Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Gadgets, Computers & Software (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/)

-   -   The DSLR Thread (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/11582-dslr-thread-468.html)

I do not have very strong feelings on whether to shoot in RAW or in JPEG so I really do not care. I shoot 60-70% RAW and the rest in JPEG. Works well for me. Personally I have felt more in control of a RAW image than a JPEG one.

it's always a trade off between perfection and time/disk space saving. I quit shooting in raw too. I don't agree that raw makes you careless though. Shifting to jpeg did not make me any better photographer.

But for somebody whose livelihood depends on that one shot, there is no doubt raw is the way to go.

I don't quite agree that perfection and RAW go together. Except for the possibility of recovering a stop, could you highlight any significant advantage of RAW over JPEG?

What ever works :). I agree that sometimes shooting in RAW could make you lay but recently I found out that one of the main reasons for noise is under-exposure. I used to under expose all of my images earlier to get details in the shadow, but now nailing the exposure (relative term) is what I concentrate upon. So, why do I still shoot in RAW? I can't get the hang of WB and all of my images are in AWB and I like to selectively sharpen my images and wouldn't prefer the camera's processor taking over my post processing.

You gave one reason yourself. White balance as pointed out by HW is another. JPG is also compressed which loses details in the image.

Just so we are clear, perfection is a concept, you can move towards it, you can have a trade off with it, you can never achieve it in theory :)

I am not an expert but based on my usage so far RAW allows me to change white balance and that alone proved to be a valid reason for shooting in RAW. Not every camera has a good JPEG engine. In fact, converting images to JPEG without losing detail is something I am finding it hard to master. So shooting in RAW will have to continue in my case. I agree with all other points, it is a pain to deal with RAW images (storage, sharing, printing, display on TV, etc.)

Why RAW?
So that I won't let the camera decide which setting or post processing is best for me. I'd like to do that myself and change the photograph accordingly.
So that the camera won't apply it's compression logic on the photograph I clicked.
So that I'll have the control over the white balance in case the camera's logic get fooled by the light(and that happens a lot).
So that I can get a uncompressed tiff file without loss of detail and that would give me larger margin for correction if needed.
About space I'm not worried as nowadays we are talking about terabytes of space available at very cheap rate.

+1 to Kaushik.
Another reason is that what looks too good on the camera LCD may not always turn out to be good afterwards back home; having the raw form opens up the possibilities somewhat. I found that shooting JPEG+RAW works better for me, liked the JPEG, discard RAW, otherwise if it is not absolutely hopeless as it turns out many a times for me, try some luck at PP :)

Look like most of the users shoot in RAW and I was thinking I am one of the few who shoot in RAWstupid:

Note from Support. Posts merged. Please use MULTI-QUOTE /QUOTE+ while responding to multiple quotes. Thanks!


Sorry but I would love to debate about JPEG vs RAW. Your realisation about "most photo editing software you can do almost everything with a jpeg image that you can do with the RAW format" is completely off. Real world isn't CSI and you cannot get back the data you have lost via compression. Compression alone camera vs CS5, well you get an imaged anywhere between couple hundred kb to couple hundred MB from CS5 while its about 5mb (12ish MP) from camera. You can understand where image data is being lost.

RAW is exactly what the name suggests, "RAW". On film it was the negative/slide itself. With digital RAW file simply has everything from the sensor, nothing has been taken out by camera.

If I remember correctly Adobe representatives during lens-a-thon here in Melb made it clear, they themselves have not reached depth of RAW files, there is simply, so much data we got no idea about and as tools like photoshop advance we will be able to get better and better understanding of RAW.

Just like not every sensor has same resolution, not every film has same resolution. Some would argue T-Max400 has resolution of about 8MP while Sensia will be a tiny bit more and Ektar will leave it in dust. Moreover film being phased out is more of chemicals issue than anything else.

For 4x5 wet plate prints, usual chemicals include Potassium Cyanide. Plenty harmful to any living being on earth including trees.


You can recover upto 2stops in Lightroom itself and that is without any adverse effect even starting to pop, I have gone upto 5 stops while still being able to control effects.

Data lost with in-camera Jpeg compression is too much, even a simple 100% crop can prove that.

When we process in-camera jpeg we get NR applied which is kinda negative for RAW if one is not familiar with PP NR processes as no camera I know of applies NR for RAW files.

Its very easy to fool camera`s AWB. Till Nikon D3 and Canon 1Dmk4 professionals considered AWB rubbish and I have seen D3s go nuts with AWB.

In the end of the day, if one needs/wants that margin of PP then choose RAW otherwise be happy with JPEG.

This problem has already been solved. When importing on to my computer, I always convert my camera-specific RAW files to the DNG (Digital Negative) format. It is an open format released by Adobe to allow photographers to have a consistent workflow in managing and editing RAW files. Since the format is open, I can be assured that 10 years down the line, I would still be able to read DNG files without depending on a specific manufacturer.

DNG also has this advantage of storing all your metadata & touch-up actions in the file itself (separate from the image pixels). Almost like a layered open format PSD for photographers.

Every technology has its limitations. Even 35mm film has finite grain beyond which you cannot zoom. Like you said, if you want better resolution, use medium or large format film. 8-10 megapixels should be fine for most amateur uses. Unless you want to blow up all your family photos to wall-sized posters!

Thanks for that insight! I don't have any practical experience with EX3.

However all I wanted to say was that DSLRs are increasingly used for video shoots. They provide a cheaper and convenient alternative to the professional camcorders. And as consumers, there is no need for us to hesitate in replacing our trusty old camcorders with our spanking new DSLRs.

I shoot in JPEG. RAW is too much trouble and my PS3 cant read RAW files.

An update: I have a zoom-Nikkor 35-70mm lens.

.

Are we talking about RAW meat or fish here ? I thought only East Asians are interested in that !!! :) Anyway, there is no hard and fast rule about anything in life. What is my medicine is poison to someone else. I shoot in RAW since 1.6 years, never even bothered to change it to JPEG even once. There are 100s of reasons, many are pointed here already. Storage is very cheap these days and I want to control everything in my image. So, I prefer RAW and a 100% Manual settings even for casual time pass shots.

Now, coming to the learner's (My) world: There is nothing to learn when you ask the camera to do everything for you. Hope that summarises everything. Its much more different than driving an Automatic car and Manual car. But for a casual shooter who needs images for documentation of life, JPEG is enough.

Pro's world: Every image goes through fine tuning so that it meets even the minutest expectations of the client. RAW is the only choice.

My mp3s at 128 kbps sound just as good as lossless or wave. Is there any difference in a 16 bit recording compared to a 24 bit one?For that matter is there any difference in a 24 bit 96 khz and 24 bit 192 khz? 12bit vs 14bit RAW, is it nothing but a marketing gimmick? No. There is difference. Some see it clearly some do not.

I do believe that it takes a while for most to understand the difference and apprecaite it. Eons ago people used to tune their audio system to have extreme bass and treble - mids, what mids!? Quality of bass, treble or mid or the balance, was not important to most. It takes time and exposure to the right stuff to actually appreciate it. Let them audition something audiophile - they might not even appreciate it!

You have mentioned that looking at your old pics you feel they ain't so good anymore. Your perception has changed. So long as your learning curve has not peaked already you would feel the same for the pictures you are happy with now.

AWB is alright in anything but artificial light even in the most advanced of the cameras. You simply cannot get the same amount of details in jpg files.
If one believes that they are getting the best possible ones using JPG itself, it is a matter of time that they change their perception. A reality check with someone more knowledgable would be of good help. However, perception will only change if they can actually differentiate the good from the not so good.

Been a while that I moved from JPG to RAW. I still opt for JPG+RAW, don't think I will ever get back to JPG only. The difference has been substantial.
Good PS skills might help only to an extent though :)

Just my two cents.