To shoot RAW or not

[TMR Design]

I am sure this gets asked all the time but I am now entering the world of DSLR with a 30D and have wondered about JPG vs. RAW. I constantly see images shot as JPG and sometimes they look amazing out of the camera and other times they need a little post porcessing help but I find I am very satisfied with what I see.

For an amateur, what are the immeidate benefits of shooting RAW? I understand that there is more RAW processing involved but that there is also more flexibility?

What would be a good example or two of things I would and could adjust in RAW that I could not if I shot JPG?

Am I missing something by not shooting RAW? Should I shoot both? What exactly is the purpose of having the camera capture as RAW and JPG?

[Curtis N]

For an amateur, what are the immeidate benefits of shooting RAW?When I first started shooting RAW, I was delighted that I was able to easily cover up the fact that I was a lousy photographer. In fact, that hasn't changed. ;) What would be a good example or two of things I would and could adjust in RAW that I could not if I shot JPG?Exposure and white balance. While it's still best to get exposure as close as you can with the camera, RAW makes it a cinch to correct errors (within a stop or two). White balance is something you can completely disregard until post, where you can use your RAW converter to correct a whole batch of shots to the same color temp with a few clicks.

It's one of those things - You have to try it to understand it. And you have nothing to lose by trying it.

[4walls]

Lots of discussion on RAW vs JPG here already... try the search function to find some of it.

In a nutshell...
RAW:
- more storage space required
- 16 bit images (12 bit saved in a 16 bit space, but who's counting)
- better dynamic range
- post processing mandatory

JPG
- smaller files
- 8 bit images
- less flexibility in dynamic range (from a post processing point of view)
- post processing optional

[kevin_c]

Just do it, you won't look back...

Main advantages are colour balance adjustment and the ability to 'recover' some under or over exposure for those occasional times you don't quite get it right ;)

The only disadvantage I can think of is that you get less images on a CF card and they take up more room on your hard drive.

[TMR Design]

I have not received my 30D yest but I assume there is a program (Zoombrowser for EOS?) that imports the RAW files. Is the documentation for the software good? Are there macros for handling batch operations?

[Curtis N]

I assume there is a program.. that imports the RAW files.Digital Photo Professional is one of the applications that comes with the camera. It has its pros and cons, but it's a great RAW converter for starting out.Is the documentation for the software good?As good as any other Canon instruction manual. :confused: You can download it in PDF form from Canon's download library, as well as the instruction manual for your 30D, and read them while you're waiting for the big brown truck.Are there macros for handling batch operations?Batch processing is amazingly simple.

[4walls]

Capture One is great.

www.phaseone.com


And Photoshop works too...

[kevin_c]

Capture One is great.

www.phaseone.com (http://www.phaseone.com)


And Photoshop works too...

Yes C1 is very good, I use it all the time, BUT it is not free :( but DPP comes with the camera, or as part of Zoombrowser ??

And yes, the Photoshop plugin is free as well

[4walls]

Hehehe, the Photoshop plugin is free... just have to shell out the $$$'s for the program first, eh?

[kevin_c]

Hehehe, the Photoshop plugin is free... just have to shell out the $$$'s for the program first, eh?

But the RAW plugin is free!! ;) you know it makes sense :lol::lol:

[saravrose]

When I first started shooting RAW, I was delighted that I was able to easily cover up the fact that I was a lousy photographer. In fact, that hasn't changed. ;) Exposure and white balance. While it's still best to get exposure as close as you can with the camera, RAW makes it a cinch to correct errors (within a stop or two). White balance is something you can completely disregard until post, where you can use your RAW converter to correct a whole batch of shots to the same color temp with a few clicks.

It's one of those things - You have to try it to understand it. And you have nothing to lose by trying it.

agree here. white balance is no longer an issue when shooting RAW and the flexibility with exposure is incredibly liberating.. I went back and forth from RAW to JPEG for awhile.. the workload shooting RAW is quite a bit more but the end results make it worth it.. I've since given up JPEG at completly.. I realized the only thing I was using them for was to find my RAW files to PP..


sari

[saravrose]

Just do it, you won't look back...

Main advantages are colour balance adjustment and the ability to 'recover' some under or over exposure for those occasional times you don't quite get it right ;)

The only disadvantage I can think of is that you get less images on a CF card and they take up more room on your hard drive.

hardrive space.. Yep, there is that. I bought an external 300G.. figure it will last for a few years.. ofcourse if I was better at weeding out what I wanted to keep and deleting what I didn't need it wouldn't be bad at all..

sari

[sapearl]

Yes, there are a lot of threads on this out there already - I've lost track there are so many. :lol:

For me it's all about control and the greater latitude that a RAW file gives me. JPGs are great if I'm in a hurry, the lighting circumstances are optimal and I know things will turn out well. But I shoot about 95% RAW as most of my work is Wedding and Landscape and I want to have the greatest "tweakability" of the digital negative.

For my typical wedding day the lighting is all over the map. I find it very fast and efficient to adjust the white balance of 400 - 500 RAW images with the eye dropper than if I had to go through the added steps with JPGs. But that's MY workflow, and others prefer theirs; I can certainly respect that. But search the threads and you'll find a lot of excellent info from some very knowledgable people here. - Stu

I spent many years in the darkroom, enjoyed it, did some great stuff .... but have no immediate plans to go back to the smell, chemicals and claustrophobia ;) . ACR is my new digital darkroom. - Stu

[sapearl]

As they say in the commercial " Try it, you'll like it!"

If you want to capture both, then shoot RAW & JPG simultaneously. This will give you a safety net if the JPG exposures get hosed. I did that for while, but then really got the hang of RAW and figured I was just cluttering up the CF card with JPGs that I discarded; I liked my RAW processed images better, because they were done to MY tastes. ;) - Stu

......Am I missing something by not shooting RAW? Should I shoot both? .....

[TMR Design]

Capture One is great.

www.phaseone.com (http://www.phaseone.com)


And Photoshop works too...


I thought PhotoShop requires CS2. I have CS.

[TMR Design]

This is all encouraging and I think I understand a bit better. When the camera comes I suppose I will shoot some JPG first just to see how things are and get instant gratification and then switch to RAW.

So in RAW you can actually correct exposure and white balance, unlike with JPG when you adjust levels, curves, color, etc.?

[Curtis N]

So in RAW you can actually correct exposure and white balance, unlike with JPG when you adjust levels, curves, color, etc.?Yep. You have a slider for exposure, one for color temp. There are other ways to set the white balance too, like just clicking on something white in the image. If you have a bunch of files taken under the same light, you can copy the correction from one to the whole batch with a few clicks.

And...

You can STILL adjust levels, curves, color, etc... as you wish.

[kevin_c]

This is all encouraging and I think I understand a bit better. When the camera comes I suppose I will shoot some JPG first just to see how things are and get instant gratification and then switch to RAW.

So in RAW you can actually correct exposure and white balance, unlike with JPG when you adjust levels, curves, color, etc.?

Within reason - there is no substitute for correct exposure and you can probably go about 1 or maybe 2 stops either way and get acceptable results with RAW.
White balance is no problem, you can simply apply the correct WB in post-processing, but again it can save time if you nail it first go at the time of shooting.

Don't think RAW will make you a better photographer and allow you to 'get away with murder', it won't but it does give you a little bit of margin for error.

To start with though i'd recommend you shoot jpg, or jpg and RAW so you get the advantage of RAW with the straight forwardness of jpg.

I find the biggest advantage is being more in control of the image, particularly with WB.

[I Simonius]

I am sure this gets asked all the time but I am now entering the world of DSLR with a 30D and have wondered about JPG vs. RAW. I constantly see images shot as JPG and sometimes they look amazing out of the camera and other times they need a little post porcessing help but I find I am very satisfied with what I see.

For an amateur, what are the immeidate benefits of shooting RAW? I understand that there is more RAW processing involved but that there is also more flexibility?

What would be a good example or two of things I would and could adjust in RAW that I could not if I shot JPG?

Am I missing something by not shooting RAW? Should I shoot both? What exactly is the purpose of having the camera capture as RAW and JPG?


get some whopping CF cards and shoot BOTH!

That wil give you time to see the difference and pros and cons for yourself:D

[TMR Design]

Hopefully my camera will be here in the morning so I will give it a shot, shooting both and then compare. I have definitely worked to make sure I take the best picture with the best exposure. I don't want to rely on any post processing to replace taking good pictures. I just want to understand what I can do and how these tools are used.

[Honeybee]

Nothing wrong with shooting RAW if you have the cards. Just make sure you practice so you can learn how to correctly expose your pictures so you can shoot JPEG, too.

Honeybee

[Mcary]

This is all encouraging and I think I understand a bit better. When the camera comes I suppose I will shoot some JPG first just to see how things are and get instant gratification and then switch to RAW.

So in RAW you can actually correct exposure and white balance, unlike with JPG when you adjust levels, curves, color, etc.?

No matter which of the two you choose or if you decide to use both as many do. Learn to understand and use your Histogram and learn to shoot to the right so you're almost but not quite blowing the highlights

JPG 256
Brightest stop 128bits
Second Stop 64
Third Stop 32

RAW 4096
Brightest 2048
Second 1024
Third 512

If you underexposed by 1 stop you're throwing away 50% of your information if you under expose by two stops there go 75% of you're information

Mike

[4walls]

I thought PhotoShop requires CS2. I have CS.

You should be able to do RAW files in CS as well.

[Mcary]

You should be able to do RAW files in CS as well.

The ACR plug-in for CS doesn't support the 30D not really a big problem as one can get around that by doing the following

1. Us DNG to convert .CR files to .DNG files and work with them in ACR
2. Us the DPP software that came with the camera to convert the .CR files to .TIFF for editing in CS
3. Us lightroom to convert .CR files to TIFF for editing in CS.

There are of course other program that do this, these are just the one's that are free.

Mike

[condyk]

Many moons ago I did a test. I shot best/large JPG and RAW and then looked side by side in DPP. Man ... I have never shot a single JPG since.

[EOSAddict]

If you have the space why throw away 30% of your data in camera?

I hardly shoot JPEG at all now (unless I set the camera wrong, doh!) I also prefer the workflow of RAW, esp in RSP

[sapearl]

I totally agree - huge external hard drives can be purchased for 35 cents per MB and even less with rebates. CF cards continue to drop in price. Storage is cheap these days an can easily accomodate the larger RAW files.

And when those huge drives start filling up, just archive the jobs to DVD. - Stu

If you have the space why throw away 30% of your data in camera? .....

[TMR Design]

Thanks again guys. The camera should be here shortly. I will play for a day shooting JPG just to check things out and then I will dig into RAW. I have 2 large drives with tons of space so that is not an issue at all.

[Pete-eos]

Am shooting more and more in RAW. At the end of the day if your taking time to setup an arty picture or something a bit more special, it'd be a waste not to take full advantage of RAW. Not to mention the amount of times its been far easier to save a lousy picture :D

then again I love to waste space RAW+L jepg!

[britt777]

I shoot in Raw with jpeg. I only use jpeg file to locate pictures. Is there any way around this so I don't lose space on my cf card?

[E-K]

I shoot in Raw with jpeg. I only use jpeg file to locate pictures. Is there any way around this so I don't lose space on my cf card?

How do you use the JPEG to locate pictures? Is it required by your photo management software or do you mean when you are browsing?

If you mean when you're browsing, and if you happen to be using Windows, then there is a MS RAW Viewer that you can get for free which will allow you to preview and see as thumbnails RAW images.

e-k

[Croasdail]

I shoot between 1000 and 2000 images a week and deliver for production between 50 and 100 a week. I stay away from RAW as much as I can as it does take more time, space, effort. The extra size even hits you every time you add a layer. Even if RAW only adds 2 minutes each - that is 200 minutes a week I am spending on something that the difference will never be seen when the image is printed. Sure you have 12 bit depth.. but the minute you open in on screen you loose some of that to gamut loss for screen, and when printed and covert to cmyk, your gamut changes again. Unless I am in a particularly hard lighting condition where I don't have the confidence I am getting it right in camera, I don't waste my time or disk space with RAW. Unless your going to provide your guest to your house with a loop through which to look at your art on the wall, the detail or difference will never be seen. Most of this extra detail will never make in to ink on the page. Just my warped view on the whole situation.

[britt777]

LOL, sorry I can't help but laugh. Their is no doubt everyone has an opinion and I sure do think it causes a whole lot of confusion. but such as life. Thank you for your opinion. I whole heartedly agree, but feel there are so many that disagree. There have been times when Raw saved my butt. But don't think it was worth the space it took up to get all the other shots. I would just shoot in raw and change when and if I thought I couldn't get it right in the camera, but its just one more thing to remember....grrrr. Memory is starting to slip naturaly...lol. It doesn't need any help!

Brittany

[E-K]

I shoot between 1000 and 2000 images a week and deliver for production between 50 and 100 a week. I stay away from RAW as much as I can as it does take more time, space, effort.

If it works for you then that is all that matters :)

The extra size even hits you every time you add a layer.

Can you expand on this a little? Are you talking about adding a layer to your workflow?

Even if RAW only adds 2 minutes each - that is 200 minutes a week I am spending on something that the difference will never be seen when the image is printed.

How does raw add 2 minutes to each photo if you don't need to make adjustments because you got it right in the camera? Just use the As Shot settings and do a batch conversion

Sure you have 12 bit depth.. but the minute you open in on screen you loose some of that to gamut loss for screen, and when printed and covert to cmyk, your gamut changes again.

The gamut of your final output device is just that. The additional depth gives you is the ability to edit the image with less posterisation than you would get with the same JPEG image. If you're not editing the images then (or only doing minimal editing) then it's not an issue.

Unless I am in a particularly hard lighting condition where I don't have the confidence I am getting it right in camera, I don't waste my time or disk space with RAW. Unless your going to provide your guest to your house with a loop through which to look at your art on the wall, the detail or difference will never be seen. Most of this extra detail will never make in to ink on the page. Just my warped view on the whole situation.

I agree with you on the detail bit - assuming the raw has been developed as shot and the JPEG is as out of the camera.

My warped view :) is that getting it right "in camera" is essentially the same as shooting with film and handing the film over to get it developed and printed using a standardised process: You have some control over the development process but for the most part its just automated. Using raw is similar to developing and printing yourself (with the option to have it automatically developed) - I can adjust the colour balance, bring out the shadows, etc...

Obviously these are two extremes and of course you can do these things in JPEG as well. Raw just stands up to these kind of edits better than JPEG.

e-k

[Croasdail]

The extra size even hits you every time you add a layer.
Can you expand on this a little? Are you talking about adding a layer to your workflow?

Yes... for example there are times when I don't use USM so I can selectively sharpen using a layer set for Highpass to sharpen only the areas needed. I will also create duplicate layers to do edits on so that I am not touching the original, simply overlays that can be turned on or off - keeping the integrity of the original image as the base layer. I don't use it often though as most of my stuff is requested as-is and prepress people do the final edits on their workstations.

How does raw add 2 minutes to each photo if you don't need to make adjustments because you got it right in the camera? Just use the As Shot settings and do a batch conversion

RAW is just that. At a minimum even with proper exposure RAW requires sharpening and contrast work. The files take longer to open as well.... it is an additional step regardless of application you use. Hardly any media outlets want RAW. The funny thing is I have seen requirements as low as JPEG 5... which I though was rather low. Having your in camera processing setup correctly makes that coversion to jpeg automatic and seemless. But it all depends on what the final media will be.

Now if I was good enough to shoot fine art, or studio shots, or weddings on a regular basis, then I would shoot RAW. There is nothing wrong with RAW, but the final benifits depend on what and who you are shooting for.

I am working with a nationally ranked wedding photographer right now that claims he almost never shoots RAW. He infact almost never shoots more then 6.1 mpx fine JPEG. When I learned this, I was blown away in that it just contridicted everything I thought. But he explained that the vast majority of what he shoots will only end up max 8x10 in a wedding album. He actually shoots the bridal portrait in medium format film still as he says he still can't get the color depth for large portraits out of digital yet. This is a guy who will not even look at a wedding unless it starts at $5k US, and most are way north of that number.

The one thing that has constantly blown me away is how sometimes a just terrible looking shot on screen prints out wonderfully sometimes, and other times they stay looking less then good. Finding the right time to use the right format, and when they will make a difference and when they won't, is on ongoing learning process for me. Cheers.

[E-K]

Yes... for example there are times when I don't use USM so I can selectively sharpen using a layer set for Highpass to sharpen only the areas needed. I will also create duplicate layers to do edits on so that I am not touching the original, simply overlays that can be turned on or off - keeping the integrity of the original image as the base layer. I don't use it often though as most of my stuff is requested as-is and prepress people do the final edits on their workstations.

Once a file is opened it is typically stored in an internal format that is not the same as the original file format. If I add a layer, then this would also typically be stored in the internal format as well. My point being is that once you open the file, internally things are treated the same. The only difference would be if you chose to use different bit depths internally.

I completely agree though that you use what you need to for your workflow/application. If you're not doing the editing and the person requesting the files wants them in JPEG why would you shoot raw?

What gets to my is the idea that if you can get it "right in the camera", then you have no need for raw. It's not really getting it right, it's getting what you want (i.e. if the in-camera processing produces the result you want then it doesn't matter too much what format it's saved in; but sometimes it's just not possible to get what you want from the in-camera processor).

...
Finding the right time to use the right format, and when they will make a difference and when they won't, is on ongoing learning process for me. Cheers.

Same here :)

e-k



e-k

[PhaedraDG]

Personally, I found this article about RAW very good :

http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm

It explains the advantages of using raw in a clear and comprehensible way.

[Croasdail]

Intersting read. This chap is a fine art photographer and I can clearly see where the advantages of RAW would be benificial to the way he works. So good food for thought there. Fortunately for the high volume photographers out there RAW will become more usefull as the cameras have larger buffers and can process the files faster. Thanks for sharing. It's bookmarked.. cheers.

[toddb]

Hey TMR. Check out how Raw can recover from really extreme mishaps.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=114678&highlight=raw
Here is another, not really "printable"....however, maybe in a couple more years the Raw conversion technology might be able to bring this image back better then this does currently...it's defiantly getting better all the time.

I'd like to try and dispel the whole idea that Raw takes up more space...only initially on the CF card. Here is my reasoning:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=138778&highlight=raw

In short, for your initial base corrections in the ARC, it's a little xmp sidecar file of about 10k vs a second Jpeg image. Remember with the Adobe Camera Raw you can not only do all your white balance and exposure settings and such...but you can also straighten and crop your image without modifying the original raw...yep, this info also sits in the xmp file. If you shoot series of images (which I think allot of us do) you can select many images and apply the settings from one to all in that series. I find this work flow extremely fast compared to Jpeg. Of course, once you break away from the basic corrections your into layers and what not you'll have to save in a different format just like Jpeg. But wow, think of the easy access to corrected original images you would have. (remember to turn on your default save image setting in ACR to sidecar are you can't back this info up to DVD or transfer to another system).

Just some thoughts to keep in mind for whatever format you decide to use.

[Croasdail]

It's and interesting concept, and I do think i will change over for my portraiture work....but I don't think I would ever upsample a jpeg to a tiff. That whole scenerio seems a little pointless. I am going to have to look at DNG format though. I don't shoot Canon exclusively, and being locked into any one vendors software bothers me, and having the right coverters for my old 10D on hand in 8 years from now doesn't give me warm fuzzies either. I am in the software industry and I know how companies love to decom old software and force upgrades. Anyway.... thanks for the thoughts.

[TMR Design]

Hey TMR. Check out how Raw can recover from really extreme mishaps.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=114678&highlight=raw
Here is another, not really "printable"....however, maybe in a couple more years the Raw conversion technology might be able to bring this image back better then this does currently...it's defiantly getting better all the time.

I'd like to try and dispel the whole idea that Raw takes up more space...only initially on the CF card. Here is my reasoning:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=138778&highlight=raw

In short, for your initial base corrections in the ARC, it's a little xmp sidecar file of about 10k vs a second Jpeg image. Remember with the Adobe Camera Raw you can not only do all your white balance and exposure settings and such...but you can also straighten and crop your image without modifying the original raw...yep, this info also sits in the xmp file. If you shoot series of images (which I think allot of us do) you can select many images and apply the settings from one to all in that series. I find this work flow extremely fast compared to Jpeg. Of course, once you break away from the basic corrections your into layers and what not you'll have to save in a different format just like Jpeg. But wow, think of the easy access to corrected original images you would have. (remember to turn on your default save image setting in ACR to sidecar are you can't back this info up to DVD or transfer to another system).

Just some thoughts to keep in mind for whatever format you decide to use.

Thank you Todd. I have been digesting what everyone is saying and reading everything I can on this topic. I will switch from JPG to RAW and I can definitely see the advantages and your example in the other thread is quite good. I need to learn to use DPP as well since this is the first EOS camera and experience with RAW.

[Curtis N]

I stay away from RAW as much as I can as it does take more time, space, effort. The extra size even hits you every time you add a layer. Even if RAW only adds 2 minutes each - You make some valid points and I don't consider your view "warped" at all. But if shooting RAW adds 2 minutes per image to your workflow, or even 1 minute per image, then you're not doing something right.

When my wife and I shoot theatre gigs we might take 600 shots and deliver 400 on CD. We shoot raw and every shots gets straightened, cropped and adjusted for exposure & contrast at a minimum. Noise Ninja is also part of the workflow. We might spend 4-5 hours total on the processing, well under one minute per image. This does not include the batch processing time while the computer grinds away and does its thing, but I need a beer break now and then, anyway. ;)

There are legitimate reasons for shooting JPEG but I think there is a common misconception that shooting RAW makes post-processing more complicated or more time-consuming. Post processing time has more to do with user skill and software automation than initial file format.

[ScottE]

I have shot some good photos with both JPG and RAW.

JPG can give great results if you have good light and nail the exposure and colour balance. If you get everything right you will bet very large prints that are just as good as if they had been shot in RAW.

RAW is better if you have to do some post processing. For example, if the light is flat you can boost contrast and colour balance when processing to get a more lively looking photo. I have to admit that my technical skills are not pefect, so I usually shoot RAW because I have a better chance of retrieving something useful if I mess up. However, post processing to save a poorly exposed shot never equals the results you get if you expose properly at the time the shutter is released.

[toddb]

Thank you Todd. I have been digesting what everyone is saying and reading everything I can on this topic. I will switch from JPG to RAW and I can definitely see the advantages and your example in the other thread is quite good. I need to learn to use DPP as well since this is the first EOS camera and experience with RAW.

NP. I hope you will consider Photoshop CS2. That is where I really started to enjoy raw. I can't even remember DPP since I only saw it for the first month I had my camera about 4 years ago. Photoshop not only has a very nice raw converter, but allows you to automate everything. If you can't create an action (basicly record your actions and then replay) you can script it...and it's got all the usual things you see photo shop do like fixing image problems as well. I got PS before I bought my first 'L' lens....well, I only have one good lens really but any way, from a poor man's view PS is a must have if you can't buy all those good lens. You look at the price and say, wow, that's way too much but I bet you 90% of the best images you see here have been processed through PS (I dont' really know that I just pulled it out of my...)

[In2Photos]

I have yet to see a JPEG that MY camera processed that looks as good or better than a RAW that I processed. To me there is just no comparison, RAW is where it's at.

[TMR Design]

Well everyone I finally shot in RAW and then opened the images in DPP and got to see what you have been talking about. I clearly see the flexibility but I did not see a difference between the RAW and JPG file. I can see the control I have with RAW that I don't with JPG and that alone makes me want to shoot RAW. I have Photoshop CS and not CS2 and to the best of my knowledge there is no RAW editor in CS but I have heard there is a plugin.
If that exists can someone give me a link to get it?
I also like to acquire my images using the WinXP Camera and Scanner Wizard but it does not import RAW. I posted another thread asking about this but I figure it can't hurt to ask here as well. Is there a patch or utility that allows WinXP to recognize RAW and import using the Wizard?

[rfreschner]

I have Photoshop CS and not CS2 and to the best of my knowledge there is no RAW editor in CS but I have heard there is a plugin.

The ACR plug-in that supports the 30D will not work with CS only CS2. You can convert to DNG and then use CS.

[KevC]

I still haven't learned to compensate for my "lousy" 300D's exposure meter. Har har (that's me trying to shift the blame from my shoddy photographic skills). It always seems like I need to compensate exposure with post processing, which RAW makes very very convenient.