RAW still worth it?

mart77 said:
Now do an indoors shot at a higher iso
Click to expand...

Are you going to keep requesting different conditions? Here's the last lot. If you want to stick your head in the sand after this, then so be it. ISO 1600 high enough for you?

Raw%20vs%20jpeg%20high%20ISO%20jpeg.jpg


Raw%20vs%20jpeg%20high%20ISO%20raw.jpg
 
hollis_f said:
Are you going to keep requesting different conditions? Here's the last lot. If you want to stick your head in the sand after this, then so be it. ISO 1600 high enough for you?

Raw%20vs%20jpeg%20high%20ISO%20jpeg.jpg


Raw%20vs%20jpeg%20high%20ISO%20raw.jpg
Click to expand...

So why does mine come out differently, I have changed no settings? Mine has a green cast at higher ISO in DPP but looks fine at lower ones.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
For Pedants.... Pleas read all versions of Raw raw as RAW
Click to expand...

While acronyms have historically been written in all-caps, British usage is moving towards only capitalizing the first letter in cases when these are pronounced as words (e.g., Unesco and Nato), reserving all-caps for initialisms (e.g., UK and USA).
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant anyway as raw is not an acronym, if anything it's more of a title as it's literally just raw data. so it's technically incorrect to capitalize the whole word ;) The acronyms like .JPEG are found in the actual format like .CR2 or .NEF . . .

. . . Well it was aimed at pedants :D
 
Last edited:
Rankbadyin said:
Your Computer screen can't display a Raw file and you can't print it out
Why bother?
Click to expand...

Your computer screen may not be able to display it but mine certainly can.

And why bother, couple of reasons quickly cut from first Google hit;

- Huge control! You may vary and manipulate a lot of parameters, such as exposure, contrast, clarity, white balance, hue, saturation, levels etc.
- Higher image quality. Because of all calculations, pixel values are more precise, and the end result photo is rendered more accurately.
- Possibility to control the exposure, and to correct under or over-exposed photo without having visible loss of information.
- Skipping the camera’s automatic processing such as image sharpening and noise reduction. It gives you the possibility to set it manually with software
- Having 12 or 14 bits of intensity information. Again, it means more information and accuracy in working with colours, highlights and shadows. JPEG format stores only 8 bits.
- You can choose the colour space.
 
Rankbadyin said:
Your Computer screen can't display a Raw file and you can't print it out
Why bother?
Click to expand...

Blimey, all those thousands of Raw files I've shot and processed, only now have I realised I could never see them on my screen! Lol.
 
squishy said:
It's irrelevant anyway as raw is not an acronym, if anything it's more of a title as it's literally just raw data. so it's technically incorrect to capitalize the whole word ;) The acronyms like .JPEG are found in the actual format like .CR2 or .NEF . . .

. . . Well it was aimed at pedants :D
Click to expand...

You are quite right... but my reply was in the context of posts that said Raw or raw were incorrect, when in fact they are the only correct versions.
Raw means "uncooked" as in unprocessed, undeveloped.
People understand "raw" however it is capitalised.
 
Rankbadyin said:
Your Computer screen can't display a Raw file and you can't print it out
Why bother?
Click to expand...

And now we can add Raw to the list of subjects you know nothing about!:nuts:

Computers without any software can't open Word files or JPEGS or emails. They need software to understand the file and convert it to something a human being can understand. Exactly the same for camera Raw files.(y)

You're confused because your computer could probably open JPEGs straight out of the box.
 
For the first time this week I shot raw & jpeg to together. I hadn't realised the actual extent of editing applied to the jpeg and in almost all cases it was not how I intended my final image to look
 
Providing a detailed and concise description of the content of raw files is highly problematic. There is no single raw format; formats can be similar or radically different. Different manufacturers use their own proprietary and typically undocumented formats, which are collectively known as raw format. Often they also change the format from one camera model to the next. Several major camera manufacturers, including Nikon, Canon and Sony, encrypt portions of the file in an attempt to prevent third-party tools from accessing them.

This industry-wide situation of inconsistent formatting has concerned many photographers who worry that their valuable raw photos may someday become inaccessible, as computer operating systems and software programs become obsolete and abandoned raw formats are dropped from new software.
 
Nice cut and paste from wikipedia there :shake: (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format - verbatim from the para on standardisation) 'pwnd' as the kids say

It still a load of arse however - as when you process a raw file you save the output as another format (usually .tiff which is lossless) and these .tiffs are a universal format - so theres no danger of files becoming inaccesible

And incidentally my computer can open raw as I use a raw converter (usually lightroom , or sometimes photoshop Cs with a plug in)

As Phil said its abundantly clear you don't know what you are talking about so why not remember the adage that is better to keep your mouth shut and perhaps be thought a fool , than it is to open it and prove it beyond doubt.
 
Last edited:
On the wider point I use both formats as they are good for different things - i use raw when I know i'm going to have time for PP and i'm going to confront tricky lighting (like at weddings for example) - I use jpeg when i'm not going to have time to do much PP (editorial, sport, and events coverage - although i only do a tiny bit of the first two)
 
Rankbadyin said:
Several major camera manufacturers, including Nikon, Canon and Sony, encrypt portions of the file in an attempt to prevent third-party tools from accessing them.
Click to expand...

Balderdash! Tommyrot! Complete and utter garbage.

Why on Earth would Canon want to prevent Adobe software from being able to handle their raw files? Is it going to increase Canon's sales? No, because their software is free. All that would do is make people less likely to buy the unsupported cameras. Only on Planet Paranoia would this make any sort of sense.

If Canon really wanted to make their raw formats unbreakable they'd do a much better job of doing so. Indeed, one of the things they would do is try to keep the format away from Adobe for as long as possible. So they wouldn't give Adobe advance warning and a sneak peek. But Adobe have released software updates with compatibility with new cameras before those cameras have even been released! The 1Dx has been supported by Lightroom since March!
 
hollis_f said:
Balderdash! Tommyrot! Complete and utter garbage.

!
Click to expand...

Quite - and thats the danger in cutting and pasting stuff from wiki without having any understanding of the subject in hand , ie that theres no way of knowing how accurate it is.
 
big soft moose said:
Quite - and thats the danger in cutting and pasting stuff from wiki without having any understanding of the subject in hand , ie that theres no way of knowing how accurate it is.
Click to expand...

I wish I knew as much as you and your friend Phil, thank you for the lesson.
 
Rankbadyin said:
Providing a detailed and concise description of the content of raw files is highly problematic...
Click to expand...

Oh? Why is that? Wouldn't we understand or something? Perhaps you'd care to explain in simple terms we beginners would be capable of grasping. I do appreciate that it would be difficult for one of your knowledge and experience to think down to my level, but I'd really appreciate the benefit of your wisdom.

Thanks in anticipation! (y)
 
jon ryan said:
Oh? Why is that? Wouldn't we understand or something? Perhaps you'd care to explain in simple terms we beginners would be capable of grasping. I do appreciate that it would be difficult for one of your knowledge and experience to think down to my level, but I'd really appreciate the benefit of your wisdom.

Thanks in anticipation! (y)
Click to expand...

Well you see jon ...A camera raw image file contains minimally processed data from the image sensor of either a digital camera, image scanner, or motion picture film scanner. Raw files are so named because they are not yet processed and therefore are not ready to be printed or edited with a bitmap graphics editor. Normally, the image is processed by a raw converter in a wide-gamut internal colorspace where precise adjustments can be made before conversion to a "positive" file format such as TIFF or JPEG for storage, printing, or further manipulation, which often encodes the image in a device-dependent colorspace. There are dozens if not hundreds of raw formats in use by different models of digital equipment (like cameras or film scanners)....

(see what i did there :LOL: )

For those want a more indepth insight into the RBY school of "not giving a crap about raw , but still posting on threads about it" you can see the background here http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=4770463
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
Quite - and thats the danger in cutting and pasting stuff from wiki without having any understanding of the subject in hand , ie that theres no way of knowing how accurate it is.
Click to expand...

He's entertaining in a strange way, but I have to wonder how long it is before he gets another TP holiday.
 
What I can not understand is that there is a lossless Jpeg format, in that Jpeg 2000 can be either lossy or lossless...
But thought better in all respect to a standard Jpeg, is hardly used at all.
 
Gosh! So, would I be on the right track if I say (and this is right off the top of my head, you'll appreciate) Raw image formats are intended to capture as closely as possible (i.e. at the best of the specific sensor's performance) the radiometric characteristics of the scene, that is, physical information about the light intensity and color of the scene. And, a pure guess here, do most raw image file formats store information sensed according to the geometry of the sensor's individual photo-receptive elements (sometimes called pixels) rather than points in the expected final image: sensors with hexagonal element displacement, for example, record information for each of their hexagonally-displaced cells, which a decoding software will eventually transform into the rectangular geometry during "digital developing"?
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
What I can not understand is that there is a lossless Jpeg format, in that Jpeg 2000 can be either lossy or lossless...
But thought better in all respect to a standard Jpeg, is hardly used at all.
Click to expand...

theres an interesting article on that here

the short answer being lack of support in applications, and variations in codecs for creating that file format.
 
jon ryan said:
Gosh! So, would I be on the right track if I say (and this is right off the top of my head, you'll appreciate) Raw image formats are intended to capture as closely as possible (i.e. at the best of the specific sensor's performance) the radiometric characteristics of the scene, that is, physical information about the light intensity and color of the scene. And, a pure guess here, do most raw image file formats store information sensed according to the geometry of the sensor's individual photo-receptive elements (sometimes called pixels) rather than points in the expected final image: sensors with hexagonal element displacement, for example, record information for each of their hexagonally-displaced cells, which a decoding software will eventually transform into the rectangular geometry during "digital developing"?
Click to expand...

:LOL:

Yes wheras the JPEG compression algorithm is at its best on photographs and paintings of realistic scenes with smooth variations of tone and color. For web usage, where the amount of data used for an image is important, JPEG is very popular. JPEG/Exif is also the most common format saved by digital cameras.

On the other hand, JPEG may not be as well suited for line drawings and other textual or iconic graphics, where the sharp contrasts between adjacent pixels can cause noticeable artifacts. Such images may be better saved in a lossless graphics format such as TIFF, GIF, PNG, or a raw image format. The JPEG standard actually includes a lossless coding mode, but that mode is not supported in most products.

I'm glad we've sorted that all out , and in our own words too without any :cautious: copying from wikipedia :whistle:
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
:LOL:

Yes wheras the JPEG compression algorithm is at its best on photographs and paintings of realistic scenes with smooth variations of tone and color. For web usage, where the amount of data used for an image is important, JPEG is very popular. JPEG/Exif is also the most common format saved by digital cameras.

On the other hand, JPEG may not be as well suited for line drawings and other textual or iconic graphics, where the sharp contrasts between adjacent pixels can cause noticeable artifacts. Such images may be better saved in a lossless graphics format such as TIFF, GIF, PNG, or a raw image format. The JPEG standard actually includes a lossless coding mode, but that mode is not supported in most products.

I'm glad we've sorted that all out , and in our own words too without any :cautious: copying from wikipedia :whistle:
Click to expand...

I am continually amazed at the knowledge here on this Forum, from your final lines I take it this is all new stuff you worked out yourself. Does Phil agree with this?
 
big soft moose said:
:LOL:

Yes wheras the JPEG compression algorithm is at its best on photographs and paintings of realistic scenes with smooth variations of tone and color. For web usage, where the amount of data used for an image is important, JPEG is very popular. JPEG/Exif is also the most common format saved by digital cameras.

On the other hand, JPEG may not be as well suited for line drawings and other textual or iconic graphics, where the sharp contrasts between adjacent pixels can cause noticeable artifacts. Such images may be better saved in a lossless graphics format such as TIFF, GIF, PNG, or a raw image format. The JPEG standard actually includes a lossless coding mode, but that mode is not supported in most products.

I'm glad we've sorted that all out , and in our own words too without any :cautious: copying from wikipedia :whistle:
Click to expand...

God, we're good! :) Unless, of course, someone much more cleverer than us would care to correct our naive errors?

On a completely different subject, Pete: I sometimes have a yen for a nice bit of goat for supper. As a renowned wildlife expert, would you say that the best way to catch a goat is to hide under a bridge and wait until one comes trit-trotting by?
 
Last edited:
RBY - Do you have anything useful to contribute ? if not please do us a favour and go find a billy goat to annoy
 
Rankbadyin said:
I am continually amazed at the knowledge here on this Forum, from your final lines I take it this is all new stuff you worked out yourself. Does Phil agree with this?
Click to expand...

Agree? why would it matter?

The point is, you keep opening your gob and putting both feet in.

You're a relatively inexperienced photographer - there's a lot of really nice people here who can teach you a lot that will make you a better photographer, but you'd rather see it as a hornets nest that needs a poke:bonk:

When surrounded by people who we can learn from - it's good to sit back and take it all in - whether on the internet or in real life. Jumping in with ill-informed opinions spoils the flow of conversation for those around us, and makes us look daft.

Of course we're free to do that, so long as we don't resort to insults - but we're also free to go through the bins on the high street - it doesn't make us look very smart though.:)
 
I always shoot raw and JPeg so that if the Jpeg is not quite right, i can edit the Raw image without too much loss of detail.
 
I pretty much always shoot in RAW as I like doing the processing and learning new skills with it.
 
Still a novice at this lark and have started messing about with (an older) copy of elements and can now see the advantage of using RAW although still not sure whether to shoot just raw or raw/jpg.Would it be easier to stick to raw when I know I'll be messing about with them after and just use jpeg for 'snaps' or would the raw/jpeg combo give the best of bost worlds?
 
It all depends if you always make changes to every photo or not. Whether I use JPEG or raw I tend to make minor tweaks so I use raw. I also only use iPhoto either way which is so quick and easy with raw files that it makes the decision for me.
 
Well, just to pop back on, I did indeed switch back to RAW although as much as anything the convenience of lightrooms lens profiles which are massively educed for jpeg.

File size is a lot different though now, even more than I've been used to in the past.
 
My current assignment is to prove I can master my camera in difficult conditions (large dynamic range) so I have to shoot jpeg and hand in the unedited jpeg. However I'm shooting raw and jpeg so I can compare.

So I'm shooting things like backlit subjects, subjects in a small shady area in a brightly lit scene etc, so I'm using all 9 stops of my cameras range to stop the bright areas from over exposing whilst trying to get details in the dark.

Whats blatently obvious is how used to shooting in raw I've become and how much I've lent on lightroom etc to add some extra range (shadow & highlight conreol especially).
 
vizzair said:
sharpen the jpeg, save it and realise you don't like it, now try to recover it.
Convert to BW and override the original, now try to recover.
Think of the raw as a digital negative, which you then process to get something you like.
also the raw has more data per channel to play with when adjusting things, jpeg is an 8 bit lossy format.
Click to expand...

Erm you should never work on the original only copies,Golden rule of editing

Realspeed
 
quite - and if you are working in photoshop why would you save it as anything other than a .psd until you were finished ?
 
When you save, just change the file name. Image #1234 becomes Image 1234a. You now have two images. Your original remains unaltered. If you also save to a different folder, you will have a folder of original files and a folder of edited files. This is a Good Thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top