The Photographers' Corner 2013-2020

[ERD50]

Raw for my photo class work - teacher says to always shoot in raw.

I'd love to see some justification for this.

Now I can understand it for truly high end work, where every tiny degree of quality is important to preserve, and 'compromise' just isn't part of the vocabulary. And I know you don't want to do multiple conversions if you are doing adjustments, as each compression step will have a multiplier effect on the artifacts. But it seems to me that for most work, shooting jpg would be fine, just convert to a non-compressed format if/when you are ready to do some adjustments.

Now for audio, I'm big on keeping at least my masters/backups in non-compressed format (FLAC). But the 'cost' is small, a FLAC file is only ~ 5x as big as 128kbps mp3. So a 600MB CD is 300MB in FLAC (roughly 2x loss-less compression) versus maybe 60MB in mp3 128kbps, or 120mbps if you go higher in quality. So if I buy a 500GB drive for $65, that's just 4.3 cents per CD in FLAC, and I might save 3 cents per CD with mp3. Multiply a few times for backups. That is still very cheap to me, for the extra quality, and ability to easily re-rip to another format (which I do, to play on various players if I can live with compressed sound for that application).

I didn't quickly find good file size comparisons for RAW vs high quality jpeg, but IIRC the difference was far more than 5x. A few years back, I scanned some pen/ink drawings I had that were vacation memories and had faded and yellowed. I scanned them at high rez, worked on them, and saved in jpeg. I recall playing with them some more, and even after a few generations, I could blow them up to something like 1600x on screen, and not detect any differences. I guess I'm not sure it makes much difference for anything other than the highest end work, if used properly.

I just skimmed this, but one guy's opinion:

RAW vs JPG

-ERD50

 

[Ronstar]

Tough to catch these little suckers in flight - could use more light to crank the ISO down

 

[steelyman]

Almost every photography book I've ever read has had some variation of the phrase "The best camera is the one you have in your hand". That high-end DSLR isn't worth much in a closet if what you have with you is a $100 point 'n shoot or cell phone camera. It's more about understanding light than spending money on gear. More gear gives more options but that's all it buys - not better photography.

That's an interesting quote and I'll keep that in mind.

I post some about stuff that tends to be aural, this thread is visual. Hopefully, either is just someone noticing "wow, what about that?" and passing along.

You're right, using what you have at hand is key. In the meantime. I'll enjoy everyone's photo work here.

 

[ERD50]

Just found another discussion on raw versus JPEG - in this example, he makes the case for extra detail in over/under-exposed portions of the photo -

Raw vs JPEG For Photo Editing

-ERD50

 

[Ronstar]

I'd love to see some justification for this.

Now I can understand it for truly high end work, where every tiny degree of quality is important to preserve, and 'compromise' just isn't part of the vocabulary. And I know you don't want to do multiple conversions if you are doing adjustments, as each compression step will have a multiplier effect on the artifacts. But it seems to me that for most work, shooting jpg would be fine, just convert to a non-compressed format if/when you are ready to do some adjustments.

Now for audio, I'm big on keeping at least my masters/backups in non-compressed format (FLAC). But the 'cost' is small, a FLAC file is only ~ 5x as big as 128kbps mp3. So a 600MB CD is 300MB in FLAC (roughly 2x loss-less compression) versus maybe 60MB in mp3 128kbps, or 120mbps if you go higher in quality. So if I buy a 500GB drive for $65, that's just 4.3 cents per CD in FLAC, and I might save 3 cents per CD with mp3. Multiply a few times for backups. That is still very cheap to me, for the extra quality, and ability to easily re-rip to another format (which I do, to play on various players if I can live with compressed sound for that application).

I didn't quickly find good file size comparisons for RAW vs high quality jpeg, but IIRC the difference was far more than 5x. A few years back, I scanned some pen/ink drawings I had that were vacation memories and had faded and yellowed. I scanned them at high rez, worked on them, and saved in jpeg. I recall playing with them some more, and even after a few generations, I could blow them up to something like 1600x on screen, and not detect any differences. I guess I'm not sure it makes much difference for anything other than the highest end work, if used properly.

I just skimmed this, but one guy's opinion:

RAW vs JPG

-ERD50

I think our teacher wants us to shoot in raw so that he can edit and tweak our work in front of the class. And maybe he needs it in raw to do that. We haven't got into editing yet.

I'm getting a raw and jpeg of each shot and the raws are around 27 mb and jpegs 10 mb

 

[photoguy]

I didn't quickly find good file size comparisons for RAW vs high quality jpeg, but IIRC the difference was far more than 5x.

On my 5dii, the difference is only about 1/3 to 1/4 the size of the raw for the highest quality jpeg. So a 30MB raw would be about 10MB jpeg. I think one reason the jpegs aren't smaller is that the camera applies sharpening which is harder to compress. Of course, you could always use smaller jpegs / lower quality which would increase the ratio.

I don't disagree that for many applications, there's really no need to go to RAW. And there are substantial workflow benefits for jpeg.

 

[TOOLMAN]

Pond critters, shot as JPEG so no exposure info
Nikon D7000. Nikon - Zoom 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S ED VR

 

[Major Tom]

ERD50 - I'd be careful quoting Ken Rockwell. He generalizes a lot and paints in very broad brush strokes. He's not exactly the most credible guy on the internet when it comes to photography (thought he does get a LOT of traffic to his site.)

I think of RAW files as my negatives. I never know when, in the future, I may want to go back and "reprocess" that file in a different way. I may want to try and pull a bit more detail out of the shadows, or hope to see a bit more detail in what I had thought was a completely blown-out highlight. Maybe I won't, but as it is no more trouble to shoot in RAW than jpeg, there is no downside. For anyone who wants jpegs straight out of the camera, they can shoot RAW + jpeg at the same time.

Another area where RAW files can be particularly useful is with color balance. You can easily change the color balance of an image shot in RAW. If you make more than small adjustments to color balance with a jpeg, the results don't look too good.

I always shoot in RAW. If I were a photojournalist or similar, for whom very speedy workflow was important, I'd shoot either in jpeg or RAW + jpeg.

 

[ERD50]

... I may want to try and pull a bit more detail out of the shadows, or hope to see a bit more detail in what I had thought was completely blown-out highlight. ...

Thanks for this and the other comments. Once I saw that second link I posted, I was more aware of the advantages of getting detail out of highlights/shadows. And I thought that raw file size was a bigger delta than what you guys are reporting - 3x or so isn't that high of a 'price' to pay.

-ERD50

 

[FIREd]

I shoot in RAW+jpeg mode using point-and-shoot cameras.

 

[FIREd]

Cleared for take-off. Does anyone knows what kind of bird this is?

 

[photoguy]

Looks like a cormorant.

 

[Nemo2]

Looks like a cormorant.

It is, I believe.

 

[FIREd]

Thanks guys!

 

[Walt34]

There are good perspectives on RAW vs. jpg and each has good reasons. (Sort of like "should I pay off the mortgage?") As noted RAW gives a lot more latitude with post processing simply because you have more data to work with. And that "more data" is the downside because it takes more space on the drive.

My understanding is that most pro sports shooters shoot jpg because it's faster to clear the camera's buffer and get written to the card and speed is everything in that environment. An architectural or landscape photographer doesn't care about that. But the sports shooter is going to make sure he/she has the white balance and exposure nailed because they are not going to have the wiggle room that a RAW shooter does.

So like so many other things the "correct" answer lies in where you're going with it and why. And sometimes, like paying off the mortgage, it is merely personal preference.

I shoot in RAW and my mortgage is paid off. YMMV.

 

[frayne]

 

[Walt34]

Whoa! She's gonna leave a long trail of broken hearts.

 

[explanade]

I shoot in RAW but post-processing can be overwhelming at times.

I usually shoot when I travel so I'm out all day taking hundreds of pictures. I rarely set up and take shots deliberatively, like one might for taking bracketed shots on a tripod for HDR or for panos, though I have a panoramic bracket.


I do it once in awhile, to take night shots.

But after a long day, I don't want to edit each picture and leaving it to do weeks or months later doesn't work either.

So I set up a preset in Aperture as kind of a universal set of values to apply on import. But Aperture also has a auto develop mode, so I check that out too.

Since it's non destructive processing and the RAWs are always preserved, I can always reprocess individual shots, make manual tweaks.

 

[REWahoo]

I shoot in RAW...

Like this guy?

 

[Jack_Pine]

Was going to ask Q about RAW....But make that go away.....^^^^^^

 

[TOOLMAN]

Great shot. The age of innocence

 

[Skyward1]

Cleared for take-off. Does anyone knows what kind of bird this is?

A great pose on this one. It's a juvenile Double-crested Cormorant. Very nice job.

I'm enjoying everyone's contributions to this thread. Keep them coming.

 

[Skyward1]

Like this guy?

That is shooting in the raw. Although in fairness someone did ask about that as well but I won't name names.

 

[Ronstar]

DW is catching the photography bug. She used to use our canon powershot sd850is, but has been using her phone for the past year or so. Today she told me that she wants a "point and shoot". She'll use it almost exclusively for people shots - family gatherings, etc. I'm looking at reviews, but there isn't a clear best choice.

Photo guys and gals - do you have a recommendation for a point & shoot camera?

 

[frayne]

I'm partial to Canon G series point and shoot cameras. Small enough to take anywhere, rugged and they take great pictures. Plenty of bells and whistles too if you want or keep on auto modes and just point and shoot. I think the newest G series P&S is still around $500. Just my two cents.