Photography question..

So I’ve acquired a new DSLR, used to do loads of photography when I was younger with a film SLR but now I’ve come into the 21st century. What’s the current thinking on RAW vs JPEG?

I’m pretty much convinced that RAW is the way forward, what’s the consensus?

Plus any constructive feedback on the shots below?

DSC00091 by Graeme Matheson[/url], on Flickr

DSC00091 by Graeme Matheson[/url], on Flickr

DSC00093 by Graeme Matheson[/url], on Flickr

I almost always shoot Raw now. You can do so much more to the image if there is anything you want to improve.
If your camera has the setting, shoot to record a raw and a jpeg simultaneously. Sometimes, the decisions the camera makes on the jpeg are pretty dire when compared to the Raw.

I only shoot jpeg when I’m in a can’t be bothered mood.

No question RAW is the way forward, unless you are mega short on card storage.

Easier to salvage a crap shot with RAW.

Depends on what I’m shooting, really. If it’s just for myself/my own purposes I usually shoot raw just to give that extra bit of space when editing, but some event shooting (for photo sales) there’s no chance to edit that many shots, so jpeg’ll do.

Shoot raw …. It is just better and you can do more with it in the editing.

1st pic – more contrast for me … Or bring the highlights upwards to make the whites brighter ….. Just looks a little grey all over for me.

Cropping is off on all those shots. See Golden Section.

I tried to edit my original post, but it timed out.

1st pic: its a bit flat in terms of being grey all over. the blacks aren’t that black, and the white wall is not white. IF you bring up the photo in the likes of photoshop or similar and adjust the levels (CTRL+L in photoshop) then you see a histogram graph. The graph shows how much image content there is on each step between pure black (on the left) and pure white (on the right). You can see that on your image, there is a gap between the pure black and where your content starts, and likewise a gap on the right for the whites. What this means is that the pic doesn’t use the full range of colour that it possibly could do.

The levels tool will let you adjust this and stretch the brightness of the image across the spectrum so that the gaps are taken away and the range is increased. To do that, adjust the little sliders (highlighted) from the outer edges at the left and right to where where the content starts. You’ll see the image adjust as you do this.

The little slider in the middle then can be moved left or right so set where the mid point of the spectrum (between black and white) is in the image. To the left will lighten the image, to the right will darken it. I moved it to the left to lighten up the face … which to me makes the whole image stand out a little more, and removes the darker shadows to the left side of the face.

In an image like yours, the focus is on the face … so its my preference that the face should have good exposure/contrast even if that means that the wall becomes almost pure white.

Other than that, cropping isn’t too far out really, but as said above, rule of thirds is worth reading up on and having an awareness off. Similarly, read up on histograms. There is no perfect histogram to achieve for every photo (nor is there a rule of thirds crop either), but they both can be useful tools to get more out of a photo after you have taken it.

the face should have good exposure/contrast even if..

that also seems a good maxim! A gotcha with RAW can be the edits are always a matter of taste as well – and potentially drive you crazy! — the edits above look a good improvement to me and the MO makes a lot of sense.

playing with sharpness/clarity – maybe targeting eyes; could be a suggestion..

Each and all good motivations for RAW I guess. I only critically edit <10%, but those I do it pays off every time

Sod and Murphy say the keepers are always the jpg only – so fine and RAW – unless you can’t or are spraying shots?

Cheers guys,thanks for the help. I’ll keep snapping away and come back for more advice sometime soon!

Looks like RAW is the way forwards..

I think your shots look great. The edits fisha made them look better.

I always shoot raw, if your planing to post process your images I can’t see a reason not to.

Great explanation too fisha….very nicely explained.

I’ve only been into photography for a couple of years but have seen the benefit of shooting raw- I’ve recovered images which I thought were far too underexposed but a few tweeks in Photoshop and the image looked perfect. Don’t think I’d have been able to recover it to the same extent of it was a JPEG.

I tend to shoot in RAW and JPEG so I can edit the photos I want and easily upload other photos to Facebook etc. The only drawback is your camera might slow down when you use burst shooting.

RAW all the way 🙂

If you want amazing what you can do with RAW try the new dehaze feature in Lightroom or Photoshop its stunning

I’d say RAW

But RAW and Lightroom (even if you have Photoshop)

I haven’t really shot jpg for say 8 years on any RAW capable camera. The main thing for me is the extra dynamic range and ability to white balance when I’m at home

Here is more yawns inducing RAW jpg comparison

As shot

dynamic range RAW (1 of 1) by John Clinch[/url], on Flickr

Post processed RAW

Barton Hills 2 by John Clinch[/url], on Flickr

Post Processed jpg

dynamic range jpg (1 of 1) by John Clinch[/url], on Flickr

In the same boat (just got an slr) what software is recommend? I’ve heard of photoshop. Ideally free/ cheap / easy to use for newbie

In the same boat (just got an slr) what software is recommend? I’ve heard of photoshop. Ideally free/ cheap / easy to use for newbie

I’d try lightroom free for a month and take it from there. This is kind of the most useful bit of photoshop for a photographer. Made by the same people, Adobe

Most cameras can use a free converter from their own website/cd

But these don’t allow local adjustament or easy cataloging

RAW always RAW. I must get my camera back out.

I’m really impressed by Capture One 8 for editing raw.
If you have a sony raw capable camera you can download the limited express version free and then upgrade for 50 euro to the sony pro version if you like it. The non sony version which works for other cameras is over 200 euro, so is a bargain.
fwiw i still shoot raw+jpeg but may move away from jpeg on sony. I still like olympus jpegs though, they are difficult to replicate (not that thats my aim)

Just for balance? I generally shoot jpeg unless conditions are particularly difficult or I’m generating images for someone else. With the ability to review images I find I can generally check what I’ve shot avoiding excessive post. Twenty years of photoshop is a bit of a blessing and a curse. I can do anything I want with it, but the urge to tinker takes over and can waste hours for debatable gain, raw panders to this. So try to avoid.

Not always RAW for me.

RAW if you want to dick around with it later, the equivalent of your own darkroom. JPEG if you want to snap. The reason being that RAWs need processing, whereas JPEG have already been processed with the defaults.

My camera does a decent job of developing so I only go to RAW if I’m making a particular effort.

to tinker takes over and can waste hours for debatable gain, raw panders to this

This. I am usually trying to work on my creativity, expression and compisition – the technicalities of RAW can sometimes get in the way.

Re the images – absolutely love the composition of the older kid. Wonderful image. Didn’t notice how black the blacks were 🙂

If you shoot raw it is possible to have a none destructive workflow in post. JPEG’s are destructive so you are always loosing data from the images.

RAW if you want to dick around with it later, the equivalent of your own darkroom. JPEG if you want to snap. The reason being that RAWs need processing, whereas JPEG have already been processed with the defaults.

Is it not easier to simply shoot in RAW all the time, then if you have only taken snaps to put them through Lightroom on default settings, rather than make a choice and based on that have 2 different ways of handling your images ?

Yeah, probably.

But if I know I am only messing around or taking family snaps I’ll put it in JPEG and save myself the bother.

Some of you were kind enough to give me some helpful advice on previous photos so I’m now shooting RAW and spending a bit of time processing images.

Any thoughts on those below?

DSC00304 by Graeme Matheson[/url], on Flickr

DSC00367 by Graeme Matheson[/url], on Flickr

DSC00370 by Graeme Matheson[/url], on Flickr

DSC00368 by Graeme Matheson[/url], on Flickr

I’m feeling brutal before a second coffee, but will offer constructive…you did ask 😉

Compositional elements:

First pic baffles me as seems to be a portrait pic yet you’ve chosen landscape format, seemingly to include that big old tap (?) – it took me a while to notice the reflection of the child in the tap then it dawned on me that such may be your intention, yet I was distracted by the other elelments (cropped-off bathroomy stuff at the top for instance) so potentially as a viewer I just saw a big modern tap and moved on

The eyes are nice sharp, which is always good. Lighting overall is flat, neither high key or low key. Difficult subject/environment though.

Single rose pics –

Also a difficult (and IMO clichéd) subject if only on account of offering something fresh/different or at least expertly presented. Have an image search of rose pics on Flickr I’ll warrant there is a few…

Any botanical composition is usually improved by including at the very least a (whole or elements of) second flower to give depth/compositional balance, which you have sort of provided in the form of a bud on the first rose pic.

I like the tone, colour and focal depth. Am a sucker for dew 😛 Bokeh seems a bit ‘lumpy’, maybe open that lens up some more?

All three rose pics seem again to be following a ‘rule of halves’ as opposed to thirds ie here again you’ve chosen a (wide) landscape format and the subject occupies one side leaving the other side empty space? Of course rule of thirds is a guide to be used and broken – I sometimes use 50/50 compositional technique, usually with strong geometric/architectural subjects yet rarely if at all with portraits/nature. With flowers maybe consider cropping square or 5:4?

Also maybe consider using a tripod as the sharpness with the dew/leading edge on petals doesn’t feel ‘there’, even with a soft focus overall you’d normally wish to keep the leading edge foreground details pin-sharp.

Portrait format crop, eye detail exposure + 0.3, slight vignette, level adjustments, and some blur to give impression of depth. Also warmed the tone slightly.

Any thoughts on those below?…

…mainly a less charitable version of Malvern Rider’s comments, pretty cheesy and unremarkable stuff, striclty for the family album.
What file format to use is the least of your priorities, concentrate on some basic composition techniques and try to add a bit of depth, scale and perspective to your shots, if you are going to stick to the clichés at least do them well.

Malvern Rider – Member

Portrait format crop, eye detail exposure + 0.3, slight vignette, level adjustments, and some blur to give impression of depth. Also warmed the tone slightly.

Just goes to show how subjective all this stuff is, as I think that tight crop on the bath portrait looks awful compared to the original.
The first pic says to me ‘child at bath time’ and while the large overflow thing is a bit distracting, it fits with the setting & the picture in general.

The tight crop version takes away any context, there is no space around the subject so it looks cramped & unnatural. If there’d have been more space to the left of shot, it might have worked by cropping tighter but leaving some space to the left but for me as it is, I preferred the original.

Two different issues here.

One is photographic technique and as others have said whether you shoot RAW, jpeg, clay pigeons etc in will not make a badly composed photo good.

To be fair, for a first attempt with a dSLR the shots are in focus (trust me this does not always happen) and I quite like the last shot for composition etc although cropping would help.

My suggestion would be to look at other people’s photos (the shots in the last month thread is a good start) and see which ones you like. Then try and work out why you like them; what makes them stand out.

With regards to RAW v JPEGs – my analogy is cakes. Even a camera generated jpeg is created from the camera RAW output – even on a £7 ebay special 1 megapixel camera.

You want a chocolate cake. You can go to Sainsbury (other supermarkets are available) and by one off the shelf. Depending on budget this may be very nice, or not so nice but it will have been cooked to a recipe created by a chef (or an accountant) and that recipe will have been designed to be inoffensive and possibly bland so as to appeal to the widest possible audience.

Or, you can go and – buy all the ingredients and cook your own. The results will depend on how good a cook you are, and in what proportions you add all the ingredients etc. The end result may be magnificent, you may like it and others don’t or it may end up being no better or even worse than the off the shelf one.

However the camera jpeg is cooked to a recipe decided by the camera engineers and somewhat governed by the limitations of the processing power of the camera.

A RAW file you can pull off the camera is the ingredients and you decide how to ‘cook’ the file. Its your recipe sometimes this is not to everyone’s taste, sometimes you like the camera jpeg better and sometimes you create a masterpiece.

Note most cameras that allow you to shoot RAW allow you to shoot RAW & jpeg together. I do this and then the ‘family album’ shots I just keep the jpeg file and then any I want to do serious work on I have the RAW file.

The tight crop version takes away any context, there is no space around the subject so it looks cramped & unnatural.

I concur. As a ‘studio’ portrait it’s rather poor, so it needs context in order to involve the subject in a scene, an activity. I also prefer the original, although one issue I see is that she’s too preoccupied with the camera, which almost forces the photographer to have to crop out the background as the focal point is into her eyes rather than the much broader activity. A really nice bath time shot would be of her splashing around doing whatever kids enjoy doing in the bath. That is where I think the balance of composition is needed. Perhaps set up on a tripod and use a remote or interval timer to get some more spontaneous shots while you play with her – you can easily keep yourself out of frame. You clearly have an understanding of subject and composition, it just needs lots of practice – and a bit of luck! – to capture really great shots.

As a ‘studio’ portrait it’s rather poor, so it needs context in order to involve the subject in a scene, an activity. I also prefer the original, although one issue I see is that she’s too preoccupied with the camera, which almost forces the photographer to have to crop out the background as the focal point is into her eyes

^ This*

*And in defence of my (forced) tight crop – that is exactly why I did it, although agree it still looks awful. Kids are usually/always better photographed when distracted in the act of doing something, anything, other than gazing into the lens (often this ‘look into the camera’ is by command from parent)

It’s good you are seeking feedback and open to suggestions – that will help you improve. One place you can also get that is a good camera club. Competitions with outside judges have helped me be more critical of my own work.

Some people have mentioned composition rules. When I first started out I stumbled on this site that gave me an excellent overview on composition as well as some other basics I lacked at the time.