yet again another thread on RAW vs JPG

[raytoei@gmail.com]

Hi,

i think i finally figured out difference between RAW and JPG,

I am a film shooter so bear with me on my simple understanding,
please point me to the right direction if my assumption aren't
accurate:

I shoot in R-D1 on JPG, which has worked fine so far.
One issue I have is overexposure with the skies.
In JPG, there isn't enough dynamic range to do burining of the
skies (in Silver efx) without having weird artifact appearing, the
problems happens in RAW as well but much less so.

is this correct ?

raytoei

[btgc]

Not R-D1 specific but I see RAW as a negative and RAW converter as chemicals. One converter can do what others can't. Ken Rockwell insists shooting RAW is foolish as converters change and after decades one will not be able to read his early RAW files. If there will be computers and electricity in future, people will just use virtual machines with ancient versions of OS and certain version of RAW converter to get JPG again.

That said, as DP1 user I see no other way as just accept shooting RAW.

[Keith]

Raw files have a lot more workability than jpegs but the Epson is pretty limited by the small file size even when working with raw.

[astro8]

Ray, I have the same problem with overblown skies, especially with the 21SA (but I like the look).

The R-D1 meter takes it's reading from the bottom left ( to put it simply ) so, if letting the camera select shutter speed, take this into consideration, especially when taking a portrait orientated shot.

You can usually salvage some blown sky by using Adobe Camera Raw or Epson RAW. You will have more control with a RAW file over a .jpeg.

[raytoei@gmail.com]

thanks for all the answers and suggestions.

regarding skies, would it be preferred if I shot with say 1/2 stop underexposed in Raw or JPeg to retain more shadow details when shooting the an image with partial sky ?

thanks
raytoei

[uinku]

Originally Posted by raytoei@gmail.com

One issue I have is overexposure with the skies.
In JPG, there isn't enough dynamic range to do burining of the
skies (in Silver efx) without having weird artifact appearing, the
problems happens in RAW as well but much less so.

Yeah, but what you should be doing is exposing the image just before the sky gets blown, then pulling up the shadows in post. If you shoot RAW, there's more information in the shadows (and sky) than there would be in JPEG.

Luminous Landscape has more:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...se-right.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...exposure.shtml

[astro8]

Originally Posted by raytoei@gmail.com

thanks for all the answers and suggestions.

regarding skies, would it be preferred if I shot with say 1/2 stop underexposed in Raw or JPeg to retain more shadow details when shooting the an image with partial sky ?

thanks
raytoei

May sound a weird way to go about it but.... I sometimes focus on what I want to shoot, then aim the camera towards the sky, push the lock button with my thumb and then reframe and shoot the pic. Once you get the hang of it, it becomes a fast, smooth motion.

As uinku mentioned, you can then pull up the shadows. It's a lot easier and better to pull up shadows than to try and salvage blown skies, which is usually futile.

[dave lackey]

Originally Posted by JSU

A simple view (perhaps overly simplistic) would be to consider a RAW file as a color negative and a JPG as a chrome (color or B&W).

While I often conclude with a JPG, no longer am I satisfied to begin with one. If my ditcam had an output (write to card) option for a TIFF file, I would consider that if I knew I would have to share images directly from the camera. But that would necessitate a preset in the camera of a custom white balance and very judicious exposure metering, perhaps also consulting a handheld meter.

I haven't shot a chrome of any stripe in more than 20 years and personally have no justification for ever again shooting a JPG file. The one potential scenario where I might bend my RAW only rule would be to select a RAW + JPG output if the camera had a particular rendering of a JPG I might desire, such as B&W or sepia.

If one really wants to slow down a M8.2 and likely the M9 as well, shoot in the RAW + JPG mode and develop plenty of patience while the camera writes both files to the card. The digital Leica M's are much more expedient writing only the RAW file to the card. It seems their internal JPG conversion is the bottleneck.

What? No kids running around? No inane birthday parties to attend because you are a grandparent? No "fun" shots of the dog? Always shooting RAW?

Too much work for some things and that is why I like Jpgs. I always shoot DNG + large file jpgs, but I don't care to spend my time in PP for some things. YMMV.

[raytoei@gmail.com]

astro8, thanks much! i just discovered the lock button.... hhhahhahaaha

[craygc]

Here's an example; the large linked image is processed from RAW - notice the detail in the upper right corner. The uploaded file is the jpeg - not a chance in hell of recovering that detail... Same ability goes for opening up shadows or pushing stops.

[astro8]

Originally Posted by craygc

Here's an example; the large linked image is processed from RAW - notice the detail in the upper right corner. The uploaded file is the jpeg - not a chance in hell of recovering that detail... Same ability goes for opening up shadows or pushing stops.

Ray, this is a perfect example of what you are missing by using just the .jpegs...and thanks to craygc for posting.

[back alley]

i only shoot raw and process every frame i think worthy...same as when i shot film.

[Bill Clark]

I think of it this way:

RAW is like undeveloped film.

Instead of chemicals the process is accomplished with a computer and software to work on the image and then eventually convert RAW into JPEG. I use Adobe camera RAW which is part of Bridge/Photoshop.

I capture 100% in RAW. File size varies depending the amount of information need to record what you're capturing. Mine average around 13 megs. I work at getting it right in camera when I capture. It's a waste of time to have lots of computer time to work on mistakes. I use RAW for color balance, maybe some wee bit of tweaking, for example, on a hot day I can remove red in the faces.

If your card comes out of the camera with only JPEG photos, then you're letting your cameras computer decide how the file should look. I equate that to using Polaroid film.

At any rate RAW capture allows quite a bit of latitude just in case you didn't do it correctly when taking the picture. RAW is non destructive as the original file doesn't change but, usually, a sidecar file is made when you make changes telling the RAW file what you want.

With JPEG you are changing the file. What I do is use the "save as" when finally setting on changes and will use file number with a c1 right after and then the .JPG. That way you would still have the original JPEG file if you want another version. Subsequent versons would be labeled c2, c3 and so on.

Hope this helps you.

[raytoei@gmail.com]

the reason why i shoot JPG is that i shoot in B&W and not color,
i really dislike seeing my RAW images in color (in LR and PS).
In LR, if I edit the jpg file, it is copied as a TIFF and the lossy issues
of JPG are mitigated.

However, I am convinced of the examples and explanations
given above that RAW is probably going to solve some of the
overexposure issues by having greater latitude, and perhaps
greater information stored that could be salvaged.

Perhaps, one long-winded compromise i will try is
to shoot RAW & JPG at the expense of speed and possible
buffer overflow ?

raytoei

[astro8]

I shoot raw + jpeg...doesn't slow me down but your shooting style may differ. Try it.

[willie_901]

Hi Ray,

JPEG compression discards image data the human eye and printers can't use. All JPEGs are rendered from raw data. But the software engineers had to design the compression algorithms without seeing the image you took. This means the engineers had to make assumptions.

When the exposure and color balance are perfect, and when the dynamic range of the light is does not challenge the dynamic range of the camera, photographing in JPEG mode has practically no disadvantage whatsoever.

As errors in exposure and color temperature increase, and as the dynamic range needs increase, the value of photographing in raw increases. At some point the convenience of JPEG compression is out weighed by the flexibility of using all the data to render and adjust the image. That point is different for each photographer and depends on the where and how the photographs were recorded.

An exception might be using any camera (but the M9 monochrome) with the intent to make B&W images. In this case having all the information in the RGB channels could provide increased flexibility and more options during processing.

I hope this helps.

[willie_901]

By the way, you can make a Lightroom user preset that sets the all saturation channels in the HSL Develop Module to zero. If you apply this prest upon import, you will never see a color image in LR.

[raytoei@gmail.com]

thanks to all for the things to try out... i will now try to internalize all these words of wisdom... thanks again.

[kennylovrin]

I think it is worth noting that things never just stop working over night. It's not like you will wake up one day and your RAW files cannot be opened anymore.

In my own case for example, the worst that could happen is that Apple (Aperture user) drops support for some of my old RAW files in an update. All I have to do then is to export all of those files as TIFFs or convert them to DNG for example.

JPEGs on the other hand, once they're shot they can never be changed in that sense. A RAW converter can become updated for example, so that I can reprocess my RAW files with better results than I already had. That will never happen with a JPEG file.

I think Ken Rockwells reasoning regarding that is totally wrong to be honest.

[Terry Christian]

I always shoot in RAW, and see no reason to shoot JPG only unless one is a sports shooter or photojournalist, where taking and uploading pictures quickly is the number one priority. With RAW, you are able to use the full extent of the information captured by the camera at the time of exposure, and the increase of file size is worth it.

Whenever I shoot digitally, I shoot the whole thing in RAW, then import the RAW files into Lightroom, converting them all to the more standardized DNG format in the import process. Then I go through and edit the shots, exporting my selects to JPG at the resolutions and sizes I need for that particular project. Another great thing about RAW is that you can always go back and re-edit your files, processing them in different ways if you change your mind in the future.

[Aristophanes]

RAW is this:



JPEG is this:

[btgc]

Yes, but different converters may show you some details another will not. Say, clip-on Mickey ears Neo is wearing. Dumber converters can't interpret RAW file completely to extract this details, instead of smarter ones.

[NLewis]

A jpeg is a converted RAW file. You can't look at a RAW file directly. A RAW converter is just an alternative way of converting to jpeg, instead of using the camera's inbuilt jpeg converter.

The advantages of doing your own jpeg conversions are mostly in the extremes. If you shoot where the camera is happy, then RAW doesn't offer much advantage. For example, you might get a little better noise processing with your own RAW converter, but instead, what if you just shoot at the camera's base ISO? You might get a little better dynamic range with your own RAW converter, but instead, what if you just used the correct "expose to the right" technique from the beginning? You can do your own white balance in RAW, but in fact you can also do your own white balance with a jpeg also.

As you might have gathered, I favor using jpegs for ease of use. Whatever advantages there are for doing your own RAW conversions tend to disappear if you stop trying to push the camera to its limits, and instead just use it in the range where it works best.

This tends to be advice for photographers. In the end, RAW aficionados use RAW because they like to dink around with digital post-processing. That is, actually, their hobby. I shoot at base ISO and jpeg, and don't waste any time with that stuff.

[NLewis]

OP: film and digital work differently. Digital is like transparency film. It has little latitude in the highlights, unlike negative film, where you have up to six stops of latitude in the highlights.

The fix is to "expose to the right," which means that you set the exposure to keep the highlights from blowing out. Once they blow out, they are pure digital white and nothing can be done to save it. However, a digital camera (especially one with a large sensor) can have quite a lot of latitude in the shadows, up to 13 stops if we are to believe DXOmark.

[kbg32]

Ray, look here -

http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg...e-visual-guide