Not editing RAW files.

Crotal Bell

Crotal Bell

Messages
2,516
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
Yes
I shoot RAW, I decided to start that way and haven't changed.

Lately I have programmed the camera to save RAW and JPEG to cards 1 and 2 respectively, I accidentally loaded the JPEGs today and honestly couldn't see a difference.
I didn't see the need to edit colours/highlights etc and then realised it was the JPEGs. But when I loaded the RAW I didn't see the need to edit those either.

I always thought you photographed in RAW so you can edit as you see fit, and I thought the idea was RAW "needed" editing. (I do edit my RAW most often though but sometimes I can't see any need)

So the question, can RAW files come out "perfect" to the eye, because I don't always see the need to edit them.
 
What software do you use? Is that doing any processing by default?

I mostly use DXO Photolab6, and that puts a preset on my images when I first view them (you can turn this off). I find that I usually do very little to my Raw files on top of this. Often it’s a slight crop or checking horizons and then export the Jpeg.

There is much more leeway to edit raw files, e.g. to tweak white balance and recover detail if necessary, so it’s worth shooting raw. Also each time you save a jpeg, you lose a little bit of data.
 
Have you never suffered a blown highlight (or a blocked shadow) that you wanted to adjust?
 
Well you don't have to edit anything if you dont want to! I mainly shoot portraits and headshots for actors so I'm always cleaning up skin etc but if I'm shooting street stuff then I dont edit to the same degree. You will just have greater freedom with what you can do with the shot in post if you shoot RAW.
 
I would summarise it this way.

JPEG out of camera is a processed compressed & lossy file type. If you are happy with your choice of camera jpeg settings, that of course is fine
NB lossy for all practical purposes means you have 'thrown away' data that could be used/useful in achieving an improvement in post processing to yield a better output file such as a jpeg of your choosing....not what the camera manufacturer thinks you should have.

raw on the other hand is considered like, in the days analogue film, a digital negative......it has yet to be 'developed'.

The fact that you mention viewing the raw & jpeg and seeing no difference needs clarity and @Bebop is right...... What software are you using to view the files? Almost all post processing software will apply a preset to the raw when viewed, unless that function is turned off. Therefore, in your case IMO you are not viewing the unprocessed raw but a preset preview.

I surmise that perhaps you are using DPP or maybe Lightroom......both these programs IIRC will by default apply jpeg settings that are the camera ones = both files when viewed in the software appear the same.

With raw files in (most) raw processing software you can in the main get more out of the picture than one saved as JPEG.

FWIW I use Fast Raw Viewer to view and cull my files. That program shows the unmitigated raw file and it's tools allow for some coarse preview processing to determine how good the file is!
 
Some RAW processing software, particularly the camera manufacturers own software, apply the in camera (Picture Style. Picture Control etc) Jpeg settings to the RAW files by default, because some type of preset needs to be applied to the RAW file to display an image, and the software may be able to apply the same exact settings, and so side by side, they may look the exactly the same. Depending on the software, if it is 'guessing' at the Jpeg settings, the RAW and Jpeg file may not look the same. I think Adobe used to, or still do, create presets that try to replicate each camera's Jpeg profiles, so they have Adobe Standard. Portrait, Landscape etc, that can be applied. That, as well as the lens profiles, is why the Adobe Camera Raw updates are now so large.

If the image needs little to nothing changing, altering the Jpeg will probably be fine. :) Though as BOX Brownie said above, information/data is 'lost' once the RAW file is saved as a Jpeg in camera, and so If big changes need to be made in editing, you may see limitations and artefacts start to appear with a Jpeg file, you may not. So better to edit with as much info.data as possible before the last step of saving in the lossy format.


I like to start with colour accurate images, as much as possible, before editing, and so use a ColorChecker Passport to create a profile for each camera, which is applied to RAW files on opening in Adobe Camera Raw. I'll be the one to alter colours, not a preset in a camera, I know what I was taking a picture of, how it looked, and how I may want it to look, if different. ;) :LOL:

This also has the benefit that RAW files from different cameras look very similar of the same subject, and generally similar overall. That may be very hard to do with Jpegs, firstly getting colour accuracy, and then matching images from different cameras (if needed) with each diferent camera applying a different Jpeg profile. And even cameras from the same manufacturer can look different to each other.

Another reason I use my own camera profiles is so that I can use a Flat Picture Control in my Nikon D500, so that I can try and get a more accurate Histogram. All Histograms, as far as know, create a Histogram using whatever internally set Jpeg profile applied. This may lead to uninspiring Jpegs that may be need to be changed to make them look good, but I don't record Jpegs, so don't see them. ;)

Just a thought.:thinking: If I open a RAW file, and nothing needs to be changed, I just click Save As... and save it as a Jpeg. If I were to use Jpegs, and opened an image, and nothing needed to be done to it, I would just close it down again. For that possible extra step, I will put up with it to gain all the benefits. And not all RAW files will be turned into a Jpeg, just hopefully the good ones. :LOL:

I understand that there are specific use cases, sport or journalism for example, where speed of image transfer is one of the most important steps in the endeavour, but for most other Photographers, they will edit an image in some way, so by doing that they have just negated that extra step of 'Save As...' the RAW 'shooter' has to do. And by shooting RAW you get a lot of benefits with more data enabling more editing possibilities. People have the choice to do whatever they want of course, and I just share what I do and why. Hopefully someone may find it useful. :)
 
Most times you can get away with JPEG.
If I use JPEGs on the G9, under PHOTO STYLE I turn the sharpness and noise reduction down to -5 (ie off) then apply in Affinity if needed. (that is then what I get on P mode, I have a custom mode setup with the "standard" JPEG settings should I want to use them)

Sometimes under trying conditions RAW shows a good improvement, most times it is hard to see any difference.

I also occasionally process the RAW, export the JPEG and make some adjustments to that.
 
Have you tweaked the in camera jpegs or selected any picture styles or filters? If you haven't that could explain you not seeing an obvious difference between raw and jpeg.

I've used raws for years now as I like the security of being to alter the WB/colours, NR etc and the changes not being irreversible.

I do have some jpegs from my early digital days which I messed up in various ways and it pains me that I don't have the raws to revisit and reprocess.
 
Crotal Bell said:
I shoot RAW, I decided to start that way and haven't changed.

Lately I have programmed the camera to save RAW and JPEG to cards 1 and 2 respectively, I accidentally loaded the JPEGs today and honestly couldn't see a difference.
I didn't see the need to edit colours/highlights etc and then realised it was the JPEGs. But when I loaded the RAW I didn't see the need to edit those either.

I always thought you photographed in RAW so you can edit as you see fit, and I thought the idea was RAW "needed" editing. (I do edit my RAW most often though but sometimes I can't see any need)

So the question, can RAW files come out "perfect" to the eye, because I don't always see the need to edit them.
Click to expand...
the raw files that you see is the same as the Jpegs. it has the same parameters set as the jpg as the starting point for further processing. but as the raw files contains the full data capture, is is far more editable. with out loss.

(The Thumbnails are identical as all raws contain a camera processed reduced size jpeg for viewing.)
 
Normally RAW files are not editable. What you do when 'editing' them is apply processes, then output a file with those processes embedded. You can save this file in whatever format you want/have available from your software. Some of these formats are lossless, such as uncompressed TIFF or DNG, some are lossy, such as jpg or HEIC.
 
As said above, if the software you are using to edit in, is applying a preset (in LR, it'll apply Adobe colour as a default) then you'll see, in effect a processed image.
When I import into Lightroom, I'll change it from Adobe colour to neutral. This gives me a blank canvas in a way.
 
I generally stick with the jpegs straight from my camera, as I really like Fujifilm's Velvia preset. If I have a shot that needs tweaking, or some stacking for focus or exposure then I'll use the RAW, but I've noticed as mentioned above that Affinity will apply whatever film simulation I'm using to the RAW as well, which suits me tbh.

If I have a shot which just needs straightening or cropping I generally just use the jpeg.
 
You can process a raw file non-destructively. But processing a jpg and (and saving the changes) is destructive. That might not be the end of the world, but there are judgements to be made about whether this is important or not - and if you're planning a big print it may well be.

Whether for colour or mono output, a basic part of processing is adjusting tonalities. Each image contains a range of tones, and adjustment of them affects how the picture is seen and felt emotionally. The more control the better over the final result.

Exposure, framing, and focus in camera, then processing later, are all components of the workflow.
 
Years ago, I played with raw and with one exception, I preferred the SOOC JPEGs to my efforts! Mrs Nod also preferred the camera's efforts! I had spent some time tweaking the in camera processing to get JPEGs I liked. These days I save card space and just shoot JPEGs. If I think there will be too many blown highlights, I'll dial in some underexposure. It should be noted that my shooting is for me and Mrs Nod rather than anyone else!
 
I shoot raw with my Fuji as the auto white balance is often quite out - too cold

But everything else about the jpeg is great, still not in the full habit of setting custom wb all the time
 
Nod said:
Years ago, I played with raw and with one exception, I preferred the SOOC JPEGs to my efforts! Mrs Nod also preferred the camera's efforts! I had spent some time tweaking the in camera processing to get JPEGs I liked. These days I save card space and just shoot JPEGs. If I think there will be too many blown highlights, I'll dial in some underexposure. It should be noted that my shooting is for me and Mrs Nod rather than anyone else!
Click to expand...
When I first started shooting and processing RAW files, 15 years ago, the processing options in Adobe Camera Raw were very coarse, and the results were sometimes hideous, :oops: :$ :LOL: especially changes to White Balance. Their software has come on in leaps and bounds over that time. Depending on when you last tried it, it may be worth giving it another go. There are also other options available, I'm just comfortable with ACR.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
All raw processors will be processing the image in some way when you import it. Adobe have profiles that can be applied or you can apply presets on import.

If you’ve captured an image in great light and you nailed it in camera then very often the default processing will look great.

The problem is when you don’t nail it and the lighting isn’t great. That’s when the raw file will allow a lot more pushing and pulling of the various sliders.
 
redhed17 said:
When I first started shooting and processing RAW files, 15 years ago, the processing options in Adobe Camera Raw were very coarse, and the results were sometimes hideous, :oops: :$ :LOL: especially changes to White Balance. Their software has come on a in leaps and bounds over that time. Depending on when you last tried it, it may be worth giving it another go. There are also other options available, I'm just comfortable with ACR.
Click to expand...


TBH, I'm more than happy with the SOOC JPEGs from the Fujis and other cameras I use these days so prefer to save the PP time that raw files need (even batch processing needs to be set up!) for something less mind numbing.
 
My Raw files always need editing, they are invariably flat, lifeless and dull SOOC. This is a comparison of a Raw with LR default processing applied vs the final edited image

DSCF9880 (1).jpgDSCF9880.jpg


I have experimented with Jpegs from my Fuji and they are great, but I miss the flexibility of a Raw image. I can change film simulation, white balance and have much better highlight and shadow recovery with a Raw file. I can't imagine not editing a Raw though, if you're going to do that just shoot Jpegs, they will look better
 
Interesting question.

I read recently that an unprocessed RAW file will always require a degree of sharpening due to how the information is captured and made digital. I then noticed that all the picture control settings had sharpening applied to the in camera jpegs. So for me, SOOC files always have the jpeg as sharper than the RAW
 
I have not read every response above in detail so I might be repeating but also from a quick skim of the above there do seem to be some confusing responses.

A RAW file is the raw sensor data from the camera i,e a set of numbers representing the light intensity at each photosite (pixel) on the sensor. It has no colour information and cannot be rendered on a computer screen or printed. When you "view" a RAW file you need some software, that software has the colour information for your camera's particular sensor - i.e. which photosites represent red, green and blue and what wavelength (shade) of RGB each is. The software then applies that data to the RAW file and produces data in a format that can be rendered by a computer on screen. So as has been said above it is perfectly possible that you may see very little difference between a RAW and JPG when rendered.
 
Historically I have shot purely Raw for over 2 decades. But since acquiring a Pen F as a second camera I have been experimenting with Raw+Jpeg, and trying to adjust the settings for the Jpeg in camera as much as possible to match with how I want to see the end result - I find this camera in particular makes it a lot more intuitive. To my surprise I am learning more about camera settings by trying to get it right in camera than in computer. Not saying that one approach is better than another, but it's interesting - to me.
 
I shoot Raw+JPG on my Olympus EM1 MkII. I mostly use the JPG's as I only really tweak contrast and maybe maybe the colours a bit. If I can't get the results I want (because the JPG isn't giving me the range to work with the shadows or highlights) I just load up the Raw and work on that instead.

I have Raw files going back to when I returned to photography in around 2008 and as someone pointed out on a video I watched recently, modern software can do wonders with old and especially noisy Raw files.
 
sirch said:
When you "view" a RAW file you need some software, that software has the colour information for your camera's particular sensor - i.e. which photosites represent red, green and blue and what wavelength (shade) of RGB each is.
Click to expand...
Actually, the attributes of the color filter array, and the sensor's color profile are specified in the image metadata... the software just needs to be able to read and apply that.

Crotal Bell said:
So the question, can RAW files come out "perfect" to the eye, because I don't always see the need to edit them.
Click to expand...
It has long been my opinion that 90+% of editing people do w/ raw files is just to get the image roughly on-par with the SOOC jpegs the camera could produce. And a lot of the concerns about lossy/color/etc with jpegs is really largely unfounded... especially if you tend to use higher ISO settings (where most cameras sensors do not generate more than 8bit data).
 
sk66 said:
It has long been my opinion that 90+% of editing people do w/ raw files is just to get the image roughly on-par with the SOOC jpegs the camera could produce. And a lot of the concerns about lossy/color/etc with jpegs is really largely unfounded... especially if you tend to use higher ISO settings (where most cameras sensors do not generate more than 8bit data).
Click to expand...
100% agree, the jpegs out of my camera usually look better than a processed Raw. They are sharper and have better colour rendition if you're pixel peeping. But, they are nowhere near as flexible, and I will happily take a slight hit in sharpness than can only be seen at 100% magnification in exchange for the flexibility to recover shadows, highlights, change my film sim profile etc. I have tried to go to a jpeg only workflow but I really miss the flexibility, and shooting with a Fuji camera I like messing around with different film sims and re-editing the files sometimes months after the fact.
 
scottishmonkey said:
Interesting question.

I read recently that an unprocessed RAW file will always require a degree of sharpening due to how the information is captured and made digital. I then noticed that all the picture control settings had sharpening applied to the in camera jpegs. So for me, SOOC files always have the jpeg as sharper than the RAW
Click to expand...
If the RAW processing software, normally the manufacturers own, is applying the in camera Jpeg settings, then it would be exactly the same as if it were the Jpeg including the amount of sharpening, though with obviously the option to edit more parameters, with more flexibility, if needed, because it is a RAW file. ;)

With Adobe Camera Raw, and I assume LightRoom, and most other Raw processing software, you can save a preset to be automatically be applied on opening/input, and this, along with all kinds of settings, could include sharpening. Some people shoot a Jpeg and RAW file, and try and make the RAW look like the Jpeg, and then save the results from that as the default opening preset.

As someone who only shoots RAW, the in camera Jpeg settings have been set to Neutral/Flat to enable a more accurate Histograms, and so my Jpegs would not look too good, if I saved them in camera and ever saw them. ;)

Oh, and as for sharpening, there is a thought that it should be done on an image by image basis, depending on the subject in the scene. ;) More sharpening to a Jpeg may produce artefacts, whereas the RAW file will have one sharpening setting applied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top