP edits were rendered across a broader resolution if you upsized prior to PP.

[jfrancho]

Correct, it doesn't matter when your sending to final output, but it does matter during the editing process when making large changes to parameters. If you don't do a lot to an image, you won't notice, but if you do, you will. Especially large scale.

That's like upsizing a print by printing low ppi when you send it to the printer instead of upsizing the resolution prior to PP and printing at 240 ppi or higher. There is a huge difference in quality when all of your PP edits were rendered across a broader resolution if you upsized prior to PP.I think we agree on this topic, I just don't feel that final output quality of a .jpg workfolw is as limited as many make it out to be. I have about 300 images shot in .jpg mode that are worthy of printing, and after working on a few of these for a current show, I've found that many adjustments can be made. There are also a few prints that are in this show made with a little 5 MP S500 point and shoot. No one can tell the difference - not even some of the photograpers in the opening - between these and the 8MP images made with the 20D. Personally, if I could get the process of setting up the camera so that minimal processing was necessary, I'd shoot every live band that hires me in .jpg. I would be making quite a bit more money without increasing my rates. So it may seem like a step backward, but business wise, it's a step forward. Now, when I drive 3 hours into Canada to shoot a waterfall, there is no way in hell that I'd be using anything but raw. Same goes for snapshots of my son's birthday party. Same goes for the product shots for pottery client. Same goes for the architectural and constructions shots I do for my general contractor client.

[sapearl]

Everything you say you can certainly do with JPGs, but you've already thrown out a good portion of info in the squishing down from RAW, so your range of lattitude is much smaller. And this can be really critical for a newbie like myself doing a wedding ;) .

It's critical in my wedding work that I render proper flesh tones. My typical wedding day is a random mix of all kinds of ambient lighting, not to mention the "fill" that I may decide to use from the 580.

My exposures are very close and I find it VERY easy to quickly adjust the color temperature slider in ACR to "fix" any skin tone that I don't feel is quite right. Granted, I'm new at this, but I just got a shipment of proofs back from my pro-lab and the results were beautiful.

Here's my take on it: I regard the tweaks and changes you do to a JPG in PSCS2 as specific - more of a fine tuning effort if the shot requires it. I feel changes I make to the RAW files using BRIDGE are more global and general. And many times those changes will be sufficient, and I won't need to make any CS2 changes to the JPG. In the context of an entire job having several hundred images, this is a significant time savings for me. - Stu

.......And if you really want you can actually change levels, add some saturation, sharpening etc. and add all this to PS action and run it through whole directory of jpegs. Hell you can make droplet and run all this straight from Photo Mechanic. Personally I don't really see reason why would anyone want to handle all set photos same way, but if you want you can do it.

[TooManyHobbies]

Ok we agree. And like I said I shoot and even adjust jpg. But for my fine sureal art printed 17"x22" there is no substitute for RAW. Add on to that shooting gymnastics indoors with no flash at 1600-3200 ISO.

[primoz]

I agree again (and again and again ;) ) about this. I also agree (again and again and again) that when jpeg quality is not good enough, you go with raw. For PJ work I use jpeg, and I do fine (actually lot better then I would with raw), while for something where jpeg doesn't work best I go with raw. All what I don't agree, and probably never will, even though never might be a bit harsh, is that raw is best for everything :)

PS: Jfrancho I wasn't refering to your post :) I was refering to Tim's post, that beauty of raw is you can handle all photos with batch, while you can't do that for jpeg :)

[PhotosGuy]

You can't get back the information you threw away when you went to jpg. 12-bit camera non-compressed vs. 8 bit compressed jpg file. Good point. I've edited my comment in post #52 to read,
"Try this: Take 2 identical shots, one in RAW & one at max jpeg. Use a tripod to be sure each shot has the exact information in it.
Convert the RAW file to jpeg. Look at the two file sizes.
A max jpg from my 20D is 2,754 KB. The exact same shot with the jpg extracted from RAW is 4,315 KB which is 1.57X larger.
What I think you're seeing is the result of a 8 bit compressed jpg file from the camera vs. a jpeg converted from the higher bit RAW file. Why throw those extra bits away? True, you might not see the difference on your screen (72ppi!), but if you're making prints..."
Feel free to nit-pick it. ;)

As was said by jfrancho, "Who said I was applying the same settings to every image? I tune each image,..." I like to do that, too. Different car colors. Maybe took a shot from in another direction, = different angle of light. So if I'm not batch processing, I'd have to:
Open the image.
Open the correction dialog box. Make that correction.
Open the next correction dialog box. Make that correction.
Open the next correction dialog box. Make that correction.
Open the next correction dialog box. Make that correction.
Etc, etc...

With RAW, I can just move this slider, move that slider, etc 'till it's time to convert the images. While I have made Actions to "Open the next correction dialog box.", I still prefer to make all possible changes before conversion, which I feel is the same as working in 16-bit in PS.
Go ahead & nit-pick that comment, too! :D

[jfrancho]

I think another part of this is that you can set your adjustments up in the raw converter, and come back to it. Nothing has really changed in the file, and all changes can easily be retuned or undone.

[PhotosGuy]

I think another part of this is that you can set your adjustments up in the raw converter, and come back to it. Nothing has really changed in the file, and all changes can easily be retuned or undone. Good point!
For the simple shots, RSE saves the conversion info so I can delete the big tiff file & save a lot of hard drive space in the long run.
Only for complex shots with many layers will I save the tiff.

[Alissa Morris]

You can't get back the information you threw away when you went to jpg. 12-bit camera non-compressed vs. 8 bit compressed jpg file.

Yes, but the question is how much you really need that phantom information that you "threw" away. It's kind of like saying you can't get back encoded audio data that your ear can't hear anyway.

[sapearl]

Well, for my circumstance, I'm finding that "phantom" information to be very helpful for recovering and improving upon images that would have only been less so as JPGs. Sure I could have fixed things in CS2 with the plain old JPG, but I'm finding I can do so much more with the greater latitude of the RAW data. I'm also batch applying "adjustments" in my wedding work, so it speeds things up a bit when I can do these global changes. - Stu

Yes, but the question is how much you really need that phantom information that you "threw" away. It's kind of like saying you can't get back encoded audio data that your ear can't hear anyway.

[tim]

RAW, opened 16 bits, then using the shadows & highlights tool can make a good image great. With JPG a lot of the information is lost.

[blackshadow]

I mainly shoot concert photos so RAW comes into it's own there as the WB is constantly changing with the light show. For that reason I find it much easier and quicker to do my PP in RAW.

[jfrancho]

I mainly shoot concert photos so RAW comes into it's own there as the WB is constantly changing with the light show. For that reason I find it much easier and quicker to do my PP in RAW.I agree. Don't you also feel that raw format allows you simple control when trying something a little creative? Sometimes I change a red cast to blue, especially if the lighting was red for the whole set. Things like that, I generally avoid, but I don't want to go to the client with nothing but red shots.

[sapearl]

Absolutely - informal portraits of the bride and groom, adding more of a "moody" feel to a shot; definately gives you a great latitude of further choices.

I agree. Don't you also feel that raw format allows you simple control when trying something a little creative? .......

[Transportithere]

RAW is great. Should I archive the my RAW? Then create copies of the files as I work on them. As to have an untouched orginial file to return to on another date.

[sapearl]

Well, that would be the equivalent of "archiving" your original negatives - I've still got mine from 1970.

I currently do this with the RAW disks from my wedding work, as well as the "corrected/modified" JPG disks that I send to my commercial lab. Space consideration is certainly less an issue than with physical negatives; you just have to make sure you have a well organized file system for all the disks, as well as equipment to read media. Of course, that whole "equipment" issue is grist for another, lengthy discussion..... ;)

RAW is great. Should I archive the my RAW? Then create copies of the files as I work on them. As to have an untouched orginial file to return to on another date.

[tim]

I would strongly suggest saving JPGs as well as RAW files, since I suspect JPG files will be able to be read long after the 10D/20D/30D etc RAW format is dropped. DNG is another option, but JPG's smaller and the quality's good enough for 99% of applications.

[sapearl]

Gee, I hope they keep the 5D RAW format around for a while.... but who can tell :D . Industry is fickle......

I would strongly suggest saving JPGs as well as RAW files, since I suspect JPG files will be able to be read long after the 10D/20D/30D etc RAW format is dropped. DNG is another option, but JPG's smaller and the quality's good enough for 99% of applications.

[Tundrasport]

SYS -

When you shoot RAW, how many shots do you get on a memory card? I've done the math, and I think I would be changing out cards too much if I shot strictly RAW. FYI, I am using a Digital Rebel, presently shooting medium in JPG. I shot a weeding over hte weekend where I took over 400 pictures, which I thought was a lot. Then I read people are shooting between 600 and 800, maybe 1000 pics, and I'm wondering when they have time to swap out the cards and if they ever put the camera down. That seems like an incredible number of pictures for a six hour gig. I am spending a long time looking at the pictures, correcting almost every shot, especially flash, using Adobe Elements 4.0. Haven't gotten into PS yet.

Thanks.

On Saturday I took about 500 shots at the National Radio Controlled boat races. I would ay 90% raw + large jpeg. (I did play with the "sports setting a little bit just to see what it would do) I use three 1 gig cards and get about 70 shots per card. I use a digimate III tank that fits in my pocket. Fill a card, swap it out, start dumping as I keep shooting. Takes about 5 mins to dump 1 gig. My tank (total cost was about $145) has a 60 gig capacity and I have never filled it in one day. When I have a few minuits I reformat all 3 cards and keep on going! When I get home the first think I do is burn the tank to DVDs, that way I don't have to worry about what I start playing with.

[RadAL]

heh, Glad I have a point and shoot.... I get around 397 shots per 1 gig card... with great quality... and even better that I hardly have to touch photoshop to make my pictures better.

[Alissa Morris]

I've been getting better with photoshop and as I improve I'm finding RAW less useful than before.

I agree. Don't you also feel that raw format allows you simple control when trying something a little creative? Sometimes I change a red cast to blue, especially if the lighting was red for the whole set. Things like that, I generally avoid, but I don't want to go to the client with nothing but red shots.

[tim]

RAW vs JPG is all about the workflow. I had a photographer working for me who shot JPG and overexposed 20% of the photos, since they were JPG the photos weren't useful, with RAW they'd have been ok. The repairs I managed to do took a lot of time in photoshop, especially since the white ballance was also wrong.

[TooManyHobbies]

This thread really fired me up a while back, but I never really explained myself well, so lets try again.

I shoot RAW + JPG or just RAW when I need speed or don't have memory card room.

JPG is for the fast workflow. RAW is for editing to get the most out of an image. RAW has many IQ advantages if drastically changing the image, while JPG has the IQ, but this drops off more dramatically when major edits are done. That's why the "no difference" statement burned me up.

Now most people don't know how to take advantage of RAW and even the ones that think they do still probably don't realize some of the advantages. I know I didn't at first.

See ...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1641947&postcount=8

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=180366

In summary....

RAW can get you extra pixels of resoultion.
RAW can get you extra detail by exposing to the right due to the non-linear conversion from RAW data to JPG or other formats.
RAW can allow repeated changes to the same RAW file without affecting the original info.
RAW is non compressed so image data is not lost allowing greater changes while minimizing gaps in the histogram.
RAW files must be edited, since they do not have the camera parameter processing (color, statruation, sharpness, contrast, noise reduction) done on them like JPG files do.

[Befwokdaz]

Great information

[Alissa Morris]

RAW vs JPG is all about the workflow. I had a photographer working for me who shot JPG and overexposed 20% of the photos, since they were JPG the photos weren't useful, with RAW they'd have been ok. The repairs I managed to do took a lot of time in photoshop, especially since the white ballance was also wrong.

To be truthful, I'm honestly finding photoshop's new Exposure adjustment to be about as good as bringing down exposure in RAW.

[Nightcrawler]

I use Adobe Bridge as my main application for working with RAW files. The one thing that speeds up my workflow more than anything is being able to copy settings from one RAW file to all the others from a group of similar photos. I used to think that shooting RAW took longer, but now with software like Adobe Bridge and RAWShooter, I think that shooting RAW is faster.

[jj1987]

heh, Glad I have a point and shoot.... I get around 397 shots per 1 gig card... with great quality... and even better that I hardly have to touch photoshop to make my pictures better.
your 20x30's must look amazing :lol:

[tim]

To be truthful, I'm honestly finding photoshop's new Exposure adjustment to be about as good as bringing down exposure in RAW.

Where's that in Photoshop? I've never seen it. Like I said the advantage of RAW is you can operate on batches instead of individual files, invaluable for high volume work like weddings.

[corinto]

Sorry to jump in so late, it seems to me there's some misinfo here:

1. Batch processing: both ACR and Photoshop enable batch edits. It is indeed more intuitive in ACR but not different from what PS does with actions. It has been argued that it has to be done on an individual image basis for jpeg's but that is only true if it would also have to be done individually in RAW images. IOW, if images have the same problem (color cast, etc.) it can be done just as well in jpeg's as in raw's.

2. RAW does have one unsurpassed benefit: it generates 16-bit images. That means that you have 32k tone levels to play with instead of 256 for jpeg. That's the reason it will allow greater handling without creating banding. Jpeg2000 does operate on 16-bit images but it is not supported by much software. So if major edit is expected, RAW is the way to go.

3. Archiving should not be an argument for RAW. Indeed jpeg will increase lost info but only if you save to the same file. RAW does not permit saving; you are forced to save to a new file thus keeping the original. But then, you may do the same with jpeg.

4. There is a potential problem with RAW format. crw, cr2 and other Canon RAW formats are propietary and, consequently, will only be supported while it is good business for third-party software. There should be more support for DNG which is an open (and well documented) format and, so, has a greater chance of prevailing. BTW, Photoshop supports DNG.

Hope this helps and excuse me if it is too long.

[DiscoLizard]

Where's that in Photoshop? I've never seen it. Like I said the advantage of RAW is you can operate on batches instead of individual files, invaluable for high volume work like weddings.

I believe its a new feature in CS2

[corinto]

Yes, it is part of the main adjusment screen.

[Nightcrawler]

Not trying to flaimbait, but recovering a photo with a lot of blown highlights is a bit easier if you have a RAW file.

[sapearl]

In CS2, if you go to IMAGE => ADJUSTMENTS => EXPOSURE, another menu pops out which gives you sliders for Exposure, Offset and Gamma.

It is a very nice little feature and I will periodically use it..... but I still prefer the RAW exposure adjustments. Just a matter of personal taste. ;)

Where's that in Photoshop? I've never seen it. Like I said the advantage of RAW is you can operate on batches instead of individual files, invaluable for high volume work like weddings.

[René Damkot]

4. There is a potential problem with RAW format. crw, cr2 and other Canon RAW formats are propietary and, consequently, will only be supported while it is good business for third-party software. There should be more support for DNG which is an open (and well documented) format and, so, has a greater chance of prevailing. BTW, Photoshop supports DNG.

This is an argument that I keep seeing, but don't understand: I still have a Mac IIvc in the attic, so what's wrong with keeping my G4 and DPP for future use if needed? DPP will produce the same results as it does now 10 years from now...

I find one advantage of RAW to be (beyond what others have stated) that software keeps improving. So I can reprocess a picture of a few years back, and get better results...

RAW can get you extra pixels of resolution.
Tried that recently, and actually find upscaling in Photoshop better then in DPP...

[corinto]

... so what's wrong with keeping my G4 and DPP for future use if needed?

You've said it: in your own example, you will have to keep that Mac for 10 years. And you will probably be looking into the conversion of several thou of images. Frightenining, isn't it?

Anyway, i am not suggesting that it will happen. Only a note of caution if archiving for 10+ years is the purpose.

[René Damkot]

Sorry, but I still don't get it. I cannot fathom a reason why I would want to convert 'several thou' of images, that are over 10 years old...
I recently scanned some negatives from '94/'95, but that's also something I don't do on a regular basis...
Who knows, maybe under OS XX we will have something like 'ClassX' to enable us to run DPP :lol:

[corinto]

Well, that's the only reason for archiving, isn't it? Just recall that RAW cannot be printed or in any way processed unless converted to some format compatible with a pp program.

All I am saying is that, if the reason to use RAW is archiving, you have to be sure to keep it in a compatible format or cross your fingers that the format is supported whenever you want to use them.

[In2Photos]

Well, that's the only reason for archiving, isn't it? Just recall that RAW cannot be printed or in any way processed unless converted to some format compatible with a pp program.

All I am saying is that, if the reason to use RAW is archiving, you have to be sure to keep it in a compatible format or cross your fingers that the format is supported whenever you want to use them.

There are no absolutes that JPEG, TIFF, or DNG will be around either. Remember when the cassette was replaced by CD and VHS was replaced by DVD. We had a few years before the takeover to do whatever we wanted with the older formats. I believe the same will apply here. Just like your film negatives are not obsolete yet.

[Alissa Morris]

I think it comes down to speed vs flexibility in the end. There's not a RAW converter on earth that I've tried that's as quick as opening a JPG.

[In2Photos]

I think it comes down to speed vs flexibility in the end. There's not a RAW converter on earth that I've tried that's as quick as opening a JPG.

Gee I wonder why. The RAW is over twice the size of a large JPEG. Yesterday I tried using curves to adjust WB rather than the WB correction in ACR. Took me way longer than the eyedropper in ACR. I will stick with the longer opening times of RAW files than the longer adjusting of curves in PS.

[jfrancho]

Whether I shoot .jpg or raw format, there is still processing involved. In progress image files can approach 500 MB. If you are having issues opening files < 10 MB, I suggest a computer upgrade.

[KasiaFan]

If I don't need the better quality of RAW I use JPG, but with RAW I can convert to TIF, then open that up in my editing program (Picture Publisher), do my editing, cropping, sizing, and save as a PNG. I find PNG gives me better results than JPG with only a little larger file size.

[Alissa Morris]

I mainly shoot concert photos so RAW comes into it's own there as the WB is constantly changing with the light show. For that reason I find it much easier and quicker to do my PP in RAW.

Now that's an application that I can definitely see RAW being good for.

[Alissa Morris]

RAW, opened 16 bits, then using the shadows & highlights tool can make a good image great. With JPG a lot of the information is lost.

Gee, I don't know. The shadows and highlights tool works fine for some images but it changes the color drastically, not matter whether you start with jpg or raw.

[tim]

Gee, I don't know. The shadows and highlights tool works fine for some images but it changes the color drastically, not matter whether you start with jpg or raw.

The color correct and contrast sliders at the bottom can help, but that is a problem.

[Alissa Morris]

Does anyone know of any tools that help you correct white balance on jpegs in photoshop?

[jfrancho]

Curves will work nicely.

[tim]

Does anyone know of any tools that help you correct white balance on jpegs in photoshop?

Go into levels, click on the rightmost dropper (white dropper), then click on something white in the image. That's by far the easiest way i've found for JPGs. Luckily I don't have to do it often because I mostly shoot RAW :p

[sapearl]

You and me both Tim :lol: . Maybe one day I'll learn more about CS2.

Go into levels, click on the rightmost dropper (white dropper), then click on something white in the image. That's by far the easiest way i've found for JPGs. Luckily I don't have to do it often because I mostly shoot RAW :p

[Digital_Duck]

he he he! This Photo Shop is another topic I can become a pest about around here!

I'm so pumped! .... just bought it - its downloading as I type!!! :mrgreen:

[grego]

Does anyone know of any tools that help you correct white balance on jpegs in photoshop?

You can also work with color balance, photo filters, and selective colors(neutral choice) and then play with the others.

[Alissa Morris]

You can also work with color balance, photo filters, and selective colors(neutral choice) and then play with the others.

I just discovered iCorrect EditLab Pro. It's great.

[jfrancho]

Does anyone know of any tools that help you correct white balance on jpegs in photoshop?Create a new layer, fill with 50% grey, change blend mode to difference. Add Threshold adjustment layer, move slider to the left, and then back to the right slowly, until a little bit of white is showing. Mark that area with the Color Sampler tool. Delete the those two layers, add a Curves adjustment layer, use the middle grey sampler in Curves and click on the area you marked earlier. WB should be corrected.

[In2Photos]

Create a new layer, fill with 50% grey, change blend mode to difference. Add Threshold adjustment layer, move slider to the left, and then back to the right slowly, until a little bit of white is showing. Mark that area with the Color Sampler tool. Delete the those two layers, add a Curves adjustment layer, use the middle grey sampler in Curves and click on the area you marked earlier. WB should be corrected.

You mean I have to do all that work for a JPEG, but for RAW I can just click on something white?;)

[jfrancho]

Well, I click F11, and it does it for me. In raw, I'd be looking for something grey to click. White doesn't always give the best results.

[In2Photos]

Well, I click F11, and it does it for me. In raw, I'd be looking for something grey to click. White doesn't always give the best results.

Maybe not the best results, but good enough for me.

[jfrancho]

You should give the technique I described a try. Save a "badly WB'd" raw as an 8 bpc jpg. Open it, convert to 16 bpc, do the WB correction, convert back to 8 bpc and save as a jpg. Then go back to the raw file, fix the WB, and save directly as an 8 bpc jpg. Check the two out side by side.

[In2Photos]

You should give the technique I described a try. Save a "badly WB'd" raw as an 8 bpc jpg. Open it, convert to 16 bpc, do the WB correction, convert back to 8 bpc and save as a jpg. Then go back to the raw file, fix the WB, and save directly as an 8 bpc jpg. Check the two out side by side.

I have used the technique before (back when I shot Jpeg) but never compared it to a corrected RAW file. I will give it a shot.

[jarski]

I try to capture most of what todays technology makes available for tomorrows tech to process and display.
when looking old, pretty bad quality and worn out pictures of my long gone relatives, I often wish their "gear" would had been better then, so I could catch more of their moment now.. ofcourse theres a special feeling in those pictures, but I would prefere seeing them as real as possible, not processed using "old photo" effect :P
this might sound a bit idealistic or even naive for some who produce thousands of photos from their "assembly line" a month, and make their living with photography, but thats how I think about it... so, raw for me. I also like post process a lot, thats another reason.

[JasonMX]

Why not just shoot in RAW+JPG like all new good digital cameras do? That will allow you do do whatever you want in the future.

[jfrancho]

Why not just shoot in RAW+JPG like all new good digital cameras do? That will allow you do do whatever you want in the future.There could be a bunch of reasons like card space, burst depth, or availability of the format - not all cameras have raw format. One other thing to consider is that you may need to work on an image made by someone else. You can't really tell them to go out and reshoot it - it's easier to take their money, and fix what they gave you.

[Alissa Morris]

Why not just shoot in RAW+JPG like all new good digital cameras do? That will allow you do do whatever you want in the future.


Hard disk space! I already can't keep up.

[Digital_Duck]

If you don't mind a suggestion ...

an 80 gig external hard drive is about $150.00 and is an excellent way to store tons of images and to carry with you - it's Plug - n - Play!

It's easier than dragging a notebook/laptop around sometimes.

[TooManyHobbies]

If you don't mind a suggestion ...

an 80 gig external hard drive is about $150.00 and is an excellent way to store tons of images and to carry with you - it's Plug - n - Play!

It's easier than dragging a notebook/laptop around sometimes.

An Epson P2000 is $399. Portable 40GB hardrive, viewer/player, card reader with batteries and car charger. And you won't have to worry about running out of card space when on vacation. Also, no need to drag around a laptop either.

At home I have 680GB of harddrive space plus I backup everything on DVDs. I'm seriously thinking about tape drives, but I'm waiting for the next HDDVD to have more space.

HEY DUCK, I HAVEN'T SEEN YOU AT A CCCC MEETING? YOU SHOULD COME.

[Digital_Duck]

An Epson P2000 is $399. Portable 40GB hardrive, viewer/player, card reader with batteries and car charger. And you won't have to worry about running out of card space when on vacation. Also, no need to drag around a laptop either.

At home I have 680GB of harddrive space plus I backup everything on DVDs. I'm seriously thinking about tape drives, but I'm waiting for the next HDDVD to have more space.

HEY DUCK, I HAVEN'T SEEN YOU AT A CCCC MEETING? YOU SHOULD COME.
Hi TooManyHobbies - :lol: I tried to get there one time but the timing is tough.

wife gets home about 6 - 6:15pm then we eat supper .... and that trip in the tail end of evening rush hour from Holly Springs ...

Every time I turn around there is more and more toys to get ... had no idea about those Epson P2000's - thats handy!

my new notebook is in the shop - broke the screen :confused: ..... don't have a computer that can handle the CS2 ..... 3 steps forward - 2 steps back!

About back up - have you considered a Zip Drive? .... just a thought!

[TooManyHobbies]

About back up - have you considered a Zip Drive? .... just a thought!

Last time I looked it wasn't cost effective per GB.

[KasiaFan]

About back up - have you considered a Zip Drive? .... just a thought!

I believe the largest they make is 750 MB, about the size of a CD-R, not really good for backing up multi Gigabyte sized hard drives, especially when you consider the media costs around $10 a piece. You're much better off with recordable DVDs at under $10 for a 25 pack of 4.7 GB disks, that's at least 1/150th the cost of Zip disks.
For backing up really large amounts of data your only real options are tape or hard drive.

For just general storage - in a home computer a second hard drive would be a good choice, a 250 GB drive will hold around 30,000 RAW shots and can be had for under $100. For laptops an external hard drive would be the way to go.

[Alissa Morris]

If you don't mind a suggestion ...

an 80 gig external hard drive is about $150.00 and is an excellent way to store tons of images and to carry with you - it's Plug - n - Play!

It's easier than dragging a notebook/laptop around sometimes.

Actually a 400 gig hard drive is less than that now. But for each gig of storage, you need another gig to back up.