RAW Test Results

[Mike H]

I've decided to start shooting RAW images (instead of large, fine JPG) after hearing much about how good the quality of RAW images can be. Yesterday I did some *brief* testing, and would like for people who have done similar comparisons to tell me if what I saw is consistent with their findings.

1. Color correction was faster and easier with RAW files, and colors were more accurate than what I got using JPG no matter how much I tweaked the JPGs.

2. Overexposed RAW files held highlights slightly better, and were slightly more fixable (though in general if you blow out the highlights, you're still toast). I used exposure compensation and levels for the adjustments.

3. Underexposed RAW files performed analogously (slightly better shadow details, slightly more fixable).

4. There was slightly less noise in RAW files converted to TIF files (compared to large, fine JPG right out of the camera).

My tests were done under tungsten lighting at ISO 400. Metering was done with a grey card. I used the Canon File Viewer Utility to do conversions to TIF and exposure compensation. White balancing of JPG files was done with Photoshop Elements.

Has anyone found similar (or much different) results under these conditions? What about under other lighting or camera setting conditions? Thanks.

[Jesper]

I always shoot RAW. There have already been a number of discussions in these forums about RAW vs. JPEG. My opinion is that if you want to get most out of your camera, shoot RAW. You'll probably have to do some more work on the computer, but you'll get better photos and you can do more with them, as you already noticed (white balance and exposure can be corrected better).

You can get software such as the Adobe RAW converter (which is included in Photoshop CS) or Capture One (http://www.c1dslr.com) (which is what I'm using) to do your RAW conversions. Capture One is much more powerful and faster than Canon's File Viewer Utility. You can download a trial copy and try it out.

[Jim_T]

1. Color correction was faster and easier with RAW files, and colors were more accurate than what I got using JPG no matter how much I tweaked the JPGs.


Faster ?? You must be using a Cray supercomputer :) I find applying changes to a RAW file take forever compared to a quick JPEG tweak in PS.

Easier... Yes.. Plus you have more control with RAW.. Especially when you consider you can play with custom white balance and Kelvin.

I always budget more time to process the files when I shoot RAW. There's more to do and each step takes more time. (I've only got a 2 ghz Pentium 4)


2. Overexposed RAW files held highlights slightly better, and were slightly more fixable (though in general if you blow out the highlights, you're still toast). I used exposure compensation and levels for the adjustments.

3. Underexposed RAW files performed analogously (slightly better shadow details, slightly more fixable).


Yes.. Absolutely.. For #2 and #3 RAW has an advantage.. You're capturing images in 12 bit so you have more latitude than 8 bit JPEG. This is especially true when it comes to digging detail out of shadow.


4. There was slightly less noise in RAW files converted to TIF files (compared to large, fine JPG right out of the camera).


I've never noticed this....