shooting in RAW.....or not ? .....

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Griddi,

Here is one way to tell - if you see the effects of posterization when editing your images, particularly if stretching a low contrast range scene into something with more 'bite' - you have exceeded the limits of sensible jpg processing and should consider processingfrom a RAW capture.

Do follow that link, it shows the effects of posterization (on right) of both a histogram and a picture and compares them to what it should look like (on left).

It is relatively easy to spot on a histogram in PP, but unless you know what to look for (distinct colours bounded by 'contour' lines instead of smooth progression), it can be tricky to see on an image if mild. The sky, or clouds, are most commonly afflicted, as in Sean's example.

Cheers,

[just me]

Hi to All......

In the meantme I have shoot some photo's in RAW, can see a bit of more details, Vs with JPEG, also have downloaded the CD's which came with my camera's Olympus E-5, and Fuji X100, which have RAW's software converters.......

All went well with Olympus, but, although I could and did convertert my Fuji RAW photo in the Fuji Raw converter, ( Silkpric ) I have the problem, that although I can save the file in another folder, it open's there, and every else, even in a email attachment, with the " RAW converter window " attachted, I can not do anything with the photo no rezising ( it has 19 MB ) etc.

I had last night sort of a sleepness night, because of the above, as I need my sleep, perhaps anybody has an idea about the problem with the above ?

Griddi.......

[jcuknz]

From pnodrog's comment [ #5 ] I take it that one shoots raw so that one can be careless in the field ?
I have given up reading this thread at that point

[rpcrowe]

IMO, it is easier for me to work with RAW images than JPEGs. I love Camera RAW and I also like that editing is non-destructive...

[ajohnw]

From pnodrog's comment [ #5 ] I take it that one shoots raw so that one can be careless in the field ?
I have given up reading this thread at that point

Not a bad idea that. Some of the comments are related to what jpg's used to be and again we see the comment none destructive editing.

The usual problem with contrast stretching and brightening jpg's too much is colour changes and patchy solid colours but cameras vary dramatically in this area. It's also some what dependent on the software that is used to do it.

I always wonder just how many people who process raw use default black and white levels with a straight line in between or even the same curve all the time. Well many jpgs will do a much better job than than a straight line. Others use specific camera curves - some one else's idea of what should be in a jpg.

I also wonder how many people get to know their camera well enough to achieve a decent exposure most of the time in jpg's.

-

[Scott Stephen]

I started out shooting only JPG. Mostly because that is kind of the default, and also because I thought RAW conversions would be a pain.
After having a certain number of otherwise good shots messed up beyond recovery by bad White Balance or moderately imperfect exposure, etc., I started shooting RAW + JPG.
I shot both long enough to be utterly sick of having twice as many hundreds of files to deal with. Dealing with the double files was actually harder than the RAW conversion (which is automatic in LR, which I was using already anyway) and then a few tweeks on the best 20% of the shots. Shooting both also slows down your Frames Per Second, and also fills your buffer faster than my 11-month old can fill a diaper.
Now I just shoot RAW.

[pnodrog]

From pnodrog's comment [ #5 ] I take it that one shoots raw so that one can be careless in the field ?
I have given up reading this thread at that point

Perhaps if you read everything and do not give up you will gain a better understanding. At no point did I say you can be careless in the field in fact I was saying just the opposite. In the field you should concentrate on the important items you cannot adjust later such as composition, shot selection, focusing etc. Having shot most of my life with 50 ASA colour slide film where exposure is critical I would never suggest being careless in the field but do get the priorities correct. These priorities have been altered due to new technology and I do not hesitate in taking advantage of it.

[loosecanon]

Being British I will add my twopennyworth to the argument.

I see Jpegs as the images one got in film days when you handed the film in to a processor and picked up your prints an hour later. 90% of the time good images but some "didn't come out" well.
With raw its like having your own darkroom, processing the images to how you want them, bringing out subtle tones and detail in highlights and shadows and with the colour and contrast as you want it.
When one gets a good image and want to make it a great picture raw gives one much more to start with, but it needs skill and practice to bring out the best, otherwise leave it as jpeg.

[ajohnw]

Seems a waste of my time but I will just throw in one more tone curve that show what's been happening since people threw out jpg shooting. It's a pity that the green one doesn't run to it's full extent. Nikon have been doing the same thing for a long time - Canon far more recent. The highlight end on their cameras just ran up in a straight line and was clipped rather abruptly. Like it or not these curves show that the extra head room available from raw is not as big as it used to be even on Canon cameras. You can also see that there is a huge amount of detail buried in the dark end but more so on one of the cameras than the other - Nikon are very similar. Lately lots of detail is buried in the high lights as well. On some cameras this is now of sufficient magnitude to allow raw to be viewed in an entirely different way. Just used to bring extremes down to 24bit colour space using HDR techniques - why - because it's quicker that way and is the only instance where raw is actually needed. The woolly area in between these 2 extremes isn't going to happen very often. Tones, contrast and sharpening etc are camera options in jpgs and I have yet to see a camera where they can't be turned off and done manually later. I also feel it's important for newer users to be aware of these facts. I sometimes use the term raw snobbery. Sorry about that.



Interesting comparison but it doesn't suggest that people should throw away their 5D's for several reasons. Both cameras easily exceed what was available from slide film in jpg mode by many stops. Processing these curves to decent shots in real terms isn't any different to processing a raw file.

These sort of changes happen because manufactures have always made efforts to make even their most expensive cameras suitable for casual users. That goes way way back to the early days of slr type cameras. In this case however it also makes the numbers look better.
-

[revi]

Nice curves, but I think you are missing one or two points wrt RAW:
- however good the processing is, jpegs are always processed data, and in the processing there is loss of information (if only by going from 12/14 bits/channel to 8 bits/channel). So if you shoot in JPG, the main processing has to be decided before taking the picture. Any mistake can only be corrected so far.
- and as a jpeg only uses 8 bits/channel, you're a lot more limited in what you can do in post-processing compared to the 12 or 14 bits/channel you have in RAW.

So, in cases where I have the time available to do the post-processing, I prefer using RAW, as I often don't have the time to fiddle with the camera settings to produce the best JPEG in camera (and I have other things to think about at that moment, like composition or timing). And no, that's not a case of sloppy work in the field to be corrected in PP. In fact, 90% of my images is treated in a fairly standard way, but it's the remaining 10% that make me prefer RAW.

And regarding those graphs, where do you get them, and how are they obtained?

Remco

[ajohnw]

Hi Remco. No I'm not really missing the point for bits read stops - the usual approx rule 8bit = 8 stops, 12bit 12 etc. The curves show 10+ bits mapped into an 8bit space. If 10 stops have to be mapped into an 8 bit jpg space then the same form of curve would have to be used how ever it is done - other than hdr. The curve could also have an entirely different shape but some range of tones have to be compressed. The camera does this automatically when shooting jpgs.

Neglecting adobe rgb we view the results of our processing in jpg colour space be it from raw or jpg and we make adjustments on that basis. Effectively working from either the results are more or less the same providing the jpg has sufficient dynamic range crunched up in it, I can't see any difference at all but do use software that is at home with either raw files or jpg. I' also using a camera that has the right sort of tone curve. Many use Adobe flavours. From what I read these automatically use adobe provided camera tone curves that as is often mentioned get more information out of canon cameras than canon do. These tone curves will be similar to the ones I have posted.

There is also the possibility of generating a tone curve that is specificity for the shot. That might just involve setting a black and a white point and that's that, Even then the tone range is compressed if it exceeds the sRGB colour space. Out of interest I just spent 15 mins on a raw file where straight line curves wont work out and now have it nearly suitable for further work. 7 point base curve and a 5 point luminosity curve. Still not correct really as the sky colour is out. I've effectively compressed the mid tones for subsequent tone mapping and left the rest a little flat for a lot less of the same. This shows the results and the camera jpg on the left. Most of the work is already done in the jpg. It needs a lot less doing to it. Maybe I should have copied the camera's jpg luminosity curve but that would also take time and many more points. The raw is just short of highlight over exposure and there are 0.2% pixels clipped in the low end.



Hope this expands to a size that clearly shows the difference. All I am saying on this subject really is that given a suitable camera people should try working from jpg's before knocking it.. After all many people on this site have downloaded jpg's off here and made quite substantial modifications to them - even more indication that it can be done. The other point of course on many cameras given that there are 10 stops plus in the jpg it's questionable really if much more can be obtained from raw. If they are there in real terms more post processing and even more complex curves will be needed.

-

[pnodrog]

On some cameras this is now of sufficient magnitude to allow raw to be viewed in an entirely different way. Just used to bring extremes down to 24bit colour space using HDR techniques - why - because it's quicker that way and is the only instance where raw is actually needed. The woolly area in between these 2 extremes isn't going to happen very often. Tones, contrast and sharpening etc are camera options in jpgs and I have yet to see a camera where they can't be turned off and done manually later. I also feel it's important for newer users to be aware of these facts. I sometimes use the term raw snobbery. Sorry about that.

-

I can just envisage a men’s 100m race where the starting blocks are in the shade of a translucent green stadium awning and the finish line in bright sunshine. The jpeg perfectionist will have set his WB to compensate the green caste and increased the saturation to get an accurate photograph of the start. Once they are off he will of course then reset his camera with a different WB and decrease the saturation in time to take a wonderful photograph of them crossing the line – oops sorry could you do that again I wasn't ready. In the meantime the RAW snobs have just kept taking photographs during the entire 9.4 seconds.


No, it is not snobbery it is practicality. Photography is not limited to landscapes.

Sorry John just a little dig at your last comment and like some of the other posts I see I am taking the liberty of completely ignoring the main points you have accurately made.

[William W]

I can just envisage a men’s 100m race . . . In the meantime the RAW snobs have just kept taking photographs during the entire 9.4 seconds.

. . . and also the Photographer captured a World Record . . .


WW

[pnodrog]

Of course a photographer needs to get into place 0.18 seconds before any runner so they have time to set up for the finish. (sorry Bill I am so old I was thinking of 100 yards and I should not be allowed to rest a digital camera on my walking stick)

[William W]

HAHAHA,
very quick retort,
have a great day.

[ajohnw]

HA HA ? I use camera white balance and correct later which oddly is seldom needed on any camera I have owned.

More of a mute point in some cases - how many shots taken during the race? In the Pen E-P3 raw plus jpg which is what I shoot it can only do 17 fames at 3 / sec or any number in jpg until the card is full. The next one I am buying it seems does 9/sec. No mention of raw or jpg or a limit so maybe both - pass. Actually I think that may be problematically fast for some subjects.

I use raw and jpg incase I need it and oddly enough I find I hardly ever do which is what this thread is all about. I have needed to use it once in a couple of hundred shots on Pen's and strongly suspected that when I took the shot. Back lit so needed hdr. I find it's the same with both Canons but they need a lot of care with highlights and do offer more range in raw. However I am capable of appreciating that cameras change and evolve over time.

-

[William W]

. . . how many shots taken during the race? In the Pen E-P3 raw plus jpg which is what I shoot it can only do 17 fames at 3 / sec or any number in jpg until the card is full. The next one I am buying it seems does 9/sec. No mention of raw or jpg or a limit so maybe both - pass. Actually I think that may be problematically fast for some subjects.

Total number possible to shoot also depends also on the shutter speed used.

Typically over 100mtrs Running, I would shoot maybe 10~25 frames in total and those in bursts of three (no more than a burst of five).

There are key times to shoot.

If he went 9.4s - then almost continuous shooting, once his face was in frame, no matter what the quality of light or what lens was mounted - I would be after that sometimes elusive, eye contact shot:


World Record
(Lisbeth Trickett (née Lenton), 52.85, LC, W, 100m Freestyle, SYDNEY, 27.03.2008)

WW

[drjuice]

Someplace along the way, not in this thread, I noted that what drove me in the direction of RAW images was that the JPEGs coming out of my Sony V-1 and W-90 cameras rendered a field of bluebonnets in Texas as white and, of course, I had no good way to render the bluebonnets properly as blue without significant work on my computer. Since I try to be as careful with my digital images as I was with my 35mm cameras, I was more than a teeny bit frustrated!

One comment about RAW + JPEG ....

I have long captured both because just often enough I need to give somebody an image right now (without the time to go home and render it properly on a computer), particularly when I'm at some kind of event when somebody else wants a picture of something. I do warn them that the colors may not be rendered properly, though I must say that my alpha 700 does a better job of rendering colors than the PnS (point and shoot, if you don't know) cameras that I used to use.

I'm jes' sayin'....

virginia

[ajohnw]

It's curious thing with white balance Virginia. I have always used camera auto white balance. My 1st digital camera was the original digital ixus. That dates back to about 2000. Next was the original rebel / 300D which dates back to 2003. I used auto white balance with that too. I can't really say that it has ever really caused a significant problem. I also played about with some forms of digital cameras before these but they were hopeless in several areas. I've tried specific light type settings and had mixed results to tend to stick with auto and put up with the warm tones some cameras give under tungsten lighting. Curiously the ixus used to put up with that. My e-p3 doesn't and gives warm skin tones. Some people seem to think camera just mix it all up and assume that is grey and balance on that. This shot as a for instance illustrates that some must do something else. The sky is flat as it should be but is a tiny bit too blue. The variations in the greens are very close. What bit of white there is - is white. It's an experimental shot where I tried to make a dull flat day look a little brighter but the colour balance is what came out of the camera. Sort of works but I would have to do something about the sky and other parts as well.



-