Lightroom - any need for RAW?

primalcarl wrote in post #5215987
When you edit a RAW file to correct exposure/levels etc and then export to jpeg, how different does the exported picture look from the original RAW you've just edited?

It will be exposure-corrected, noisy ass or exposure-corrected, clipped highlights ass. Depends which way you screwed up and how far. The original RAW uncorrected will be exposure-wrong ass and the original RAW corrected will be pretty much the same as the JPEG you just created from it.

primalcarl wrote in post #5215987
Yeah I've tried searching for this but with mixed results.

I don't think I made my point clear enough. When you edit a RAW file to correct exposure/levels etc and then export to jpeg, how different does the exported picture look from the original RAW you've just edited? Jpeg is the format for most websites/applications I use so this is the format I convert to

Looks the same. DPP does very little JPG compression, look at the file size. If your monitor is calibrated correctly and you process a RAW file and export to JPG it will look as your RAW file does. If it doesn't you have done something wrong, if it doesn't print how it looks you have done something wrong or do not have the printer or monitor calibrated.

Thanks heaps for the replies RE: my JPG/RAW comment

I thought I was crazy because my experiences went against what everyone said about RAW/JPG, but I'm understanding more and more about why it is the case (In camera processing issues that kind of stuff)

But I understand now that the standard RAW conversion in DPP simply doesn't process as heavily as the camera, and hence that "grain" which can be removed in Photoshop.

I notice that the differences are smaller when you don't sharpen in DPP, at low ISO, and if don't up the exposure.

It's luminance noise I was talking about btw, DPP clears out all the chroma easily.

I have a hard time understanding why people don't shoot raw when you are using a program like Lightroom. Whether I shoot in Raw or jpg, the workflow is the same. But with jpg, I don't have as much latitude with the pictures - for example I can't alter the white balance as effectively. I have never noticed any more or less grain between the 2 formats, so I just don't get it. Really - isn't the workflow exactly the same between Raw and jpg in lightroom?

Stefan

primalcarl wrote in post #5215987
Yeah I've tried searching for this but with mixed results.

I don't think I made my point clear enough. When you edit a RAW file to correct exposure/levels etc and then export to jpeg, how different does the exported picture look from the original RAW you've just edited? Jpeg is the format for most websites/applications I use so this is the format I convert to

I can't usually tell a RAW (or DNG or TIFF) image from a JPEG image on my monitor.

While this might sound like a reason to shoot JPEG to some, in order to utilize all the information captured by the camera, and to provide maximum latitude in processing, one must shoot RAW, and do all processing in RAW (or DNG or TIFF).

However, for publication, the image must be converted to JPEG - none of the photo finishers I am familiar with can print from a RAW file - they require a JPEG, and you can't put a RAW file up on a website AFAIK.

Why spend all that money on a body and good glass and throw out 2/3 of what the camera captures? Seems odd.

Shooting in jpg only is like shooting polaroids.

cosworth wrote in post #5217327
Why spend all that money on a body and good glass and throw out 2/3 of what the camera captures? Seems odd.

Shooting in jpg only is like shooting polaroids.

Thats kindof ridiculous to say. Some great shots by great photographers were shot in jpg. I wouldn't call them polaroids.

There is nothing ridiculous about it. There are plenty of great polaroids too. I've shot many great shots in jpeg. Do I wish I had the raw file? Hell yes.

Ask ANY great photographer if he'd like to have print or prints AND the negative. It's ridiculous to think they'd want not the negative.

cosworth wrote in post #5219766
Ask ANY great photographer if he'd like to have print or prints AND the negative. It's ridiculous to think they'd want not the negative.

Before digital there was a medium called slide film, many a professional photographer shot slide film exclusively.

The negative / print analogy is not a good one for RAW / JPG, often quoted but nonsense. Many software editors save the original JPG so desctuctive changes can be rolled back. JPG files can be adjust for all the same things that RAW can, except blown highlights.

The real difference is the amount of data that is saved in the file, some can see a difference in printing. Another difference is the amount you can push exposure and other changes, obviuosly RAW provides more latitude.

However, JPGS can be used as negatives and thousands of itterations of an image can be processed from one JPG just as RAW does.

It's not nonsense for me. When I was shooting in the Caribbean about 300 images per day I simply could not economically shoot RAW. Event shooting doesn't really allow for that. Shoot , print.

There are plenty of those shots I wish I had the RAW file for.

There are lots of prints I have that I don't have the negatives for either. I sure wish I did have them. Nonsense? Ha. I have prints from 100 years ago that I'm restoring for my family. I'd kill for the negatives.

In both cases I want as much data as possible. Not nonsense.

Zazoh wrote in post #5221467
JPG files can be adjusted for all the same things that RAW can, except blown highlights.

Another difference is the amount you can push exposure and other changes, obviuosly RAW provides more latitude.

However, JPGS can be used as negatives and thousands of itterations of an image can be processed from one JPG just as RAW does.

And so often, blown high-lights is where we make our mistakes - and RAW often provides that extra bit of room to save our butts.

At least it's saveD mine on countless occasions when I was pushing the exposure to the right (ETTR).

cosworth wrote in post #5221483
It's not nonsense for me. When I was shooting in the Caribbean about 300 images per day I simply could not economically shoot RAW. Event shooting doesn't really allow for that. Shoot , print.

There are plenty of those shots I wish I had the RAW file for.

There are lots of prints I have that I don't have the negatives for either. I sure wish I did have them. Nonsense? Ha. I have prints from 100 years ago that I'm restoring for my family. I'd kill for the negatives.

In both cases I want as much data as possible. Not nonsense.

In your excitement you are confusing issues. The analogy is nonsense, not haveing information is not nonsense.

But are you suggesting, because we are talking RAW/JPG not 100 year old photographs, that you can't alter a JPG? Shoot and print, come on, you can do everything to a JPG you can to a RAW, just not as much. Thus, the analogy that a JPG is like a printed photograph is nonsense.

So to break it down, if you shoot JPG and never touch it, use the little print button on the camera and print it, then this is like not having a negative, use the analogy. If you are using ANY software to alter said JPG than you are using it like a negative, thus any analogy to a RAW file being a negative must either include the JPG or not be used at all, otherwise it is plain nonsense.

Either way I don't care, not sure how I get caught up in these discussions, what I really don't understand is why photographer a cares what photographer b shoots ......

I shoot RAW by the way even though I haven't noticed a difference in my prints. But, I can' honestly say, that I shoot enough shots in such a different manor that when I go back to post process, I've never used drastic tecniques to save a shot becuase I have too many others that are close enough just for minor tweaks. I also chimp frequently in lighting situations that I know to be tough to look at histogram for exposure.

Call me stupid, but I guess I'm a rare breed that thinks I need to get things right in the field.

Excitement maybe, but I'm quite used to people ripping me a new one and not really knowing what they are talking about. The opposite is the case here.
I'm suggesting I want all the data possible. and yes, after all these years I'm aware that jpg
are alterable. So are scans of 100 year old prints.

So back on track. Shoot RAW. Get all the data you paid for. End of story.

I think the analogy can be made a little more precisely. RAW is not just like having a negative. It is more like having the undeveloped film. When you shot film you could do things to manipulate the image through the developing process you could have your film pushed a couple of stops, you could even have color correction done on it, but once it was done that was the only chance you had. You couldn't go back and redevelop that film.

You can change the recipe around before it goes in the oven but after it comes out you can't rebake a cake.

stillresonance wrote in post #5226134
I think the analogy can be made a little more precisely. RAW is not just like having a negative. It is more like having the undeveloped film. When you shot film you could do things to manipulate the image through the developing process you could have your film pushed a couple of stops, you could even have color correction done on it, but once it was done that was the only chance you had. You couldn't go back and redevelop that film.

You can change the recipe around before it goes in the oven but after it comes out you can't rebake a cake.

Then, what is JPG, because the same can be done? Moreover, if you use DPP the camera settings are saved, so One could just batch to print.

Again, I'm not distoling the virtues of RAW but the analogies don't work these days.