How rare is RAW? (1 Viewer)

From what I've seen in a month, Birdforum must have one of the internet's largest collections of still images of birds ... better than that many of them are superb quality, inspiring me towards shots unimaginable ... I can't wait to be up there among the greats among ye. Along the way I am searching for, among many other things, any correlation between the best shots and the use of RAW quality settings, with little result. I wonder do you even remember whether you were shooting RAW when you pressed the button on that exceptional shot? I do appreciate that several factors take precedence over RAW in composing and achieving a great picture, but just now could I ask for a show of RAW hands, please?

Raw is only rare when you are talking about steaks. Isuspect that the vast majority of photographers here use it, some will use it exclusively and others when they feel they need to but most will use it some of the time

I always shoot RAW as it gives me more possibilities in PP and generally enables me to get more detail and sharpness out of the image.

/Thomas

I only shoot in RAW when I find myself in a difficult lighting situation.Only one shot in my gallery (Nuthatch) was shot in Raw.I find it a bit too time consuming myself.

With a bit of practice in processing and, especially, the dramatic reduction in the price of memory cards RAW is the way I usually go nowadays - with a jpeg back up as well!

I switched over to RAW about a year ago and have not taken a single bird shot in jpeg since. As others have said the increased flexability in processing is a big plus, it is also nice to be able to generate big TIFFs when needed.

For birds, nearly always JPG. Depending on camera and circumstances, I'll often shoot raw + JPG, but practically never have to resort to using the raw file. If the lighting is bad enough to need the raw file instead of the JPG, then it's probably not a good enough shot to waste much time post processing anyway.

By the way, Postcardcv says "it is also nice to be able to generate big TIFFs when needed". I have no idea why he says that - it has nothing, repeat nothing to do with shooting the original in raw or JPG.

Edit: a PS - all the shots in my gallery were shot in JPG. There are probably two or three shots on my website - http://tannin.net.au - done in raw (can't remember exactly without checking every one) but they will probably be landscapes rather than bird shots.

Tannin said:

By the way, Postcardcv says "it is also nice to be able to generate big TIFFs when needed". I have no idea why he says that - it has nothing, repeat nothing to do with shooting the original in raw or JPG.

Click to expand...

Well I've obviously misunderstood something somewhere along the way then... I was under the impression that a TIFF generated from the a RAW file should produce a better quality large print than a TIFF generated from a jpg. My mistake.

I never shoot RAW ...I expect I will in the future though. It makes little difference for small printed images and web pages...in my view. I use very basic software for processing. I imagine with the more pro software better results can be achieved and the difference may be more noticeable (perhaps) than comparisons made between RAW and jpeg....I could be wrong ...just my view.

There is actually a difference, PCV, but it is tiny. I'm not sure what it translates into in percentage terms, but something in the order of a fraction of one percent seems reasonable. I doubt that you or I could tell a big TIFF made from raw and a big TIFF made from JPG apart in a proper double blind test. But I am assuming, of course, that the original shots are properly exposed with good white balance. Once we venture into rescuing dud shots, raw is much more flexible.

Essentially, the difference is that JPG records the information from the sensor that the camera thinks is relevant to the final result, where raw files contain all the information the sensor captured, including stuff the camera thinks is not relevant to the final result. If the camera has got it right (in practice, given the quality of modern cameras, if the photographer has got it right), then the stuff in the out-of-camera JPG is the stuff you want in your big TIFF anyway.

(I can see this thread going on forever!)

Personally I only use RAW - I can't think of any good reason why I wouldn't.

It's probably a throw-back to my Nikon days, when shooting RAW and processing in Nikon Capture definitely made a difference, but - given that it hardly takes any more time and effort to get from RAW to finished article than it does jpeg - I see no reason to go back to jpeg.

And the extra processing "wiggle room" I get from RAW is highly appreciated.

I've done no side-by-side tests since I started using Canon mind, but I don't see the need: there's no down side to using RAW for me, so why not use it?

Only ever shoot RAW myself - cannot remember the last time I shot in jpeg.

Always RAW. If you're worried about processing time then virtually all RAW processors can work in batch mode to process the images using the camera settings at the time of shooting.You can set this up to run while you have a cup of tea and come back to all the images just as if you'd shot jpeg. But if any of them need some extra work - then you've got all the data of the raw file to play about with.

johnrobinson said:

Hardly ever shoot raw. Takes too long afterwards , and processing etc, and the difference - well most people wouldn't notice.

Click to expand...

The processing time was one of the issues that put me off giving RAW a try for many months. However one day I decided to try it and I could see a difference in my own shots (not when scaled down for web use, but as full size files). After a month of shooting RAW I'd got into the routine of processing them and found it to be no slower than processing jpgs was.

http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm

Just read this, its by no means comprehensive, but I am far too busy at the mo to write reams about this.

However Postcard CV is correct when he commented re generating large tiff files, clearly the chip inside a DSLR body has a lot of work to do and only so much of the processing power can be dedicated to converting the sensor data to a jpeg when shooting jpegs. Compare this to the much more highly refined algorythms in a dedicated RAW converter coupled with higher RAM and processsing ability of dual layer pentiums etc in a PC (or Mac equivalents), these also are not time restricted as with in camera processing that has to work within buffer/shoot rate tolerances.
If you shoot RAW and then only convert to jpeg there will be little noticable difference to shooting jpeg straight off, but you have significantly more control over the end result.
It is when converting to tiff files that the advantages are considerable, higher bit depth and wider gamut colour spaces (jpeg is just 8 bit with only sRGB or Adobe RGB colour spaces available) This is where significant image quality is retained when enlarging because there is so much more data for the interpolation software to work with, this smoother end file also has big advantages when using sharpening (USM) because sharpening works by increasing edge contrast.
I regularly produce images from my 1Ds MkIIs (and so do the RSPB) that are at least 2 metres in the longest dimension, today I am generating a 3 metre square Barn owl for a client, ages ago I did the obvious comparison between a RAW original and jpeg original, believe me the difference is massive.
Unless you work to the highest standards with properly colour corrected monitors and a real awareness of the abilities of the software and file types then you will not realise the full potential of your camera.
But then we live in a world where many people buy 4x4 off road vehicles and only ever use them for shopping at Sainsbury's!

As an add on to the above, as RAW processing technology advances there is a real gain with regard to reprocessing older RAW files because you have all of the original data; whereas a jpeg is a reduced data file that has had maybe 30% of the shooting data discarded, however much image processing software advances that lost data is not retrievable

I seldom use RAW - as they say 'life is too short!'

My use is mainly for the web or prints to A4 and occasionally larger prints or for publishing.

If I was taking photos for publishing or large prints then I'd use RAW but for everyday use processing takes far too long. I'm happy with the few seconds it takes to process a jpeg for web use.

If something special comes along then I'll switch to RAW+jpeg, but mostly I'll just use the jpeg version and burn the RAW to disc.

Ahhh Nigel ... exactly how many of us here own printers that can reproduce that greater gamut?

I'm reluctant to argue with someone as good at the craft as you are, but I frankly don't believe your claim that the difference is "massive". Indeed, with modern JPG engines in current generation cameras, I suspect it's very small indeed.

Used JPG when I was getting the hang of the camera - on my first serious outing switched to RAW and haven't looked back ...

Rob

When I get photography commission, I always get the photographer to supply me with RAW, I can then correct the file to profile without any previous tamperings. The problem I do have is some supplied images. If I could get a £1 for everytime I get this reply.

"It looks fine on my monitor".

I'd be rich!

Edit on Nigel's bit about quality, he's spot on.

I always use RAW, for most of the reasons given above. I don't need to make large TIFF files but most of the same issues apply if you are cropping and enlarging part of a shot and then producing a jpeg for the web. Why would you want to enlarge all those little squares in the jpeg file?!! Add to that the extra leeway in salvaging detail from the highlights and shadows (either in high contrast images or just when you've made a hash of the exposure!) and to me, there is no comparison.

(You see, its not a macho thing - I just know my limitations and know that some of my shots wont be exposed quite right or wont be close enough! Maybe its the jpeg fans who are being macho and assume they will always get it right in camera! )

I really don't understand the argument that it takes a lot longer. I normally use RawShooter Essentials to scan through my pictures and discard the duplicates and the duds. (But that is no different to what I used to do in Explorer with jpegs - and is actually easier with RawShooter due to its prioritisation and batch delete functions)

I tend to assume that almost all of my pictures will need some post processing even if it is just a crop for composition, followed by a resize to the required resolution(s) and a bit of USM following the resize. If you are doing that anyway, why is it any more time consuming to do it from a RAW file? If the exposure was good, importing from a raw would mean one extra click on the OK button in the RAW converter, accepting the default settings. If not, you may need to tweak the exposure and contrast a bit. But if the exposure wasn't right on a jpeg, you'd probably still be tweaking the image with Shadows/Highlights, Levels, Curves, etc anyway. And you still wont get such good results coz you will have lost detail in the blown highlights or shadows in the original jpeg.

So, to me there is no contest. The only downside that I can see is that the camera buffer fills faster, so you may very occasionally miss a shot at the end of a sequence. But thats easily balanced by the occasions when I have salvaged an acceptable long distance shot from something that would definitely have been written off if it was on jpeg.