Using a DSLR - RAW or Jpeg images?

Chat Forum

[closed]

Using a DSLR - RAW or Jpeg images?

96 posts & 24 voices | Started 1 year ago by Aus | Latest reply from GrahamS

Tags:

No tags yet.

Pages: « Previous 1 23

user-removed - Member

So why not just shoot RAW and then save as TIFF when you finish editting?
Wouldn't that give you the same benefits?

Yes, biut it adds another hour or so onto my workflow for no extra benefits at all - that is, I have to wait an hour for my computer to convert about 1500 photos from raws to TIFFs.

Why re-save 5 times?? If I edit a jpeg and don't get it finished before I have to stop working on it, I save it as a psd file (as I'll undoubtedly have some layers).
I then save the final image off as a jpeg, so am only re-saving once.

Fair question. It's mostly due to the way I used to process, resize, sharpen, 'de-noise' and save for web. I used to start with a file full of jpegs and work on each file at full size, saving to another folder.

Once all these were done, I would run the processed pics through Noise Ninja (or similar), saving them again, in a new folder. I then ran a couple of photoshop actions to sharpen / resize for web / add drop shadow frame / whatever else, saving again into a new folder.

So that's why I used to end up opening and closing my files several times, causing degradation. And that's why I now work pretty much only with TIFFs.

Apologies to the OP - IIRC, the D70 only does Jpegs or raw....

Posted 1 year ago #
grumm - Member

I think for the everyday photographer the whole 'jpeg lossy' format thing is an unnecessary concern.

Might depend on your camera too, but with mine the jpeg colours just don't look as good somehow - and when you increase the contrast (even by quite a lot) on a RAW file you get gorgeous deeper colours, whereas the jpegs start to look funny fairly rapidly.

Posted 1 year ago #
GrahamS - Member

That's because a RAW file is typically 12-bit, whereas as JPG is 8-bit.

Each pixel is a combination of Red, Green and Blue channels.
An 8-bit jpg has just 256 possible values for each channel, whereas 12-bit RAW has 4096 possible values per channel.

The limited precision of the jpg means when you tweak it you can quickly run into problems with colours blocking together etc.

Posted 1 year ago #
belgianbob - Member

While it's true (at least from my point of view) that Lightroom is the dog'd bo**ocks, other RAW editors are available.
Nikon and Canon bundle their own with RAW-capable cameras, and several aftermarket solutions are available, such as ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) for Photoshop CS (whatever is the latest version) and Elements, which is free.

As others have mentioned, if you can shoot jpeg and RAW at the same time, you should consider doing so, as then you could learn to post-process RAW images and actually see for yourself the extra quality, detail, etc you qould squeeze from them.
Granted it's a little more time-consuming than shooting jpegs, but it really will open up a whole new range of possibilities for your photography.

Posted 1 year ago #
Denis99 - Member

I prefer raw files to jpeg, and it might just be software driven,I'll explain.

I used a Canon 7D, if I chose save the file as raw and jpeg, then I can clearly see a difference in the unedited image.

Raw is much better.

I save the images to a folder on my external hard drive and then open them with Canon DPP (its free as well). The images really do look good from the off.

Sometimes export in Aperture as its easier to edit if I need to do some extensive editing.

Have to agree about saving the final version as a jpeg though.

Best policy is to print your best images - so many people leave them on their hard drive.

Its the same as holding a vinyl record - the album cover artwork needed to be handled and viewed by many. Maybe its just me, but its the same with books vs ebooks.

Raw files as sooooo big though.

Posted 1 year ago #
molgrips - Member

Is it worth getting Photoshop LS over the RAW adjuster that comes with Elements 8 (which I already have)?

Posted 1 year ago #
grumm - Member

Best policy is to print your best images - so many people leave them on their hard drive.

Its the same as holding a vinyl record - the album cover artwork needed to be handled and viewed by many. Maybe its just me, but its the same with books vs ebooks.

Agreed. Nothing beats getting a nice picture printed well.

Posted 1 year ago #
stumpy01 - Member

Nikon and Canon bundle their own with RAW-capable cameras, and several aftermarket solutions are available, such as ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) for Photoshop CS (whatever is the latest version) and Elements, which is free.

What's the Nikon one - I've got loads of CDs with my D80 but didn't think that it came with a RAW converter as standard - perhaps I need to check over the CDs again!!.

I downloaded the RAW converter for my copy of CS2.

Best policy is to print your best images - so many people leave them on their hard drive.

Definitely YES! I have a hard covered spiral bound sketch book that I got from an art shop & every now & again I get my favourite recent pics printed & spend an evening putting them in the book. Much nicer way to look through pics than on a monitor.

And GrahamS - I agree with your comments about the colour information limitations with jpeg. If you do some hard post-processing to an image, you do get some weird colour artefacts emerging as you run out of colour info. I normally don't process images to this point, but it could be an issue if you are trying to do some 'creative' processing.

Posted 1 year ago #
belgianbob - Member

@Molgrips: Yes, and no. Yes, if you shoot lots and want a way of organising and editing large numbers of files in batches, including complex whole-image manipulations like gradients and split-toned B+W.
If, on the other hand, you just shoot RAW every now and again, or simply don't shoot that often, then the very latest ACR plugin for Photoshop or Elements is all you need, as it's the same RAW converter as the latest version of Lightroom is based on, but without all the whistles and bells.

@Stumpy: I'm afraid I don't know the name of Nikon's RAW software, being a Canon shooter. I'll try and find out, but I'm sure my brother said he had a raw converter with his camera (D80, I think?).
Don't know whether he downloaded it seperately though, I'm sorry.
Does the latest version of ACR support your camera in CS2? I didn't think it CS2 was still being supported by recent ACR updates (but I could easily be wrong about this, as I no longer use CS2 very often and don't own a Nikon.)

Posted 1 year ago #
stumpy01 - Member

belgianbob - well I've got a D80 & CS2 & have always been able to open RAWs.

Wasn't able to with CS though.

Posted 1 year ago #
grumm - Member

@Stumpy: I'm afraid I don't know the name of Nikon's RAW software, being a Canon shooter.

Capture NX?

Posted 1 year ago #
GrahamS - Member

Nikon ViewNX provides a image browser and basic NEF image editting. It is free (get the latest version from the Nikon website).

But yes, CaptureNX is the full-blown Nikon RAW editor. It costs but I don't think it is as much as Lightroom. Try the 30-day trial (you'll probably need to watch a few of the tutoroal videos on that site to get the hang of it tho because the UPoint editting it uses is pretty unique - in a good way).

Posted 1 year ago #
coolhandluke - Member

I really can't be arsed with RAW as I can't see the quality improvements are worth the hassle.

Perhaps if I had a superb landscape in front of me and brilliant light falling onto it, I might consider using RAW, or if I was out to get THE shot that might end up on my wall....

Other than that, JPEG all the way.

JPEGS will always be accessible to all PC's too

Posted 1 year ago #
DrJ - Member

I really can't be arsed with RAW as I can't see the quality improvements are worth the hassle.

Not much hassle, unless you choose to mess about with it.

(Anecdote alert. A while ago I grabbed my camera from my bag and took a once-in-a-lifetime, well, once-in-a-week shot. Got home - image was all blue, as I'd not set the WB correctly. But it was a RAW file so all was saved.)

Posted 1 year ago #
marsdenman - Member

That is why the Rockwell "I just get it right in camera" school of thought misses the point a bit.

I agree (on this point anyway...) with Ken = closer it is to 'right' in camera = greatly reduced PP'ing time...
(by which I mean less time correcting exposure issues, time spent 'enhancing' and image is another thing entirely...)

If you want to spend your life in-front of a screen then go for it - point and shoot to your hearts content - i've been there, done that, won't be going back to it..

Posted 1 year ago #
GrahamS - Member

aren't jpgs a hassle too though?

If you want in-camera jpg that is remotely as good as a tweaked RAW then for every shot you'd have to set a custom white balance and adjust the colour mode, sharpening, saturation and contrast based on the subject and style. Or maybe load a custom curve.

With RAW I can make these settings decisions after the fact and interactively fine tune them on my nice 28" IPS screen.

Posted 1 year ago #
Drac - Moderator

If you want to spend your life in-front of a screen then go for it - point and shoot to your hearts content - i've been there, done that, won't be going back to it..

But that's relative to any format.

Posted 1 year ago #
GrahamS - Member

I agree (on this point anyway...) with Ken =
closer it is to 'right' in camera = greatly
reduced PP'ing time...
(by which I mean less time correcting exposure
issues, time spent 'enhancing' and image is
another thing entirely...)

Yeah correct exposure is crucial regardless of whether you shoot RAW or JPG. I wasn't arguing that.

I was saying that there are many other settings you can't "get right in camera"

e.g.

White balance: I generally shoot Cloudy+1 as it typically looks nice, but when I edit the RAW and can move the WB and tint on a slider to the exact position I want.

Noise Reduction: the camera offers very coarse control over this compared to CaptureNX

Sharpening: I'll often run a Unsharp Mask of the image and adjust radius, intensity and threshold. The camera just has on, off and enhanced.

Even exposure: my camera does thirds of a stop, CaptureNX offers tenths of a stop.

Posted 1 year ago #
don simon - Member

marsdenman - Member

That is why the Rockwell "I just get it right in camera" school of thought misses the point a bit.

I agree (on this point anyway...) with Ken = closer it is to 'right' in camera = greatly reduced PP'ing time...
(by which I mean less time correcting exposure issues, time spent 'enhancing' and image is another thing entirely...)

+1, learn how to get the correct exposure, learn how to take a photograph. There is, of course, room for enhancing and photoshop editing if you want to be adventurous.

Posted 1 year ago #
DrJ - Member

What GrahamS says is spot on. My philosophy:
In camera - capture all the data you need, ie - exposure and (somewhat) composition.
In front of computer - use those data to create the image you want.

Of course my final product may be as crap as any newbie with a phone camera, but that is a different issue :-((

Posted 1 year ago #
molgrips - Member

+1, learn how to get the correct exposure, learn how to take a photograph

Well dur. Goes without saying doesn't it?

Posted 1 year ago #
belgianbob - Member

Shooting RAW isn't about idiot-proofing your photography, and doing it 'right' in camera will always get you a better picture (ok, 99% of the time), but just shooting JPEG will remove the option to make significant changes to WB, contrast curves, coluring, saturation and sharpness later on, which you may find improves some, none or all of your pictures, depending on your skill, luck and artistic whassname.

So, if you always carry a separate meter, grey card, graduated and CC filters, have shot tranny film all your life and have a sixth sense for a great picture that's about to happen, you'll probably never need to shoot RAW. Otherwise, I'd seriously consider it. You've nowt to loose except a few gigs of storage space.

Posted 1 year ago #
don simon - Member

molgrips - Member

+1, learn how to get the correct exposure, learn how to take a photograph

Well dur. Goes without saying doesn't it?

Not really, you'd be surprised how many people think that they just whip out the camera, click and hey presto front page of National Geographic.

How many people shoot using fully manual?
How many people use AP?
How many people use any semi-auto function?
Suggests to me that people don't know.

Posted 1 year ago #
GrahamS - Member

I'm currently reading "Perfect Exposure" by Michael Freeman. Despite an entire book on getting everything just right "in-camera" he still recommends RAW.

don: you'd be surprised how many people think it is "cheating" to use anything but fully manual. Personally I'm quite happy to sit on aperture priority and let my camera to do the maths.

Posted 1 year ago #
marsdenman - Member

Me, I shoot RAW on 'critical' stuff - weddings, for example, best quality JPEG for most other stuff.
Flicking between Manual and Aperture Priority, heck, I also use 'P' (think it means Professional? )on occasion - quick and lazy off camera flash stuff...

Whichever you shoot though - RAW or JPEG - i'd still argue that, to get the best out of the image, it's best to be exposed right in camera....

Posted 1 year ago #
GrahamS - Member

I'd still argue that, to get the best out of the
image, it's best to be exposed right in
camera....

I've yet to see anyone ever argue otherwise.

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Pages: « Previous 1 23

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.

Singletrack Mountain Bike Magazine

Chat Forum

Using a DSLR - RAW or Jpeg images?

Topic Closed

Don't miss…

Singletrack

Website & Forums

Exits