1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Raw & JPEG

Discussion in 'Photography Forums' started by Thomas Gee, Aug 25, 2005.

  1. Thomas Gee

    Thomas Gee
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I have a Nikon D50 with a 18-55mm & a 70-300mm zoom lens with 3 512MB SD memory cards. Would it better to take photographs under RAW format or using JPEG fine (large)
     
  2. seany

    seany
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,987
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Manchester city
    Ratings:
    +1
    Well you have much more control with RAW it's basically a digital negative. You'll need a bigger card/some more cards as they're large files.
     
  3. Johndm

    Johndm
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,804
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Bedford UK
    Ratings:
    +56
    And a bit more time for processing......... :eek:
     
  4. longleyc

    longleyc
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Should be Noise free too.
     
  5. HotblackDesiato

    HotblackDesiato
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Messages:
    1,170
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +230
    You still get noise in RAW, processing is generally less deleterious though.
     
  6. Radiohead

    Radiohead
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    4,295
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Amazingstoke
    Ratings:
    +433
    Unless you're sure you can nail the WB and exposure with every shot, shoot RAW.
     
  7. kenlynch

    kenlynch
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Messages:
    111
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Rochdale
    Ratings:
    +1
    With software like RSE you can work on batches of images, it's not really that time consuming and I think it is quite fun. Also, as you have more information in a raw file so you can nail tone curves down to exactly what you want (this is about contrast and levels and nothing to do with correcting exposure), something you don't have as much latitude to do with JPEG. Plus, every time you save a JPEG it can lose information due to compression, you've always got the original with raw.
     
  8. mr jones

    mr jones
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,041
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Location:
    (S)cumbria, UK
    Ratings:
    +22
    where did that come from????


    the noise is created by the sensor, rather than the file format. just like the grain on high ISO films



    i shoot exclusively in raw, i prefer it
     
  9. Johndm

    Johndm
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,804
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Bedford UK
    Ratings:
    +56
    You can't batch process if you want to do them properly. :lesson:
    Each picture will require its own individual processing.

    You wanna try sifting through 1000+ RAW files on a Sunday evening. You'll need Monday off work..... :eek:
     
  10. kenlynch

    kenlynch
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Messages:
    111
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Rochdale
    Ratings:
    +1
    Not true. If the exposure and white balance are fine then you can do a straight conversion to JPEG or TIF of a whole load of images without any other processing. Images taken under similar conditions, e.g. multiple shots of the same subject can generally be batch processed as well. This is why the batch features exist within DPP, RSE and other raw conversion utilities, because you don't need to work on each image individually.
     
  11. Johndm

    Johndm
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,804
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Bedford UK
    Ratings:
    +56
    Sorry, totally disagree...

    The idea of RAW is to adjust exposure white balance colour saturation etc for every picture.

    You will be either extremly lucky, or a brilliant photog to get a whole days shooting correct in every single shot.

    What about Unsharp masking too....every picture is differant, requiring a varying amounts.

    Batch processing is only really useful to batch resize in my experiance.

    If you want quality, it takes time....

    All RAW images are 'flat' as a negative
     
  12. mr jones

    mr jones
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,041
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Location:
    (S)cumbria, UK
    Ratings:
    +22

    kind of half agree with john here, i do every single image individual, however if i had a rook load of studio portraits all taken exactly the same then yes batch processing would more than likely be fine.

    raw just gives me the opertunity to meddle with every image how i want it

    for me batch precessng is of use for resizing, adding borders etc
     
  13. tomson

    tomson
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    1,918
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Berk'amsted
    Ratings:
    +187
    I sometimes batch a load of similar images, usually just for colour adjustments but then open each one to crop and sharpen. Used to use Russell Brown's Image Processor for batch processing RAW files but that functionality is now built into CS2 - which is a godsend (its still worth downloading if you use CS).

    Got 600+ RAW shots to get through tomorrow - ranging from bright sunshine, church interior, stormy cloud cover, dusk, candle light and bulb lit marquee. Not much batch processing there unfortunately :(
     
  14. kenlynch

    kenlynch
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Messages:
    111
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Rochdale
    Ratings:
    +1
    And yet there have been people on this forum that have made exactly this claim as their reason for shooting in JPEG.

    Batch processing works perfectly for me, lets face it, that's kind of what you are doing in camera when shooting JPEG, the camera is applying a predefined setting to convert the raw data to JPEG - it's applying the same saturation, contrast, sharpening and white balance to all images, just in camera. Are you saying that you can't take good pictures in JPEG? And if you need to manipulate the JPEGs afterwards then that takes the same amount of time to manipulate the raw file, so no extra time difference between raw and JPEG which ever way you look at it.
     
  15. HotblackDesiato

    HotblackDesiato
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Messages:
    1,170
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +230
    I batch process groups of shots without a problem... you can do them one at a time if you prefer but experience tells me it's very rarely worth it as you'll end up applying very similar settings over and over.
    Individual shots do need individual tweaks, again in my experience.
     
  16. RobertP

    RobertP
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    522
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    19
    Location:
    Woodford Essex
    Ratings:
    +0
    And thats the reason I mainly shoot jpeg.

    I have used RAW and will use RAW again. What I have never done is shoot RAW without a camera produced JPG as well. I have my in camera parameters set to produce jpgs as I prefer them.

    When I spend time going through the RAW's and processing them I would have expected to see significant improvement over the camera jpg. From my experience 90% plus of the final outputs after processing are no better than the jpg from the camera. The other 10% are mostly exposure corrections that could be applied to the jpg.

    Don't get me wrong - I am not anti RAW. I just don't have the time or inclination to spend tweaking for little gain. In difficult situations RAW can be a saviour and I will use it.

    As to colour balance - I can't do it. I am partially red/green colour blind (you know those dot picture tests? - I can see both numbers on top of each other). I can change it to what looks right to me - and no one says it looks wrong.... equally if I leave it alone no one comments either. So unless its extreme I leave well enogh alone :D
     
  17. Johndm

    Johndm
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,804
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Bedford UK
    Ratings:
    +56
    I take superb pictures in jpeg, so damm good, I hardly ever need to use RAW.. :cool: :D :rotfl:

    I also process all my jpegs, and its much quicker than starting with a RAW file, as the Workflow is much shorter. And yes...I have spent a day shooting in RAW to compare processing time.
     
  18. HotblackDesiato

    HotblackDesiato
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Messages:
    1,170
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +230
    I just prefer what i get from RAW to that the 20D generates on its own...so bear the cost of the extra step, in the same way i bear the cost of L glass i guess. I'm sure as digital progresses the day will come when i can't tell the Jpeg from the camera from that generated with RAW processing and that will be when i stop using it.
     
  19. mr jones

    mr jones
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,041
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Location:
    (S)cumbria, UK
    Ratings:
    +22
    my computer dislikes Jpegs, infact it wont display them for a while after the folders been opened up, instead i use the file browser in the raw program as it is much quicker and easier.

    dont really like Jpegs anyway, i work in .tif most of the time, and only save to Jpeg for web use/ giving to the customer
     
  20. Johndm

    Johndm
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,804
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Bedford UK
    Ratings:
    +56
    Little Tester......Guess which are shot in jpeg, which were shot in RAW.

    No cheating looking at exif data.......cos I've removed it... :D

    You could guess the L glass too.... :smashin:
     

    Attached Files:

    • 1.jpg
      1.jpg
      Size:
      91.9 KB
      Views:
      61
    • 2.jpg
      2.jpg
      Size:
      88.3 KB
      Views:
      54
    • 3.jpg
      3.jpg
      Size:
      96.8 KB
      Views:
      55
    • 4.jpg
      4.jpg
      Size:
      95.3 KB
      Views:
      56
    • 5.jpg
      5.jpg
      Size:
      98.4 KB
      Views:
      53
  21. gringottsdirect

    gringottsdirect
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    2,896
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    50 Rue St Georges, Paris.
    Ratings:
    +27
    Pics 1 & 3 are RAW and L glass.

    Pic 4 is JPEG and L glass.

    Pics 2 & 5 are JPEG and not L glass.


    :)
     
  22. Johndm

    Johndm
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,804
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Bedford UK
    Ratings:
    +56
    I don't want to give away yet.....anyone else?? :D
     
  23. kenlynch

    kenlynch
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Messages:
    111
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Rochdale
    Ratings:
    +1
    I didn't know you had L glass, John, you've never mentioned it before :D
     
  24. Johndm

    Johndm
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,804
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Bedford UK
    Ratings:
    +56
    :D Gonna have a crack at the pics then.....Its gonna be a good test between standard and L glass, RAW and jpeg.

    I think some might be suprised.. ;)
     
  25. Johndm

    Johndm
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,804
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Bedford UK
    Ratings:
    +56
    Don't be shy now.......guess the answers... :D
     
  26. Thomas Gee

    Thomas Gee
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Johndm

    1 RAW, 2 & 3 RAW & L Lens, 4 & 5 JPEG

    By the way can I use the Phantom as my screensaver?
     
  27. Johndm

    Johndm
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,804
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Bedford UK
    Ratings:
    +56
    Wrong....... :D

    I want to see a few more guesses before I reveal the truth..

    I think all this might just prove that you can't tell the differance between RAW and Jpeg....a quality picture speaks for itself... :cool:

    Sure you can use the Phantom....PM me your email, and I'll send you a 1024 wide version.... :smashin:
     
  28. rdhir

    rdhir
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    471
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Glasgow
    Ratings:
    +8
    here's a different answer. I shoot raw so that when i fudge the exposure on an otherwise good shot I can correct it and get a good shot, but then I'm human.. To me it seemed good to +/- 1.0EV no problem and maybe a bit more if you're lucky.

    Also I find D Lighting in Nikon Capture 4.2 awesome for fixing my flash messes, or imperfections when I dont get the bounce quite right and I had to do it in a hurry.

    But I quite like the JPG as well because I sometimes don't have the time for RAW.

    So RAW when its a good or great shot that you need to perfect the exposure and JPG for everyday shots when life's too short - or is that heresy in the forum.

    Cheers

    Rajiv
     
  29. Johndm

    Johndm
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,804
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Bedford UK
    Ratings:
    +56
    20 views per picture, but only 2 guesses.... :thumbsdow

    Are we afraid that jpeg/kit lens will blow RAW away... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
     
  30. Radiohead

    Radiohead
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    4,295
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Amazingstoke
    Ratings:
    +433
    I'd say the only RAW was no.3 and that was with L glass as well.

    Having studied them in depth for all of 3 seconds that is my considered opinion.
     

Share This Page

Loading...