Convince me to shoot in RAW
- Thread starter RobT
- Start date
- Status
Just my 2 cents... some people shoot raw, a lot of high volume top pro's do not... The more you shoot, the less raw you typically shoot... Many of the top pro's will even outsource all their PS work... It's all about speed and efficiency... For the amateur and the semi pro's who dont have the reputation a big pro does and obsess over every pixel and quality... they shoot raw... There's nothing wrong with either way... As i've mentioned on other threads... I've got my clients... i've got clients whom I know will never need or want all the detail of raw files so I will not shoot raw... I've got my clients whom I know will obsess over the tinest issues... I also have a feeling when shooting if a shot has "that" potential to work its way into my portfolio... in that case, i shoot raw... But yeah... If you expose properly, if you do what you need to do, you can get great results and great large prints with jpegs... Go with your instincts and use your business practices... If you have an entire room dedicated to storing and cataloging and managing hard drives and have a hard drive fetish... by all means... I'm frankly too busy for that.
WB... you can still alter WB in jpeg in camera raw in adobe, and if you do custom white balance with an expo disc... your golden...
WB... you can still alter WB in jpeg in camera raw in adobe, and if you do custom white balance with an expo disc... your golden...
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Recently I was asked what wb setting I'm using when I was shooting macro of reptiles at the local zoo. Only then I realized what people who don't shoot raw are missing - I always use awb, but with artificial light it's often way off - but I don't have to care
Upvote
0
If you need to be convinced about the benefits of RAW shooting, do you really care enough to use it?
It would be like an audio engineer trying to apply EQ to an MP3 file (which is the counterpart of a JPEG in the audio world) instead of opening up the protools session which contains all the high-quality individual performances that went into creating that track.
That's not even taking Lossy to Lossy conversions into account (which degrades quality each time).
IE, Take a JPEG and edit it, save it to another JPEG - this is significantly more damaging to the file than if you opened the RAW file and exported a JPEG from there.
It would be like an audio engineer trying to apply EQ to an MP3 file (which is the counterpart of a JPEG in the audio world) instead of opening up the protools session which contains all the high-quality individual performances that went into creating that track.
That's not even taking Lossy to Lossy conversions into account (which degrades quality each time).
IE, Take a JPEG and edit it, save it to another JPEG - this is significantly more damaging to the file than if you opened the RAW file and exported a JPEG from there.
Upvote
0
RobT said:
Good questions. I have a very efficient rating system called the delete button
ACR gets my images 90% of the way there in terms of processing, so I like how it simply deletes the unwanted files off the memory card instead of having to import the files in Lightroom. It's a very simple and somewhat barbaric system, but it gets the job done ;DAs for the RAW vs. jpeg debate, for files that need to be pushed hard RAW is definitely the way to go. I like the very fine adjustments to the contrast curve that RAW files allow without a penalty in image degradation. With RAW files, I find that I can more precisely isolate minor tweaks to the, midtones, and highlights individually. Conversely, the jpeg engine tends to take a whack at the extreme ends of the contrast curve, sacrificing detail in the process. The camera doesn't know which parts of the image are important to me and which parts aren't, so how can it possibly apply a contrast curve perfectly tailored to each image? The answer is that it can't.
That said, for files that don't need to be pushed hard, for me there is very little difference in overall IQ between a processed RAW and an out-of-camera jpeg. As such, the tradeoff between time invested and income generated certainly isn't justifiable. Fortunately, I don't need to shoot in high volume to stay profitable. Like awinphoto said, a very effective approach is to pick and choose which gigs can justify the additional processing time of shooting in RAW, and which gigs are better suited for jpegs.
Upvote
0
RAW files on a 50D have 14 bits of data per channel. JPGs, on the other hand, only have 8 bits of data per channel. What does this mean? Well, in a JPG file, values for red, green, and blue range from 0 to 255. In a RAW, red, green, and blue range from 0 to 16383 (effectively). That means there's 64 times more data in the RAW file.
But you can't really display all of that, so why would you want it?
Well, let's suppose you accidentally overexpose an image so that all of the data is in the right half of the histogram. With a JPG, that would mean red, green, and blue only had 128 possible values (values from 128 - 255 (the left hand-side of the histogram, 0-127 is empty)).
If you edited the image, spreading the data out so that the entire histogram was filled, there would still only be 128 unique values for each channel (here, I'm ignoring interpolation which would cause the image to soften; I'm also ignoring dithering, which would help, but effectively introduce noise). So even though you'd now have an image with solid blacks and bright whites, gradations would be blocky.
Looked at numerically:
Initially, your gradation contained: 128, 129, 130, ... 255
After corrections, the gradation contained: 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, ...254
You're jumping by twos in the corrected image because you're trying to cover 256 values with 128 unique inputs.
If, however, you did the same thing with a RAW file, you'd have started with 8192 possible values for red, green, and blue (8192-16383). Looking at that numerically:
Initially, the gradation contained: 8192, 8193, 8194, 8195, ... 16383
After adjustments: 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, ... 16382
But, you're still counting by 2's, right? How is this better?
Well, you still have way colors than are displayable by most devices you're likely to use (your monitor probably is 8 bit, or possibly 10 bit; either way, it has fewer colors than the 14 bit RAW file). When you scale your data back down to fit into the 0 to 255 range used by your display, printer, etc, you get:
0 / 64, 2 / 64, 4 / 64,...
0, 0.03, 0.06, ..., 16384/64
0, 0, 0, ..., 255
Thus, all numbers from 0 to 255 are represented (without averaging any of the existing data) and you get smooth gradations.
That means RAW allows you to more heavily edit images without causing visual artifacts.
Note that the above works no matter how you've over or under exposed your image -- up to a point, of course
Shawn L.
But you can't really display all of that, so why would you want it?
Well, let's suppose you accidentally overexpose an image so that all of the data is in the right half of the histogram. With a JPG, that would mean red, green, and blue only had 128 possible values (values from 128 - 255 (the left hand-side of the histogram, 0-127 is empty)).
If you edited the image, spreading the data out so that the entire histogram was filled, there would still only be 128 unique values for each channel (here, I'm ignoring interpolation which would cause the image to soften; I'm also ignoring dithering, which would help, but effectively introduce noise). So even though you'd now have an image with solid blacks and bright whites, gradations would be blocky.
Looked at numerically:
Initially, your gradation contained: 128, 129, 130, ... 255
After corrections, the gradation contained: 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, ...254
You're jumping by twos in the corrected image because you're trying to cover 256 values with 128 unique inputs.
If, however, you did the same thing with a RAW file, you'd have started with 8192 possible values for red, green, and blue (8192-16383). Looking at that numerically:
Initially, the gradation contained: 8192, 8193, 8194, 8195, ... 16383
After adjustments: 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, ... 16382
But, you're still counting by 2's, right? How is this better?
Well, you still have way colors than are displayable by most devices you're likely to use (your monitor probably is 8 bit, or possibly 10 bit; either way, it has fewer colors than the 14 bit RAW file). When you scale your data back down to fit into the 0 to 255 range used by your display, printer, etc, you get:
0 / 64, 2 / 64, 4 / 64,...
0, 0.03, 0.06, ..., 16384/64
0, 0, 0, ..., 255
Thus, all numbers from 0 to 255 are represented (without averaging any of the existing data) and you get smooth gradations.
That means RAW allows you to more heavily edit images without causing visual artifacts.
Note that the above works no matter how you've over or under exposed your image -- up to a point, of course
Shawn L.
Upvote
0
V8Beast said:
It's not a situation of needing to shoot high volume... but for files that dont need the pushing... I can spend a few hours mucking with raw files, or shoot jpeg and spend the time.... with my family? on marketing? on PR? Shooting more clients? Time is money and money is money... It is what it is... Plus, as I perfect my craft, I find less and less of my stuff needs retouching... Less and less of my stuff needs pushed... The better I light, the more consistent I light (especially since I stopped using speedlights), if i can do some quick changes... heal brush a pimple or two, do a quick few changes... and since there really isn't that much noticeable difference... There has been less and less reason to use them... Now... If i'm shooting for one of my big clients like wells fargo, Marlboro, prudential, etc... damn right i'm shooting raw... they are paying for it... But for a portrait of a girl who may or may not order a 16x20 max... eh... screw it.
Upvote
0
If u dont want best image quality just go on shooting in JPG. But i think thats not using a major advantage of DSLR ameras, if not probably THE biggest reason. Same way like u can buy fake leather shoes instead of real leather. But if u can afford real leather....why should u still get fake one?
Upvote
0
sandymandy said:
In the end, as a business, you have to determine if the end justifies the means... Time is money... Efficiency is everything... If i shoot a wedding... I may have 600-800 images... my trigger happy second shooter may have another 1200-1300 shots... Processing them, time lag to see full res files, selecting, editing, album design, proofing, etc... MAYBE a handful of images are bought at 16x20 or 20x24... maybe they order a 20x30 or 30x40 but they are on canvas and wall pieces... and they tend to be the creative shots and formals... set-up, ceremony and reception almost all album or smaller prints... not much reason to justify raws... when you're going through that much, for 1 wedding, that's the difference between a 4-5 hour workflow and a 4-5 day workflow... time is everything... efficiency is everything... I know what needs to be large and what doesn't. It isn't that I'm sacrificing quality... I've done my tests and know what settings I need to be at to best replicate my raw settings... It's being a good business person and photographer... innovate your business or become a starving artist.
Upvote
0
RLPhoto
Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
If you must shoot JPEG, I'd recommend being conservative with the picture control settings. Clip your blacks or highlights, and you'll never see them again.
Not too much sharpening, low contrast, and not too much saturation on the picture control. This will give you some room if you do need to edit a bit more.
If you are being creative with the picture control, Your tweaking the JPEG in camera and wasting time with that when you could be shooting.
What I've been doing quite a bit lately is shooting RAW, Rating the good shots and Processing them in camera w/ the 5D3. I print 4x6's for 10$ a pop at a photo booth straight from a selphy printer w/ a battery. It works out really well.
Infact, In-camera RAW processing is rapidly becoming my favorite feature on my 5D3!!! Which makes decent prints and a good profit for the occasional photo booth I hold from time to time.
Not too much sharpening, low contrast, and not too much saturation on the picture control. This will give you some room if you do need to edit a bit more.
If you are being creative with the picture control, Your tweaking the JPEG in camera and wasting time with that when you could be shooting.
What I've been doing quite a bit lately is shooting RAW, Rating the good shots and Processing them in camera w/ the 5D3. I print 4x6's for 10$ a pop at a photo booth straight from a selphy printer w/ a battery. It works out really well.
Infact, In-camera RAW processing is rapidly becoming my favorite feature on my 5D3!!! Which makes decent prints and a good profit for the occasional photo booth I hold from time to time.
Upvote
0
awinphoto said:
That's what I was trying to convey. If the additional data in a RAW file is being utilized to turn what's already a good image into an even better image - and you have the time to process it - by all means shoot RAW. However, I see lots of people spend ungodly volumes of time processing RAW images for an end product that looks no better than an out-of-camera jpeg. IMHO, with a highly proficient exposure and lighting technique, a processed RAW file will only look marginally better than a jpeg. There's still a difference, but it's not dramatic.
Personally, the instances where I see a huge difference between RAW files and jpegs are where I'm trying to salvage a shot that I f'd up due to poor technique, or if circumstances prevented lighting a subject in a way that best suited the image to begin with. Others mentioned the flexibility of intentionally underexposing an image in low-light situations, and I think that's another great use of the extra detail in a RAW file.
IMHO, RAW should not be used as a crutch for poor technique, but to make good images even better. RAW is also a great safety net for proficient photographers who botch a shot from time to time
Upvote
0
awinphoto said:
How do you do that? In my experience raw files have more headroom when recovering highlights, which esp. makes a visible difference (well, to me at least) when shooting high contrast scenes - and a couple dressed in black and white would fall in this category? But I've never really spent much time tweaking jpeg settings.
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
Shoot shoot shoot... I'm back from the days of film and slides where when you shot a transparency, there was no postproduction changes... you had to get it right in camera... You had to have the experience where when you shot the shutter, you knew what you were going to get... with transparency, the only post you could do was push/pull... brighten/darken... overdevelop/underdevelop (exposure slider anyone in photoshop?)... A client is NOT going to get a set up shot of the church or a table spread as a 20x30... First dance... eh... maybe 8x10, maybe 11x14... daughter father dance... maybe 5x7 or screw it, shove it in the album... first kiss... that MAY be a 11x14 or 16x20 if it's spectacular, but that falls to second string when you have really cool creatives and family portraits... See where i'm getting at... You got to know your client... You got to know their needs and wishes... communication, innovation... Clients are starting to order less prints and want more multimedia... fusion videos... etc... it's all about thinking about what will sell when your shooting.
Upvote
0
V8Beast said:awinphoto said:
That's what I was trying to convey. If the additional data in a RAW file is being utilized to turn what's already a good image into an even better image - and you have the time to process it - by all means shoot RAW. However, I see lots of people spend ungodly volumes of time processing RAW images for an end product that looks no better than an out-of-camera jpeg. IMHO, with a highly proficient exposure and lighting technique, a processed RAW file will only look marginally better than a jpeg. There's still a difference, but it's not dramatic.
Personally, the instances where I see a huge difference between RAW files and jpegs are where I'm trying to salvage a shot that I f'd up due to poor technique, or if circumstances prevented lighting a subject in a way that best suited the image to begin with. Others mentioned the flexibility of intentionally underexposing an image in low-light situations, and I think that's another great use of the extra detail in a RAW file.
IMHO, RAW should not be used as a crutch for poor technique, but to make good images even better. RAW is also a great safety net for proficient photographers who botch a shot from time to time
Fully agreed.
Upvote
0
S
sb
Guest
You can get a 3TB disk right now for $120. Honestly space cannot be an excuse anymoreRobT said:
Don't filter images at the step where you import them. Import them all, then flag the keepers. Once you are done, select all the "rejects" and delete them from LR and disk at the same time.
You have to go through all images 1 by 1 to select the keepers - there is no shortcut there. However if you shoot excessively everything, then once you select your keeper from any given spray burst of images, feel free to skip the rest. You only really need 1 good image out of any given burst.RobT said:
It's slightly more sluggish than going through JPEGs but you can mitigate that by creating a new LR catalogue every few months. Fresh catalogue = performance.RobT said:
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
