Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I fail to see why there is an argument to be had. Surely, people just use what they want? I use JPEG because it meets my needs. Others use RAW for the same reason.
Peaceful coexistance, that's the aim. :angel:
Peaceful coexistance, that's the aim. :angel:
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
I can see the need for RAW now and then but, surely, not all the time?
If you need that much correction in pp for every shot then perhaps you should take up some other trade or hobby?
Just my 2d worth.
Regards, David
I can see the need for RAW now and then but, surely, not all the time?
If you need that much correction in pp for every shot then perhaps you should take up some other trade or hobby?
Just my 2d worth.
Regards, David
nobbylon
Veteran
Another good reason for using RAW has in my case allowed me to go back and revisit pics I took 10 years ago and apply PP techniques and aquired knowledge to produce a better final print than I did originally.
Back in film land very few would save their prints as being the true original. I always saved my negatives and as my printing skills got better I updated my photographs accordingly.
I also prefer RAW as nothing gets altered on the original file and at times in the past I'd made alterations to a jpeg and wished I had not.
Back in film land very few would save their prints as being the true original. I always saved my negatives and as my printing skills got better I updated my photographs accordingly.
I also prefer RAW as nothing gets altered on the original file and at times in the past I'd made alterations to a jpeg and wished I had not.
nobbylon
Veteran
In my own case David I have my cameras set up identically and my RAW files are processed as set in camera. AWB, sharp 5, D2X profile 1, etc.
My main change is brightness level to get a punchy print.
95% of my pictures are converted with no change but for the 5% that need some tweaking I'm glad I have options.
Getting the picture is so much easier than having to explain why you didn't!
Bike Tourist
Well-known
I use jpeg for both pro and personal work. If others like to fiddle with RAW it's okay by me.
daveleo
what?
In camera RAW-JPG conversion . . .
In camera RAW-JPG conversion . . .
The JPG you get when the camera is set to FINE_JPG is identical to the JPG you get when set to RAW only and you do an in-camera conversion to JPG (let's assume all default settings and you did not fiddle with tweaks for the in-camera RAW conversion).
This is correct ? Camera uses the same conversion process for the two situations ? Only difference is the RAW option allows you in-camera tweaks before the conversion.
(I am specifically interested in Fuji x's if that changes the answer.)
In camera RAW-JPG conversion . . .
The JPG you get when the camera is set to FINE_JPG is identical to the JPG you get when set to RAW only and you do an in-camera conversion to JPG (let's assume all default settings and you did not fiddle with tweaks for the in-camera RAW conversion).
This is correct ? Camera uses the same conversion process for the two situations ? Only difference is the RAW option allows you in-camera tweaks before the conversion.
(I am specifically interested in Fuji x's if that changes the answer.)
jarski
Veteran
Disagree. knowing its going to be raw, you can visualize before shot what you can do in post. Even if exposure is just left camera metering, you can tweak your own look on raw. How you saw it.
+2 on nobbylons comments too.
daveleo
what?
So the camera uses a different conversion routine for the RAW-JPG conversion ? ? than it does to make a JPG alone ? ?
jarski
Veteran
Ops didn't understand the question. Think it's same in-camera jpeg conversion on both cases.
bobbyrab
Well-known
No you're correct insofar as if you shoot raw+jpg then take the raw file into LR say, and you choose the 'as shot' option, then the resulting jpg will be identical to the jpg that was taken in camera. Without any adjusments jpegs from raw are no better than a straight jpg.
nobbylon
Veteran
The RAW file is just that, a raw set of numbers and the view on the screen or in the case of shooting RAW+fine, is a generated jpeg of the camera settings you have set ie profile WB etc etc.
When the RAW file is converted, in my case with NX2 then the RAW file generates a jpeg that looks identical to the one shot in camera and appearing on your camera screen.
When the RAW file is converted, in my case with NX2 then the RAW file generates a jpeg that looks identical to the one shot in camera and appearing on your camera screen.
bobbyrab
Well-known
For me personally, I primeraly shoot weddings, in real time and generally I prefer not to use flash. If you have a bride coming into a church from a bright sunny day into a dark church with artificial lighting, you have a lot of light and colour changes to deal with in a very short space of time not to mention the backlight as she moves across the threshold, then you want to have the flexibility that raw gives you, there is no way you've the time to mess around with WB issues at the same time as your exposure, and in some cases iso changes your making on the hoof.
A few months ago while pphotographing the speeches I realised one camera was getting low on memory, but I wasn't close to my bag so I switched on to jpg for the last few minutes. When I came to the edit I had forgotten about this but instantly ran into WB problems, you can't generally set WB for a whole room and forget it, often the bulbs are mixed colour temps, and sometimes there's still some daylight mixing with the ambient, I find I have to tweak the WB as I've moved around the room. If you try this with jpgs they very quickly fall apart colour wise, as you get your yellow where you want it the other colours go off, raw is so much more stable and controllable.
If you never work in these circumstances then jpg is just fine, in normal conditions there's nothing wrong with jpgs, but any suggestion that using raw is a cover for sloppy technique is just arse.
A few months ago while pphotographing the speeches I realised one camera was getting low on memory, but I wasn't close to my bag so I switched on to jpg for the last few minutes. When I came to the edit I had forgotten about this but instantly ran into WB problems, you can't generally set WB for a whole room and forget it, often the bulbs are mixed colour temps, and sometimes there's still some daylight mixing with the ambient, I find I have to tweak the WB as I've moved around the room. If you try this with jpgs they very quickly fall apart colour wise, as you get your yellow where you want it the other colours go off, raw is so much more stable and controllable.
If you never work in these circumstances then jpg is just fine, in normal conditions there's nothing wrong with jpgs, but any suggestion that using raw is a cover for sloppy technique is just arse.
nobbylon
Veteran
+2 and when I've used 2nd and 3rd shooters I always get them to set up their cameras the same as mine for the day. It saves so much time later!
Addy101
Well-known
Of course not, LR isn't identical to what a cameramanufacturer considers a good picture... Different RAW converters give different results with the same camera setting!
nobbylon
Veteran
This is true, however in 3rd party software such as LR and PS the result is close. I personally use NX2 for 99% of conversion and find the results identical to the in camera results. Very occasionally I will use an adobe converter for a specific look.
daveleo
what?
Yes, I picked up on that, and understood what he implied. But I did get the answer I wanted - the JPGs produced by the camera are identical (unless you tweak it during that process).
bobbyrab
Well-known
No you are right, I should have explained more thoroughly, what I was answering really was a jpg produced in camera is not of inferior quality from one produced from a raw file. That said with Canon and Nikon files the LR from raw as shot files will be very similar to the out of camera jpg, but I gather not from Fuji Xpro files.
aad
Not so new now.
Yes, but none of that is to do with the demosaicing algorithm. Just the actual "post processing" that the camera or converter is doing. they are trying to get as close as possible.
If you shoot raw, and only use the default settings, you are truly wasting time.
If you shoot raw to balance exposure as in the sample in this thread, save time and meter on the sky-and don't use levels or curves to correct exposure.
If you think you are getting more detail in raw, take time to understand what you can adjust for noise reduction in your camera-and use lower ISO when possible.
If you see "artifacts", they are likely from in-camera sharpening-turn it off and add it in post if it is a problem.
I know everyone thinks storage is cheap-maybe you think so, but my time isn't.
And if you want fast conversion and have an older Mac, use Rawker-nothing faster, and uses the built-in converter in the OS.
Dwig
Well-known
A reasonable argument if, and only if, you add "and you never upsample to create 300ppi files for printing larger than attainable at the camera's initial resolution."
JPEG, even at its lowest compression (read: highest quality), uses a lossy compression method that will introduce flaws in the image. These are often not seen when the highest quality settings are chosen but will raise their ugly heads when printing large prints. Shooting RAW will allow you to bypass this lossy compression and obtain sharper, cleaner upsampled images.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I shoot RAW in all cameras for which Aperture has a RAW converter. I don't mind adjusting the sliders. It's pretty easy with Aperture. One exception is with the X10. Aperture has no RAW converter for the X10, so I shoot JPEGS, which fortunately, are very good straight from the X10 engine.