• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

RAW, reprocess your old shots. (1 Viewer)

nigelblake

nigelblake

don't re member
Its been a bit of a revelation going through some of my older stuff, not least because of the sheer amount of images, but mainly because reprocessing reveals that some of the shots are considerably better reworked with newer software, a far superior PC and no doubt better understanding of whats being done by the operator (me).
It has really surprised me that some of my EOS D60 and 10D files still stand up well compared to images from my later model cameras after their image files have been reprocessed.
Really this posting is aimed at all those who still shoot jpegs, if you are still toying with the RAW move its worth knowing that in the long run as software and hardware improves even more, you will without doubt are going to get even better images from those RAW files because thay have all of the data than you will from the compressed data reduced jpeg files.
 
nigelblake said:
Really this posting is aimed at all those who still shoot jpegs, if you are still toying with the RAW move its worth knowing that in the long run as software and hardware improves even more, you will without doubt are going to get even better images from those RAW files because thay have all of the data than you will from the compressed data reduced jpeg files.
Click to expand...

Worth repeating it, Nigel, I agree ... yet I believe that many will not make the move -
In these days I've been trying to recover some poor shots taken early this year during a short holiday with my best half in gloomy, snowy Stockholm. She said: "Holidays, no birdwatching-aimed trip", so I moved back to jpgs (Large; superfine) just to be able to fill my flash cards with a ton of shots.
Glad I did it, lighting was rather inadequate, and each shot had to be repeated at least twice in the hope to bring something decent back home ... to make the story short, my regular PP settings were not enough to recover some badly exposed shots, nor they were able to bring back some "life" to some otherwise dumb pictures, due to the reduced jpg's latitude ... not to mention the reduced jpg usability in the mid term ...
 
Unfortunately the vast majority of my earlier shots with my 20D are jpegs, mainly due to lack of memory cards! When I first got it I only had one 256Mb Ultra 11 card plus the free basic 8x Sandisk 256Mb card that Canon sent me when I registered the camera.

All my immediate funds were used up paying for the camera and cards were much more expensive just a few years ago - now I've just bought a 4Gb Extreme 111 for less than half of the price I paid for that first 256Mb!

I've no real reason not to shoot Raw nowadays but to emphasise Nigel's point, there are some shots that I've got that I really wish had been taken in Raw as I could have made a much better job of them now.
 
Last edited:
Glad you said that Nigel, I've just switched from jpeg to RAW having read Andy Rouse's book and I'm chuffed with the difference already.
 
Unless you want to sit and post process everyone of your hundreds of images, RAW plus Jpeg is a good way to go, 4GB cards being the price they are. For most shots the camera Jpeg is good enough, but you have the backup RAW for those dodgy exposures or dragging out that hidden detail.

I know some people love the hours of tweaking in their host of programs (some peoples' quoted workflows on here involve four or more applications!), but RAW can fall foul of the hobbyists curse.
 
Mono said:
Unless you want to sit and post process everyone of your hundreds of images, RAW plus Jpeg is a good way to go
Click to expand...

This is completely missing the point, the RAW file contains so much more data, the .jpeg file is stripped and compressed, hence the small file size, therefore (unlike with RAW) future improvements in software will not have the original data to work with and there will be no way of regaining it either!
 
But Nigel, the point of photography is to generate photos. If the Jpeg from the camera is accurate and esthetically pleasing then you can enjoy it, share it and use it to stimulate all those memories. There will be no need to reprocess it with future software. Any shots you are not happy with you can postprocess the RAW now, tommorrow and next year to get what is an acceptable photo.

I agree wholeheartedly that RAW offers so much more, and I advocate that people use it, but for most people and most photos the camera-processed Jpeg offers an acceptable result in milliseconds rather minutes or tens of minutes of farting around in ACR.

I know some people love the farting around but by shooting RAW + Jpeg you get the best of both worlds.
 
Mono said:
But Nigel, the point of photography is to generate photos. If the Jpeg from the camera is accurate and esthetically pleasing then you can enjoy it, share it and use it to stimulate all those memories. There will be no need to reprocess it with future software. Any shots you are not happy with you can postprocess the RAW now, tommorrow and next year to get what is an acceptable photo.

I agree wholeheartedly that RAW offers so much more, and I advocate that people use it, but for most people and most photos the camera-processed Jpeg offers an acceptable result in milliseconds rather minutes or tens of minutes of farting around in ACR.

I know some people love the farting around but by shooting RAW + Jpeg you get the best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

Clearly you have totally missed the point of lead item of this thread Mono.
 
Hi Mono,

the point here is just that shooting RAW provides the very real advantage of being able to go back to old images as conversion software, techniques and abilities improve, and start with a clean sheet from the "negative".

That's not true - certainly not to the same extent - for other most image file formats.
 
Last edited:
Mono said:
Unless you want to sit and post process everyone of your hundreds of images, RAW plus Jpeg is a good way to go, 4GB cards being the price they are. For most shots the camera Jpeg is good enough, but you have the backup RAW for those dodgy exposures or dragging out that hidden detail.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why anyone would shoot RAW + JPG, it will use up more memory and reduce the number of shots your camera can buffer. If you shoot everything in RAW you can easily produce a batch of jpgs on the PC.
 
You're right Nigel. I spent a couple of weeks in the Flow Country last year, only when I got there (from Somerset!), realised my memory cards were in a neat pile next to the computer. All I had with me was a 256mb CF. I shot all my images in jpeg, and even now, I look back at them and wish they were in RAW so I could reprocess them. Also being in jpeg, they're useless commercially - only memories.
 
postcardcv said:
I don't understand why anyone would shoot RAW + JPG, it will use up more memory and reduce the number of shots your camera can buffer. If you shoot everything in RAW you can easily produce a batch of jpgs on the PC.
Click to expand...
Exactly why I've never even contemplated shooting raw + JPG. It's dead easy to set up most Raw processors to generate a whole load of jpegs using the in-camera settings. Yes, it may take some time, but you can set it up to run while you're doing something else.
 
jimmy2faces said:
Which book is this - assume its his one about RAW - what sort of reading does it make?
Click to expand...

Ooops,

Sorry J2F only just spotted this one:eek!::eek!:. Yes it was the Raw book I got it for a barfday pressie - why my wife would have thought of it I've no idea as she takes no interest in photography:-O:-O

It's the sort of book that you read and think "what the hell ..." but then you pick it up again and it suddenly clicks. It's well written and even an incomplete beginer like me can get on with it.

cheers
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

chill6x6
A few quick thoughts, 7X35 vs. 8X32
2 3
Replies
55
Views
5K
John M Robinson
J
M
What binocular provides your current favourite view?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
5K
Will K
Will K
yarrellii
Vixen @Six 6x18: quirky and surprising pocket binocular
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
has530
has530
yarrellii
Sky Rover 8x30 ED first (underwhelming) impressions
Replies
11
Views
2K
gcole
G
J
Brief reviews about Zeiss victory SFL 8/10 x40
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
Declan Joseph Deasy
D

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top