Question concerning RAW format

[robertchance]

My plan in the next few weeks is to get a camera that will be able to shot in RAW besides J-PEG,, In theory, I understand why folks would want to shot in RAW format. Would one of you RAW shooters out there be so kind as to show me a before and after RAW pic so I can see how much things change in that format after the pic has been processed by the user? Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

You can't really view RAW photos, at least not with a standard web browser. It's sort of like asking someone to post a negative.

I think the closest thing that you could get would be for someone to post a RAW with a straight JPG conversion and then the same thing tweaked. Of course, that wouldn't be a fair comparison, since you can tweak the JPG. So probably the best comparison would be for someone to post a shot taken in RAW, converted to JPG using some basic defaults and then adjusted and the same shot carefully adjusted before converting to JPG.

To get a really good comparison, you'd want to see several different types of corrections - large white balance corrections, significant overexposure corrections, significant underexposure corrections, significant dynamic range compression, etc. You'd probably also want to have someone post these using a wide gamut color space like Adobe RGB even though most PC based browsers won't display them properly. The wider gamut will be visible when printing and problems associated with making adjustments to an 8-bit file (such as banding) will be more apparent with a wider gamut than with SRGB.

 

[boBQuincy]

Like Mark said, there is really no good way to compare the files. I usually shoot in RAW along with a small JPG and that's about the best comparison I can do. I have my JPG set for all neutral settings, saturation, sharpness, contrast, and tone. I also have my camera set for AdobeRGB which is not the best choice for display on the web.

Here is a JPG:

and the corresponding PSD from RAW (converted to JPG for viewing), with basic adjustments for levels and color:

Not a great deal of difference, and I would have been happy with the JPG had I not seen the PSD. I could process the JPG into the same style as the RAW but the histogram would show gaps in the color values.

I hope this helps, or at least doesn't confuse things even more.

 

[Anewman]

Would one of you RAW shooters out there be so kind as to show me a before and after RAW pic so I can see how much things change in that format after the pic has been processed by the user?

See the thing about raw is that it will look exactly as you would like it too, not so much about being better or worse it is about YOUR prefrence.

Sometimes the conversion could look EXACTLY(to the naked eye) like the out of camera jpeg, but other times it can be night and day.

the biggest differences would be on photos that require the maximum amount of dynamic range. Why??? Well because the in camera processor does not know if the highlights or shadows are important to you and may decide to TOSS them, hence making the highlights in the jpeg blown out(also may drop shadows). But when you process your own RAW file all the data captured by the exposure would still be present and you may decide to keep the highlight data instead of tossing it like the in camera processor did.

 

[robertchance]

thanks for the answers, looks like i need to do a bit of learning about RAW

 

[0bli0]

Robert,

here is another example. although this image was taken as RAW, this version is doing a straight conversion to .jpg first a little about the image. i'm using a reflector with no flash. in fact, if you pull a CSI and look at the reflection in her eye, you can see me next to the big round reflector. there was early morning sun and little cloud cover.

straight raw-jpg conversion. no post processing applied

white - balance, slight bump in green channel and slight drop in red channel (to compensate for a characteristic with the 1 series cameras), slight edge sharpening. all done in Apple Aperture - no photoshop. all edits applied directly to raw (non-destructive), then exported as .jpg - it took me maybe 20 seconds to process this.

ok so i thought it might look good as a mono image. so i took the raw image and converted to mono - increased the red channel, decreased the blue. slightly adjusted the luminance, applied slight edge sharpen. again took less than 20 seconds.

 

[boBQuincy]

Robert,

here is another example. although this image was taken as RAW, this version is doing a straight conversion to .jpg

0bli0,

who cares about RAW, JPG, TIFF, etc., she is just *too* cute!

 

[0bli0]

thanks, boB! - she thinks so, too

 

[P00h]

If you don't know how to post process RAW files then I'd recommend sticking with jpeg. Also RAW files are larger than jpeg so you better have a powerful computer and extra HD space. RAW, in the hands of an inexperienced user, can create undesirable results as opposed to jpeg. RAW gives more freedom in post process but you need to know what you're doing.

 

[0bli0]

instead of sticking to jpeg, i'd personally recommend to anyone who is interested in trying raw to go out and shoot around the neighborhood/house/kids/etc. and see what kind of results you get. it can be quite fun *and* you often learn something about your camera.

as P00h recommends, if you're not familiar, i wouldn't shoot anything important until you're familiar with it. the pc requirements aren't terribly steep and storage is pretty cheap should you choose to go down this path.

each camera that has an option to shoot raw comes with software for processing it, which are generally quite intuitive. if nothing else, you can use the automatic settings. you might also try the free beta of Adobe Lightroom, as it makes processing raw files a snap.

 

[Anewman]

If you don't know how to post process RAW files then I'd recommend sticking with jpeg. Also RAW files are larger than jpeg so you better have a powerful computer and extra HD space. RAW, in the hands of an inexperienced user, can create undesirable results as opposed to jpeg. RAW gives more freedom in post process but you need to know what you're doing.

While that is a very common way of looking at it, one can put a RAW converter on AUTO and produce results just as good as in camera jpegs(if not better). It really takes no knowledge.

And Some software takes less PC power than you would think.

http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.asp

 

[DizneyNutz]

0bli0,

who cares about RAW, JPG, TIFF, etc., she is just *too* cute!

She looked like a LINEBACKER going after a QB in that photo of her and Tigger GREAT CAPTURE

 

[P00h]

While that is a very common way of looking at it, one can put a RAW converter on AUTO and produce results just as good as in camera jpegs(if not better). It really takes no knowledge.

And Some software takes less PC power than you would think.

http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.asp

If you're looking to produce results "just as good as in camera jpegs" then why bother? If you're going to set a RAW converter to AUTO then you're actually defeating the whole purpose of shooting in RAW in the first place.

 

[MICKEY88]

If you're looking to produce results "just as good as in camera jpegs" then why bother? If you're going to set a RAW converter to AUTO then you're actually defeating the whole purpose of shooting in RAW in the first place.

the benefit would be to learn how to post process your own work,

if you get frustrated and can't get the look you want, then go with auto settings...

 

[Anewman]

If you're looking to produce results "just as good as in camera jpegs" then why bother? If you're going to set a RAW converter to AUTO then you're actually defeating the whole purpose of shooting in RAW in the first place.

I am not suggesting that one "should" set their RAW converter to AUTO, just pointing out that you were mistaken in saying that an "inexperienced" shooter "could not" produce acceptable results.

But the benefit would be that after the newb becomes more experienced, they would have the RAW data to go back to.

Very few persons know how to develope their own film, but everyone tries to keep their 35mm negatives anyways...

 

[P00h]

I am not suggesting that one "should" set their RAW converter to AUTO, just pointing out that you were mistaken in saying that an "inexperienced" shooter "could not" produce acceptable results.

But the benefit would be that after the newb becomes more experienced, they would have the RAW data to go back to.

Very few persons know how to develope their own film, but everyone tries to keep their 35mm negatives anyways...

No, I don't think I am mistaken at all, I just don't believe that the casual shooter will really find any benefit to shooting RAW. Especially if they are inexperienced with working with RAW files, unless they are willing to spend time learning software and post-processing every photo they take then they should stick to jpeg.

I would suggest learning how to set a custom white balance and getting correct exposure before tackling working with the RAW files. I'm a firm believer in cr*p in = cr*p out.

 

[MICKEY88]

No, I don't think I am mistaken at all, I just don't believe that the casual shooter will really find any benefit to shooting RAW. Especially if they are inexperienced with working with RAW files, unless they are willing to spend time learning software and post-processing every photo they take then they should stick to jpeg.

I would suggest learning how to set a custom white balance and getting correct exposure before tackling working with the RAW files. I'm a firm believer in cr*p in = cr*p out.

I must respectfully disagree with this thought...the majority of serious shooters started out as casual shooters, then were caught with the photography bug.


and ALL photographers are inexperienced with working with raw files, the first time they do it...no one has experience in the beginning

 

[boBQuincy]

No, I don't think I am mistaken at all, I just don't believe that the casual shooter will really find any benefit to shooting RAW. Especially if they are inexperienced with working with RAW files, unless they are willing to spend time learning software and post-processing every photo they take then they should stick to jpeg.

I would suggest learning how to set a custom white balance and getting correct exposure before tackling working with the RAW files. I'm a firm believer in cr*p in = cr*p out.

I would agree that a casual photographer may not find any benefit in RAW, but one day they may decide to be more than casual, only to find all they have are JPGs. Better to start with RAW (+ JPG) now and know you have them for the future. Even if the photographer does not care to work on the RAW files they may want someone else to help with them.

Custom white balance is actually not a function of "in", it is processed in the camera after the exposure has been made. RAW has no white balance so it could be set later, even if the light has changed after the white balance was set. It is much more flexible than JPG.

 

[Anewman]

No, I don't think I am mistaken at all, I just don't believe that the casual shooter will really find any benefit to shooting RAW. Especially if they are inexperienced with working with RAW files, unless they are willing to spend time learning software and post-processing every photo they take then they should stick to jpeg.

This is a big departure from you original post

If you don't know how to post process RAW files then I'd recommend sticking with jpeg. Also RAW files are larger than jpeg so you better have a powerful computer and extra HD space. RAW, in the hands of an inexperienced user, can create undesirable results as opposed to jpeg. RAW gives more freedom in post process but you need to know what you're doing.

You made it seem like an "inexperienced user" could not produce acceptable results, I pointed out that they could. Now your stance changed to that it is of little benefit...

If you do not feel archiving the digital negative is a benefit, well there is no debate here.

I'm a firm believer in cr*p in = cr*p out.

I agree, I just dont see what that has to do with shooting RAW vs JPEG.

 

[caniswolfie]

I would have to say that the advantage I see to RAW is that sometimes the novice makes mistakes about checking some setting or other that RAW may help with. I don't think penalizing the novice because it will teach them a lesson and make them a better photographer is helpful. I think if the person can be shown to batch convert their RAW to JPG as shot and then maybe go back fix those occasions when it is warranted would be nice.

I have to think that if the novice perhaps for example used the wrong white balance on their christmas morning photos and could correct it that would be great. I don't think the lesson of you should of thought of making sure your white balance was right and now you have your children's memories not their best because of a mistake.

I think that if you are willing to use the extra space for the RAW, why not? In a lot of things, when you are beginning you get a safety net. When you get to be a professional and don't need the net (or know when you need it) you can shoot JPG and not worry about having to make as many changes or know exactly when you might need the extra power of RAW. I think RAW can be an instructional tool or how certain settings could have changed the photo.