Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: RAW photo file....  (Read 7319 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline yug du nord

  • ...til things never seen seem familiar…
  • Trade Count: (56)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5533
  • made with natural flavor
RAW photo file....
« on: May 31, 2011, 05:49:40 PM »
Anyone want to share some pros/cons about using the RAW "format"??
I've never used it, and am trying to learn the benefits if there are any.
Thanks.
.....got a blank space where my mind should be.....

Offline rastasean

  • in paradise
  • Trade Count: (23)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3699
  • Gender: Male
Re: RAW photo file....
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2011, 05:58:40 PM »
I think of it as the equivalent to a wave file at 24bit/48K. You can downsample that recording to 44.1k / 16 and burn to cd. RAW file you can change the white balance on it and have no ill effect on the image at all. It is true you can select to change the white balance on jpg images but think of a jpg image as an mp3 and when you change the white balance, its not really doing anything just as making an mp3 into flac/wave.

I think it would be beneficial to use this format if you're shooting portraitures as it will capture the most information that the camera is capable of; another time you would want to use it is for landscapes. You may think the white balance is good (if using auto or some preset) but when you get back to your computer, it may look terrible so you can edit it from the computer.

Maybe some of the concert photogs can comment if they use raw much.
Advice is a form of nostalgia, dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than it’s worth.

Offline tailschao

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 117
Re: RAW photo file....
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2011, 06:59:54 PM »
As the name suggests, RAW is the raw data captured by the camera's sensor.

If you don't know what I mean by a Bayer Pattern sensor, read up on it a little (Wikipedia will do). Shooting RAW saves the data BEFORE the in-camera de-bayer, allowing you a much larger range of control.

Essentially, shooting RAW saves the ENTIRE range of dynamic range that the sensor is capable of exposing at once (in-camera conversion to JPG throws away dynamic range). It also, as rastasean says, saves the entire range of colour information, allowing you to fix White Balance at will. It allows you to use a different, more accurate de-bayering algorithm (this depends on the RAW decoding software you use) to get the absolute maximum amount of clean, non-aliased detail possible.

It also bypasses all of the crappy in-camera settings like sharpness, de-noising, contrast, saturation, etc. The more expensive the camera, the less important this is, but "bridge" style cameras with RAW shooting often have roots in mass consumer appeal - and mass consumer appeal usually involves "sharp, bright, striking" images... I.E., the in-cam JPG production of many cameras involves many random automated contrast, sharpness & saturation increases - which you have no control over, and all of which throw away image data that you might want. Shooting RAW bypasses everything and allows you to do it yourself on a computer afterward.

Advantages - better image quality, more control over the look of the image.
Disadvantages - larger file size, more work to process.

RAW is essentially the digital equivalent of a 35mm negative, where JPG is the equivalent of a standard 35mm print.

I never shoot anything other than RAW.

Offline yug du nord

  • ...til things never seen seem familiar…
  • Trade Count: (56)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5533
  • made with natural flavor
Re: RAW photo file....
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2011, 10:51:56 PM »
But then the RAW is eventually converted to a JPEG...  correct?  Can RAW files be viewed or printed in original quality? 
From what I understand, every digi camera shoots a RAW file....  but most cameras convert that RAW file > JPEG internally, and discards the RAW file. 
Besides for the editing benefits of RAW, can you tell the difference between a RAW > JPEG file and a straight JPEG file?
I've never owned an SLR, but I've realized that some point and shoot cams feature RAW....  and it intrigues me......  always searchin for the best if possible ya know.

What would/could achieve better RAW file results in your opinion.....  a 10MP (true resolution) with a larger sensor or a 10.6MP (true resolution) with a smaller sensor?  Thanks for the input!
.....got a blank space where my mind should be.....

Offline Craig T

  • Trade Count: (10)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4309
    • LMA
Re: RAW photo file....
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2011, 11:06:35 PM »
I only shoot raw.  Post processing is WAY cleaner.
Schoeps cmc6/4v / Line Audio CM3, OM1 / ADK A51 / Church Audio CA-14
Naiant Tinybox v2.2 / NBox(P) / Church Audio ST9200 / CA-UGLY
Sony PCM-M10 / Tascam DR-70D / Zoom F3 / Zoom F6

Offline rastasean

  • in paradise
  • Trade Count: (23)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3699
  • Gender: Male
Re: RAW photo file....
« Reply #5 on: June 01, 2011, 12:06:46 AM »
Internally the camera may shoot in RAW or some proprietary format but unless you specifically tell it to save in raw, it will most likely convert to jpeg. You don't just need a dslr to shoot in raw. The lx3 in the yard sale can shoot in raw or jpeg. Some cameras can even shoot and save in jpg and raw.

its rather simple, the raw file is the highest quality image possible from the camera. Its not fair to say that raw is always converted to jpg but it certainly can be, but just because you can record in mp3 on your recorder doesn't mean its the best thing even if it will eventually be converted to mp3.
Advice is a form of nostalgia, dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than it’s worth.

Offline Fatah Ruark (aka MIKE B)

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 9940
  • Gender: Male
  • I dream in beige.
    • sloppy.art.ink
Re: RAW photo file....
« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2011, 01:44:29 AM »
I shoot RAW+JPEG (usually a smaller size image).

Like has been said, RAW is nice because you can correct more issues with your images.

I'll shoot both RAW & JPEG so I can use the JPEG for quick uploads to places like Facebook to just simply share my images. Usually I'll do this only for pictures of things like parties or quick photos where I didn't spend a lot of time composing the picture. When I go out to actually shoot good pictures I'll use the RAW image.

I use Adobe Lightroom to edit my photos. Lightroom will convert the photos to JPEG (or other formats such as TIFF). Just make sure you are saving your photos at 100% quality if you intend to have them printed. In Lightroom you can view the RAW image.

If you don't mind spending the $$$, Lightroom is a fantastic tool. It's expensive ($200) but I have found it makes the biggest difference in the end product.
||| MICS:  Beyer CK930 | DPA 4022 | DPA 4080 | Nevaton MCE400 | Sennheiser Ambeo Headset |||
||| PREAMPS: DPA d:vice | Naiant Tinybox | Naiant IPA |||
||| DECKS: Sound Devices MixPre6 | iPod Touch 32GB |||
|||Concert History || LMA Recordings || Live YouTube |||

Offline dmonkey

  • Trade Count: (7)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1087
  • Gender: Male
Re: RAW photo file....
« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2011, 01:08:02 PM »
Another vote for shooting RAW format. It's practically all I shoot. IMO, my better results afterward than when shooting JPG in camera, particularly for high ISO material.
MK4's, KM140's or MC930's >  Tinybox or Aerco MP-2 > R-09, M-10, R-44 (Oade CM) or MixPre-6

Offline johnw

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3818
  • Gender: Male
    • My cd List
Re: RAW photo file....
« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2011, 05:55:13 PM »
I shoot raw+jpeg. In case you aren't aware, jpeg degrades in quality every time you copy the file, so it isn't a good format for archiving. I have jpeg images that I took 8+ years ago that are clearly a poorer quality now then they were then after undergoing several backups. raw images don't degrade in quality. That said, a shot that is at the wrong ISO, shutter speed or aperature setting can't be saved even if taken in raw.
Schoeps MK41 & MK4V  |  Schoeps CMC6, Schoeps KCY, AKI/2C, PFA, Nbox Cable/PFA  |  Grace V2, Nbox Platinum  |  SD744T, SD MixPre 6, Sony PCM M10

Canon 16-35mm/2.8L mkii, 24-70mm/2.8L, 70-200mm/2.8L IS, 50mm/1.8 mkii, 135mm/2L, 100mm/2.8L IS, Sigma 35mm/1.4 A  |  Canon 5D mk4

Offline yug du nord

  • ...til things never seen seem familiar…
  • Trade Count: (56)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5533
  • made with natural flavor
Re: RAW photo file....
« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2011, 05:59:01 PM »
All digital photos printed on paper must be converted to JPEG correct?
RAW cannot be printed on paper correct?
Thanks again.
It's makin sense now......  I'll probably need to start shootin some RAW and see if it's for me.......  I'm lookin for quality, so I'm guessing that this is the best answer. 
.....got a blank space where my mind should be.....

Offline tailschao

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 117
Re: RAW photo file....
« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2011, 07:04:56 PM »
All digital photos printed on paper must be converted to JPEG correct?
RAW cannot be printed on paper correct?
Thanks again.
It's makin sense now......  I'll probably need to start shootin some RAW and see if it's for me.......  I'm lookin for quality, so I'm guessing that this is the best answer.
Not necessarily, you can export from your RAW reading software to a lossless image format like TIFF (The stills equivalent of FLAC).


In case you aren't aware, jpeg degrades in quality every time you copy the file, so it isn't a good format for archiving. I have jpeg images that I took 8+ years ago that are clearly a poorer quality now then they were then after undergoing several backups
Wait, do you mean that? or was it a mistype? Are you really saying that copying and pasting a JPG degrades the quality? That's just not true. Opening the JPG, making adjustments and saving it again as a JPG degrades the quality because it's being re-encoded, but a straight copy and paste is just that - a  straight copy and paste. Sorry if that's not what you meant.

Offline rastasean

  • in paradise
  • Trade Count: (23)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3699
  • Gender: Male
Re: RAW photo file....
« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2011, 08:28:48 PM »
All digital photos printed on paper must be converted to JPEG correct?
RAW cannot be printed on paper correct?
Thanks again.
It's makin sense now......  I'll probably need to start shootin some RAW and see if it's for me.......  I'm lookin for quality, so I'm guessing that this is the best answer.
Not necessarily, you can export from your RAW reading software to a lossless image format like TIFF (The stills equivalent of FLAC).


In case you aren't aware, jpeg degrades in quality every time you copy the file, so it isn't a good format for archiving. I have jpeg images that I took 8+ years ago that are clearly a poorer quality now then they were then after undergoing several backups
Wait, do you mean that? or was it a mistype? Are you really saying that copying and pasting a JPG degrades the quality? That's just not true. Opening the JPG, making adjustments and saving it again as a JPG degrades the quality because it's being re-encoded, but a straight copy and paste is just that - a  straight copy and paste. Sorry if that's not what you meant.

I agree that you can convert to tiff and print that. Soon I suspect we would be able to print directly from RAW on consumer printers.

I have heard johnw's statement but I don't know how to prove it true.
Advice is a form of nostalgia, dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than it’s worth.

Offline tailschao

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 117
Re: RAW photo file....
« Reply #12 on: June 02, 2011, 09:02:05 PM »
I have heard johnw's statement but I don't know how to prove it true.
Maybe it's just a well known myth then, but there's just no reason I can see how it can possibly be true. Copying digital data is copying digital data. If you're not altering the data in anyway then you're just copying it, exactly as it is, unchanged.

In the exact same way that copying MP3s does not affect the quality, or copying compressed video files does not affect the quality. Copying bits just reproduces the original.

Offline rastasean

  • in paradise
  • Trade Count: (23)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3699
  • Gender: Male
Re: RAW photo file....
« Reply #13 on: June 02, 2011, 10:15:13 PM »
Well I'm not quite sure HOW many times of it being copied and recopied it would take to make it look different than before, but you even said it REPRODUCES meaning it is not the original. I don't even know if it is true but this isn't the first time I've heard something like this. Time to do a little studying on the internets!

But getting back to the original issue, I think RAW would be a much better way to archive than jpegs.
Advice is a form of nostalgia, dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than it’s worth.

Offline Brian Skalinder

  • Complaint Dept.
  • Trade Count: (28)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 18868
  • Gender: Male
Re: RAW photo file....
« Reply #14 on: June 02, 2011, 10:58:08 PM »
That said, a shot that is at the wrong ISO, shutter speed or aperature setting can't be saved even if taken in raw.

I don't find that to be true at all, with the possible exception case of the wrong setting dropping the shutter speed so it's too slow to freeze action -- though I suppose it depends on how one defines "wrong".

While having an aperture, shutter speed, or ISO setting different than one intends -- not "wrong", necessarily, because there are a variety of configurations and exposures one might use to achieve a desired artistic effect -- may result in results different that one expected, I've found shooting RAW provides substantial opportunity for post-processing -- both "corrective" and editorial.  With unintended settings, can one produce precisely the image one intended in the first place?  Maybe, maybe not.  But can one salvage a quality image close to what one intends?  Absolutely.

For example, one might underexpose by 1 stop (or 2 stops, or some other reasonable value, etc.) due to a narrower aperture than one intended, on a shot in which a specifically shallow depth of field isn't critical and one maintains a sufficiently fast shutter speed to stop the action as desired.  The exposure in this instance might be "wrong", i.e. different than one intended, but I've found RAW provides sufficient opportunity to correct the exposure and still yield excellent results.  Just as RAW provides opportunity to correct "wrong" exposures (under easier than over), it also enables better white balancing, noise reduction, etc., all of which may contribute to high quality final images, even if one doesn't nail the exposure configurations as desired.

Of course, there's a point beyond which one can't recover even a RAW file, but RAW provides far more latitude for editing, and recovery, editing than JPG.
Milab VM-44 Links > Fostex FR-2LE or
Naiant IPA (tinybox format) >
Roland R-05

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.094 seconds with 43 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF