peterm1
Veteran
Just a thought. As a matter of good practice I never overwrite my original images even when working with JPG or other non RAW formats. I make a point of saving the worked (post processed) image with a suffix added to preserve the original file in its original state. it is such an ingrained habit that this is never an issue for me. It is not unusual for me to come back to an image months or even years later and reprocess it into something new. As I always have the original this is not a problem. Of course because JPG is such a ubiquitous format compatibility with new software is never an issue either.
Of course I still generally prefer to shoot RAW most of the time - especially when the conditions are likely to be marginal or where the images are likely to require a good deal of processing or where the images are "high value". Simply because the inherant quality is better and I prefer to control how the image is processed rather than leaving it to the in camera software.
CliveC
Well-known
RAW file processing, to my knowledge, is non destructive. You can revert back to the original data at any time.
Kwesi
Well-known
same here Peter M, something about overwriting a file gives me the willies 
.
.Contarama
Well-known
Hi,
my 2 ct:
strange to see that the topic opener has more then 20.000 posts here and now finally discovers that RAW files are better to edit then JPG's......
J
This is RFF and Raid is old school!!!
Mcary
Well-known
Actually any and all processing done in LR and ACR is non-destructive regardless of the type of file being processes. So just like with a RAW file a TIFF, PSD or JPEG file can be reverted back to it original state at any time.
raid
Dad Photographer
Hi,
my 2 ct:
strange to see that the topic opener has more then 20.000 posts here and now finally discovers that RAW files are better to edit then JPG's......
J
Replying to your 2 ct: I have only recently started using digital cameras. I preferred using film cameras. There, no RAW was needed. Believe it or not, there was something called a "negative" that I obtained after having film developed.
The negative was the equivalent to RAW in a digital camera. Have you ever used film?
raid
Dad Photographer
Once in a while, having such a basic thread is useful to many people.
raid
Dad Photographer
Raid, in the M9 (not sure about the M8) you have an option to shoot either uncompressed DNG or compressed DNG (smaller files). I believe the uncompressed DNG saves in full 14-bit format, and might give just that little extra bit of information to make a great shot the best it can be. Memory (SD cards) is cheap, so I use the uncompressed DNG file, just in case!
I will check it out, Chris. I will shoot the uncompressed.
Thanks.
Satijntje
Member
Believe me, there is no difference in quality between compressed and uncompressed files!
John
John
Satijntje
Member
Replying to your 2 ct: I have only recently started using digital cameras. I preferred using film cameras. There, no RAW was needed. Believe it or not, there was something called a "negative" that I obtained after having film developed.
Didn't thought about that Raid, sorry for this:bang:
Yes I used to shoot film as there were no digital cameras when I was young
J
daveleo
what?
Yes it is.
Most other "I love RAW" threads have degenerated to pi$$ing contests and it's hard to sort out the facts from the opinions.
I am still questioning the whole RAW process for myself (not for others).
I haven't made the leap because of the hardware you really need to realize the benefit from RAW processing quality (as I stated above).
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
A bit puzzled abut that Dave. Assuming you process your JPGs in some kind of program (I don't suppose you drop off your card at Wallmart) there is really no difference in workflow. You simply open the DNG file in your program of choice (be it Aperture, Lightroom, Photoshop (Elements) or any other )and you get the same or a similar interface, albeit with more options and control - and a far better quality. No extra power drain on your computer, a minimal learning curve, that is all. Hardly a leap. More like taking one step.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Dave, really, you don't need any additional hardware (calibration tools and what-not) to benefit from RAW processing, nor does it matter whether your intended output is for screen or for printing. One thing you always get from RAW over JPEG is access to details recorded by your sensor at the time of the shot that gets thrown away when producing a JPEG. If you keep the RAW you get to decide what gets kept and what gets thrown away, rather than some algorithm. I'd guess you would do a better job than even a very clever algorithm.
In these days of reduced storage costs and fast cameras (with big buffers and fast write speeds) it costs very little extra to shoot RAW+JPEG, which is what I always do. If you want or need the extra detail in those RAW files you can get at it. Even if you want it 5 years from now. But if you don't generate the RAW files (then keep them afterwards) then that additional detail is gone for good.
...Mike
cz23
-
One other difference between jpg and raw is in-camera corrections applied to the file. They do not apply to raw files, but we are seeing more and more corrections being done by manufacturers. Especially for noise, vignetting, and distortion.
Of course, you can make those corrections yourself to the raw file. I have never shot jpgs, but I've heard some folks say about some cameras that the cannot match the quality of the vendor's corrections.
Still, it's remarkable what you can salvage from a poor raw file, and that alone is reason to make it standard practice.
John
Of course, you can make those corrections yourself to the raw file. I have never shot jpgs, but I've heard some folks say about some cameras that the cannot match the quality of the vendor's corrections.
Still, it's remarkable what you can salvage from a poor raw file, and that alone is reason to make it standard practice.
John
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Well, some folks want to control every bit of the process and some don't. Same as back in the film day where we had geekery in the darkroom vs drugstore prints. Whatever blows your skirt up.
peterm1
Veteran
One thing I often do if the specific camera can handle it OK is to save in both RAW and JPG simultaneously. That way I have the RAW image available to use when I need the extra quality but on other occasions can take the lazy mans way out and use the ready saved JPG image. This makes quite a difference when processing lots and lots of images. I dont do this with the M8 though. Its processor is too slow and even just saving a RAW image after each shot is like watching grass grow.
daveleo
what?
My opinion (above) is based on my RAW experiences with my non-calibrated hardware on my Linux system.
I have post-processed RAW files a number of times in the past (dcraw and now RawTherapee).
Have never been dis-satisfied with the results, except that . . .
When I also post-process the associated camera JPG file, I have never (I
really mean "never") seen a difference on my screens (I have 3) between
the two. True, that these were always good exposures and nicely white-
balanced to start with, so I never gave RAW a chance to "recover blown
highlights", etc etc. I am certain RAW will fix a technically bad image better
than a camera JPG.
I also did one print comparison - 8X10" sent to a lab to print. Same results.
There are 3 bottlenecks in my process - the quality of my hardware, I use the GIMP
(which is only 8-bit color) and the fact that (in my case) I sent JPG files to the lab to print,
which I think may have basically deleted the gains of processing the RAW file.
I love post-processing pictures, that's not an issue. I just am struggling with spending the
big $$$ to get my system up to RAW grade. I keep posting this opinion as I think these an important factors
in the RAW process that are not clearly stated in these discussions.
I have post-processed RAW files a number of times in the past (dcraw and now RawTherapee).
Have never been dis-satisfied with the results, except that . . .
When I also post-process the associated camera JPG file, I have never (I
really mean "never") seen a difference on my screens (I have 3) between
the two. True, that these were always good exposures and nicely white-
balanced to start with, so I never gave RAW a chance to "recover blown
highlights", etc etc. I am certain RAW will fix a technically bad image better
than a camera JPG.
I also did one print comparison - 8X10" sent to a lab to print. Same results.
There are 3 bottlenecks in my process - the quality of my hardware, I use the GIMP
(which is only 8-bit color) and the fact that (in my case) I sent JPG files to the lab to print,
which I think may have basically deleted the gains of processing the RAW file.
I love post-processing pictures, that's not an issue. I just am struggling with spending the
big $$$ to get my system up to RAW grade. I keep posting this opinion as I think these an important factors
in the RAW process that are not clearly stated in these discussions.
user237428934
User deletion pending
The raw converter helps you doing the following task (simplified): you choose the right information from the big-data (raw) and the software stuffs that into a file that only holds small-data (tiff, jpg). For that step, a calibration is not really necessary.
Calibration can be very helpful for the printing process so that the colors you set on your machine are the colors that you get on the print. So even if you use jpg but printinig is important for you, calibrating the screen and printer can be a good thing.
If calibration is necessary for showing images on the web depends on your viewers. If most of them have uncalibrated screens then it's a waste.
Raw and calibration of your system (screen, printer) are independent things.
daveleo
what?
My point is that they are dependent. I understand that you perform the two steps independently,
but to translate the benefits of RAW processing to your prints,
you must really have your monitor and printer calibrated to each other (if those are the correct words).
People who don't do that are , what? . . . throwing their hard work away.
(This also raises the issue of sending your files out to a lab for printing - who calibrates the lab?)
My general point is that the benefits of the RAW process are dependent on your hardware and its calibration,
as much as the quality of your software (8-bit GIMP is a serious limitation in this case).
Unless you do the whole RAW process correctly with the right equipment, I think you are wasting your work.
That's the way it seems to me anyway.
EDIT: I don't think that we disagree on the printing issue.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
GIMP can handle DNG afaik.