Why shoot in RAW?

This is my best case for RAW vs. JPEG.

Here is an example.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

I shoot RAW because I am constantly re-editing the same images over and over again. A jPeg will lose IQ if the same image is opened, edited, saved/closed, then re-opened, re-edited, saved/closed over and over again.

I do not want to be bothered with making a copy of every image I edit, then only editing the copy. I want just one version of each image I have. I want to be able to re-edit it every time I need it for something. Some of my images have been edited 30 or 40 different times in the same amount of different editing sessions. Try doing that to a jPeg and you will lose quality and fine detail. Try making copies of the image and you'll end up with 30 or 40 copies of the same image. To me, that is an organizational nightmare. I only want one file for each image I take, period. RAW allows me to edit an image for a specific use, email it, post it, upload it, or burn it, then the next time I need to edit that image differently for a different intended use, I can just open it up, click on "revert to RAW", and re-edit it. No change I do is ever permanent, and I can always revert back to the original. jPeg does not allow one to do this without compromising IQ or having to make copies of the image.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #9624104
I shoot RAW because I am constantly re-editing the same images over and over again. A jPeg will lose IQ if the same image is opened, edited, saved/closed, then re-opened, re-edited, saved/closed over and over again.

I do not want to be bothered with making a copy of every image I edit, then only editing the copy. I want just one version of each image I have. I want to be able to re-edit it every time I need it for something. Some of my images have been edited 30 or 40 different times in the same amount of different editing sessions. Try doing that to a jPeg and you will lose quality and fine detail. Try making copies of the image and you'll end up with 30 or 40 copies of the same image. To me, that is an organizational nightmare. I only want one file for each image I take, period. RAW allows me to edit an image for a specific use, email it, post it, upload it, or burn it, then the next time I need to edit that image differently for a different intended use, I can just open it up, click on "revert to RAW", and re-edit it. No change I do is ever permanent, and I can always revert back to the original. jPeg does not allow one to do this without compromising IQ or having to make copies of the image.

My JPEG days (which still exist, because my SX110 can't shoot RAW) can easily be culled, exported, and tweaked in a nondestructive method through Lightroom 2 without making lots of copies. Of course, LR2 also improves my workflow for RAW images, as well.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #9624104
I shoot RAW because I am constantly re-editing the same images over and over again. A jPeg will lose IQ if the same image is opened, edited, saved/closed, then re-opened, re-edited, saved/closed over and over again.

I do not want to be bothered with making a copy of every image I edit, then only editing the copy. I want just one version of each image I have. I want to be able to re-edit it every time I need it for something. Some of my images have been edited 30 or 40 different times in the same amount of different editing sessions. Try doing that to a jPeg and you will lose quality and fine detail. Try making copies of the image and you'll end up with 30 or 40 copies of the same image. To me, that is an organizational nightmare. I only want one file for each image I take, period. RAW allows me to edit an image for a specific use, email it, post it, upload it, or burn it, then the next time I need to edit that image differently for a different intended use, I can just open it up, click on "revert to RAW", and re-edit it. No change I do is ever permanent, and I can always revert back to the original. jPeg does not allow one to do this without compromising IQ or having to make copies of the image.

You know, that's a point I forgot about and didn't think about until you mentioned it. Being a graphic designer at the agency we would have a server with hundreds and hundreds of photos that we would use for brochures, ads and such. At first they save everything as jpgs but once we realized that every time you open a jpg and resave it, you would lose data. Granted it might be very fractional but over time you will notice it in the histogram by the spaces that would start showing up. We since then save everything as a lossless tiff format. Different file format than RAW but the same point because of the jpgs loosing data.

silvrr wrote in post #9623450
This is my best case for RAW vs. JPEG.


Here is what I was able to do with the RAW file in lightroom. Pulling it down a full stop and tweaking the blacks, fill light and a bit of sharpening.

I applied the same settings to the JPEG and got the image below. No matter how far I pushed the exposure and other settings down and around I couldnt get the sky back. Notice the lack of seperation between the eagles head and the sky.

Great Example!

I agree 100%. There are certainly times when JPEGs are right for the job, and these bodies do create fabulous JPEGs when they're setup correctly (eg, not using auto white balance in incandescent lighting).

BTW, I also almost choked when I read "Landscapes - you'd probably be crazy not to use RAW - who the hell shoots 500 shots of the same landscape..." Great stuff.

Persephone wrote in post #9624561
My JPEGs can easily be culled, exported, and tweaked in a nondestructive method through Lightroom 2 without making lots of copies

Will this work in a nondestructive way, even if the same jPeg image is opened, tweaked, saved, and closed dozens and dozens of times, over the course of a few years?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #9625290
Will this work in a nondestructive way, even if the same jPeg image is opened, tweaked, saved, and closed dozens and dozens of times, over the course of a few years?

No. You import the original jpeg, tweak it, then save the tweaked version to a new file.

I guess i learned a lot here I was always opening the jpeg file in camera raw in cs4 and tweaking it that way but there must be a huge difference shooting in raw. I guess i was saving space on the flash card.
gonna read more on this.

Why shoot RAW?

Because I'm not good enough to get perfect exposure (and WB) every time, and it's saved my butt a few times with some wedding pictures.

/end thread

YankeeMom wrote in post #9622587
I do understand that. But if you don't need to change it, it's pretty much the same, right?

What happens if , when you have the image in DPP/PS etc and you realise that the WB you chose made the image look cold or gave the people unnatural skin tones (you might not be able to tell on an LCD). With Jpeg its fixed, however with RAW you can try different variations to get the best.

There is also the situation where shooting under flourescent lighting where the light cycles colour due to the phasing of the supply. You could pick a WB based on what you see but the actual WB captured is different -what do you do then?

Sometimes the "correct" WB is not the best WB - a lot of images look better warmed up or cooled down with WB.

BTW Silvrr - one of the best demonstrations of RAW v's Jpeg conversion differences I have seen!

Tom Reichner wrote in post #9624104
I shoot RAW because I am constantly re-editing the same images over and over again. A jPeg will lose IQ if the same image is opened, edited, saved/closed, then re-opened, re-edited, saved/closed over and over again.

I do not want to be bothered with making a copy of every image I edit, then only editing the copy. I want just one version of each image I have. I want to be able to re-edit it every time I need it for something. Some of my images have been edited 30 or 40 different times in the same amount of different editing sessions. Try doing that to a jPeg and you will lose quality and fine detail. Try making copies of the image and you'll end up with 30 or 40 copies of the same image. To me, that is an organizational nightmare. I only want one file for each image I take, period. RAW allows me to edit an image for a specific use, email it, post it, upload it, or burn it, then the next time I need to edit that image differently for a different intended use, I can just open it up, click on "revert to RAW", and re-edit it. No change I do is ever permanent, and I can always revert back to the original. jPeg does not allow one to do this without compromising IQ or having to make copies of the image.

I can't really imagine having 30 or 40 copies of the same image. Nor can I picture the need for multiple edits as you describe.
You can not save the Raw/edited image with out "saving-as", same as saving a jpeg with a different name.

Long way around to say "if you don't shoot RAW, you should be using a P&S, what a waste of good equipment shooting jpeg's.

dugcross wrote in post #9624570
save everything as jpgs but once we realized that every time you open a jpg and resave it, you would lose data.

Why does it always come down to this mis-truth?
If you open a jpeg from a disc, process it and save it to your hard drive, how much does it degrade the original on the disc?

Nadda!

DAMphyne wrote in post #9626061
Why does it always come down to this mis-truth?
If you open a jpeg from a disc, process it and save it to your hard drive, how much does it degrade the original on the disc?

Nadda!

No, you're misunderstanding what I said. If you open the same jpg file over and over again it will start to degrade. Granted this is something that most people wont be able to see but over time it shows up in the histogram. There is no miss-truth here. What you are talking about is copying a file off a disc and re-saving it, that is not at all what I'm talking about. But once you save the file to your hard drive and over time keep opening and re-saving that exact file it will happen.

neilwood32 wrote in post #9625954
What happens if , when you have the image in DPP/PS etc and you realise that the WB you chose made the image look cold or gave the people unnatural skin tones (you might not be able to tell on an LCD). With Jpeg its fixed, however with RAW you can try different variations to get the best.

There is also the situation where shooting under flourescent lighting where the light cycles colour due to the phasing of the supply. You could pick a WB based on what you see but the actual WB captured is different -what do you do then?

Sometimes the "correct" WB is not the best WB - a lot of images look better warmed up or cooled down with WB.

BTW Silvrr - one of the best demonstrations of RAW v's Jpeg conversion differences I have seen!

I understand. I was referring to times when you nail it. I am new at RAW (just learning processing), so I have had to learn to nail the WB and exposure on jpegs for a long time. Most of the time, I get it right (or I try enough variations to get ONE of them right.)