is RAW worth it?

[Peter Guy]

JE wrote

J-pegs lose a lot every time you open them for editing

Hmmmm? Are you saying that if I have a JPEG file THAT I DO NOT CHANGE, that every time I access it in PS it changes -- even though I use a "save as" command so as NOT to change the underlying file?

Of course every time I edit that specific file something changes, but the rule is, NEVER EDIT THE MASTER, is it not?

Another issue I have with RAW and those who advocate it because of White Balance issues. What color(s) does one actually produce when specifying a color temp? What color IS "the right color" for things underwater? Is the right color what we would see UW without any artificial light? Is the right color what we would see IF the sunlight hit it unfiltered -- but NOT what we actually see? By adjusting the White Balance are we merely manipulating the image to make it look like something we want it to look like as opposed to what it actually looks like?

 

[vondo]

JE wrote

Hmmmm? Are you saying that if I have a JPEG file THAT I DO NOT CHANGE, that every time I access it in PS it changes -- even though I use a "save as" command so as NOT to change the underlying file?

Of course every time I edit that specific file something changes, but the rule is, NEVER EDIT THE MASTER, is it not?

Another issue I have with RAW and those who advocate it because of White Balance issues. What color(s) does one actually produce when specifying a color temp? What color IS "the right color" for things underwater? Is the right color what we would see UW without any artificial light? Is the right color what we would see IF the sunlight hit it unfiltered -- but NOT what we actually see? By adjusting the White Balance are we merely manipulating the image to make it look like something we want it to look like as opposed to what it actually looks like?

"Is the right color what we would see IF the sunlight hit it unfiltered" -- that one.

Our brains are remarkably adept at figuring out that white is white and adjusting the way we perceive reality. That's certainly what I try to mimic: show what I perceived under water. Usually we don't see a sickly green when we are somewhere with fluorescent lighting, but that's what film or a daylight balanced digital camera will show.

 

[dhaas]

Amigos,

My limited understanding is in today's editing programs (Adobe, Apple's Aperture or other popular ones) is they ALL save the changes as lines of code and then whatever final EDITED version you create save as a copy (JPEG, TIFF, .DNG) incorporates them from your RAW file.

So for instance yes, if you open up that EDITED version JPEG and start adding MORE changes it might develop into a mess of garbage.....

But you can always start FRESH with your RAW file and do different versions as long as you plopped your edited one in a folder or whatever in your program.

I would agree RAW gives you more highlight recovery latitude but more so in APS or full size sensor cameras (dSLR models.)

My little sensor Canon S90 has not shot but a few RAW files and I watch to not get blown out highlights.

My opinion is to get better exposures in the first place, not try and save crap and use RAW as a crutch. I do shoot at the lowest ISO possible with ANY little sensor camera and have found little sensors NEED and LOVE lots of light for good detail and proper exposure.

JPEG algorithms today especially if shooting the highest level quality have come a long way.....So some of the RAW preaching is old school IMHO and won't help the majority of shooters who don't know how to adjust exposure in the first place and get it right.

The JPEGS my 1 / 1.7 sensor Canon S90 produces (and you can read reviews) are great and could easily make 11 X 14 prints from them.

Just one bozo's opinion

dhaas
wwww.haasimages.com

 

[boogs]

In a word, yes!

 

[hammerhead man]

There is a lot of debate on this issue, here is a link to an article that discusses RAW vs JPEG: Raw or JPEG? Should You Capture Digital Photos In Raw or JPEG Format?. Personally, I only shoot JPEG and my photos look fine when printed. As the article pointed out even large prints shot in either format and compared are hard to distinguish which are better. I think is it a personal preference like do you prefer a Honda, Toyota, Ford, or GM. Each has its own proponents and detractors.

Regards,

Bill

 

[mikemill]

I shot RAW 100% of the time. Storage is cheap and I can get a day's worth of photos on one card. I've found that the RAW editor lets me make color changes a lot easier than the image editor. Not just the white balance but taking a white haze off of a picture, contrast, saturation, etc.

 

[vondo]

There is a lot of debate on this issue, here is a link to an article that discusses RAW vs JPEG: Raw or JPEG? Should You Capture Digital Photos In Raw or JPEG Format?. Personally, I only shoot JPEG and my photos look fine when printed. As the article pointed out even large prints shot in either format and compared are hard to distinguish which are better. I think is it a personal preference like do you prefer a Honda, Toyota, Ford, or GM. Each has its own proponents and detractors.

Regards,

Bill

I don't disagree with a single word he said, which basically boils down to "if you take a shot with the correct exposure and correct white balance you can't tell the difference." True enough. But the flip side is that taking things in RAW just doesn't slow down my workflow either. He talks about shooting in a studio with constant lighting. I don't do that.

I shoot everything in RAW and load it all up in Lightroom. Then, even if the exposure and WB are perfect, I use LR to choose which shots to keep, crop photos, etc. I'll make exposure or saturation changes to a few files. I get the whole collection the way I want it and then hit "Export" and generate JPG files for the whole lot. At that point, I go get a cup of coffee. (My PC probably generates 10-20 12 mpix photos/minute.)

So my point is that occasionally having a RAW file can save your butt. Most times it's not necessary but unless you are looking for really quick turnaround by printing something 10 seconds after it comes out of the camera, it doesn't really matter. So I shoot everything in RAW.

The next version of Lightroom is said to have very impressive noise reduction, so assuming that's the case, I can go back and improve six year old photos that I had to take under less than ideal situations.

 

[DSR-3]

2 quick questions;
How much larger, and slower to write are RAW files? Recycle time is important.
I've never even seen Lightroom, but how does it do with jpeg edits?
Thanks - Eric

 

[vondo]

I'd guess a RAW file is about 2x larger than a superfine JPG. On my SLR, the write time is irrelevant. I can get off 20 frames in 3 seconds with RAW. I suppose I could shoot 6.5 fps for 30 seconds with JPG. I never do either. On my G10 the write time may be a touch longer. dpreview.com says 2.0 seconds between shots with JPG, 2.5 with JPG+RAW, so RAW alone is probably in between.

Lightroom will do JPG edits, but you are starting with an 8-bit file that's been compressed rather than a 10 to 14-bit file that's not compressed, so major fix-ups are harder. You can download a one month trial of Lightroom 2 or a 3 month or so trial of the beta of LR 3. I'd certainly recommend you try it.

 

[Bubbletrubble]

I've never even seen Lightroom, but how does it do with jpeg edits?

@DSR-3: You bring up a good point about editing JPEG images in Lightroom. I use a similar program, Apple Aperture 2. With strobeless wide-angle shots that have a harsh greenish-cast, I find that the white-balancing function (simply pick a pixel in the image that the program will recognize as the color white) works just about as well on JPEGs as the RAW images from which the JPEGs are derived. Most of the other simple edits (cropping, color shifts, some sharpening) that I do on pics can be accessed regardless of image format. I realize that the JPEG has already been compressed in-camera, so a loss of light information has already occurred...and once edits are made and the image version re-saved, another compression event will likely degrade the image somewhat. Still, I've found editing JPEGs to be quite acceptable in Aperture 2. Results may be different for Lightroom, so YMMV.