Why I always shoot RAW

[BobH]

Shooting in RAW captures details that simply cannot be captured with a jpg file. "But the files are so much bigger!" you say. EXACTLY! That's because they have so much more data in them!

With a bit of effort, you can use all that extra data to bring out details that are hiding in the image. Here's an example. Straight out of camera vs a few minor adjustments in PS:

Notice the details in the smoke, the snow, and most of all, how you can see the hillsides much better.

 

[squirl033]

is the first image a JPEG for comparison, or the original RAW file?

 

[climbbike]

Absolutely! I take many photos people think are HDR but they are just raw files I was able to adjust the shadows and highlights on. (I do shoot some in HDR too, though) But it's amazing how much detail you can pull from a raw file.

 

[squirl033]

this particular image is a good example, since RAW is particularly useful for salvaging overexposed areas like the hillsides. i shoot almost exclusively JPEG, and rarely have to deal with such large areas of overexposure or white, but i can see where RAW could be an advantage in this type of situation. as far as HDR, i sometimes process images using HDR-type processing or the shadows & highlights filter to balance exposures and bring out details such as in the second image above, but no one ever asks if the images are HDR, which is the way i want it... if it looks like HDR, i haven't done it right.

 

[climbbike]

Our eyes see about 14 f-stops of dynamic range for any one scene and cameras are 8-11 f-stops so HDR's can actually be more realistic than traditional photos. There are two problems though. We are so used to seeing traditional photos that anything else looks fake to us even if it is more realistic. Then also, people WAY over do it with HDR more often then not, so HDR gets a bad rap.

 

[squirl033]

..., people WAY over do it with HDR more often then not, so HDR gets a bad rap.

exactly. so many times - in fact most of the time - people who use HDR processing "overcook" the images, and while you can see lots of detail, the light and shadow are nowhere near realistic, and the images look flat, more like paintings than photos. i process images to look like what i saw. i have Photomatix 4.2, but almost never use it; most of the time, i use ReDynaMix, a $16 photoshop plugin that doesn't works with a single image and doesn't multiple require bracketed exposures. used properly, it produces excellent results. here's a before-and-after example... this was shot in JPEG with 5D2 and 24-105 lens, processed in Photoshop with ReDynaMix. the image was captured as the sun was going down, so the far side of the lake was in deep shade, but the shoreline and the colors in the undergrowth were clearly visible to the naked eye; the camera, however, couldn't deal with the wide dynamic range, and i had to choose between metering on the peak and "losing" the foreground, or metering on the far lake shore and having the mountain badly overexposed. even without shooting in RAW, i was able to pull the details out of the shadows and balance the highlights to produce a final image that looked like what i actually saw through the viewfinder.

original JPEG file:



the final image, processed with ReDynaMix:

 

[Bill Anderson]

I shoot in jpeg, but Terry keeps bugging/encouraging me to shoot in raw. I am usually out shooting every day and have taken over 1,400 avian action shots in one day. I am not a member of the Gen X computer generation and don't want to spend the next three days in front of a computer downloading and processing my shots.

 

[JLMCPICS]

I think shooting in RAW makes you a better photographer. Because of the closer scrutiny you tend to learn what you are doing wrong and learn to correct before you shoot again. I also don't want to spend all my time at the computer so I will use more restraint and think out my shots before I take them.

 

[BobH]

is the first image a JPEG for comparison, or the original RAW file?

It was shot as a raw image. Here's the original raw file "1011001101010110010110100111100111011100011111001001100101001001010000100...(continues for a hundred pages or so)." What you see above is a jpg rendered using the "Camera Neutral" setting in Lightroom which is reasonably close to what the camera would have produced had I been shooting jpegs. I suppose I could have opened it in CaptureNX to assure maximum fidelity to Nikon's rendering, but it's very close to the jpg preview, which the camera creates, so it's reasonably accurate.

That's part of the problem. People talk about "Straight out of camera". There is no such thing with a RAW file, at least not in the same way there was in film days, when certain films would have certain looks, such as "warmer" or "saturated". The RAW file's appearance will be influenced by which program you use to "develop" it. Unlike a JPG, which, in theory at least, should look the same in any image program, a RAW file is generated, on the fly, by the image processing software. Different programs will create different looks. RAW files are propietary, meaning they have a "secret sauce". Depending on how well the program you're using does at cracking the code, you may or may not see the same results in different programs. Some, such as Lightroom and Photoshop, allow you to choose "develop modes" which will also impact how the file looks. For example, on the Nikon side, "Camera Vivid" and "Camera Neutral" work pretty much exactly as the names imply they will.

Even when you shoot jpgs, and have the camera "develop" the image, you are still making choices regarding the image's contrast, saturation, sharpness etc. You can take two photos of an identical test scene with different camera settings and get different results.

The same is true of a RAW file. You can open in it different programs and it will look different. I can use CaptureNX (Nikon's program), CaptureOne or Lightroom/Photoshop and get three different results. (Why not four? Well, both LR and PS use Adobe Camera Raw for rendering, so assuming you have the same settings, they should look the same.

It has gotten a lot better in recent years, but there was a time when Lightroom would wash out the reds in .nef (Nikon Raw) files. It was very disturbing, as it would show you the jpg preview for a moment as it rendered, then the image would blink and go dull. It was so bad that I took to batch processing the images in Capture NX, saving them as jpgs and using those instead. Thankfully I no longer need to do that.

The more you dig into this problem, the trickier it gets. Saturation, colors, white balance, sharpness, contrast. All can be adjusted when rendering the raw file. For that matter, so can exposure, at least to some degree. So you have to make choices for all of them. If you do not, and simply use "defaulit", you're still making a choice, you're simply choosing "Use the setting that the Nikon tech who designed this thought would work best in most situations..."

 

[BobH]

this particular image is a good example, since RAW is particularly useful for salvaging overexposed areas like the hillsides. i shoot almost exclusively JPEG, and rarely have to deal with such large areas of overexposure or white, but i can see where RAW could be an advantage in this type of situation. as far as HDR, i sometimes process images using HDR-type processing or the shadows & highlights filter to balance exposures and bring out details such as in the second image above, but no one ever asks if the images are HDR, which is the way i want it... if it looks like HDR, i haven't done it right.

I do the same thing. Many of my images have some HDR processing done, or in most cases a "single image HDR" process. Like you, I also strive for the "That doesn't look like HDR" result. During my recent gallery sale, I did create one "HEY! Look! HDR!" shot with vibrant colors and very strong details, just so I'd have one available. It got lots of good comments, but it didn't sell.

 

[squirl033]

I think shooting in RAW makes you a better photographer. Because of the closer scrutiny you tend to learn what you are doing wrong and learn to correct before you shoot again. I also don't want to spend all my time at the computer so I will use more restraint and think out my shots before I take them.

then again, shooting in JPEG means you don't have the option to do all that spiffy stuff in a RAW editor, so you learn to get better shots right from the start... or at least know what trade-offs you're making...

 

[BobH]

I shoot in jpeg, but Terry keeps bugging/encouraging me to shoot in raw. I am usually out shooting every day and have taken over 1,400 avian action shots in one day. I am not a member of the Gen X computer generation and don't want to spend the next three days in front of a computer downloading and processing my shots.

Bill shoot in RAW for a day, or part of a day, and then give Lighroom a try. You can try it free for 30 days. It's a wonderful way to sort and grade images quickly. Import the images, then tell it to render the previews, and while it does that, go have a cup or coffee or eat dinner etc. Then come back and you can quickly and easily scroll through images and pick the keepers.

I think you'll like it, and you'll really like how you can do stuff like bring up shadows and coax out details. If you like it, you can find Lightroom for just over $100 these days, and no you don't have to join the Creative Cloud to use it, you buy it outright for $110 or so, and you're done.

 

[BobH]

then again, shooting in JPEG means you don't have the option to do all that spiffy stuff in a RAW editor, so you learn to get better shots right from the start... or at least know what trade-offs you're making...

That is true to some extent. But here's the problem. I'm using the D800. It has over 14 stops of dynamic range. You can't really capture that in a jpg, you'll end up chopping part of it off.

So I shoot in raw instead, and have the ability to choose what areas are adjusted to create the final image. As an example, I may bump the highlights up a bit.

I think of it as having a bigger box of crayons. I can create more subtle variations and bigger ranges with my box of 128 crayons than I can with the box of 32.

Many people respect Ansel Adams work, including me. If you research him, you'll find that he did extensive post processing in the darkoom. He didn't simply print from the negative. So if it's good enough for a master like him, I don't see why I should limit myself either.

 

[JLMCPICS]

I think of it as having a bigger box of crayons.

I always did go for the big box of crayons!

Shooting JPEG has a place when the situation warrants but for myself I know I have more control of my images when shooting in RAW.

 

[BobH]

I consider taking photos to be a bit like gold mining. The better quality of raw material you have, and the more of it that you have, the better your end result can be.

You can't capture the scene in it's full 3D glory. Even the best camera doesn't have the dynamic range of the human eye. But you do the best you can. Shooting RAW rather than jpg increase the dynamic range available to work with.

Then you start working with the file. As you adjust it and edit it and make changes, your goal is to preserve as much image quality as possible. Some things have little or no effect, such as adjusting white balance. Others, like cropping or tilting the image, can have big impacts. Doing things in certain order can help, as can working with the full size file until the last possible moment. Don't resize a file and then re-size it again, as you can easily degrade the image. Ideally, you only re-size one time.

By shooting in RAW, I increase the quality of my original. As I work on the file, I still lose some quality. But since I have more quality to start with, the end product is hopefully better.

I try and start with the highest quality I can, carefully refine it, and try to get the best end product possible.

 

[BobH]

Obviously what you're shooting and why will affect this. Shooting grab shots for Facebook? You probably don't need to shoot in 14 bit raw files at high res.

 

[JLMCPICS]

I totally agree Bob.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk

 

[photographmemories]

I can create more subtle variations and bigger ranges with my box of 128 crayons than I can with the box of 32.

All you need are red, yellow and blue.

 

[JDueckPhoto]

I have to agree with Bob about the RAW vs jpeg argument. Most of the time I use RAW to fine-tune WB and exposure. When I take car photos, the WB can be slightly different between an interior photo with an open car door and one with the door shut. I could set WB manually for each scenario but its often somewhere in between the default settings (cloudy, shade etc...) so I find I save time with RAW.

I personally shoot in RAW only to save space on my cards instead of shooting RAW + jpeg. Sometimes though it'd be nice to have the jpegs ready to go like if I was uploading sports photos during a game.

 

[BobH]

I typically don't need a large amount of images from an event. You do, and so your method is a good idea for your situation. For me, its easy enough to export them from Lightroom, especially since I typical would want to resize them anyway.