advertisement


Mulling over raw rather than jpeg

avole

The wise never post on Internet forums
Both my cameras allow me to use raw as well as jpeg. It is really worth the extra bother? The me who had a darkroom says yes, but the me who is only interested in content now says don't bother.

I'll probably experiment anyway, but what do people think? Are the gains really that noticeable?
 
When I bought my 5D3 I started to use RAW+JPEG, and that was the first time I'd used RAW with any real purpose. It was handy to start with, as I could later just click on the JPEG versions in Photoshop to quickly find images worth editing. However, motorsport and airshow shoots were then hampered by the camera buffering, as the 5D3 slows to the SD card's record speed, no matter what the speed of the CF card.

So I then began shooting only in RAW, and haven't looked back. I now have a WiFi SD card somewhere not getting used.

For me, Photoshop with JPEG was boring and cumbersome. Photoshop with RAW is a revelation, and doesn't need much time either.

Edit to add that I don't 'machine gun' anymore. I tend to shoot as I did with film.
 
I use Nikons Capture NX-D and you get much more editing options in raw then jpg its just not worth shooting any thing else.

Pete
 
There's much more latitude for editing yes but the down side is the files are a lot bigger and you should generate a final jpeg of your keepers in software. Then you'll need one of these Jared Polin T-shirts :)

Black_OG_ISR_front_1024x1024.jpg
 
I record both, but rarely use the raw unless I find something I want to edit a lot. For simple stuff like cropping and printing I just use the jpg.
 
Raw all the way here. Yes the files will always need some work doing on them, but that’s no different to what I had to do when scanning film.

The extra flexibility and bit depth of raw is what appeals. Editing is done in Lightroom/Photoshop.

I’m also currently using an iPhone app that generates DNG file.

There’s no right or wrong, just a personal preference.
 
If you can capture the RAW you should do so, as it is all the data. You may find the jpg is all you want, as it's the camera's idea of what you want. Cameras like the Fuji X series give you a choice of jpg interpretations (film simulations) which can be more appealing than the unprocessed RAW files, but if you have the RAW file, you have everything the camera is capable of.
 
Realistically, if the camera jpeg is what you want, it's not going to hurt, but if you do the slightest amount of editing dynamic editing (contrast or colour), then you are going to suffer from some degree of posterisation as there is only 8 bits of colour info in a jpeg. The most common adjustment I do is to white balance, and this will suffer from this. Rotating/cropping will be fine with jpeg.

So really it depends on what you are up to, but I just shoot RAW and i'm not sure I even know how to switch to jpeg with my cameras now!
 
I've tried playing with raw and it seems to fit the bill re contrast and color. Only problem is that now I have to learn Lightroom, which seems ideal but isn't the most intuitive to use.
 
RAW + JPEG - I don't find that slows down the capture rate significantly.
RAW is essential if you're doing any editing/enlarging, and for preserving the full resolution, whereas the jpegs are useful for sending/showing to people who can't read the raw files.
 
I've tried playing with raw and it seems to fit the bill re contrast and color. Only problem is that now I have to learn Lightroom, which seems ideal but isn't the most intuitive to use.

When the camera processes a RAW file to jpeg, the manfacturer has a 'house' default for the colour rendition. The Adobe default is somewhat flat in comparison to most, so while the RAW file contains much more information, it can look disappointing (flat and lifeless) at first on screen. This is partly choice of colours, but also the sensor doesn't have nearly the same dynamic range as the eye, so the image is often not what you remember it to be. The key is to capture your image so that the histogram does not go beyond its range, either high or low, but usually it's about keeping the hightlights as far to (but still inside) the right hand side as possible, then you can work on the file optimally. This is especially true of landscape where the range from white cloud to shadow can be challenging.
 
RAW + JPEG - I don't find that slows down the capture rate significantly.
RAW is essential if you're doing any editing/enlarging, and for preserving the full resolution, whereas the jpegs are useful for sending/showing to people who can't read the raw files.

+1
 
Many pro sports photographers use jpeg as a default as the results from the latest Canikon bodies are more than good enough for publication. Sports desk editors need images yesterday. I'm lucky enough to use a body where buffering isn't a problem. Over 200 RAW burst without filling the buffer, jpegs just go on until the card is full but I appreciate that's not the case for everyone. You can always use SRAW or MRAW.
 
On the 5D3 it's the SD card that slows EVERYTHING. Whatever the speed of the SD, that's also the speed of the CF. So if shooting fast moving action, CF card only and RAW only.
 
On the 5D3 it's the SD card that slows EVERYTHING. Whatever the speed of the SD, that's also the speed of the CF. So if shooting fast moving action, CF card only and RAW only.
Why not just use the CF then if you shoot RAW? I use CF and Cfast2.0. CF is perfect for most occasions so I often use just that. Cfast gives me an extra 2fps but I rarely need it.

EDIT Doh, just read your reply again....sorry!
 


advertisement


Back
Top