Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 21, 2015, 3:27 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterP View Post
Unfortunately the "raw vs jpg" is one of the dreaded forum religious topics that never ends. The people in the two camps will never convince each other to switch.
I used to come down heavily on the side of Raw, but have switched. Though I still save the occasional questionable shot as Raw, I would guess 95-99% of what I do is in jpeg.
Raw is a pretty good way to rescue overexposed shots and recovering highlight detail. It also works for shadow detail recovery, but doesn't have as much advantage there.
As a photographer, rather than a photo editing specialist, I find that learning how your camera/lens combination works for various light conditions, and getting the exposure right in the camera, is preferable to fixing problems after the fact.
Of course, I don't consider every picture I take as a potential imperishable work of art. I do this for fun, and for me, a lot of the fun is getting things right from the beginning.
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 21, 2015, 6:26 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,525
Default

I would have to say that, I am in the JPEG camp. Right now, I would say that I shoot JPEG 100% of the time. There have been times that I wish I was able to put a little bit more dynamic range in to my photos. In other words, I think there are photos that I have taken that perhaps I should've shot in raw. Does this mean I'm going to start shooting raw? Not really. I am taking a trip to the mountains with my granddaughter next month, so I think I will probably shoot raw+JPEG. Although I have historically been happy with JPEG's, there is a chance that I might have a few that need more tweaking that I can get out of the JPEG. You have the option of deleting all of your raw files, and you still have the JPEG's to work with. If I don't forget, when I get back from the mountains I will post here with my thoughts at that time.
__________________
Always use tasteful words - you may have to eat them.
You cannot find knowledge by rearranging your ignorance.

My Flickr
-Robert-


Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2015, 1:19 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,734
Default

TCav- The point is OOC jpeg's have far less data to work with... blown highlight's cannot be bought back for example... but in RAW quite often can...provided your exposure is reasonable... and you cannot bring back detail smudged away by over eager noise reduction in jpeg...
Certain colours on bright days (usually reds) can blow out all to easily on jpeg's- but again,dig into the RAW file and you'll often find that the detail is still there...
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2015, 7:43 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

I know the benefits of RAW. I also know that many people overestimate the benefits of RAW while simultaneously underestimating the benefits of JPEG.

RAW files contain luminance values only. Those values must be matched to the positions on the Bayer Filter in order for color to be inferred.



Green photoreceptors collect 14 bits of luminance data for green light, just as red photoreceptors collect luminance data for red light, and blue for blue light. But they must average the luminance data gathered from neighboring photoreceptors for other colors. Green pixels average the luminance data from neighboring red and blue photoreceptors resulting in only 12 bits of real color data, and red and blue pixels average data from 4 neighboring photoreceptors, and so only get 10 bits of real color data for the other two colors.

While that's still better than the 8 bits of data per color per pixel in JPEG, the difference isn't strictly 14 bit vs. 8 bit, and in fact, it's not really very much.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2015, 11:43 AM   #25
conor
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I shoot RAW (NEF) on my D50. 100% of the time.

The first thing I do when I dump a memory card is load them all into IrfanView and batch convert to PNG. These are the images that may get cropped, printed, etc. From there, I'll typically do a batch conversion/resize/sharpen to JPG / 1000x800(ish) / "10 sharpen" in IrfanView's advanced batch options. These are the images I'll use in emails, random internet posts, or any other time I'm not doing any post-processing and still need to quickly distribute the files.

When I come across an image that needs work, or is worthy of PP, I'll go back to the original NEF, load it into PS, and start working.

Though blindly converting from NEF to PNG probably isn't the best method, it suits the 90% of cases where I don't particularly care how perfect the image is. Having the NEF file available is good for the other 10%.

The only reason I initially convert to PNG is that it's lossless and doesn't require the Nikon NEF plugin to be installed. I've been very impressed with how fast IrfanView can open up a Nikon NEF file, and the batch conversion seems to make use of the additional data in the NEF file.
The resized folder is also useful in that Windows can load the thumbnails in the folder extremely quickly, reducing the amount of time I spend searching for a specific image.

My folder structure is typically:
Media
-> [Date of shoot] - [Description]
---> RAW
-----> All original NEF files
---> PNG
-----> All conversions to PNG
---> Resize
-----> All converted/resized/sharpened in JPG format
---> Edits
-----> DSC_####
-------> All iterations of the edit, including final PNG files and their sharpened/resized JPG
  Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2015, 6:18 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,734
Default

I think the difference between RAW and Jpeg editing latitude is rather large.... especially highlight headroom.
The below images show an OOC jpeg and the RAW equivalent.
The only adjustment made was in the highlights- colour variance down to jpeg/camera setting. D-Lighting activated on Jpeg...
Blown highlights cannot be brought back from Jpeg's...no matter how much editing you want to do...
Attached Images
  
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2015, 8:09 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,525
Default

Simon, I have been experimenting with PP on Raw and jpeg images for maybe two days, so I'm a hopeless noob at this point. But I absolutely agree with your assessment on the highlight recovery in raw as opposed to jpeg. I won't shoot raw only, but when it really matters, I am planning to shoot raw+jpeg. Just for insurance.
__________________
Always use tasteful words - you may have to eat them.
You cannot find knowledge by rearranging your ignorance.

My Flickr
-Robert-


Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2015, 4:12 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,734
Default

Robert... whilst I shoot RAW pretty much all of the time- it is in tandem with a tag along jpeg file (RAW + jpeg) so I have the option of a decent "as is" file in situations where the shooting conditions weren't harsh, resulting in a decent OOC jpeg or whereby a small "advertising" upload to a social media site is perfectly adequate- and quick.

If one is perfectly happy with their OOC jpeg's and is not an editing junkie- or one who doesn't sell images for a living- then shooting RAW would seem pointless and potentially slowing down the camera.
But if, like me, one edit's a great deal ( and sells quite a few images) it would make no sense to restrict my editing options in any way...
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2015, 10:20 AM   #29
conor
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawgwild View Post
Simon, I have been experimenting with PP on Raw and jpeg images for maybe two days, so I'm a hopeless noob at this point.
I've personally only ever used Nikon. As such, I've only ever done post on Nikon NEF files (never Canon, Pentax, Fuji, Oly, etc RAW files).

I'm wondering, if some of the debate here, especially "ease" of working with RAW, is the tool provided to work with the raw file. What options do you get (in software) with non-Nikon RAW files?

When I open an NEF file in PS, I get a child window to make the initial adjustments prior to opening the file in PS. I know nothing - is this window part of the NEF plugin? or is this PS using the NEF plugin to read the file then displaying it in some kind of internal RAW "editor"? In short, would I get exactly the same options opening a Canon RAW file as I would with a Nikon NEF file?

(Pardon my ignorance on the subject)


Quote:
Originally Posted by SIMON40 View Post
I think the difference between RAW and Jpeg editing latitude is rather large.... especially highlight headroom.
The below images show an OOC jpeg and the RAW equivalent.
Off topic: As soon as I looked at those two shots, I realized which had the detail and which I liked better - I have this sneaky suspicion that if you took those two versions as is, they'd layer up nicely as an HDR. Maybe not for the dynamic range so much as just to bring back the detail in the clouds, while maintaining the tone of the greens and the brightness in the sky.

Last edited by conor; Jun 23, 2015 at 10:23 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2015, 4:31 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,734
Default

Conor- I use lightroom 5 for my RAW editing- and all Raw's I use D300/D3100/Panasonic FZ-150 open up in exactly the same way...
I have to convert My Samsung NX3000 RAW with an Adobe RAW to DNG converter first before lightroom recognizes it, though it probably would do it "straight off" if I updated the software..!
With regards the two images- I deliberately only adjusted the highlights just to demonstrate the extra data in that department- there's plenty more to be had in the rest of the RAW image also... HDR would rarely be needed- unless you like the HDR "effect" that many seem to like- whereas I just prefer the natural look with the wider dynamic range... and in most cases a single RAW file covers it...
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:32 AM.