How useful is RAW to the lazy/unskilled?

[Bubbletrubble]

I agree there that proprocessing on JPGs is possible and very helpful. But it is a moot point in my point; if you are going to do post processing why not postprocess the RAW image? You get better results and zero downside.

Zero downside? Filling up memory cards and hard drives with photo info that one will never use. Wasting CPU cycles on editing large RAW files when you could be working on high-quality JPEGs. Probably purchasing a more expensive camera than you need...and exposing it to risk of flooding. I wouldn't call it "zero downside."

Lets restate the pictures - the RAW conversions and the JPG conversions, side by side. I think it is very obvious which gives you the best results.

What a patently unfair comparison!
The RAW-white balanced files only went through one round of JPEG compression:
RAW uncorrected --> white balance --> JPEG compression for web
The JPEG-white balanced files were subjected to at least 2 rounds of JPEG compression:
RAW uncorrected --> JPEG compression for web --> white balance --> JPEG compression for web
Not to mention that the white balancing was performed using two very different methods...

When I first discovered cameras that saved photos in RAW format, I thought: "Wow! This is going to help me take really good photos." Guess what? Over time, one realizes that the format that one shoots in (high quality JPEG vs. RAW) is quite low on the list of factors determining the quality of an UW pic -- at least for an amateur photographer. I could very easily rattle off 10 things that are more important -- things that are more dependent on practice and skill.

I'm going to stick with my original recommendation to the OP. Shoot in JPEG. It's the right tool for your needs.

 

[John_B]

Zero downside? Filling up memory cards and hard drives with photo info that one will never use. Wasting CPU cycles on editing large RAW files when you could be working on high-quality JPEGs. Probably purchasing a more expensive camera than you need...and exposing it to risk of flooding. I wouldn't call it "zero downside."

What a patently unfair comparison!
The RAW-white balanced files only went through one round of JPEG compression:
RAW uncorrected --> white balance --> JPEG compression for web
The JPEG-white balanced files were subjected to at least 2 rounds of JPEG compression:
RAW uncorrected --> JPEG compression for web --> white balance --> JPEG compression for web
Not to mention that the white balancing was performed using two very different methods...

I wouldn't call it an unfair comparison, I'd call it bringing the differences into tack-sharp focus.

BTW, the P&S Canons with the CHDK firmware hack can do RAW without any additional expense. Memory cards, even the fast ones, are pretty inexpensive these days. And I don't worry about CPU cycles as long as I have enough to do the job, any Mac or PC of recent vintage is up to the task, a slower computer will just take a little longer.

I'm going to stick with my original recommendation to the OP. Shoot in JPEG. It's the right tool for your needs.

For now that's probably the best advice for the OP.

 

[Bubbletrubble]

I wouldn't call it an unfair comparison, I'd call it bringing the differences into tack-sharp focus.

"Tack-sharp focus?" I think you're missing the point here.
A much better comparison would be the following...
For RAW-white balanced image:
RAW uncorrected --> white balance --> JPEG compressed for web
For JPEG-white balanced image:
JPEG captured at same time as RAW (converted in-camera) --> white balance --> JPEG compressed for web
Furthermore, the same method for white balancing should be used.
I guess I should have spelled this out explicitly.

BTW, the P&S Canons with the CHDK firmware hack can do RAW without any additional expense. Memory cards, even the fast ones, are pretty inexpensive these days. And I don't worry about CPU cycles as long as I have enough to do the job, any Mac or PC of recent vintage is up to the task, a slower computer will just take a little longer.

The OP initially asked us whether shooting in RAW was worth it for him. He posed this question along the lines of: "Hey, I'm looking at buying this other more expensive camera (Canon G10) because it shoots in RAW." Others chimed in to tell him that: "Yes. Shooting in RAW is worth it. Look at the results..." The implied recommendation was: "Sure. Go out and get the G10 and shoot in RAW." I fully endorse experimentation with CHDK on the Canon P&S cameras that the OP already owns. I think that, given a fair trial, the OP will find that shooting in JPEG is just fine for his needs.

For now that's probably the best advice for the OP.

Yup, we are in agreement on this.

 

[John_B]

The OP initially asked us whether shooting in RAW was worth it for him. He posed this question along the lines of: "Hey, I'm looking at buying this other more expensive camera (Canon G10) because it shoots in RAW." Others chimed in to tell him that: "Yes. Shooting in RAW is worth it. Look at the results..." The implied recommendation was: "Sure. Go out and get the G10 and shoot in RAW." I fully endorse experimentation with CHDK on the Canon P&S cameras that the OP already owns. I think that, given a fair trial, the OP will find that shooting in JPEG is just fine for his needs.

Yup, we are in agreement on this.

'Zactly. Don't spend a fortune on a G10 (which may have flash issues unless he springs for strobes, now we are really talking some bucks!), as the P&S Canons will work fine for now.

Its also worth restating that RAW is essentially useless until you post-process it. JPEGs give you something you can share NOW with other people. That's why JPEG + RAW makes such a great solution for some people.

 

[Bubbletrubble]

Its also worth restating that RAW is essentially useless until you post-process it. JPEGs give you something you can share NOW with other people. That's why JPEG + RAW makes such a great solution for some people.

Good point, John_B. Currently camera manufacturers are marketing the "shooting in RAW" capability as a high-end feature. As the popularity of shooting in RAW catches on and perhaps infiltrates cheaper digicam lines, it will be interesting to see whether graphics programs will start incorporating native support for Canon/Nikon/Sony RAW image formats.
JPEGs can be "shared" with other people because JPEG rendering is incorporated by default into most modern operating systems. It's too bad that camera manufacturers are reluctant to develop a standard RAW output format. It would really simplify things for the end user.

 

[ScubaSteve]

OK, I will start out by saying WOW I cannot believe the discussions that have arisen from such a simple question. Now for my 2 cents.

Shoot whatever you want. You can do more IMO with RAW for better results HOWEVER you are going to get some possibly great results shooting JPEG. My underwater camera is a Nikon P&S 10.1mp without RAW. I have some of my photos blown up to 20"x30" and they look great and are hanging in my house. You can correct for colour as others have shown and I think it can look great even this way....

BEFORE

AFTER

So, if you get a shot that you really want to enhance, it can be done. To do this with every picture would be terrible (it takes a minute or twop per picture once you get the hang of it) so make sure you have a good lighting system with your camera and just start shooting. Any that need tweaked...spend the time. Otherwise you will enjoy looking at the untweaked version....I know I did for a couple of years. They may be less spectacular when comparing to others but they are YOUR memories and they are just a trigger to get your mind going back to the HD version in your head.

 

[alcina]

OP - any of the Canon options you are looking at should meet your needs very well. I personally would head to the G10 (the G9 if I could lay hands on one) because I like to have the option to expand my abilities and to have all of the choices available to me both now and in the future without having to deal with upgrading again. I wouldn't choose the SeaLife, myself.

The Canon SD series (Elphs) do an excellent job on land and a fairly decent job underwater as long as you work within their limitations - the same as any other camera system! I believe some of them have a white balance adjustment option and I'd choose one of these as I was narrowing down choices.

The Canon A series is also a tried and true workhorse - just make sure to get one with manual controls, even if you don't think you'll need it, and an underwater housing.

I won't rehash any of the jpeg/RAW information as this discussion has had some interesting input in the posts above. There's no right or wrong answer here. For me, shooting RAW whenever I can is important. My processing time is far less with RAW than it was with jpeg, your results may vary. RAW for me is just the norm - it's no scarier than jpeg and if you have the software (I highly recommend Lightroom!) it's a breeze. Just like choosing a camera that might have a few more features than I think I need right this second (having them can save your butt in a pinch even if you shoot in one of the auto modes 99% of the time!), RAW gives me options that jpeg just doesn't.

Shoot either one and be happy. This is meant to be fun, after all

 

[vondo]

Or... just make the adjustments on your computer AFTER the dive. Carrying a slate and White Balancing every 2 minutes is a pain in the butt... no??

A bit, but the Canon G10 makes this very easy as you can set the Direct print button to do a one-push set the white balance function. Very nice.

The other reason to do it this way is that it seems to have a much wider range of white balances. DPP (supplied with the Canon) can adjust white balance up to 10,000 K. Lightroom can adjust up to 50,000 K. There seems to be no limit with the in camera setting.

From my last trip I have a number of shots where the WB set in the camera is pretty good and Lightroom cannot get close to getting rid of all the blue. So in the future I'm going to keep it adjusted the best I can and limit my post-processing to the extent possible.

 

[vondo]

There is something that's being missed here about RAW and the amount of correction that can be done. I think the photo of the Mantis Shrimp illustrates this perfectly.

JPG files are 8-bit. RAW files are typically 10-12 bits and 14 bits are now common on the newest SLRs.

When a RAW is converted to JPG, information is thrown away. If the camera assumes the white balance is "normal" and not underwater, then in the red channel it is going to throw away the lowest 2 to 6 bits of information. However, because the red is so screwed up, rather than leaving 8 bits of information like it does above water, you may only have 4-5 bits of red info. Let's say 4 for illustration purposes.

Now, if you try to correct that resulting JPG, you are going to take those 4 bits and try to stretch them back into 8 bits. That means multiplying whatever red is in the photo by 16 (2 to the 4th power). And that doesn't work too well.

Instead lets go back to the RAW file and assume it is a 12 bit camera. That same photo will be missing the same top 4 bits of red the JPEG was, so we have 8 bits left. Lets assume (realistically) the lowest bit is noise. That leaves us with 7 bits of real info. Now we have to stretch that 7 bits into 8 to get a nice JPEG. That means multiplying the amount of red by 2, not 16. This is a much easier task.

That's why the reds are so much richer in the photo that started with RAW as opposed to the other one.

If you want to see this in action, take a look at the exposure histograms while trying to correct a JPG that's seriously off in WB. In the red channel you will see lots of 1-bin spikes which tells you you are trying to stretch nothing into something.

BTW, something like an A620 is a 10-bit camera and still has about 1 bit of noise, so RAW doesn't have as much of an advantage there when used with the CHDK hack.

 

[diverrex]

The RAW vs. JPEG issue could be argued forever. It depends on what the OP really wants from the camera, how often they will dive with it AND how much difference a few hundred $$$ means to him. To some people that's a lot of money, others not so much. I used to shoot a A620 and got some decent photos. I've now moved to a G9 and shoot in RAW. I agree that many aspects of a good photo are much more important than the RAW vs. JPEG issue, but that being said everything else being equal I prefer my RAW images and what I can do with them much over the JPEG images. Heck the bigger LCD screen on the G9 was worth it for me.

If you want to keep cost down then get an A series and Canon housing for around $400, if you want more options particularly the ability to grow with the camera spend $700 and get the G10 and Canon (or even better) housing. Either way you can take good photos to show people what you see undwerwater.

I don't regret starting with the A620 (someone gave it to me so all I had to buy was the $149 housing) but unless that few extra hundred $$$ is a deal breaker I recommend to people to start with the G10.