• 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.

How rare is RAW? (1 Viewer)

Personally I take a fair bit of memory out in the field with me, I take 8gb worth of CF cards which will normally be more than enough (I get ~100 shots per gb). However just in case I run out I also carry a portable harddrive (40gb) which I can copy cards onto if needed. Given how (relatively) cheap CF cards now are I think it's worth stocking up on them.
 
This is really for the Nikon users out there. There is no need to shoot both NEF (RAW) and JPG because embedded within the NEF image is a full sized JPG. By using this free program it is easy to extract it from the NEF file.

Really useful tool
 
Hi, I have used this example in a similar discussion earlier. The attached photo is a JPG right from the camera (EOS 350D), whereas this links to the same photo in my gallery, only converted from RAW:
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/102851/ppuser/38764

I think the difference demonstrates some of the flexibility in RAW format compared to JPG. As others have pointed out: there are other advances as well.
Besides, I'm one of those strange (presumably macho) guys who think the digital darkroom is fun B :)

/Thomas
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0612b.jpg
    0 bytes · Views: 1,200
Ever since i switched from Jpeg to Raw ( a few years ago )- I've never looked back .
I find the end result to be far better .
And - Yes - I'm also one of those that enjoy the post processing - I think it's a crucial part of photography nowadays and once you get used to it - all the "conversion " thing is a "piece of cake" .
 
DOC said:
Ever since i switched from Jpeg to Raw ( a few years ago )- I've never looked back .
I find the end result to be far better .
And - Yes - I'm also one of those that enjoy the post processing - I think it's a crucial part of photography nowadays and once you get used to it - all the "conversion " thing is a "piece of cake" .
Click to expand...

Browsing through this interesting thread, I found myself recalling my development stages from JPEG to RAW: many doubts, many steps back but also nice surprises and sheer satisfaction.
Yes, we all know it takes time to process RAW images (I went to bed at 02.00AM last night) but it's part of the fun and staring at the final result adds to my personal gratification. No, I wouldn't go back for bird shots, although for more general shots (as Doug said) Large Fine JPGs are good enough .... if only could I be so "hard" to myself in binning a larger percentuage of shots from my HD :smoke:
 
I also always shoot raw and would never go back to using jpeg. I find the post processing software so much more flexible. I found that the quality of my work significantly improved using raw.
 
Hey John, I was refering to your use of "macho" but not really refering to you - I think that we both agree - do what you enjoy right? Some people use the "I expose perfectly" as a reason for using JPEG...I doubt many of us will not consider tweaking the exposure, post button pressing, by a 1/3 or so either way...no matter how long we have been doing it.

Just because some of us take a path that includes post processing (just like trying to understand how colour film is developed at the lab and advising how we want our images developed) doesn't make us any different to those that allow their cameras to do the work (send their films to the lab with no instructions).

As you say - get out and take pictures...

I will just add, but don't be afraid to develop them yourself ;)
 
johnrobinson said:
They and I could find no visible difference.That doesn't prove it to the world but it's good enough for me.
Click to expand...

I have tried this a few times myself, and I reached the same conclusion as yours John, BUT, and I say B U T, only when my picture was pretty good right from the start.
In my humble opinion this implies that, in order to confidently use always JPGs you must be quite consistent in getting average good (correctly exposed) shots (and you are) - I just wonder if most of us as beginners do perform like that (I don't). The latitude offered by RAWs during PP cannot be equalled by JPGs ... that's one of the main reasons I nowadays mainly shoot in RAW

johnrobinson said:
Most of these people have no pictures or examples to back up their claims and also haven't got a clue about what the term really means. They usually have the latest camera model though and can reel off the techie specs backwards. Its like they have been programmed to say what the camera mags expect them to say.
Click to expand...

LOL John |:D| ... there seems to be an awful crowd of people like that out there - too much reading specs, too less going out shooting - I sadly sometimes think that (as the singer said)
"Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'" ;) :-O
 
Last edited:
I would find it very hard to disagree from John’s point of view. Professionally I have to say that we prefer RAW, untouched files.

I can illustrate this at the moment as I’m doing a job, which a ‘professional’ in digital photography has supplied the images as jpg.file.

The images are just about usable (to me poor, very poor) and it will be an expensive product to produce. If they had been shot as RAW, we could have corrected them and the finished result would have been infinitely better. At the moment we have not got a hope to correct them in the time, as the images have all be post processed.
 
I think that how we're using our cameras has a bearing on this.

For example I'm rarely in one place for any length of time when I'm out, and I have no control whatsoever over the circumstances in which I take photographs - I'm completely opportunistic, and have no real control over the light, my distance from the bird or its placement - and I don't use a tripod, so sometimes I've not metered exactly on the bit of the bird I intended to (that happens a lot, especially when it's windy - as it is again today).

It'd be mad then, not to use RAW and make the best of my chances: I know for certain that a lot of my wader and gull shots have benefited from being in RAW so that I've been able to recover highlight detail when I've needed to, and that in itself is a good enough reason to use RAW.

Could other folk manage just fine in the same circumstances shooting jpeg? Unquestionably. But at the current state of my "technique", using RAW is without doubt the smart thing for me to do.

As to the extra time it takes to process RAW: it's literally one extra action over what I'd do to a jpeg - the "convert to RAW" stage.

Otherwise I'm doing the exact same things to the RAW that I'd be doing to a jpeg, only to better effect in some respects.

On a reasonable machine there's simply no "time overhead" worth worrying about.
 
johnrobinson said:
........I keep my camera set on 640 ISO . Normal (no camera sharpening). I mark down on contrast( to alleviate noise level a tad) Aperture priority, on F8, and one stop under exposure compensation. White balance cloudy. Jpeg Fine.
I can usually grab it in emergency and get a useable pic . Just my humble opinion.
My pics are good enough for me, and that's what counts isn't it ?.
Click to expand...

Having studied a few of your pics John, I was about to ask you a string of questions about getting exposure right and then up you popped with many of the answers, thank you. Most of your pics that I have seen are taken in woodland and your settings for dappled shade are very helpful.

What settings would you use/experiment with if you had red kites circling around and/or perched on exposed branches with bright grey background?
Forgive me if you have such pics on your site already, I'll get around to them but I would like to learn your settings anyway, please?
 
This thread has persuaded me to start shooting in RAW but I think I'll need a new computer first as the one I have is a bit sluggish even with jpegs.
 
One of the great advantages of adjusting exposure in RAW is not just with highlights but adjustment of the shadow end of things. By increasing the shadow level (without blocking them up), you increase the contrast of the image to advantage.

You can also adjust both the shadow and highlights, effectively maximizing the dynamic range of the image.

Additionally, you can make fine adjustments to the midtones to promote features, especially useful when dealing with bird plumage.
 
pe'rigin said:
Professionally I have to say that we prefer RAW, untouched files.

I can illustrate this at the moment as I’m doing a job, which a ‘professional’ in digital photography has supplied the images as jpg.file.

The images are just about usable (to me poor, very poor) and it will be an expensive product to produce. If they had been shot as RAW, we could have corrected them and the finished result would have been infinitely better. At the moment we have not got a hope to correct them in the time, as the images have all be post processed.
Click to expand...

This is the whole point, a good while ago I also held the view that there was very little difference between the file types until I had it very graphically demonstrated to me by a pro digital image finisher in a printing house.
The reality is that RAW files offer a massive difference to the end image quality (as well as the corrective benefits already commented on), but this really is down to familiarity with the processes involved and understanding fully what the colour space and bit depth parameters have to offer, and it is also down to using the high-end software/hardware that will process the data to the best benefit. Linear RAW conversion will make an even better job than non-linear conversion as it is even less likely to introduce noise issues, however the amount of post processing involved is slightly higher.
Converting an sRGB shot image to an 8 bit sRGB jpeg from RAW will only give you much the same as the cameras output, it is when shooting in wider gamut Adobe RGB and converting to 16 bit (or greater bit depth) in Adobe or Prophoto RGB you really notice the increases in detail and colour smoothness/fidelity.

Quite frankly no-one with little experience of working with RAW will be able process their files so that they can see the difference straight away, and unless they have their hardware (monitor,printer etc) properly profiled/calibrated they will not even begin to see the gains when they start to get them.
 
Last edited:
John, it would be interesting if you explained exactly how you did your RAW processing on your test, it maybe that we can then understand why you are having such difficulty and then help you benefit from RAW.
 
Harold Stiver said:
One of the great advantages of adjusting exposure in RAW is not just with highlights but adjustment of the shadow end of things. By increasing the shadow level (without blocking them up), you increase the contrast of the image to advantage.

You can also adjust both the shadow and highlights, effectively maximizing the dynamic range of the image.

Additionally, you can make fine adjustments to the midtones to promote features, especially useful when dealing with bird plumage.
Click to expand...

Indeed and this is all done prior to conversion, and therefore does not have a noise penalty.
 
Well john that was a genuine offer to help you with RAW processing.
I am not suggesting that you are having difficulty with your understanding of RAW processing, it is readily apparent in your comments within the thread, so turning down an offer to help you understand the ‘techno stuff’ so it does not do your head in seems a little short sighted to me.

I think it is fine that you are happy with your results and I am quite happy for you, or anyone else, to carry on with the techniques that suit them best.

I am also sure John that a good many people would be very interested in your stringent test methodology, as there are many members of this forum who look to the threads on here for help in developing their own photography and post processing skills; they value the opinion of others who post within these forums.
So I feel that a full explanation of how you came to your conclusions would help them to decide which method is best for them.

If you are unable to do this, then personally I think it is wholly irresponsible to come on here and argue that ‘black is white’ about something you obviously do not fully understand!

I also think that art is arty, and that poor colour balance and bad levels adjustment is shoddy processing.
 
johnrobinson said:
Concerns about my "test" methods ( Oh dear - no PHD in photo thingies)

My "stringent" test methods are - -
"This looks good "
"This is not so good " --- so,

I'll have the first one.

John Robinson
Click to expand...

Finally you have answered and proved the point that I am making, you are arguing about something that you do not have any valid argument for based on quantative experience, and to validate it you have posted a couple of badly colour managed images to boot, sure enough the second Common Sandpiper is not green like the first but has a very distinct magenta cast. In both cases these colour issues would be easily rectified in any RAW software.
 
Hi
Rather than posting a new thread i thought i'd post here.

I have a few of questions about raw.

1. Is there any good free software out there? I use photofiltre for jpg's and when i tried editing raw with digital photo prof. that came with my 400d, I found it a lot harder, and there weren't as many options.

2. What are the main benefits of raw? I was told when i bought my camera that raw was good to use when you know you are going to crop something a lot. Is this true? Is this because you can upsize it better or something?

3. Any other tips? =0)

I use a 400d and a sigma 135-400mm lens, and have been using a d-slr for 2 or 3 months.

Thanks! :t:
 
Let me put it this way, if your planning on framing your pictures for the living room or selling them you may want to shoot in high quality raw. I you shoot in raw you have more flexibility with Photoshop... I wouldn't shoot in anything but raw.
 
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

J
Do you consider Resale Value/Opportunities due to Brand Recognition?
Replies
14
Views
687
Patudo
P
C
AX Visio: is it really as bad as some reviewers claim??
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
7K
Canip
C
E
Looking for the best value midrange (Opticron)?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Gzoladz74
G
C
SWAROVSKI AX VISIO: MY LEARNINGS IN A NUTSHELL
Replies
18
Views
2K
Canip
C
yarrellii
Just how good is the 8x32 Opticron Verano BGA VHD? (Comparisons)
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
Upland
U

Users who are viewing this thread

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