RAW ? Why ??

Messages
6,583
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
#41
Probably wasn't clear enough in my original post. I have set it up as a user pre-set but it only works with RAW, not jpg, imports.

GC
I noticed something weird myself. If I create a user preset for lens correction using a jpeg, it only works for jpegs. And if I create one using a raw file it only works with raw files... Ok, that's not a big deal. But I can't switch between the presets; only the last one created/used works.

I did not try adding it as part of the default develop settings instead... I very seldom use lens corrections.
 
Messages
382
Name
GC
Edit My Images
Yes
#42
I noticed something weird myself. If I create a user preset for lens correction using a jpeg, it only works for jpegs. And if I create one using a raw file it only works with raw files... Ok, that's not a big deal. But I can't switch between the presets; only the last one created/used works.

I did not try adding it as part of the default develop settings instead... I very seldom use lens corrections.
Thanks, that explains it. Mine is set up for RAW.

Cheers,

GC
 
Messages
8,037
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
#44
A jpeg has colour info. a raw does not.

Re: your earlier comment "You can perform exactly the same type of edits / actions on a jpeg file and a raw file", what about White Balance, to name but one.
White balance can be edited on a jpeg.
 

Kodiak Qc

Suspended / Banned
Messages
20,425
Name
French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
Edit My Images
Yes
#46

Kodiak Qc

Suspended / Banned
Messages
20,425
Name
French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
Edit My Images
Yes
#47
A jpeg has colour info. a raw does not.
A jpg has colour values as RAW data file has the necessary
colour data from all three elements of the sencels. They may
be read within a much larger band of temperature and tint sin-
ce all the data is there… it is mostly lost in the conversion, li-
miting the WB "tweakability"of an image vs a file.
 
Messages
19,290
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#48
One thing that struck me a few years ago when changing from one raw processor to another was how much better the new software was and how much better the end results looked. I was then able to go back and reprocess raws which had been processed with the older software and get better results from the old shots... I couldn't have done that anywhere near as effectively if I'd not had the raws and had only had jpegs.
 
Messages
1,072
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
#49
A jpg has colour values as RAW data file has the necessary
colour data from all three elements of the sencels. They may
be read within a much larger band of temperature and tint sin-
ce all the data is there… it is mostly lost in the conversion, li-
miting the WB "tweakability"of an image vs a file.
Adobe have a rather excellent PDF available explaining what goes on in RAW file and the differences between RAW and JPG. Well worth a read.
 
Messages
3,113
Name
droj
Edit My Images
No
#50
White balance is just one aspect, whilst of course a crucial one, that we might choose to alter. Further, we might want to be in maximum control of tones for the effect we want rather than relying on the in-camera formulas of jpg. All this is akin to the darkroom development stage of analogue work.

It's uncontestable that a jpg degrades significantly if you push and pull it about, for reasons already and often mentioned.

How serious are you about your digital photography?

A jpg has its uses, but maximum control of the image requires a raw file.
 
Messages
2,275
Name
Fraser White
Edit My Images
Yes
#51
White balance is just one aspect, whilst of course a crucial one, that we might choose to alter. Further, we might want to be in maximum control of tones for the effect we want rather than relying on the in-camera formulas of jpg. All this is akin to the darkroom development stage of analogue work.

It's uncontestable that a jpg degrades significantly if you push and pull it about, for reasons already and often mentioned.

How serious are you about your digital photography?

A jpg has its uses, but maximum control of the image requires a raw file.
Very true - some have to use Jpeg workflow for speed and don't have the choice.

The manufacturers are getting significantly better at their jpeg's though. I am serious about my photography but just not very good :-(

I am sure there are a good proportion of RAW shooters that still haven't callibrated their screens?
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,471
Name
Barry
Edit My Images
Yes
#52
because the jpg throws out most of the extraneous colour info when it sets the jpg
Surely there is never anything 'extraneous' about the data in an image file - it's for that reason I consider a RAW file to be superior to a JPG.

In other words, "why did you throw stuff away when it could be used to produce a better result?"
 
Messages
5,811
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
#53
Not quite true. Lens correction profiles are possible for both raw files and jpegs. But the profiles are separate. Some lenses may only have one or the other provided. But you can create your own or convert the one provided.
You can not turn off lens correction profiles for Fuji files in lightroom, they are on by default. but except for some scientific work why would you want to?
However raw processors do not yet seem to have the ability to use LMO's even though they are incorporated in the Raw file.
 
Messages
6,583
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
#54
You can not turn off lens correction profiles for Fuji files in lightroom, they are on by default. but except for some scientific work why would you want to?
However raw processors do not yet seem to have the ability to use LMO's even though they are incorporated in the Raw file.
The generally accepted rule is that automatic software manipulation of an image doesn't always generate the best results. And this is true for lens corrections in LR/ACR as well. Personally I don't use it unless I need it, and then it's usually a manual adjustment.
 
Messages
5,811
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
#55
The generally accepted rule is that automatic software manipulation of an image doesn't always generate the best results. And this is true for lens corrections in LR/ACR as well. Personally I don't use it unless I need it, and then it's usually a manual adjustment.
I think Fuji are confident that their measured corrections are as good as can be achieved. I certainly have no problem with them, and would not wish to do them manually, as it would be difficult and time consuming to achieve equal results. I do not see even a hint of pincushion or barrel distortions at any settings, and vignetting and fringing are notable for their absence.
Any loss of visual quality is impossible to distinguish. However I can not speak for recent cameras and lenses from other manufacturers recent as I have not tried them.

But there is no doubt at all that it is the future of lens design to incorporate such easily corrected aberrations in firmware, while concentrating on less easily fixed ones, and ultimate sharpness in the construction.

Of course the short back focus and greater vignetting and illumination problems of lenses and sensors designed for Mirrorless cameras, has increased the need for these firmware corrections. But even lenses designed for the more telecentric micro four thirds cameras tend to incorporate these corrections.
 
Messages
9,112
Edit My Images
Yes
#56
You can not turn off lens correction profiles for Fuji files in lightroom, they are on by default. but except for some scientific work why would you want to?
However raw processors do not yet seem to have the ability to use LMO's even though they are incorporated in the Raw file.
the bayer fuji's aren't turned on automatically, guess you knew that but just in case ;)
 
Messages
5,811
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
#57
the bayer fuji's aren't turned on automatically, guess you knew that but just in case ;)
I know nothing about the bayer Fuji's or the extent to which their LMO's might work, but I doubt they work at all in raw processors. Nor if you can turn off their lens profiles in in ACR.

It seems apart from entry level X cameras only the GFX 50S has a bayer filter array. And that might be a limitation of the available sensors and the cost of producing an xtrans filter array inrelatively small numbers, not to mention the availability of Raw processors to handle it.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,107
Name
Kev
Edit My Images
No
#58
A jpg has colour values as RAW data file has the necessary
colour data from all three elements of the sencels. They may
be read within a much larger band of temperature and tint sin-
ce all the data is there… it is mostly lost in the conversion, li-
miting the WB "tweakability"of an image vs a file.
It depends on what you call a raw data file. I consider the data which I download from my camera to be a raw file. The file which I download from my camera does not have colour data, it only has the luminance value for each photosite. The raw converter creates the 3 colour channels from the luminance data of a photosite and data from neighbouring photosites, as these have different coloured filters in an RGB array (Bayer) the converter can estimate what the RGB values are for each photosite.
That is the reason I contend that a raw file is not an image file.
 

Kodiak Qc

Suspended / Banned
Messages
20,425
Name
French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
Edit My Images
Yes
#59
That is the reason I contend that a raw file is not an image file.

I agree with this totally but if someone — like the OP — is asking
"why RAW?" I will give answers that will make him/her understand
immediately. Later I may complete with more technicalities.

I have been teaching long enough to know that the better teacher is
not the one who needs to show he knows but the one that can pass
info at the level of the learner hoping it will not stop the quest for more.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,811
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
#60
I agree with this totally but if someone — like the OP — is asking
"why RAW?" I will give answers that will make him/her understand
immediately. Later I may complete with more technicalities.

I have been teaching long enough to know the the better teacher is
not the one who needs to show he knows but the one that can pass
info at the level of the learner hoping it will not stop the quest for more.

:cool:
I am not convinced that a beginner needs to be concerned about raw files at all. except perhaps to know that the exist.
When they have got their head round the basics, and can produce images that they know could be improved in some way, and want to know how...
That is probably the time to start to introduce the more complex concepts.

It is a sort of need to know process, for most people.
When they find that they need to know something, it is easier for them to learn about it.

Although raw files are a basic concept, they are hardly a useful building block to start with.
 
Messages
2,107
Name
Kev
Edit My Images
No
#61
I agree with this totally but if someone — like the OP — is asking
"why RAW?" I will give answers that will make him/her understand
immediately. Later I may complete with more technicalities.

I have been teaching long enough to know the the better teacher is
not the one who needs to show he knows but the one that can pass
info at the level of the learner hoping it will not stop the quest for more.

:cool:
I agree entirely :). When I first saw the thread I wondered if it would evolve, as many beginner threads do, and become complicated and controversial which just puts the beginner off ......... and then I got drawn in :banghead:.

Time to let go and allow the OP to try and make sense of it all!
 

Kodiak Qc

Suspended / Banned
Messages
20,425
Name
French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
Edit My Images
Yes
#62
I am not convinced that a beginner needs to be concerned about raw files at all. except perhaps to know that the exist.
I occasionally have classes of beginners that do not have the ambition
to be passionate photographers… at first. With those, I will go jpg and
concentrate on exposure, composition and story telling, etc. :whistle:

Since 90% of my students are college attendants, engineers and such,
from the very beginning they get the full tableau… a bit deeper at each
session: shooting RAW, using proper converter etc.

None will want to be intellectually under estimated :jawdrop:… and their am-
bition is to develop and express their passion in a gratifying progression.
 

Kodiak Qc

Suspended / Banned
Messages
20,425
Name
French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
Edit My Images
Yes
#63
Messages
5,811
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
#64
I occasionally have classes of beginners that do not have the ambition
to be passionate photographers… at first. With those, I will go jpg and
concentrate on exposure, composition and story telling, etc. :whistle:

Since 90% of my students are college attendants, engineers and such,
from the very beginning they get the full tableau… a bit deeper at each
session: shooting RAW, using proper converter etc.

None will want to be intellectually under estimated :jawdrop:… and their am-
bition is to develop and express their passion in a gratifying progression.
You are lucky to have Graduate level beginners with ambition and technical understanding .
Unfortunately most beginners know nothing and understand even less.
 

Kodiak Qc

Suspended / Banned
Messages
20,425
Name
French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
Edit My Images
Yes
#65
Unfortunately most beginners know nothing and understand even less.
That's why I group them. Most of the time it's kids or pets portraits
holiday snaps and such. The jpg way is the better way for them.

Many of them come with their phones! :runaway:
 
Messages
2,107
Name
Kev
Edit My Images
No
#66
@Kodiak I am not a teacher although I do advise beginners. How much do you teach about composition and just looking / seeing?
In my opinion it is extremely important but is not discussed that much on this forum.
 

Kodiak Qc

Suspended / Banned
Messages
20,425
Name
French Canadian living in Europe since 1989!
Edit My Images
Yes
#67
How much do you teach about composition and just looking / seeing?

Just looking / seeing is the same as composition.
The thing to learn is to capture in a tasteful way
what caught your attention in the first place.

A forum is a good place to refine technical know-
ledge and skills but composition is part of the artis-
tic intent and is subject to licence… that turns most
of the time in sterile discussions and frustrations.

All my students are very capable to apply by them-
selves — even with phones — the basic principles
and are eager to experiment… next thing you know,
their gone into abstract art and have a good time! ;)
 
Messages
1,072
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
#68
It depends on what you call a raw data file. I consider the data which I download from my camera to be a raw file. The file which I download from my camera does not have colour data, it only has the luminance value for each photosite. The raw converter creates the 3 colour channels from the luminance data of a photosite and data from neighbouring photosites, as these have different coloured filters in an RGB array (Bayer) the converter can estimate what the RGB values are for each photosite.
That is the reason I contend that a raw file is not an image file.
I would totally agree with this. RAW vs JPG shouldn't be the question, JPG vs TIFF etc would be a more valid question.

I often use the analogy that the RAW file is the equivalent to a negative and the JPG is a print from that, (in reality a RAW is even less than a negative). Many of us older buggers have boxes of film prints and the corresponding negative strips, if we wanted another print from these 'back in the day' we would use the neg, not the print.

Ultimately, the RAW is the master for the image, it isn't an image itself yet (ignoring the embedded jpg preview). I personally love being able to go back and and revisit old photos and producing alternative 'prints' from them. JPG is lossy, each subsequent edit and save of a JPG loses more information (image quality) and therefore I choose to archive RAW on the basis that storage is cheap and I can always revisit old shots and often improve them due to the ever improving processing in software such as Lightroom.

Other people won't give a monkeys and will be perfectly happy just archiving their 'prints'. Horses for courses.
 
Messages
1,691
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
#69
It depends on what you call a raw data file. I consider the data which I download from my camera to be a raw file. The file which I download from my camera does not have colour data, it only has the luminance value for each photosite. The raw converter creates the 3 colour channels from the luminance data of a photosite and data from neighbouring photosites, as these have different coloured filters in an RGB array (Bayer) the converter can estimate what the RGB values are for each photosite.
That is the reason I contend that a raw file is not an image file.
Of no value to the OP, but...

Colour in a raw file is determined by the position of a reading most commonly in relation to the bayer filter pattern (but others exist), and yes the algorithm includes a mathematical convolution component to weight the reading based on the values of the neighbours.

Colour in a jpeg file is determined by the position of the values within an individual 'pixel' - conventionally a number of bits to represent the red component, blue and green etc once the data has been unpacked through a series of discrete cosine transforms.

Both rely on the the position of the bits in question to determine the colour. There is no magically coloured red, green or blue bits, they are just plain old 1s & 0s in a certain order in both cases, and they depend on that order in order for the decoding algorithm to determine the colours in the image.

It's all semantics at the end of the day, but why people think that somehow a JPEG is more readable by the human eye than a raw file is beyond be. You have absolutely no chance of making sense of either without the help of software.
Anyway, I hope the OP got his answer earlier in the thread
 
Messages
1,104
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
#70
Getty event photographers are only shooting jpeg. Get it right first time in camera. Much faster workflow.
 
Messages
10,999
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
#71
Getty event photographers are only shooting jpeg. Get it right first time in camera. Much faster workflow.
The essence of event photography is that the images are out as fast as practically possible: no-one minds if an image doesn't have the last drop of tonal goodness squeezed out or if the shadows at the edges of a football pitch are blocked up. You might expect sports and event photographers to use jpg then. But in a sitation where time is not of the essence or, heaven forbid, one is actually doing something creative as part of the image processing, then 'getting it right in camera' might make for an unpresentable jpg in order to generate the best possible raw file to process.
 
Messages
1,104
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
#72
The essence of event photography is that the images are out as fast as practically possible: no-one minds if an image doesn't have the last drop of tonal goodness squeezed out or if the shadows at the edges of a football pitch are blocked up. You might expect sports and event photographers to use jpg then. But in a sitation where time is not of the essence or, heaven forbid, one is actually doing something creative as part of the image processing, then 'getting it right in camera' might make for an unpresentable jpg in order to generate the best possible raw file to process.
Good point. I’ve been surprised just how good it is possible to get jpeg, and reduces those times when raw is necessary. I guess it’s a question of choosing the best tool for the job.
 
Messages
1,472
Edit My Images
Yes
#73
Everyone to there own. I guess some will use jpg. Depends for me on what you shoot. Yes it’s quicker if you get it right on camera. Raw is for me a digital negative it’s got all the data. I use tif to save a raw file that has been processed. It’s an easy concept for me. My original raw is always intact and i can go back to it.
 
Messages
10,569
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
#74
Alternatively RAW, why not?

Its there if you want it, much the same as video, not sure what there is to debate, do what suits you
 
Messages
4,462
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
No
#75
I honestly believe that the vast majority of editing we do is just to get a raw file up to the level of an edited jpeg.
I've found - with Olympus & Nikon, and without exhaustive testing - that using the settings in the camera calibration dropdown in lightroom gets very close to the manufacturer's jpgs with minimal effort. Yet a lot of folk seem to overlook this step; the often-repeated LR wisdom is to 'start from the top and work down'.
 
Messages
1,472
Edit My Images
Yes
#80
I think right for me a correctly exposed shot. I can get more out of a a raw file than a jpg. well thats my take
 
Top