Mulling over raw rather than jpeg
- Thread starter avole
- Start date
Lowand
Don't tell the humans
I have used only RAW for the last ten years or so and am currently 'reworking' a lot of old images for a new website. The advantage of RAW is that I can return to what I know is the, 'untampered with' original straight from the camera, irrespective of which camera was used. In this context RAW removes any ambiguity .... having said that I do seem to have buggered up the metadata on quite a few older images!
Bananahead
pfm Member
I don't understand why anyone who is in any way serious about photography would shoot jpeg and not RAW. It's like listening to MP3s .....
It really depends on what you photograph and the type of photographer you are.
What I mean by that is that if you're a point and shoot kinda person then it likely wouldn't make sense to then spend time processing raw files when you get home.
Reason to use RAW:
1. If outright quality is important to you. Greater exposure latitude is given which means under or over exposed images can be rescued by a greater degree than jpegs.
2. You want to change the colour temperature and basic tone controls without degrading the image quality
3. You want complete creative control. A Jpeg is a processed photo with its own interpretation imposed e.g. sharpening, colour temperature, contrast etc. Jpeg images will likely look more attention grabbing out od the camera but the cameras decision arent easy to reverse if you don't like it's decisions.
4. You don't mind being sat at a computer for a bit to get the best out of your images
There's always the option to switch to raw for 'special occassions' or where the conditions are challenging e.g backlit subject. Or should jpeg and raw but as already pointed out it will slow down continuous shooting. A fast SD may help improve matters.
P.s I've only read the OP original post. Apologies if you've already clarified what type of photographer you are.
What I mean by that is that if you're a point and shoot kinda person then it likely wouldn't make sense to then spend time processing raw files when you get home.
Reason to use RAW:
1. If outright quality is important to you. Greater exposure latitude is given which means under or over exposed images can be rescued by a greater degree than jpegs.
2. You want to change the colour temperature and basic tone controls without degrading the image quality
3. You want complete creative control. A Jpeg is a processed photo with its own interpretation imposed e.g. sharpening, colour temperature, contrast etc. Jpeg images will likely look more attention grabbing out od the camera but the cameras decision arent easy to reverse if you don't like it's decisions.
4. You don't mind being sat at a computer for a bit to get the best out of your images
There's always the option to switch to raw for 'special occassions' or where the conditions are challenging e.g backlit subject. Or should jpeg and raw but as already pointed out it will slow down continuous shooting. A fast SD may help improve matters.
P.s I've only read the OP original post. Apologies if you've already clarified what type of photographer you are.
Derek Wright
pfm Member
If you have a raw processing program that you can setup to have a standard way of processing then you will get the equivalent of the OOC JPegs, for pictures you want more control over then you can still tweak the image to what you want.
After a while you will want to tweak more and more images as you learn what you can do, be it exposure control, burning and dodging and changing the atmosphere of the image.
After a while you will want to tweak more and more images as you learn what you can do, be it exposure control, burning and dodging and changing the atmosphere of the image.
eternumviti
Insufficient privileges to reply.
I only shoot in RAW, so should be quite diligent about either not taking too many shots, or deleting unwanted ones. My current camera is 6 years old, and last time I looked had only recorded about 8000 shutter actuations, so I am not too bad, and getting better, on the first. Only intermittently good on the second though.
Oddly, one of the best digital photos that I have taken (I think) was in 2007 on a 12.5MP Nikon D80, and was a JPEG. I generally work in B&W with quite a lot of processing in PS/Nik, and this certainly took some processing. It would certanly have been a stack easier in RAW.
Oddly, one of the best digital photos that I have taken (I think) was in 2007 on a 12.5MP Nikon D80, and was a JPEG. I generally work in B&W with quite a lot of processing in PS/Nik, and this certainly took some processing. It would certanly have been a stack easier in RAW.
There's some good advice here from @Derek Wright - you could shoot entirely raw and use an app (often free with your camera) to batch convert all of them. RAW will take up more disk space - something to keep in mind.
@eternumviti is on the money with not getting snap happy using raw. Because it takes longer moving the data around and potentially post processing it can encourage positive behaviour with making sure a shot is just so before clicking the shutter. It's a kind of old school film mentality and prevents sloppiness in your technique and composition.
@eternumviti is on the money with not getting snap happy using raw. Because it takes longer moving the data around and potentially post processing it can encourage positive behaviour with making sure a shot is just so before clicking the shutter. It's a kind of old school film mentality and prevents sloppiness in your technique and composition.
gavreid
Pretty Words...
The main thing is there's no right or wrong these days, as cameras have gained more processing power the internal jpeg conversion process has improved considerably. This blog brings together some discussion from the Fuji community...
https://bestmirrorlessblogs.com/reviews/fuji-raw-vs-jpg/
https://bestmirrorlessblogs.com/reviews/fuji-raw-vs-jpg/
clivem2
pfm Member
I shoot RAW + JPEG as a matter of course. Disk space costs nothing nowadays. Mostly I use the JPEG images, probably due to my lack of sticking at RAW post processing. I use Nikon Df which has good JPEG processing, it takes me time to match or better what the Df processes itself unless I need to work heavily on shadows which I find can be a big win with RAW + processing.
Bananahead
pfm Member
eternumviti
Insufficient privileges to reply.
That looks awful. It appears to set out to remove all the creativity, thought and reflection that goes, or should go, into taking a photograph, and handing the entire responsibility to an app. One named after a football team, ffs. No.
Tony Lockhart
Avoiding Stress, at Every Opportunity
I suppose if someone really hates taking photographs, and supports that particular football team, it might appeal. That must be a tiny market?
I've learned so much from taking bad photographs that I'd never recommend that product to anyone.
I've learned so much from taking bad photographs that I'd never recommend that product to anyone.
James
Lord of the Erg\o/s
What's wrong with letting an app help take multiple exposures and increase the dynamic range (without making it too contrived), depth of field and exposure time? You'd still need to compose and find interesting subjects, no?
It's like driving a car with adaptive suspension, torque vectoring and dynamic steering to make the driving experience a bit more rewarding, but you still need to know which pedal to prod (and when) and which direction to point the car.
eternumviti
Insufficient privileges to reply.
Sorry James, I don't buy it. It would render the taking of the photo of your beautifully found and composed image a mind-numbingly dull experience. Digital cameras are effective enough at doing that already. Film isn't becoming attractive to people, including young people, merely because it is actually better. It is because taking the pictures is a more rewarding experience.
Impressed though that they have squeezed 5 odd million bucks out of investors on kickstarter. They are presumably on to something that I just can't see.
James
Lord of the Erg\o/s
You're finding satisfaction with the means, and that's absolutely fine. Others might prefer an easier path to the end, and derive satisfaction in having captured a great image. I know DIY post-processing will give you far more creative freedom, but surely this is an equally valid halfway house between that and JPEGs.
This is the next step to 'smart' JPEGs in my view, but will never be a replacement (hopefully) for those who like to be in full control from start-to-finish.
Bananahead
pfm Member
Which is why my post said "for those that shoot jpegs"
Hazelberry
sister
Or: "I don't know why anyone who is in any way serious about photography would shoot transparencies and not negatives. It's like listening to AM radio..."
Better a dirty old jpeg of a compelling subject and moment than a technically excellent picture made from raw that's interesting only for its technical excellence. I guess it comes down to personal taste but I see quite a bit of technically perfect dullness around the internet!
Last edited:
Hazelberry
sister
Well, I don't know. IMO it is different, is all. Personally, while I loved making slides, and enjoy seeing really good pictures made on film, I have no intention of returning to it. Digital offers me more. I do understand the appeal of old tech to newcomers as a novel and rewarding experience, and I get excited over fresh ways of seeing with old ways of making. There's been a resurgence of interest in making tintypes for example and I'd try it myself if circumstances permit.
Last edited:
Bananahead
pfm Member
Point missed. The discussion is about having the choice between jpeg and RAW and choosing jpeg.