Shooting Raw

[Mike Buckley]

I'm curious: Years ago pro sports shooters shot JPEG because the RAW files filled up the camera's buffer too fast. Their images were on the covers and pages of sports magazines. Is that situation still true?

[ajohnw]

When ever this argument crops up I feel that many comments about jpg's are rather dated. True is is lossy compression but the loss is very small in detail terms on most if not all larger sensor cameras. Actually I'm inclined to say loss? - really. you must be joking when cameras are in fine mode. I suspect this ancient wisdom comes from early limited storage and not using fine plus poor fine in the "olden" days. Must admit I feel it's a pity that the quality level can't simply be specified.

Where there was significant loss was in the stops area. Many cameras now get 9 stops into jpg's via an S shaped tone curve. Some 10. I wonder how many people who purely process raw go to the trouble to get that many out of a shot? Also do they feel that the camera manufacturers make a bad job of doing this? What I tend to find is that yes more can be extracted directly from raw but in many respects it's virtually unusable, requires very extreme tone curves and as would be expected doesn't yield realistic results.

There are problems though - a need to know your camera as some one has already pointed out. With the various options in many of them now it could take a couple of thousand shots to try them all out under differing conditions. Why bother - just shoot raw and disregard the changes that the camera manufacturers have made. Personally I will carry on shooting both. Trying to find a way of making even 9 stops look natural is something of a challenge even when those are directly taken from raw.

John
-

[AB26]

When ever this argument crops up

John, I do not think JPEG vs RAW justifies any “arguments”. If we are objective we should ask why all more advanced cameras have both features.
Shooting JPEG or RAW both have advantages and we should learn how to use both. What I do believe is a “photographer” should know when to use what and how to use both.

Let those whom believe either / or be on there way to be neither / nor.

[AB26]

I'm curious: Years ago pro sports shooters shot JPEG because the RAW files filled up the camera's buffer too fast. Their images were on the covers and pages of sports magazines. Is that situation still true?

Mike I would think so. Otherwise WI-FI in a camera would be obsolete. With the pressure of getting the picture published ASAP, JPEG makes sense.

[Erich Gray]

WoW!! Been out for a couple of days and I come back and find some really awsome replys.

Colin, I love your anaolgy. Being a chef, by trade, it hit me right in the center of the head. And the feed back from that just kept getting better.

Up until now, I havnt shot RAW. I have read about it and even downloaded some free programs, RAWtherapee, Photivo, and light Zone. Been looking at them but have yet to shoot raw yet. I am ready to give this a go.

I use GIMP and most always use it to edit the photos, however, I do feel confident with a camera to get the mood. Usually I do only touch ups. AB, Thank yout for your reply on capturing the mood. When I am out, I see an oppertunity and I will usually take several shots to try to capture the feeling. Sometimes the feeling is only in hte heart and there it must stay. Looking at different sites on the web I see the usefulness of RAW and how it may "up" my photos by giving me more creativity. I am looking forward to getting out today and working with RAW for the first time.

Thanks guys. Very awsome replys.

Erich

[Mike Buckley]

we should ask why all more advanced cameras have both features.

I strongly suspect that the reasons has nothing to do with the primary point of this discussion.

As a related example, I asked my brother-in-law why he was placing his dog in a closed cage every night. He explained that all the pet stores were selling the cages, so it must be a good idea. I think the pet stores were selling the cages to make money and they would do it even if putting the dogs in cages is a really bad idea. So, the fact that so many cameras create both JPEGs and RAW files might have nothing to do with this discussion.

[Mike Buckley]

Andre,

The preference for shooting JPEGs rather than RAW files explained by sports shooters in the past had to do with being able to save enough image files to the card and thus getting the shot that stops the action at the perfect moment in time. It didn't have to do with the speed of getting the images to their client.

[Manfred M]

While I like Colin's analogy, I would like to expand on it a bit.

1. Pretty well anyone can buy a cake, but it takes a level of expertise in baking before someone can bake a cake. The same really applies to handling RAW data as well.;

2. Not all cake bakers are equally competent, so results may vary. The same argument applies to people that work with RAW files. I have seen enough examples of images that look worse after the RAWs were mishandled by relatively unskilled photographers; they should have stuck with jpegs. Much like bad bakers, they all thought their images looked great; and

3. There are instances where even a good baker will buy a cake (i.e. time constraints, etc.). I know a pro wedding photographer who pretty well supplies 100% SOOC jpegs for most of the images, and only resorts to RAW for the large print part of the wedding package.

I usually shoot RAW +jpeg; with the bulk of my shots that I post on the internet being SOOC work. Speed and convenience and an audience that really can't tell the difference between a SOOC image and one I spent 15 - 20 minutes on in post.

[Mike Buckley]

You make some really good points, John. I shoot RAW files exclusively but rarely for the reasons most people mention. I shoot them because of the increased ease of post-processing using my RAW converter, which is the same software that I would use if I was post-processing a JPEG.

I did some testing several years ago that compared post-processing when using RAW and JPEG formats of the same capture using my admittedly limited post-processing skills at the time. Everything that I did convinced me that all of the classic statements about the reasons not to shoot JPEGs were and still remain way overblown in the context of practical use.

I think Colin nailed it when he wrote that if the JPEG format meets your needs, use it. It doesn't meet my needs but that's not for the classic reasons usually mentioned.

[Mike Buckley]

an audience that really can't tell the difference between a SOOC image and one I spent 15 - 20 minutes on in post.

I have a good friend who happens to be the person who dragged me kicking and screaming into the digital world of photography years ago. He very recently explained that he'll use his full-frame DSLR for his really important photos because he likes the results better but for all other photos he'll use his micro four thirds camera. I asked him if his friends and family can tell the difference in the results produced by his two camera systems. His answer was priceless: No, they can't tell the difference but his photography hobby is mostly about satisfying his own needs. He can tell the difference and that's all that matters to him.

Manfred mentioned the audience. My friend's most important audience is himself and I suspect that that's true for most of us. It certainly applies to me and weighs heavily in all of my decisions about photography including the topic being discussed in this thread.

[PhotomanJohn]

Not that this thread needs another input but I used to shoot RAW + JPG and virtually never used the JPGs. I decided to switch to only shooting RAW. In the few situations where I would have used the SOOC JPGs (family events, quick slideshow) I simply and quickly batch process the group of RAW files into JPGs with the option of "standard processing" (like the camera would do) or making a few global changes specific to this group of images. To me, the couple of minutes of my time required is insignificant so I feel I have not lost anything by only shooting in RAW.

The right way to do something is the way that works for you. This works for me but may not for others.

John

[Erich Gray]

Thanks guys. Very great conversation here. More than I expected. I went out and did a couple of practice shots in RAW and liked the results. I can easily see here how this could really up my photography as I said before. From my view, and it is a newbie view, is that through processing I can do a lot of the editing before touching it up in GIMP as I normally would do with a JPEG. I can easliy get the shot going in a creative fashion even before it hits the computer. Enjoyed the conversation. Thanks again, guys.

Erich

[Andrew76]

I can easliy get the shot going in a creative fashion even before it hits the computer.
Erich

Well that's not necessarily true, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by that.

A RAW file, is a RAW file, so you can't really do anything 'creative' with it, until it hits the computer. Any in-camera creative settings only affect the jpeg preview of your RAW image, as has already been discussed extensively.

But, maybe I just don't understand what you're saying...

[Mike Buckley]

Andrew,

Using the logic that the camera can't change the RAW file (you probably know I disagree with that phraseology), you would also have to apply the logic that the computer can't change it. That's because, like the camera, the computer's post-processing settings will only affect its JPEG preview. In other words, whatever phraseology we use pertaining to the RAW file, we have to apply the same phraseology whether the changes are being made in the camera or at the computer.

[Andrew76]

Andrew,

Using the logic that the camera can't change the RAW file (you probably know I disagree with that phraseology), you would also have to apply the logic that the computer can't change it. That's because, like the camera, the computer's post-processing settings will only affect its JPEG preview. In other words, whatever phraseology we use pertaining to the RAW file, we have to apply the same phraseology whether the changes are being made in the camera or at the computer.

Hi Mike,

I totally understand that. And, I followed the discussion between you, and Colin as well. But it doesn't pertain to what Erich just said in his last post.

I don't see how he can creatively manipulate photos before they 'even hit the computer', just because he changed to shooting RAW. Of course the phraseology of in camera creativity only affecting the jpeg preview (whether it's correct, or incorrect in your own opinion) is just semantics, but if it's ACTUALLY only affecting the jpeg, then he could have been doing that whilst he was still shooting jpeg. Changing to shooting RAW has done nothing for him as far as in camera creative settings are concerned.

Or, am I still missing something?

EDIT - just so I can clarify a little, as I noticed my above post is a little wordy....

I'm only confused about the concept of his 'getting the shot going more creatively before it even hits the computer' statement. How is that possible? If anything, a RAW file is less 'creative' until it hits a RAW converter, and some sharpening, enhancements, etc, etc, are applied. No?

In other words, what has he gained since he's started shooting RAW? If he's applying in camera creativity, then he could have been doing that all along shooting jpeg.

[Mike Buckley]

I don't see how he can creatively manipulate photos before they 'even hit the computer', just because he changed to shooting RAW...Changing to shooting RAW has done nothing for him as far as in camera creative settings are concerned...In other words, what has he gained since he's started shooting RAW? If he's applying in camera creativity, then he could have been doing that all along shooting jpeg.

Absolutely correct. Our in-camera creativity is the same whether shooting RAW, JPEG or RAW+JPEG.

[Colin Southern]

I have no idea what all this excitement about cake analogies is about. If the analogy doesn't mention wine, it can't be very helpful.

The wine only enters the analogy at the "creative interpretation" phase of processing; the more wine, the more "abstract" it gets!

[Colin Southern]

I'm curious: Years ago pro sports shooters shot JPEG because the RAW files filled up the camera's buffer too fast. Their images were on the covers and pages of sports magazines. Is that situation still true?

That was part of the reason, but I think another big part was the fact that they often had to transmit them over dial up modems, which would take around 5 minutes per MB.

In my experience - with Canon anyway - at the maximum burst rate the buffer always seems to fill up in about 3 seconds shooting RAW, no matter what the camera. My 1D X will shoot RAW up to 12 fps, but still fills the buffer in 3 sec just like my 1Ds3, and what my 1D3 used to do. Shooting JPEG it's more or less unlimited; CPUs are still faster than CF cards (although with the $1000 128GB Lexar card I have in my 1D X you wouldn't believe how fast it can clear that buffer!).

I do think people lose site of a few things in the great RAW -v- JPEG debates though, and this is probably a good an example; any 'tog shooting for a major magazine is going to know which way to point the camera, and a few other things too; if he (or she!) has a need for bursts beyond 3 seconds - or needs to upload dozens of images over a cellular connection - then JPEGs are probably going to be absolutely fine. They're not going to need the exposure latitude that a RAW capture provides. In contrast, many of my landscapes push dynamic range to the limits (and beyond) - to the point where if I was to shoot JPEG there would be an immediate and obvious quality issue as soon as the images hit the PC; a clear case for RAW there.

Some people shoot JPEG because they can't get as good a result from RAW (due to the learning curve); personally, I think they're selling themselves shot there, but ultimately I respect the fact that it's their call.

I do however think that the old saws about JPEGs being faster to process and taking up less disk space probably don't hold the same weight today as they did 10 years ago; I transfer my RAW captures - rename them - add metadata - and do initial cashing and default processing all as an automated process (it's as boring as watching grass grow) - so while the PC is doing that I'll go have a shower or check and repack the equipment; not a biggie for me and I suspect many others.

[Colin Southern]

When ever this argument crops up I feel that many comments about jpg's are rather dated. True is is lossy compression but the loss is very small in detail terms on most if not all larger sensor cameras. Actually I'm inclined to say loss? - really. you must be joking when cameras are in fine mode. I suspect this ancient wisdom comes from early limited storage and not using fine plus poor fine in the "olden" days.

In all seriousness, I think there's a touch of "perfectionist" / obsessive compulsive disorder in many photographer (myself included) (which I may add isn't necessarily a bad thing). If I shoot only 10 frames I'll recharge the battery at the end of the day so that it's in a "known prime state" next time I need it, in much the way I'm sure that the fire department would top up an engine that had only been used for a 10 minute callout; it's just part of standard operating procedures.

In that context, I think a lot of 'togs will use RAW over JPEG because it's been ingrained into their neural pathways that "JPEG is lossy" and "they don't want lossy"; the real world reality that one can't actually detect the loss doesn't seem to make it that far up the evolutionary path, unfortunately. For what it's worth, the same thinking is also applied to UV filters (that extra bit of glass MUST degrade the image so they say), zoom lenses (they must be a compromise so can't be as sharp as a prime they say), MegaPixel counts (the more pixels the bigger you can print they say).

Must admit I feel it's a pity that the quality level can't simply be specified.

On my Canon cameras you can adjust the JPEG quality (it's a size -v- quality number for each type of JPEG).

[Colin Southern]

Colin, I love your anaolgy. Being a chef, by trade, it hit me right in the center of the head.

Gordon, is that really you?