RAW - confused

stokecity_m

stokecity_m

Messages
1,349
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Can some give me a quick explaintion of what RAW is, and how shooting in it is better than Jpeg?

Thanks
 
It's like a digital negative. it holds more information which means more and better editing and thats why the files are so much bigger.
 
Not sure of the technical side but the basics is that raw retains more detail in the pic so if you need to, you can adjust in more depth or recover parts of the image that would be lost in jpeg, highlights and shadows for example that may appear too bright or dark can be recovered. i think it's something to do with compression. Hope this helps.
 
To be pedantic it's raw, not RAW - it's not a file format the way JPEG is, but rather it's exactly what it says on the tin, raw, unprocessed data. JPEG, by comparison is a file format, in which the camera has taken the raw data and compressed it, disregarding as much of the original information as it can get away with to produce a satisfactory representation of the image the sensor has recorded.

When you start working with the file you are immediately at a disadvantage with a JPEG as the camera has already "thrown away" quite a lot of the data, making it harder, for example, to pull detail out of over or under-exposed areas.

As Andy says, think of it as a digital negative, whereas a JPEG is more like a Polaroid image.

Given the choice, I'd go for raw every time...
 
Raw is the way forward, I always, always shoot in raw. You will have a bundled programme called DPP that came with your DSLR. Install it and learn it inside out to see the advantages that raw offers. Off the top of my head the following advantages come from using raw. 1) You can change white balance in DPP so you dont have to worry too much about WB when shooting 2) If you set your DSLR to black and white you can change it back to colour on DPP (not so when shooting in JPEG) 3) RAW has greater dynamic range 4) You can generate JPEG files from RAW and tweak the settings before creating a JPEG 5) the original raw file is never altered, it is a digital negative and can be used to generate jpegs with infinite amounts of tweaking to colour, white balance, exposure, contrast, etc.

Basically, just use raw. Simples.
 
Ok then...

It's not a file format as such, it's just the raw data from the camera sensor... so no capitals, the format is something like .CR2 on a Canon and each make saves their raw files slightly differently.

Your camera saves the data out of the sensor in raw files - these are best thought of as a dump of information rather than a great image since you'll need to process them before they approach what you're used to from jpegs.

In jpeg mode, this raw file is then processed in the camera - it's sharpened, saturated, compressed and all sorts of fun things before being saved inthe the .JPG format you can see on your computer. You've normally got different quality/sizes available for jpegs as this controls the compression and sizing of the image. All the other in-camera settings about white-balance and contrast etc are applied when processing to output as jpeg.

The raw mode skips all of this - rather than letting the in-camera processor (small but well designed of the job) you're electing to handle this processing on your computer (big and fast... hopefully). So you don't get the file compression or the extra saturation but what you do get is a huge file storing as much info as the camera could manage.

The generally look less sharp and duller than a jpeg output so why would you bother?
Simply because you now have control over all those settings that the camera was handling automatically, plus the file saves a greater dymanic range (exposure) than the jpeg so you have a chance to save images that you've under or over exposed and process them in a way that suits you - many photographers develop their own style of processing that helps make their work identifiable.

Don't shoot in raw just because you think that's what pro's do - shoot in raw if you want the flexibility of processing an image, but with the burden of larger files and a decision to spend time at a computer processing them before you can show anyone!

I wouldn't go back now! One last thing, something like Adobe Lightroom is vital if you're serious about raw processing.
 
And if you shoot raw remember the image you are viewing on the back of the camera is actually a .JPG of the raw processed in camera using the in-camera settings , so the image you download to your computer will not look the same , so turn off all the camera processing options you can to get a better representation on the histogram.
 
Being pedantic, Raw (let's give it some status with a capital letter ;) ) is not a digital negative, it is the digital latent image. Raw is just a bundle of data, and must be 'developed' before you can see anything, in a Raw processor.

Bearing in mind that, almost without exception, the final image output will be a JPEG anyway, the fundamental difference between Raw and JPEG from the camera is that with a JPEG you have to make the decision about how the file will be processed before you take the picture, instead of afterwards in post processing.

Put another way, if you know what you want and are confident that the pre-processing parameters set on the camera will get the job done (and you can customise them quite a lot) then you might as well let the camera get on and do it for you.

You can still do quite a lot to a JPEG image in post processing, unless you've made a major mess of it. I shoot Raw when it's important and I'm not 100% certain of everything, but I'm pleased to say that I hardly ever use the Raw file and soon delete it.

Raw files are several times larger than even the biggest JPEGs, they fill memory cards quickly, slow down the camera and clog up your computer. I'm not a big fan.
 
HoppyUK said:
Raw files are several times larger than even the biggest JPEGs, they fill memory cards quickly, slow down the camera and clog up your computer. I'm not a big fan.
Click to expand...

Yes, the files are larger, but memory is cheap, both in terms of Hard Drives and especially Memory Cards. You buy your memory capacity dependent on your needs imho. If I were shooting Jpegs, then 2Gb cards would be sufficient for me, also taking into account how many images I'm comfortable on one card, but I shoot RAW (one for the pedants there ;):LOL:) so I budget for 4Gb cards. Seeing as I occasionally shoot some sports, I also pay a bit more for faster cards. :shrug:

As for slowing down the camera, depends on the camera, and what you mean by slowing down. My frames per second is the same whether Jpeg or RAW but the total frames in a continuous burst (before possible slow down) is reduced shooting using the RAW file format.

Shooting RAW files is not for everyone, but it is good to know the pluses and minuses so that you can make up your own mind, and maybe experiment a bit before just dismissing it out of hand.

It is also no good, imho, only shooting 'the important pics', (how you're sure any pic isn't important I don't know) if you don't have experience of how to 'develop' the file when the important occasion arises.:shrug:
 
What's the difference ( if any ) between opening a jpg as a raw file in CS3 than using the raw file itself .. ? ( apart from the file size )

If you have jpg you want to do more work on is this not a better way of doing it rather than having to process all your raw files ..

I have done this a few times to manually change the white balance on some of my shots and it seems to be no different than using the original raw file . All of the same raw adjusments are there to use .

I have used some of my friends underwater pics ( jpg's ) and drastically improved them by doing this
 
A JPEG is a series of 0s and 1s which translates to an image. RAW is a dugital negative (hence all the space it takes up!) so it's more flexible to work with. At least that's how it was explained to me - but I promise, for most people, editing RAW is easier than JPEG
 
Ermmm, everything in the digital world is 0's and 1's (including raw files), so that's not really an explanation. I don't think it needs explaining again either as that has been done several times in this thread already! :bang:
 
raw is as explained, throw JPEG into the equation and you have an argument :D:D

Use what you need. Landscape photographers will shoot raw as they are going to spend a long time working on one image and if you start off with everything the camera collects you have a better chance of ending up witht he best you could have achieved.

However if you are shooting for example portraits or weddings think carefully as raw takes more time, what ever anyone says :D

stew
 
I normally shoot raw & jpeg
 
scooby00 said:
What's the difference ( if any ) between opening a jpg as a raw file in CS3 than using the raw file itself .. ? ( apart from the file size )

If you have jpg you want to do more work on is this not a better way of doing it rather than having to process all your raw files ..

I have done this a few times to manually change the white balance on some of my shots and it seems to be no different than using the original raw file . All of the same raw adjusments are there to use .

I have used some of my friends underwater pics ( jpg's ) and drastically improved them by doing this
Click to expand...

Have aread of this not about raw / jpg but about 8 / 16bit data
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
And if you shoot raw remember the image you are viewing on the back of the camera is actually a .JPG of the raw processed in camera using the in-camera settings , so the image you download to your computer will not look the same , so turn off all the camera processing options you can to get a better representation on the histogram.
Click to expand...

That's good advice. But I do find I tend to like what the camera produces and I end up processing my raw files to look like the equivalent JPEG my camera would have put out.
 
I usually shoot raw+jpeg on my 350d and the raw is always brighter, greens unnaturally so. Does everyone find this?
 
On the subject of raw + jpeg, there is a jpeg embedded in the raw file already. In the case of Nikon, this embedded jpeg is the same as the large basic jpeg setting on the camera, and can be batch extracted with free software such as Raw Extractor, so there is really no need to shoot raw + jpeg unless you want a higher quality jpeg (which can be developed from the raw anyway).
The D90 (and other models) can convert a raw to high quality jpeg in camera if you want to print off a photo and do not have access to a computer. You can also do some rough editing in camera.
All this makes shooting raw + jpeg a waste of space IMO (for Nikon anyway).
 
This question comes up quite often. You'll get lots of advice here - use the search facility - but it's also worth looking for articles on the web.

It's not a case of whether raw is better than JPEG, but whether it's better for you. Don't think about it as a more advanced, or more professional, way to shoot either. Lots of amateurs shoot raw all the time, and lots of pros shoot JPEGs, depending on what they are doing. Raw generally requires post processing, and offers more flexibility at this stage, but some people, including pros, don't have time for this.

You can edit/post process raw images as many times as you like, and it doesn't affect the original data at all. JPEG is a lossy format, and you degrade the image quality if you keep editing and saving an image. You can avoid this by saving a copy and working from that, leaving the original untouched, but to be perfectly honest a lot of people don't even notice the degradation.

Most cameras let you save raw and JPEG, and previous posters have said that Nikon embeds JPEG images anyway. I have limited experience with Nikon digital cameras, and I didn't know about this. Why don't you just experiment with raw, and see if it suits you?
 
MartynK said:
Most cameras let you save raw and JPEG, and previous posters have said that Nikon embeds JPEG images anyway. I have limited experience with Nikon digital cameras, and I didn't know about this.
Click to expand...

Actually, AFAIK, all makes have a jpeg embedded in the raw, not just Nikon. The size of the embedded jpeg may vary between makes.
 
Don't forget the raw file contains much more information than a 8 bit JPEG. A raw file is based on 12 or 14 bit information ( depending on the camera) this does make a huge difference. I would say that this additional data is one of raws most important attributes, alongside not having in camera processing imposed on the image.

You might find the following short essay of interest

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/rawtruth1.shtml
 
incapete said:
Ok then...

It's not a file format as such, it's just the raw data from the camera sensor... so no capitals, the format is something like .CR2 on a Canon and each make saves their raw files slightly differently.

Your camera saves the data out of the sensor in raw files - these are best thought of as a dump of information rather than a great image since you'll need to process them before they approach what you're used to from jpegs.

In jpeg mode, this raw file is then processed in the camera - it's sharpened, saturated, compressed and all sorts of fun things before being saved inthe the .JPG format you can see on your computer. You've normally got different quality/sizes available for jpegs as this controls the compression and sizing of the image. All the other in-camera settings about white-balance and contrast etc are applied when processing to output as jpeg.

The raw mode skips all of this - rather than letting the in-camera processor (small but well designed of the job) you're electing to handle this processing on your computer (big and fast... hopefully). So you don't get the file compression or the extra saturation but what you do get is a huge file storing as much info as the camera could manage.

The generally look less sharp and duller than a jpeg output so why would you bother?
Simply because you now have control over all those settings that the camera was handling automatically, plus the file saves a greater dymanic range (exposure) than the jpeg so you have a chance to save images that you've under or over exposed and process them in a way that suits you - many photographers develop their own style of processing that helps make their work identifiable.

Don't shoot in raw just because you think that's what pro's do - shoot in raw if you want the flexibility of processing an image, but with the burden of larger files and a decision to spend time at a computer processing them before you can show anyone!

I wouldn't go back now! One last thing, something like Adobe Lightroom is vital if you're serious about raw processing.
Click to expand...
This is a GREAT reply. (y)(y)(y)
 
I allways shoot in raw , The way I see it is , Taking the photo is part 1,& proccessing the raw file is part 2 of taking a photo
 
I'm just experimenting with RAW at the moment & I like it ;)
While we are the subject, does anyone know any sites such as Flickr or Photobucket
that excepts RAW files?

CR
 
Cybershot Rob said:
I'm just experimenting with RAW it the moment & I like it ;)
While we are the subject, does anyone know any sites such as Flickr or Photobucket
that excepts RAW files?

CR
Click to expand...
No, you have to convert to a standard file format like jpeg before uploading.

Raw is not a file format. A raw file from each model, never mind make, camera is different, so it would be a nightmare for photo sharing sites to accept them.
The dng format from Adobe is trying to address this problem. It is a standardised raw format and you can download a free converter from Adobe to convert from your particular camera raw file to dng.
Some cameras such as the new Leica M9 shoot natively in dng.
 
Chaz Photos said:
shoot JPG and you might as well be on AUTO
Click to expand...

I disagree.

You still have plenty of control over the image when shooting in jpeg, through your in-camera settings - with many dslr's, there are many different levels of sharpening, saturation etc. I use a D300, and the amount of possible settings is extensive. Bit of a bore to set up, but once it's done, it's done.

As far as WB is concerned, you should be able to set that without having to necessarily do it through raw processing. People did manage great colour rendition before raw files, and they still do.

Blown highlights can be recovered with raw....which is true, of course. Alternatively, one could expose the shot accurately in the first place, and not blow the highlights.

I am pretty much exclusively a studio shooter, where I know what colour light my heads will produce. I shoot jpegs, with a custom wb for each of my typical set ups. I see no need to shoot raw in my situation, no benefit.

There is, of course, a place for raw, and certain situations really demand it...but to dismiss anyone who does not shoot raw is a little short sighted - jpg results can be fantastic when done well.
 
Wobbler said:
I disagree.

You still have plenty of control over the image when shooting in jpeg, through your in-camera settings - with many dslr's, there are many different levels of sharpening, saturation etc. I use a D300, and the amount of possible settings is extensive. Bit of a bore to set up, but once it's done, it's done.
.....................................
There is, of course, a place for raw, and certain situations really demand it...but to dismiss anyone who does not shoot raw is a little short sighted - jpg results can be fantastic when done well.
Click to expand...

:agree:

Is raw better than JPEG? - yes, sometimes it is.
Is JPEG better than raw? - yes, sometimes it is.

I like to consider which is more appropriate at the time.
 
Wobbler said:
I disagree.

You still have plenty of control over the image when shooting in jpeg, through your in-camera settings - with many dslr's, there are many different levels of sharpening, saturation etc. I use a D300, and the amount of possible settings is extensive. Bit of a bore to set up, but once it's done, it's done.

As far as WB is concerned, you should be able to set that without having to necessarily do it through raw processing. People did manage great colour rendition before raw files, and they still do.

Blown highlights can be recovered with raw....which is true, of course. Alternatively, one could expose the shot accurately in the first place, and not blow the highlights.

I am pretty much exclusively a studio shooter, where I know what colour light my heads will produce. I shoot jpegs, with a custom wb for each of my typical set ups. I see no need to shoot raw in my situation, no benefit.

There is, of course, a place for raw, and certain situations really demand it...but to dismiss anyone who does not shoot raw is a little short sighted - jpg results can be fantastic when done well.
Click to expand...

I agree. As I said above, it seems to me that the main difference between Raw and in-camera JPEGs is that when it's in-camera you have to make the important decisions before you shoot, and be confident in them, rather than relying on post processing to bail you out later. You can still do quite a lot of work on JPEGs in post though, as you say.

I also think some photographers believe that a post processed Raw image is somehow inherantly better when it finally emerges as a JPEG than when it's done in-camera automatically. Unless you are doing something to it in post processing that the camera cannot do for you, there is no difference.

A lot of professionals shoot JPEG exclusively, though some are a bit sheepish about it, thinking they'll be accused of being lazy (one or two weddings togs on here ;) ). Not so. They are just confident in their JPEG pre-sets, and careful to get exposure and colour balance right in the first place. It's called efficiency.

IMHO :D
 
how does a jpeg picture compare to a raw picture converted to jpeg no tweaking?
 
Somehow the data your camera captures has to be translated into a viewable image format. These formats display the image as a series of dots, using 8-bits to describe each dot's red, green and blue values. The original, raw, data uses 12 (or 14) bits to describe those colours so, somewhere in the conversion process you have to throw away a lot of the data the camer has captured.

If you shoot jpeg then the camera decides what data should be thrown away (guided by some of the settings that you, or the camera, have chosen). If you shoot raw then you decide what data should be thrown away. I reckon I'm cleverer than my camera, so I like to make that decision.
 
p1tse said:
how does a jpeg picture compare to a raw picture converted to jpeg no tweaking?
Click to expand...

It's not possible - conversion to jpeg has to involve manipulation of the data (what you call 'tweaking'). It is possible to perform the exact same tweaks in a raw processor as the camera performs to get an identical jpeg. But it's possible to tweak a raw file to obtain an image that would be impossible with the jpeg version.
 
Hoppy's spot on. Think of it in the limit - DoF on a phone camera with a tiny sensor is basically everything in focus. DoF on medium format is rediculously small (F/64 being a 'normal' setting for group shots IIRC).
Click to expand...

Well for many years BD (Before Digital) I used to shoot on 2 1/4 sq and never used f64 - in fact I don't think my camera lenses (Mamiya C2) actually had such a setting.

I used to shoot wedding groups at whatever the weather dictated - usually between F5.6 - f16, and never had any problems with a "ridiculous" DOF - and neither did anyone else I knew.

OOPS what hapened here? - Wrong thread!
 
p1tse said:
how does a jpeg picture compare to a raw picture converted to jpeg no tweaking?
Click to expand...

It depends! If you set your camera up to shoot jpeg with no sharpening, no contrast adjustment, no saturation adjustment etc etc. then the jpeg which was created in camera will be the same as the jpeg created from the raw file, or near enough. There may be differences due to which program you are using.

If you allow the camera to carry out changes such as sharpening etc then the jpeg will look better than the untweaked raw.
 
Suvv said:
If you allow the camera to carry out changes such as sharpening etc then the jpeg will look better than the untweaked raw.
Click to expand...

That depends on the default parameters of your raw processor. There is no such thing as a viewable, untweaked, raw.
 
hollis_f said:
That depends on the default parameters of your raw processor. There is no such thing as a viewable, untweaked, raw.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have said "raw picture converted to jpeg no tweaking" as in the question. :bonk:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top