Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:43 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Considering going RAW
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:27 am
Posts: 916
Location: UK
I have been using JPG permanently since I owned the DSLR, which I bought 2 years ago. I have only used RAW once with the free Canon software to try out.

I was watching a video last night where the guy said that a RAW file captures all __ of the pixels, where as a JPG only captures say 5MP (based on an say 18MP sensor). examples only (I know my camera is 15MP).

I am not an Adobe user and I don't do any advanced editing, but I am considering doing more RAW stuff with possibly some free software.

Once a RAW file has been converted to a TIFF or JPG format, will it really look all that different to the naked eye? I know this has been discussed before, but I would just like some feedback really.

Your thoughts guys.

_________________
Canon EOS 500D
Lenses: EFS 18-55mm IS, EF 50mm F/1.8 II

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:09 pm 
I really struggle with using the RAW files and as a result I think that my images suffer a bit as a result

I keep trying RAW because I think it is a useful photography skill to be able to use them

With RAW your going to have to do more PP. In effect you need to develop the photos in the same way film used to be developed. This means an extra layer in your workflow, a greater understanding / skill level of / in PP in general and the specific software you use. It will also take up more time and more hard drive and card space.

So the way I see it yes there is the potential to see an improvement in image quality but only once the required skill set and software is obtained.

The skill set is one of the reasons to start to mess with RAW. I'm finding I have to learn stuff when I use RAW.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:27 am
Posts: 916
Location: UK
I may give the Canon software another spin.

A lot of pro's and amateurs use RAW, so I'd like to hear more about it.

_________________
Canon EOS 500D
Lenses: EFS 18-55mm IS, EF 50mm F/1.8 II

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 12:48 pm
Posts: 8022
Location: UK
Whoever said it was capturing much less resolution was talking total garbage. You can still get the full resolution from a camera jpeg. What a raw gives you is the full unprocessed dynamic range of the capture, as opposed to the camera processed version in jepg. This means you can choose how the conversion gets done, and with often "better" tools than the camera can.

So from raw, you get some more leeway in fixing exposure if you get it wrong or are in challenging lighting conditions. Also external processors can get more sharpness out, particularly at higher ISO, where they also can have a nicer looking noise pattern.

Personally I'm still shooting a mix of jpeg and raw. Bottom line is if you're happy with jepg output, then don't worry about raw.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 385
Location: Manchester (UK)
Shoot both (RAW + JPEG) you lose nothing (apart from space on the memory card). If you get a great composition/shot but the exposure or white balance is off you can rescue it from the RAW file.

_________________
Canon EOS 400D, EF-S 18-55mm, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 50mm f/1.8 MK I, EF-S 10-22mm, EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM, EF 35mm f/2 IS, EF 85mm f/1.8
Canon 430EX II, Manfrotto 055CXPRO3, Arca Swiss P0
Panasonic GX1, Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, Olympus 45mm f/1.8
Canon EOS 30/33 and Pentax MX/ME Super

MY FLICKR!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 3:52 pm
Posts: 2173
Location: The Netherlands
That's what I do. I shoot 15MP RAW+ 3MP Jpegs, when the Jpegs are good enough, I delete the RAWs. But, if 3MP is too less, or it needs some PP, I of course use the RAW files.

_________________
Ruben

Panasonic DMC-FZ18, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Canon G5, Canon 350D, Canon 50D + BG-E2N
Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM,
Canon 18-55 II plus lots of Minolta MD/M42 lenses and bodies


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:33 pm
Posts: 443
Location: St. John's, NL, Canada
I use nothing but RAW and post process every photo I take - it's part of my workflow.

_________________
----------------
Trevor Harris

Nikon D200
SB-600
YN-560 II
YN RF 603 x 4
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Nikon Series E 50mm f/1.8
Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:23 pm
Posts: 815
Location: Boca Raton, FL, USA
As Popo mentioned, the line about JPG getting only some of yoru resolution while RAW gets all of it was way off base and verymisleading. You always get all of the resolution of your camera when shooting in the highest resolution setting, whether you are shooting RAW or JPG.

The RAW capture essentially hasn't done all the camera's internal processing yet to apply noise reduction, shadow correction, white balance, sharpening, applying contrast levels, etc. All of those things remain 'tunable' by you when processing the photo in the RAW converter. JPGs on the other hand apply the camera's settings to the capture to output a fully prepared photo, with all the color, contrast, sharpening, white balance, etc applied to the shot. Whatever range of white balances, highlights and shadows, etc that it hasn't applied are now removed, and the end result a compressed and smaller file size JPG. The out-of-camera JPG can potentially look just as nice as a RAW file coverted - assuming all the camera settings were good, the JPG engine is decent, and the exposure was correct. There's even a small amount of correctability existing with the RAW file, because even the JPG has a bit more information than will typically be distplayed on an LCD screen or in a regular sized print - so you can still edit and process a JPG. The RAW just has a lot of additional information that can be accessed when processing, since the camera hasn't thrown away any of the data yet.

Remember that RAW files don't just contain all this wonderful extra data over a JPG that all makes your photo better - RAW files contain all the extra data, good and bad, wrong or right - everything. When the JPG tosses out some of the info and gives you a fnal shot, a lot of what it threw away was junk. Some of what it threw away might have been useful. If you set up your camera's JPGs properly to come out the way you like them, and nail the exposures, you can get very nice results that require no editing and can look just as lovely as a converted RAW, with the excess information that was tossed simply unnecessary and useless. If your camera settings weren't great, and your JPGs are a bit flat, your white balance was off, your sharpness was too high, etc...then your JPG comes out of the camera with its flaws, and there's very limited ability to correct them. If you took the same shot in RAW, that flatness doesn't matter since the contrast can still be tweaked from far too low to just right to far too high, the white balance can still be seleted at any preset or any temperature range, the sharpness can be turned way down or way up, the colors can be altered, the shadows can be brightened significantly, and so on. There's more correctability and tunability in the RAW than the JPG.

What you should do is shoot the way that makes you happy, and gets you the results you want. If you like shooting in JPG, and you are happy with the results, there's no need to go to RAW. Maybe you simply don't want to post-process, maybe you want to learn to nail everything in camera, maybe you shoot well enough that you don't have many mistakes or maybe you don't mind if you flub a shot and can't recover it...maybe JPG is for you. Maybe you enjoy post processing, maybe you enjoy taking over the process of creating the final photo and want to tweak all the parameters, maybe you aren't great at nailing exposures, maybe you wish you could recover some of your flubs...maybe RAW would be for you
- whatever the reason, shooting JPG or RAW isn't a right-or-wrong decision, or a pro-vs-amateur decision - simply a personal preference.

I can tell you that as an amateur for years I shot only JPG. As I started to get some pro work, I started to feel the need to shoot RAW. As I got more experience and more pro work, and learned to nail exposures and set up my camera's output, I found myself very comfortable going back to mostly JPG. Now, for all of my unhired or freelance shooting, personal and fun shooting, I shoot in JPG. For my hired event shoots where there wouldbe consequences if I did make a mistake (many events have moments that only happen once), I shoot RAW+JPG, and use the JPGs 95% of the time, with the RAWs there to back me up in case of a flubbed shot that needs to be recovered. It's my personal choice, as I much more enjoy being out taking photos than being inside in front of a computer processing them...I consider computer editing/processing to be 'work' or 'chore' whereas photography for me is joy/fun. Everyone's different - and some folks absolutely and thoroughly enjoy the process of editing, tweaking, and processing photos, working on computers, etc. So don't let what I do, or what someone else does, dictate what you do - you just have to be enjoying yourself and loving the results!

_________________
Justin Miller
Sony DSLR-A580 / Sony 18-250mm / Minolta 50mm F1.7 / Sigma 30mm F1.4 / Tamron 10-24mm / Tamron 150-600mm / Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro / Minolta 300mm F4 APO
Sony A6000 / 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 / 55-210mm F4-6.3 / 10-18mm F4 / 35mm F1.8 / 16mm F2.8 / via manual adapter, lots of Pentax K mount, Konica K/AR mount, and Leica M mount manual lenses

Galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:24 am
Posts: 1819
RAW all the way for me

It's not too time consuming with the PP at all, unless you're shooting a sporting event and have 800 shots to look through

In varying light I'd rather have the safety net of pulling back details in highlights and shadows that RAW offers anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group