Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

View Poll Results: Which format do you shoot in?
NEF 12 28.57%
JPEG Fine - Large 22 52.38%
JPEG Fine - Medium 4 9.52%
JPEG Fine - Small 0 0%
JPEG Normal - Large 4 9.52%
JPEG Normal - Medium 0 0%
JPEG Normal - Small 0 0%
Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 31, 2006, 7:10 PM   #21
rey
Senior Member
 
rey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 949
Default

This issue has been discussed lots of times here and other sites. Each method have their ups and downs, and in the end it comes down to what's best for that user.

I shoot both RAW and JPG Large Fine most of the time. But I do lower it down when I'm shooting parties, or making other shots that I know I will never print large.

It also comes down to how much time you have to spend on working with RAW. I agree RAW will save more detail, but the D50 produces great JPGs as well, that for normal users, JPG is more than good enough. It may even be good to understand the camera's limitation under JPG mode, instead of relying on PP to make great images.

Someday, all dSLRs will allow RAW + any JPG to be shot simultaneously, and this issue won't matter.

rey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 2006, 12:48 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 141
Default

I thought that once an area was blown out, overexposed, white, whatever, that no post processing will ever recover the details, regardless or JPG or RAW format. That's what seems to have happened to the seagull picture and why neither RAW nor JPG postprocessing did much good.

Some recoverycan be done only if thereare some remaining details (not whited out completely). This is when having a RAW file really helps - more data to work with than on acompressed JPG.

If you have the opportunity in the future, try bracketing your shots, looking at the histogram or examine the image on the LCD to see if you need to take more snaps. Of course, this isn't always practical!

As to RAW vs. JPG = Yes!

I hope that clarifies my position for everyone. :-)


Stratman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 2006, 3:29 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 215
Default


I did actually get a good shot immediately after the one I posted with the burnt out hightlights; I spotted the overexposure & dialed in -1EV. I just picked the one I would have thrown away as a test to see if RAW could dial in the -1EV afterwards. I don't find bracketing works well with birds in flight because you only get one chance, so you need to get it right first time. I was really experimenting with the autofocus, which I must say is very impressive on the D50, even with my 70-300ED.

Keith.

Stratman wrote:
Quote:
If you have the opportunity in the future, try bracketing your shots, looking at the histogram or examine the image on the LCD to see if you need to take more snaps. Of course, this isn't always practical!
keith1200rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 2006, 9:39 AM   #24
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

keith1200rs wrote:
Quote:
I don't see any difference in the highlight recovery.

The differences I did notice were, reduced chromatic aberrations and greatly improved interpolation if you want to resample a heavy crop.

I did many more tests, looking at photograph detail and recovering lost detail in dark areas and tried several RAW converters. My conclusion was to shoot RAW when I am likely to need to do significant post processing, such as when shooting birds, and heavy cropping. The rest of the time I shoot jpg (except for a friends wedding recently).

Keith.
The reason RAW can recover highlights is quite simple. It is a 16 bit file, compared to an 8 bit file. I am to say the least sceptical of your tests. I say this because time and time again, shooting birds that are all white, I can recover the highlights to the point that you would not suspect that I had blown the highlights in the first place.

Moreover, I have seen to many Scientifically done tests, not only my own, to doubt this. RAW in fact gives you a complete one stop advantage without image degradation, two stops if you don't mind or can deal with the noise.

Dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 2006, 9:47 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 215
Default

I think the RAW is 12 bit data rather than 16 bit, but nevertheless, surely the JPG would be created from the most significant 8 bits not the least significant? If you have any links to comparative tests which demonstrate how RAW can recover burnt out highlights better than JPG I would be interested to see them. I have never come across any that compare JPG with RAW - they just show RAW manipulation.

Keith.

DBB wrote:
Quote:
The reason RAW can recover highlights is quite simple. It is a 16 bit file, compared to an 8 bit file. I am to say the least sceptical of your tests. I say this because time and time again, shooting birds that are all white, I can recover the highlights to the point that you would not suspect that I had blown the highlights in the first place.

Moreover, I have seen to many Scientifically done tests, not only my own, to doubt this. RAW in fact gives you a complete one stop advantage without image degradation, two stops if you don't mind or can deal with the noise.

Dave
keith1200rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 2006, 1:18 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 141
Default

Here is a long, and somewhat cynical,essay on RAW vs JPG by Ken Rockwell. Interestingly, he shoots primarily in JPG mode.

hxxp://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

On things I just learned from that page: "...raw and JPG also have the same effective bit precision. JPG has 8 bits per color per pixel and raw may have 12 bits, but here's the big catch: raw is 12 bit linear, and JPG is 8 bit log, gamma corrected or some other non-linear transform derived from the 12 bit linear data. Thus in the shadows where this might matter the two are the same, since the full 12 bit resolution in the dark areas is preserved by the non-linear coding. Even if the two formats differed in dark resolution the sensor noise is still greater than one LSB anyway making it a moot point. " Clear as mud, right?

For some tips on fixing overexposure, and a few other things, in Photoshop: hxxp://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/ps.htm.

Haven't found any head to head RAW vs JPGpostprocessing shootouts yet. From my readings, seems like if you enjoy tweaking or are unsure of the output because you don't havegood control over the metering or activities of your subject (like with the underwater shot of the sea turtle or employed wedding photographer), for example, then shoot RAW. Barring some other circumstances, the highest quality JPG setting probably is sufficient for most instances.
Stratman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 2006, 1:36 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
big_potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 487
Default

I don't try to delve into the complex details of image processing behind RAW vs JPEG.

But I would try to treat the RAW vs JPEG decision, as a personal judgement of:

1. The importance of the scenes you are capturing. This point is fairly trivial, no need for me to explain.

2. The intrinsic quality or details of the scenes/subjects you are capturing. E.g. If they are just rough rock or mountain forest textures, I don't expect much diff in qualities between RAW vs JPEG.

To be honest, I am fairly concerned about the surge in storage space requirement of RAW, since I am a snapshooter who shoots a lot.


big_potato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 2006, 1:36 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 215
Default

Thanks for the links - I will have a read. I have also seen it mentioned that JPEG is non-linear, but spent quite a while trying to confirm that in the JPEG specification, but couldn't.

I agree that for "normal" subjects JPEG is sufficient and if it is tricky or unknown then RAW may provide a safety net.

Keith.
keith1200rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 2006, 1:50 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 143
Default

Considering how many pictures I take RAW would be such a pain in the ass to use. Its benefits are pretty minor considering how much work it takes to process them, And even when you post process them you have to let Photoshop or Nikon Capture, do a lot of auto adjusting for you (Unless you want to spend 20 minutes on each picture yourself).
Funny, I took 2 indoor shots one with RAW and the other JPG, and i couldn't get Photoshop to stop overexposing the RAW image (which made the noise look horrible)

For me its convenience and the fact that there is pretty much no noticeable difference between a proper taken picture at RAW or JPG.
Lexiticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 1, 2006, 3:04 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Ronnie948's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 721
Default

My D200 allows me to shoot NEF &JPG at the same time. It is a very good feature of the D200. I save the NEF's on a DVD disc and if I have any trouble processing the JPG I can resort to the NEF and create a nice photograph. The wedding I just did I had one Key picture where the flash did not recycle fast enough and a key photo was all very red and dark. The Nef file allowed me to process this one picture in the Raw photoshop and saved the picture for the album.

Ronnie
Ronnie948 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 6:23 PM.