raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
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
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
Veteran
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.
That said, as DP1 user I see no other way as just accept shooting RAW.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
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
Well-known
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.
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
Veteran
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
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
Established
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/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/optimizing_exposure.shtml
astro8
Well-known
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
Veteran
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.:angel:
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
astro8, thanks much! i just discovered the lock button.... hhhahhahaaha
craygc
Well-known
astro8
Well-known
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
IMAGES
i only shoot raw and process every frame i think worthy...same as when i shot film.
Bill Clark
Veteran
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.
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
Veteran
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
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
Well-known
I shoot raw + jpeg...doesn't slow me down but your shooting style may differ. Try it.
willie_901
Veteran
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.
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
Veteran
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
Veteran
thanks to all for the things to try out... i will now try to internalize all these words of wisdom... thanks again.
kennylovrin
Well-known
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.
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
Established
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.
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.