- 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
Thanks
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.
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
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.
I usually shoot raw+jpeg on my 350d and the raw is always brighter, greens unnaturally so. Does everyone find this?
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.
This is a GREAT reply.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.
snip.
No, you have to convert to a standard file format like jpeg before uploading.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
shoot JPG and you might as well be on AUTO
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.
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.
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.
how does a jpeg picture compare to a raw picture converted to jpeg no tweaking?
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).
how does a jpeg picture compare to a raw picture converted to jpeg no tweaking?
If you allow the camera to carry out changes such as sharpening etc then the jpeg will look better than the untweaked raw.
That depends on the default parameters of your raw processor. There is no such thing as a viewable, untweaked, raw.