RAW and JPEG: The truth is out there

[beautybelow]

After much research, I opted to go RAW a few months prior to an extended trip to Indonesia. I committed to learning LR and PS RAW and worked hard at getting to understand the workflow needed to generate both initial JPEGs while on the trip and final processed photos on return from the trip. I shot RAW only for about two-thirds of the trip (~40 of 60+ dives). After significant frustration with the process - and seeing no real benefit to the quality of the finished product - I switched to shooting RAW + JPEG Fine. I can honesty look at photos where I start from RAW and work to finished and where I start with the JPEG Fine and work to finished and find no difference in the output - only the workflow (and amount of work) needed to get there. I have taken the same photos and worked RAW through PS RAW and JPEG Fine through PS... I find my results in PS to be both easier to process and the output more visually pleasing. It may be that I failed to learn the best RAW conversion shortcuts, but I think I gave it a fair shot.

While I agree with the tecnical side of what BullShark puts forth, I have to side with bvanant and say there are so many other factors that lead to a good photograph, the difference between RAW and JPEG are insignificant.

That said, I continue to shoot RAW + JPEG Fine for two reasons: 1 - In case I have an incorrect setting in the camera - say, white balance. The RAW makes that mistake meaningless (I have done this on one day of diving since 2007). And 2 - As others have said, there may be advances in RAW conversion algorithms in the future. Is it worth it? I sincerely doubt it. But packrat as I am, I'll likely continue to waste drive space because it's cheap insurance for what I don't know today.

If you used lightroom where did you run into the extra work? I only shoot raw and never even know it really, except for like you said, disc space.

But work flow in lightroom is seamless for me using raw.

 

[Mark Derail]

I use RAW, and Lightroom.

Perhaps some people refer to lossless-JPG's as "raw", but that's not the same thing.

The only advantage I see with Raw + Jpg is when the picture is fine as-is, easier to share to another peripheral. Like unto an iPad 2, to share your recent dive experience with others, w/o having to pull out the laptop.

I would never discard Raw, using Raw + post processing software worth it's salt, can yield unprecedented results.

 

[WetLens]

As I said, I gave LR and PS RAW a fair shot. I find working in PS easier, more intuitive, and fewer steps to a final product. I was unable to get the same results with RAW. Likely me.

Can BullShark or others show us photos where RAW made the difference? Can any of you show us these "unprecedented results" from using RAW?

Like I said, I continue to save RAW, but I do not find it to be the least bit significant to the quality of the end result. I continue to hope for this miracle in post-processing that is going to make that difference. If you are more comfortable with the software that takes you from RAW to finished product, fine. I accept that. I just don't see it making a significant difference and don't want others to think for a second that RAW is going to make that difference. Spend your time on other facets of photography that will make a difference.

For BullShark the case is closed. For me, it is not. While I gave it a shot and did not find it to be worth it, I continue to wait for someone to SHOW me - not just tell me - that RAW is the answer.

 

[beautybelow]

As I said, I gave LR and PS RAW a fair shot. I find working in PS easier, more intuitive, and fewer steps to a final product. I was unable to get the same results with RAW. Likely me.

Can BullShark or others show us photos where RAW made the difference? Can any of you show us these "unprecedented results" from using RAW?

Like I said, I continue to save RAW, but I do not find it to be the least bit significant to the quality of the end result. I continue to hope for this miracle in post-processing that is going to make that difference. If you are more comfortable with the software that takes you from RAW to finished product, fine. I accept that. I just don't see it making a significant difference and don't want others to think for a second that RAW is going to make that difference. Spend your time on other facets of photography that will make a difference.

For BullShark the case is closed. For me, it is not. While I gave it a shot and did not find it to be worth it, I continue to wait for someone to SHOW me - not just tell me - that RAW is the answer.

If you are saving the raw images and not doing anything with them then you are, like the OP said, letting the camera make the changes for you. If you are happy stay happy.

If it aint broke dont fix it?

If you ever get the shot of a lifetime and don't have the raw image to back it up you may be sorry. Otherwise, do what makes you happy.

In general, and I have taken a lot of photos underwater, good and bad, it's not the post processing that makes the picture. It's the technique used in taking the picture and, (sorry guys who say the camera doesnt matter) equipment. Or a combination of both.

RAW isn't magic...sorry to tell you. A crappy RAW image is a crappy image period.

BUT...you can fix more in a raw image than in a jpeg.

I still dont understand how you didnt like lightroom with your raw files. Did you import through lightroom? I never ever put a photo on my computer without importing it through lightroom. Havent for over 4 years now.

 

[herbdb]

Interesting discussion. I have had Raw images that were under exposed that were saved by lightroom. Its not just about white balance. For those struggling with learning to use manual mode this can be a blessing.

I am leaving for a trip to Florida tomorrow with my new Olympus XZ-1 and have it set up to save Raw + jpeg fine. I haven't used it underwater yet. I will be able to compare Raw vs jpeg on the new camera. With the low cost of memory, I see no reason not to keep both formats on the "keepers".

 

[Mark Derail]

Proof in the pudding, look at this thread I did about Lightroom. There's a link at the top, first post, to where Halemano took UW pics in RAW DNG - and did a simple conversion to Jpg and posted. I "bought" his raw files, and did work with Lightroom, and you can see the same pics, vastly improved.

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ti...mazing-results-little-effort-uw-touchups.html

I could have easily gotten the same results in Photoshop, or the free programs like Paint.Net or GIMP. Lightroom is the easiest to use.

If you are saving the raw images and not doing anything with them then you are, like the OP said, letting the camera make the changes for you. If you are happy stay happy.

If it aint broke dont fix it?

If you ever get the shot of a lifetime and don't have the raw image to back it up you may be sorry. Otherwise, do what makes you happy.

In general, and I have taken a lot of photos underwater, good and bad, it's not the post processing that makes the picture. It's the technique used in taking the picture and, (sorry guys who say the camera doesnt matter) equipment. Or a combination of both.

RAW isn't magic...sorry to tell you. A crappy RAW image is a crappy image period.

BUT...you can fix more in a raw image than in a jpeg.

I still dont understand how you didnt like lightroom with your raw files. Did you import through lightroom? I never ever put a photo on my computer without importing it through lightroom. Havent for over 4 years now.

 

[lmorin]

I have a now almost archaic Canon A570is point and shoot that I use almost exclusively under water. I installed the CHDK hack and invoked the option to save everything in DNG format (plus the default JPG format which is automatically saved too). All the DNG files are copied onto my computer and loaded into Lightroom and the JPGs discarded. White balance, some sharpening and some cropping are done in LR, but remember that LR makes zero changes to the original DNG files. It only saves a text file documenting the edits I made from within LR. I can return to the original DNG at any time and play with it however I wish, including invoking PS to make more advanced edits. I'm a big fan of LR because it both serves as a massive, searchable library of all my photos and a fairly potent editor, all without changing the original DNG.

 

[bvanant]

So if you edit the RAW file and save it back as a RAW file and then edit that file and save it as a JPG and then edit that JPG and save it again, is that 4th generation or would it be like 3rd generation, once removed?

You know that this converting back and forth is not allowed in Boston.
Bill
:cool2:

 

[Gilligan]

You know that this converting back and forth is not allowed in Boston.
Bill
:cool2:

:blessing:

 

[beautybelow]

Proof in the pudding, look at this thread I did about Lightroom. There's a link at the top, first post, to where Halemano took UW pics in RAW DNG - and did a simple conversion to Jpg and posted. I "bought" his raw files, and did work with Lightroom, and you can see the same pics, vastly improved.

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ti...mazing-results-little-effort-uw-touchups.html

I could have easily gotten the same results in Photoshop, or the free programs like Paint.Net or GIMP. Lightroom is the easiest to use.

I only use photoshop (good ole "apple E" shortcut) when I am going to print a photo for a client. I double check the "levels" and usually re size it in PS. There are a few other things I will do, depending on the photo like cleaning it up with the clone stamp or bandaid tools. I don't like Lightrooms "spot removal" tool.

I do trust the histogram in Lightroom though and if you don't use it you are not getting the full benefit of this program. Learn it...trust me. Use the fill light adjustment until the arrow on the upper left side changes colors and turns "grey". Especially for topside portrait type shots where exposure is even all around. Don't watch the photo when you do your exposure adjustments....watch that histogram...it doesn't lie or need calibrated.

Other than that...lightroom is my favorite program by far on my computer..haha

Another thing photoshop can do is easily show you the photo at it's real size and you can zoom in to just a few pixels for touch ups. Anyway...not needed for the average photographer.

End result of that ramble is personally, as someone who sells photos, I couldn't "not use photoshop" on every photo. But for the average photographer (if you can work with the annoying spot removal tool, Lightroom is all you would ever need. Their export options keep getting better and better with each $100 bucks I give them