[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by lucifer1881

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?

Once you have a JPEG you can't do much with it.
However with a RAW you can
1. Recover highlights and shadows - This alone can make or break a shot
2. Apply white balance. - What do you do if your JPEG has a yellow cast?
3. Do your on PP instead of trusting the cam. Cameras in JPEG mode can do serious sharpening and noise reduction which may degrade quality. With RAW, you can choose to do it as you wish at your leisure.
4. If you are expert, you can actually use a RAW file to create an end result which has much better Dynamic and tonal range.
You have to see it to believe it.
Example
A standard in camera like RAW-JPEG conversion. If I had shot JPEG, I would have gotten this


Same scene RAW file, stretched to its limits on Post Processing(Done by a well known expert... Rudra!)

[amitk26]

Human eye can see 10 million distinct color tones and dynamic range is equivelent of 24 F stops this is much more then what most DSLR record.
Eye has only one part in vision but most of it is done in brain when brain interprets the image.

The problem is not what JPEG can store a 24 bit JPEG can have more data then this but to convert this JPEG the information left out can be one which is interpreted by human eye and brain. A Camera algorithm is not always intelligent enough to decide exactly how best perception from human PoV will be achived.

So RAW is important as it has information which you can recover in PP as per human perception which can not be exactly defined.

However this is an art and like all arts some people are good and some extremely bad and lot of artistic skills are learned and perfected by practice.

So if you are kind of sure you can not do a better job then camera forget about RAW else shoot RAW + JPEG use in-camera JPEG for images you find acceptable and spend times on the RAW of your best shots.

[bikxsans660]

RAW for me too. Absolutely love my editing after the RAW shots.
But, again i would like to suggest users as "When not to shoot RAW".
Here are some pointers.

1. Raw is not a magic bullet that will immediately make your images look better.
2. Raw files will not be sharper, or have more detail or more saturated colors than a JPEG. In fact, right out of the camera, they may be softer and lack the punch of a JPEG.
3. Raw files are much larger than JPEG files, which means your storage card won’t be able to hold as many images, and it can take longer for the camera to write out a raw file, which means you may not be able to shoot bursts as quickly. On some cameras, slow write time can even mean that you can’t shoot images as often.
4. Also, if you ever like shooting at low pixel counts, say for web delivery, note that on most cameras raw files can only be shot at the maximum pixel count of your camera.

Further opinions welcome!

Happy shooting.

[rajb3125]

Originally Posted by nileshch

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.

Now that is what I am talking about. DSLR Video is the craze right now and everyone except the seasoned pros has not a clue about what they are talking about.

Sure 5Dmk2 can output 1080p and has plethora of lenses but in REAL WORLD USAGE, it gets beaten by Ex1. Yet everone keeps comparing it to Red/F3/Alexa.

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

.....You have to see it to believe it.

Yes I saw and believed a 200% now !

Originally Posted by amitk26

Human eye can see 10 million distinct color tones and dynamic range is equivelent of 24 F stops this is much more then what most DSLR record.

Are you sure about this figure ? Whats the source ? I always thought my eye can only register a dozen colors at its best Sorry, I am a 'single eyed' man ! Looking for a replacement of my right eye.

[lucifer1881]

Some very good points made here!

Speaking of white balance, I do not recommend shooting with AWB settings. Most DSLRs have a dedicated button for WB adjustments, and most P&S or even mobile phone cameras have WB settings. Select the right WB before you shoot and your pictures will come out great. There is no need to change the WB in post if you get it right while shooting.

WB can be changed for JPEG too. Using the Colour Balance feature of photo editing programs, one can tweak the WB to what one desires. It takes longer than doing it in RAW since there are no preset values to choose from. But if you choose the right WB before you shoot then this is not a problem.

Coming to image quality. Most monitors or printers used today do not have nearly enough resolution. Try printing a 10 MP 12 inch print and a 5 MP 12 inch print on the same printer and you won't know the difference. Same holds for monitors too. Unless you have special purpose monitors which you have set up the right way, you will not know the difference.

Converting RAW to JPEG on a computer will retain more information than the camera doing it. But that is missing the point. Great pictures are not great because they contain a lot of information. They are great because the photographer got the framing, composition, lighting, and exposure right. These can be achieved best while shooting.

One thing to remember. The camera does not take the photograph. The person holding it does. Great post-processing of a crappy composition will give you a crappy picture. Period. Photography techniques may sometimes help you create something great out of something not so great. But by and large paying attention to composition and framing will end up giving you great pictures. Thus I prefer to spend as much time out there clicking pictures as possible. Once clicked, no matter what format I shoot in, PP will not be able to make something great out of something crappy. That is why I stopped shooting RAW. I did not want to spend all that time in front of my computer. I wanted to be shooting.

Tanveer, I am no PP expert. But I spent 5 minutes on your first image and this is what I got.



The thing is someone like me who does not have much PP know-how could recover decent information from a JPEG. I am sure Rudra could have done his great PP job on a JPEG as well.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by lucifer1881

Tanveer, I am no PP expert. But I spent 5 minutes on your first image and this is what I got.

Attachment 530486

Yup, on a small size image it appears you can recover lot of detail. What if you wanted to make a big print? The noise would be a killer. Even in the small samples just compare the noise and resolution, and RAW clearly comes as a winner.

[lucifer1881]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Yup, on a small size image it appears you can recover lot of detail. What if you wanted to make a big print? The noise would be a killer. Even in the small samples just compare the noise and resolution, and RAW clearly comes as a winner.

Yes, but that is because I worked on the small sample with less details to begin with. Had I worked on the full-res image, the noise would have been much less after resizing.

How much resolution do billboards have? My 10 MP camera can very easily take prints that can be blown up to billboard size. The larger a print, the further one is when viewing it. The further one is from a print, the lesser the details that one notices.

[raju2512]

For me, it's basically a choice between better photographs vs better photographer. I choose the latter. The way I am learning photography (by making mistakes and even at the cost of losing frames) I don't think I would have paid as much attention to it had it been a digital camera.

Over time I realised that all this business of post processing for simple things like converting to JPEG or adjusting white balance was simply taking too much time. Surely there was a better way of doing this all. And that is when I stumbled upon the holy grail of photography – get it right in-camera.

The best advice one can get. I have so far used only JPEG and used PP to re-frame or adjust exposure or WB in a few cases. On my recent Coorg visit I took around 350 shots of which I retained around 275 and only around 40 required any kind of PP.

But I would definitely like to shoot RAW get to know the advantages.

My personal opinion is that the camera should reproduce what you saw rather than recreating a shot. Too much of PP is more like painting rather than photography

[arun_kun]

What is best DSLR set i could buy in the range of 30000-40000? Any help would be much appreciated?

[rajb3125]

Originally Posted by lucifer1881

Yes, but that is because I worked on the small sample with less details to begin with. Had I worked on the full-res image, the noise would have been much less after resizing.

Exactly!

When you are processing a JPEG file, you have less info there to begin with as camera has lost majority of it during processing, while on the other hand, RAW file has everything that sensor saw. But you already know that...

I guess if you are getting everything correct then you don't need RAW but 1 mistake means RAW might be able to correct it, more of a free safety net. So upto you to use it or leave it

Originally Posted by lucifer1881

How much resolution do billboards have? My 10 MP camera can very easily take prints that can be blown up to billboard size. The larger a print, the further one is when viewing it. The further one is from a print, the lesser the details that one notices.

Absolutely correct, many forget billboards have very little resolution, about 300dpi only at max. Its like LED screens in arenas, they look good from far away but are crappy at best from up-close.

[kaushik_s]

Originally Posted by lucifer1881

One thing to remember. The camera does not take the photograph. The person holding it does. Great post-processing of a crappy composition will give you a crappy picture. Period. Photography techniques may sometimes help you create something great out of something not so great. But by and large paying attention to composition and framing will end up giving you great pictures. Thus I prefer to spend as much time out there clicking pictures as possible. Once clicked, no matter what format I shoot in, PP will not be able to make something great out of something crappy. That is why I stopped shooting RAW. I did not want to spend all that time in front of my computer. I wanted to be shooting.

Sorry, but I'm unable to understand why shooting RAW would suddenly make you a worse composer of a frame than shooting in jpeg? Am I missing something here? I thought we are talking about a person who is into photography and knows how to frame and what to shoot and also knows how to select his/her best picture out of the lot he/she has shot. All your PP (either in camera or outside) comes after this step. You went for a shoot/trip, shot some nice pictures, came back home and then you select the best of the lot and then you apply your PP on it. We are not discussing about using PP to restore some useless photographs which should've directly went to trash. We are talking about photographs which can tickle one's senses who view it and at the same time gives satisfaction to the person who shot it. And for that you need to get a great photograph to start with and to achieve that how would jpeg would be more helpful than RAW?
And about able to click more pictures to get a better picture out of the lot is more like trial and error. Better think more, let your creative side fly and compose in mind before pressing the shutter and then shoot as less as possible and get a better percentage of good photographs.

[lucifer1881]

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

Sorry, but I'm unable to understand why shooting RAW would suddenly make you a worse composer of a frame than shooting in jpeg? Am I missing something here? I thought we are talking about a person who is into photography and knows how to frame and what to shoot and also knows how to select his/her best picture out of the lot he/she has shot. All your PP (either in camera or outside) comes after this step. You went for a shoot/trip, shot some nice pictures, came back home and then you select the best of the lot and then you apply your PP on it. We are not discussing about using PP to restore some useless photographs which should've directly went to trash. We are talking about photographs which can tickle one's senses who view it and at the same time gives satisfaction to the person who shot it. And for that you need to get a great photograph to start with and to achieve that how would jpeg would be more helpful than RAW?
And about able to click more pictures to get a better picture out of the lot is more like trial and error. Better think more, let your creative side fly and compose in mind before pressing the shutter and then shoot as less as possible and get a better percentage of good photographs.

I suppose you misunderstood me. Shooting in JPEG or RAW or some other format does not determine how great a photographer you are. The point I am making is precisely that. The format is meaningless. What matters are your composition and framing. That is what I meant when I said that the person holding the camera determines how the photograph turns out, not the format the person is shooting in.

I am also not saying that going trigger happy will get you better shots. I am saying spend more time out there working on your framing and composition before you press the shutter button. It is more fun shooting out there than it is sitting in front of a computer, at least to me. I would prefer to shoot as much as possible (again, does not mean shoot tons of images - it only means spend as much time out there to get the framing and composition right) and spend as little time as possible doing PP.

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by shajufx

Are you sure about this figure ? Whats the source ? I always thought my eye can only register a dozen colors at its best Sorry, I am a 'single eyed' man ! Looking for a replacement of my right eye.

There is plenty of research in this area , And thats why 24 , 32 bit color image formats are there,
Check the wikipedia page lots of sources are cited below that , Ciing any source here will derail the thread

For empirical evidence Do a simple experiment go to a garment shop with you better half and check how many distinct shades of mauve are there and how exactly they are different from lilac and why exactly they are not magenta or purple for us mostly all of them map to one color.

It is also a medically established fact that women have larger tonal range then men.

Originally Posted by lucifer1881

What matters are your composition and framing. That is what I meant when I said that the person holding the camera determines how the photograph turns out, not the format the person is shooting in..

OK so still not getting why should not shoot in RAW and PP an image manually rather then depending on in-Camera PP
All other things being equal

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by lucifer1881

. I am saying spend more time out there working on your framing and composition before you press the shutter button. It is more fun shooting out there than it is sitting in front of a computer, at least to me. I would prefer to shoot as much as possible (again, does not mean shoot tons of images - it only means spend as much time out there to get the framing and composition right) and spend as little time as possible doing PP.

so you are saying that if you shoot RAW, you will automatically spend less time composing the shot?
Or are you saying if you got your composition right, there is no scene out there which will defeat your cameras JPEG engine?