The advantage of a camera that shoots RAW files

[Powder River]

I was talking about this on a camera thread a few months ago, so here is the argument for using RAW files. Note both pictures are actually the same frame, taken at iso 800. Top is jpeg, bottom is RAW. Both images do not have any noise-reduction applied. It is good to try to shoot using available light whenever possible, and in a 'green tunnel' like the AT that is going to mean high iso quite a lot. Of course, RAW images come with a storage penalty; if you set it to record both file types then you're looking at as much as 16mb per shutter click or ~50 shots on a 1gb card.

But still, if you get any keepers at all just look at what you can do with them. Well worth the extra effort, I think.

color
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=25633396

and here are the full size shots in black and white:
jpeg
http://epaperpress.com/temp/rd06.jpg

raw
http://epaperpress.com/temp/rd07.jpg

Please note these are not mine, but were posted in another forum.

If you want to see this in a really dramatic fashion, open each of the black and white pictures in a new tab or window. Zoom in to 100% if your browser is resizing them. Then slide to the bottom left corner on each image. Now, click between the two open windows. The image should match perfectly, and the only thing you'll see change is the dramatic difference in noise, shadow detail and dynamic range. Again, both these images are the result of the same click of the shutter, only different file formats. Most digicams do not have RAW capability.

Sorry if that is overly technical but hopefully this can help somebody here. I plan to have a LOT of image work to do when I get back from the trail!

Jeff

[Franco]

Shooting RAW files should be left to the ones that are very familiar with retouching software and do their own printing and or use a pro lab . At the same time I can tell you that it is not that uncommon for the typical amateur to stuff the all thing up and than try to get the local mini lab to fix it. Most non pro labs will not accept RAW files, in fact even pro labs don't take all RAW files. ( often simply because their software does not support that particular version) So before everyone goes out and shoots RAW, find out if it works for you. A better alternative is offered by cameras that shoot JPEG and RAW at the same time. (just in case....) And if by any chance you think of walking into a lab and coming out one hour later with your prints done, forget it.
Keep in mind also that RAW capture is slower , takes up more space and uses more battery power.
Franco
And to address another advocate of RAW, most digital SLR user do not use RAW most if not all of the time. How do I know ? I worked for 23 years in one of the busiest photographic shops in Melbourne.

[Sly]

Franco, sorry to get off topic but is there a reason you change the default font? It's harder to read.

[Franco]

Hi Sly
There were three reasons why I did that.
1) I am a bad speller, so I use the spell check (not always…)
2) I am a slow typist, so by the time I type my message out, someone else could have added a comment making mine more irrelevant than usual.
3) On my monitor I can read my font easier than Times New Roman

However this might work for you. Sorry about that.
You must have some real problems with a couple of the 48 point font users…
Franco

[Franco]

Maybe a smaller font will do

[Sly]

Maybe a smaller font will do

Yeah, that helps alot thanks. :rolleyes:

[Tobit]

I much prefer RAW images. However, most of my images are used for viewing on the computer or web use. I rarely print digital images, much rather have them stored in a digital medium. I use PhotoShop for editting as needed.

[CoyoteWhips]

Well, since both the examples are jpg files and both of them have been reduced and cropped part of the purpose of the demonstration is lost on me. :-)

If I had a camera that saved in raw, I would certainly use it in a studio setting to make high definition photos for high-end printing. I might use it if I were pretending to be Ansel Adams at Yosemite.

I wouldn't bother for any photos destined for the web. I most often try to shoot in a format that I can upload with no processing; cropping, resizing or recompressing. I suppose I also have the option of shooting in a much higher resolution -- the scaled down photos would probably be indistinguishable from a raw format source.

Most people can improve their photos on a more dramatic scale by using a tripod and shooting at their lowest iso setting and using minimum compression.

Summarized; yes, uncompressed images can be higher quality than compressed images, but you lose that advantage if you display your photos in any way other than a gallery print.

[mark.k.watson]

RAW is a four letter word for me. I only shoot in JPEG fine and have never had any problems. I have blown my work, as fine art, up to appx. 30x40 and have never any degredation at all.
My brother is a professional photographer and shoots JPEG fine too. You have probably seen some of his pictures on billboards.
My old boss made me shoot in RAW, and the only thing it did was fill up the hard drive faster.

[Powder River]

Well, since both the examples are jpg files and both of them have been reduced and cropped part of the purpose of the demonstration is lost on me. :-)

If I had a camera that saved in raw, I would certainly use it in a studio setting to make high definition photos for high-end printing. I might use it if I were pretending to be Ansel Adams at Yosemite.

I wouldn't bother for any photos destined for the web. I most often try to shoot in a format that I can upload with no processing; cropping, resizing or recompressing. I suppose I also have the option of shooting in a much higher resolution -- the scaled down photos would probably be indistinguishable from a raw format source.

Most people can improve their photos on a more dramatic scale by using a tripod and shooting at their lowest iso setting and using minimum compression.

Summarized; yes, uncompressed images can be higher quality than compressed images, but you lose that advantage if you display your photos in any way other than a gallery print.

Coyotewhips,

Yes, they are both jpeg because that is the end result when you process RAW files. You start with the file, use a RAW converter to make all the adjustments that would normall be done in-camera such as sharpness, white balance, noise reduction and so on. When this is done, the converter produces a jpeg that can be printed, posted on the web etc. The advantage is that a computer running photoshop is SO much better at making these adjustments than any camera, even the best DSLRs. Just look at how it handles noise in the shadows. This picture, taken from a G9 is quite noisy. It is representative of almost any non-DSLR; in fact I would consider that top (jpeg) image unusable at 800 iso. You can see how the camera has attempted its own noise reduction, hence the botched pattern to the noise that looks like vasaline has been spread on the lens. Imagine that effect on a fine detail scene like foliage, and you can see where you loose sharpness and detail.

You say that scaled down photos would be indestinguishable from a raw format source. Well, as you also noted above these pictures ARE sized for the web. These photos are scaled down already from a 12 mp file. Just imagine how much more dramatic the effect is on the full resolution file. I don't think it takes a sharp eye to notice the difference, or see the advantage.

I agree with you that the use of a tripod and low iso could also reduce noise, however the reality is (and especially for hikers) the tripod is rarely convenient and why not use both advantages anyways? Besides, shooting at low iso means you are using a longer shutter speed, which means you no longer have the ability to freeze action. So in other words, this is apples to oranges.

Franco is right, that most professional labs will not accept RAW, only jpeg or tiff files for print. The biggest reason for this is that the RAW format it not standardized across the board, and each camera actually has a proprietary RAW file. This is why programs like photoshop must release updates every so often to accomodate new cameras. But a bigger reason is you wouldn't want to pay a lab to process all your files for you. They would charge an arm and a leg for all the work.

That being said, it is not rocket science and anybody can do it. The biggest penalty it exacts is the time it takes to process your files. Personally, I always shoot in RAW + jpeg, and use the jpeg for convenience but if I'm going to print or post an image I will convert the RAW. I takes about 20 seconds per image, so it is really not that bad. Each camera that shoots raw usually comes with a program that will decode the files.

Franco mentioned that most DSLR owners do not shoot RAW. I personally own a DSLR and while I always shoot in RAW+jpeg, many times I have no need for RAW especially at low iso because the image looks pretty much flawless straight out of the camera. I consider the RAW file kind of an insurance policy, in case I really botched the WB or need to pull more detail out of a high iso image. For a digicam however, it is far more critical to shoot RAW because often times even an iso 200 image shows unnacceptable levels of noise, and images such as the kitchen scene would be basically unusable otherwise. This gives you up to 2x or even 4x extra light you can use to get a shot that would be otherwise impossible.

[Powder River]

RAW is a four letter word for me. I only shoot in JPEG fine and have never had any problems. I have blown my work, as fine art, up to appx. 30x40 and have never any degredation at all.
My brother is a professional photographer and shoots JPEG fine too. You have probably seen some of his pictures on billboards.
My old boss made me shoot in RAW, and the only thing it did was fill up the hard drive faster.

But is your brother shooting with a compact digicam (trail camera) for his billboards? My guess is he's using a full frame 1Ds or even a large format digital or similar. I would use those jpegs too. But remember we are dealing here with tiny, noisy digicams here that will fit in our backpacks and not weigh too much, with sensors the size of a fingernail. Any advantage gained with these cameras is an improvement.

[rafe]

RAW is fine if you've got it. My guess is that RAW makes less sense with newer P&S digicams that squeeze 8 MPixels or more out of a tiny 1/2.5 sensor. RAW makes more sense with DSLRs that use the bigger (APS-C) sensors. (Or older P&S cameras that were content with a mere 4 MPixels from a 1/1.8 sensor.)

It's not often that RAW will make or break an image. At best, RAW will extend the usable dynamic range (exposure latitude) by one or two f-stops.

Modest JPG compression (ie., highest-quality) JPG produces little or no image degradation. The thing about JPG is that you can select the compression level you want. Obviously at extreme settings, you will lose image detail and degrade the image. I always use the best (lowest-compression) JPG setting on my camera.

[mark.k.watson]

He is shooting one of the newer Canons. Can't remember which one. DSLR of course. I have used the Canon Rebel to blow up to 30x40. I use my Nikon Coolpic 4? as my trail cam and have had nothing but phenominal sucess. I have blown up pics to 16x20 with no problems. I'll shoot something cool enough to deserve 30x40 status, but I have no doubt that it will be just fine.
But you are right that most use noisy digicams with small sensors. My wife has an older Kodak that she sometimes uses. It dosn't have the quualityon the largest JPEG setting to go very big. I do not know if it has a RAW setting.

[pennylessz28]

He is shooting one of the newer Canons. Can't remember which one. DSLR of course. I have used the Canon Rebel to blow up to 30x40. I use my Nikon Coolpic 4? as my trail cam and have had nothing but phenominal sucess. I have blown up pics to 16x20 with no problems. I'll shoot something cool enough to deserve 30x40 status, but I have no doubt that it will be just fine.
But you are right that most use noisy digicams with small sensors. My wife has an older Kodak that she sometimes uses. It dosn't have the quualityon the largest JPEG setting to go very big. I do not know if it has a RAW setting.

Actually he used the PowerShot G9, it's a point and shoot and not a DSLR. Although its at the high end of point and shoot at 12mega pixels and 6x zoom

[mark.k.watson]

Actually he used the PowerShot G9, it's a point and shoot and not a DSLR. Although its at the high end of point and shoot at 12mega pixels and 6x zoom

Who did? My brother? Me? Nope
Someone else???

[Franco]

” Most people can improve their photos on a more dramatic scale by using a tripod and shooting at their lowest iso setting and using minimum compression
”

This comment made me smile
Not because there is anything funny about that, it is in fact the most sensible advice I have read in a long time, but because I posted a simple way to turn a walking stick (or for that matter any stick) into a tripod for about $20 and with a sub 2 oz weight penalty. The only comment I had on that post was a sarcastic remark.
Franco

[Powder River]

” Most people can improve their photos on a more dramatic scale by using a tripod and shooting at their lowest iso setting and using minimum compression
”

This comment made me smile
Not because there is anything funny about that, it is in fact the most sensible advice I have read in a long time, but because I posted a simple way to turn a walking stick (or for that matter any stick) into a tripod for about $20 and with a sub 2 oz weight penalty. The only comment I had on that post was a sarcastic remark.
Franco


Franco,

Where is this post? I would be interested in your solution. When I first started looking at trekking poles, I was shocked to learn that only the "walking stick" kind comes in varieties with a camera mount. Giving up on that, I settled for an ultrapod that can be velcroed to the handle of my trekking pole. Still, it is not perfectly secure and kind of a pain to set up.

[chris]

I take a lot of photos in the outdoors, while climbing and hiking, and used to shoot a lot of RAW files, but now shoot almost all JPEGs. The reason was equipment. When I shot with a Canon G6, I found that my photos improved remarkably when shot in RAW. The reason? The camera almost never made good exposure and white balance decisions. It was really easy to change these in photoshop and then convert to a really sweet JPEG.

However, then I moved to a dSLR (Nikon D70). I continued to shoot RAW, but found myself spending less and less time changing things. That is, the camera was making good decisions. It was a pain to have to convert the RAW files to JPEGs, especially when I was sitting in front of 100 shots to document a day hike. I eventually began to shoot just JPEG to see if there was much of a difference. There wasn't. Now, I shoot RAW only when the lighting is strange, or I know that I'm going to want to modify things for a strange effect. The meter in the D70 is really very good, and it is now at least one, probably two, generations old.

Of course, you can try to check things like exposure and white balance on the display, but this only works so well. And, frequently I have only enough time to take a few rapid pictures and then get back to what I was doing, like climbing up a mountain. For me, the camera has to be able to make the right decision most of the time, or at least be close enough. I know how the camera reacts now, so I can change exposure for the times when I know the camera will be off.

Incidentally, I tend to put the camera on aperture priority and set it to f/8 or so, rather than programmed mode. Depending on the light or what I'm taking a picture of, I'll change the aperture only. If I'm working on something, like a shadow or a sunset, then I'll change into manual mode. This really has nothing to do with RAW files, though.

[mudhead]

Maybe a smaller font will do

This is a ton easier for me to read, I enjoy reading your posts, but my eyes do not.