Why should i shoot in RAW?

[TeddTucker]

i'm just figuring out all the cool quirks my rebel XTi can perform. One thing i haven't explored yet is the advantages of shooting in RAW. What are the advantages of it? can i still edit all my pictures in photoshop? for someone that is just learning is it worth tackling the complications of RAW?

[michaelb]

I used to shoot mostly in jpeg, but now I shoot almost exclusively in RAW. I shoot landscapes and nature and its all about color. If I shoot in RAW then I can adjust the WB (white balance) after the image is downloaded to my PC using DPP (it came with your XTi). This allows me to get the colors just right and has saved many of my shots.

Once you convert your files to jpeg or TIFF you can then edit them in Photoshop.

Here is an example. This is a shot of some leaves I took recently. The auto WB of the camera often screws up colors like this, but I am able to correct them in DPP to get the colors right, just as my eyes saw them.....

By the way, the other key to this is getting your monitor calibrated - I use Spyder 2.




http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/222868010-L.jpg






Here's another example. Again, if the color isn't right, the photo is worthless.....

http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/213709471-L.jpg

[JTL]

i'm just figuring out all the cool quirks my rebel XTi can perform. One thing i haven't explored yet is the advantages of shooting in RAW. What are the advantages of it? can i still edit all my pictures in photoshop? for someone that is just learning is it worth tackling the complications of RAW?I would ask "How serious are you about photography?" If you're just basically a snap shooter...then jpeg is fine. If you plan on displaying your work and want to take on photography as a serious undertaking, then I would shoot RAW.

If it were cooking instead of photography, I'd be asking whether you'd be o.k. with jarred gravy or whether you wanted to make it yourself from scratch. ;)

Remember...a jpeg is a processed and compressed (image information is lost forever) version of what the camera recorded. Yes, you can still edit...within limits...but every time you re-save, the image becomes further degraded. When you shoot RAW, the image is stored as the camera recorded it. It is a digital negative. You can use a non-destructive editing program such as Lightroom or Capture One to make changes and enhancements without ever hurting your original. When you have the image the way you want it, only then do you create a jpeg copy. Your original remains intact. Make a hundred different versions of your original...they'll all be first generation. You can never do that if you shot the image originally as a jpeg.

But, if you never plan on editing or using photography as a means of creative expression...jpeg is fine.

[Chris500]

I always thought shooting in jpeg was fine.

However after switching to the 40d and working with RAW for a while now, it makes a huge difference. Just having the ability to change the white balance as easily as it is with RAW files is a tremendous benefit. I never took the time to set it in my p&s camera each time I changed locations, it was more of a grab the camera and shoot some pictures. I never liked the look of a lot of my photos, mainly because the white balance was off.

For me, RAW gives me the ability to make a picture look like I remember it looking, and not what the camera settings were set to when I grab the shot.

The drawback for me is it is a little more time consuming once the day is over and you download your photos. You aren't done then, you're just beginning.

I have gotten much more critical of my photos and find myself deleting a lot more than I normally would and only letting the family see a fraction of the ones I used to post for them.

[mcenut]

I shoot snapshots in JPEG and studio work in RAW. The real question you should ask is not why shoot RAW, but why not shoot JPEG. RAW gives you options that JPEG doesn't. Like adjusting the photo without loosing detail. If you like losing detail in your photos, then feel free to continue using JPEG.

[TheWengler]

If you like losing detail in your photos, then feel free to continue using JPEG.

This kind of makes you sound like an elitist. :rolleyes:

To the TS, if you enjoy post processing or are willing to put in some more work editing then shoot RAW because you can achieve much better results. Even if you feel jpeg is good enough, at least give RAW a try. The results may surprise you.

[DonSchap]

I believe Bruce Frazer, of Adobe Systems probably put it best in the following white paper excerpt:

"When you shoot JPEG, a raw converter built into the camera carries out all the tasks listed earlier to turn the raw capture into a color image, then compresses it using JPEG compression. Some cameras let you set parameters for this conversion—typically, a choice of sRGB or Adobe RGB as color space, a sharpness value, and perhaps a tone curve or contrast setting. Unless your shooting schedule is atypically leisurely, it’s difficult to adjust these parameters on an image-by-image basis, so you’re locked into the camera’s interpretation of the scene.

JPEGs offer fairly limited editing headroom—large moves to tone and color tend to exaggerate the 8-by-8-pixel blocks that form the foundation of JPEG compression—and while JPEG does a decent job of preserving luminance data, it applies heavy compression to the color data, which can lead to issues with skin tones and gentle gradations when you try to edit the JPEG.

When you shoot raw, however, you get unparalleled control over the interpretation of the image through all the aforementioned aspects of the conversion. When you shoot raw, the only on-camera settings that have an effect on the captured pixels are the ISO speed, the shutter speed, and the aperture setting. Everything else is under your control when you convert the raw file—you can reinterpret the white balance, the colorimetric rendering, the tonal response, and the detail rendition (sharpening and noise reduction) with a great deal of freedom. Within limits (which vary from one raw converter to another), you can even reinterpret the exposure compensation.

Almost all cameras that shoot raw capture at least 12 bits, or 4096 shades, of tonal information per pixel. The JPEG format, however, is limited to 8 bits per channel per pixel, so when you shoot JPEG, you’re trusting the camera’s built-in raw converter to throw away a large amount of the captured data in a way that will hopefully do the image justice. This is exacerbated by the tendency of most camera vendors to impose a fairly steep contrast curve in the raw-to-JPEG conversion in an effort to produce a JPEG that resembles a transparency. In the process, they throw away about a stop of usable dynamic range, and you have essentially no control over what gets discarded.

In some ways, it’s tempting to draw the analogy that shooting JPEG is like shooting transparency film while shooting raw is more like shooting negative film. With JPEG, as with transparency film, you need to get everything right in the camera, because there’s very little you can do to change it later. Shooting raw provides considerable latitude in determining the tonal rendition, like negatives, and also offers great free¬dom in interpreting the color balance and saturation. The fact that raw also lets you control detail rendition—noise reduction and sharpening—breaks the analogy but offers a further advantage.

Raw offers one more potential advantage that may be hard to demonstrate but is, I believe, real nevertheless. If you shoot raw, you’ll be able to take advantage of future improvements in raw converters. Digital photography may no longer be in its infancy, but it hasn’t yet reached adolescence, let alone maturity, and anyone who has spent more than a couple of years working with digital imaging knows that digital imaging software improves with each iteration. JPEGs are relatively inflexible files—we may see improvements in their handling, but any such improvements are likely to be mod¬est. Raw converters, however, have undergone radical improvements in the 10 years or so that color filter array cameras have been around, and there’s little reason to think that the next 10 years won’t see similar improvements. Shooting raw will allow you to exploit these improvements as and when they happen."

So, looking forward ... Camera RAW will always be "editable" from the day you took them ... as fresh as a perpetual film negative, where your current camera's JPEGs have already been trimmed by it's current "printing" rules that, perhaps, are at a point where you cannot use the newer technology that's been developed. Using RAW ... it's still just the same old 12-bit, straight-from-the-sensor info (no changes) ... and the new technology knows exactly what to do with that.

I hope you found this useful in your thought processes on the subject. If not, may I suggest you re-read it?

[michaelb]

I always thought shooting in jpeg was fine.

.... I never took the time to set it in my p&s camera each time I changed locations, it was more of a grab the camera and shoot some pictures. I never liked the look of a lot of my photos, mainly because the white balance was off.

For me, RAW gives me the ability to make a picture look like I remember it looking, and not what the camera settings were set to when I grab the shot.....

...I have gotten much more critical of my photos and find myself deleting a lot more than I normally would and only letting the family see a fraction of the ones I used to post for them.

I have had exactly the same experience. I now look back at older photos that weren't quite right and I realize that the WB was off; if I had shot in RAW I could go back and fix them, even 3 years later.

When freinds and family look at my photos they often comment on how nice the colors are; its all about getting the white balance right, which can be difficult; shooting RAW makes it easy. Of course, I don't tell them this secret ;).

I mentioned this above, but I have also come to believe that calibrating your monitor is a key step in this process. Otherwise, your prints may not match what you see on your monitor and thus all is for naught.

[DonSchap]

Well, it's not as easy as just color calibrating the monitor (oh, if only) ... but you more than likely need to color manage your printer also. The monitor will probably get things close, but as many on here have stated in the past, "I can't get my own prints to look right, so I send them out."

Well, once your computer "knows" what your printer is putting out, it can make adjustments through .icc files you can make (with the right device, of course - such as the Eye-Rite Color Spectrophotometer (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/484459-REG/Xrite_EOPLT_Eye_One_Photo.html) <- check it out) and almost instantly, through custom profiles you will make, you can print your color images a lot better in the privacy of your own home. Now, this particular unit is not the best for printer profiles, but it will get your started on the right path. More expensive units (probably double the cost) offer a deeper printer profile with additional color measurements. It is worth this added expense? Again, it is all relative. If you are selling prints and need consistancy ... then probably.

SO, overall, you ask: Is it worth the expense? As I mentioned, above, I guess that depends on your need, but if you've invested in a good-sized printer, such as an EPSON 3800 or 4800 ... it's indispensible. If you have a smaller printer ... for 8x10" ... it might be well worth your investment, also. In fact, I'm going hedge on the side of "Yeah, just do it." I kind of figure with what you will eventually save in ink and paper expense for bad prints ... doing it right, the first time ... or the second ... will make up the difference rather rapidly. :D

Obviously, if you can borrow someone's calibration system and get this done, that will save you $. The problem is that things change, over time ... also, ink qualities can change from batch to batch, so to be "spot on", the best thing to do is every two weeks, recalibrate your entire system by running another measurement and create the correction profiles. If you choose a different kind of paper (go from glossy to matte or luster or vise versa) ... yep, custom cal ... because paper qualities change the output. It needs to be measured so that the computer can tell the printer to make the adjustments.

While the standard profiles you can get online for your printer are pretty good, to be dead on ... it usually takes a custom profile (which is what you would create, every two weeks). Especially if you are using a lower cost printer, because their performance can be so wildly different, over time, from the new model the profile was originally based on. Chances are the output from a downloaded profile and your custom profile, after a year, won't even look close. It is amazing to see the difference between color correction and "free form", where you just let the printer do what "it thinks" is correct. Believe me, the results are usually quite eye-opening ... in a negative way :eek:

There are deals to be had on these devices. I got a $200 rebate on mine, that's going on until the end of December 2007. Figure about $600 after rebate. It really can change everything you print ... for the better. If not, SEND IT BACK! :cool:

[michaelb]

For me:

- Monitor calibration was definitely "worth it".
- Printing myself, at this point in time - not worth it. I have all my prints done by the pros. Plus, that way, if I don't like the prints, I can blame someone other than myself. :D

[DonSchap]

There is always the "other guy" part of any business equation. Being sole source on anything leads to only one conclusion ... your pocketbook! :eek:

Personally ... seeing all the different selections available for paper (not your standard three "glossy", "matte", "luster") like art/museum archival and silver rag ... and even high luminescense, to pull out some more gamut for brighter, neon-like colors. They can make for some spectacular looking results.

Being a student, I have the luxury of seeing other people's work without having to "front" the cash to do it myself ... so this can be awesome stuff. Some of these papers really are novel, to be honest. The paper manufacturers sell sample sets which you can proactice on, but just remember, you need at least one sheet for the production of your "test profile print" to do you calibration from ... and it take 24-hours of drying to perform it accurately.