Posted by Pat Warfield on July 18, 2007 at 8:34 AM
Learn how to shoot & edit in Raw Mode. I went from shooting in Jpeg Mode to Raw + Jpeg, which includes a second small version for review. (Take up a lot of card space, but they're cheap now.) The difference amazes me when I first open the Raw image. Raw is sharper right out of the camera. Jpeg apparently alters the image somewhat during compaction.
I have not seen any postings on this subject, although most of you Pros probably use Raw. I feel like a dork for taking so long to commit to Raw - my first Digital SLR made Raw very difficult to open & edit. Newer cameras & later versions of Photoshop, makes it very easy.
Many of you have pointed out that all digital cameras have an anti-aliasing filter over the sensor, which causes all digital images to appear a little 'soft' & need some sharpening. Makes me wonder if Jpeg magnifies the anti-alias effect.
In the wedding tog world there is a fun debate going on with raw versus jpeg. The slogan "Real Men Shoot JPEG" abounds on t-shirts. Personally, I have not noticed a difference. The jpeg camp says, "You're a pro. Get your exposure and white balance right from the start, eliminating two PP adjustments." Well, I can't argue against that idea, but I still shoot raw. My brain knows caca happens, so why throw away your safety net?
Kelly, this is something I am still debating. I always shoot RAW for my nature images. Although I always try to get it right, or as close to right as possible, when I trip the shutter, I know I can adjust color casts, exposure, etc as needed later. Since I usually only end up with a few good shots per outing, this does not take up a lot of time. But now I'm starting into portrait work...on location of children mainly...and I figure I'll end up with many images after a shoot that would take huge amounts of time to process. So I figure I'll shoot Jpeg mainly. Of course I'd love to have that safety net... I'd love to see what others think and are doing.
Well, if "Real Men Shoot Jpeg" then I guess I'm not a real man. While my passion is nature ( and the wilder the better) I also do some commercial work shooting conferences, music venues and on location portrait and publicity shots. I have found that due to crazy lighting at rock concerts, or mixed color temperatures indoors, using long lenses at high ISO and slow shutter speeds I can seldom get it right in camera. Oh I can get it acceptable but I want it right and if I have to do some PP why not shoot raw? The quality is better. The PP is easier and usually takes less time than trying to fix a bunch of Jpeg's.
This poor excuse for a man shoots RAW for everything, too. The only exception is when I have a wedding client who wants the jpegs on CDs for the client to print themselves, which I'm happy to provide instead of going through all the pp and proofs and print orders. Shoot it large jpeg, download it, sort it, burn it, ship it, say goodbye to it. Can't very well give a client 1,000 RAW images on a CD to take into a Big Box store.
Otherwise, I'm with all the rest of the girlie men who don't see any point in throwing things away. Might as well buy a Corvette and strip some of the parts. Sounds like the T-shirt wearers are just looking for ways to pound their chests.
Posted by Pat Warfield on July 18, 2007 at 8:57 PM
Am I missing something here? What does Jpeg have to do with he-men and weddings? Must be a joke I haven't heard.
No, I wouldn't shoot Raw for just snaps or candids or other volume kind of shoots. But knowing how great the Raw images are - I would use it for weddings. Raw seems to need less editing than Jpeg. I usually keep my cameras on the Raw + High Jpeg so I have both in the event something turns out important or I need a quick jpeg.
I just went through this decision process a few weeks ago. I was asked to shoot a wedding for a friend. After considering JPEG, I stayed with RAW. The reasons were
1. 12 bit imaging in camera 16 bit processing in CS3
2. Much better shadow detail
3. Easy batch conversion to JPEG with software.
4. Much better control of highlights (read not blowing detail on a white wedding dress)
5. White balance and exposure control much better
6. Prints in 16 Bit (12 bit on the printer) much smoother and detailed than the 8 bit of JPEG
7. Custom 3 phase sharpening creates better results.
Yes, it took a few hours more to get the images processed, but they are significantly better in detail, color and dynamic range than if JPEG were the starting point.
Besides, if it is the modality of choice for Bear, Elk, Rattle Snakes, Birds, flowers and bugs, why wouldn't it be the modality of choice for Brides and Grooms?
I wonder if what you are seeing isn't due to the artifacts from jpeg compression, most visible when printing large stuff or when trying to expand a small file beyond its limits? With the larger files and sensors standard today, I doubt you cold see much of a difference in printing a full-sized jpeg file at 8x10 or maybe even 11x14.
We shoot a mix, depending on the shoot, the setting, the lighting, the client, the fate of the photos, and the lab.
Believe it or not, our principal portrait lab prefers jpeg, but accepts tiff. They don't even want to see a file that hasn't been converted to one of those after RAW capture.
I believe it was Robert who used the term "safety net." That's mostly how we use RAW- for difficult or critical situations. Within the controlled settings of our studio there might as well be no RAW capability on our cameras, we use it so seldom. But move out into a location with greater stakes or challenges, and RAW is an important fallback.
It also depends on the application. Many, many applications we encounter these days need jpeg for their own use.
For us RAW is not an emotional or identity issue. It's a very calculated choice used only when necessary. Why not use it as a standard? Because it take so much bloomin' time to do the extra processing. We're already spending way, way too much time processing images each day, and adding ten minutes or even two minutes to each photo means lots less sleep or hiring more employees. If we get the camera and light settings right in the first place, it's unnecesary and frankly a waste of time. On busy days we might process as many as 100 photos for final delivery, and two minutes extra for each adds up to three hours less sleep that night. I don't even want to think what ten minutes extra processing time would do to our lives.
All that aside, when I'm on self-directed nature shoots, my camera is usually set on RAW. That's cuzz I'll be doing the processing in my spare time and at my own pace- not with a client showing up that afternoon or the next day for a delivery.
It's an important tool when needed, but not the only reasonable means to an end. Why use it when you don't need it?
Hank, God willing I'll be as busy as you are someday with paying customers. Until then, I'll just keep shooting RAW, though unlike Jim, I think I'll keep my clothes on. Just seems the most sensible thing to do in most situations. In many of the places I shoot, selecting BUFF format will lead to JAIL format.
Hank, when people see something as scary as me in BUFF mode, it's either uncontrolable laughter or they run-for-their lives. My 10D does not have a high enough ISO setting to freeze the motion.
Shooting raw and using a raw converter like Capture One or Raw Shooter gives you the ability to record all the information, then in batch mode, make global and local adjustments, and, in the case of Capture One, generate up to three images - tiff, HQ jpeg, and for web - so you have the best of all worlds. Most adjustments are simple (exposure, white balance, contrast, color saturation, basic sharpening, etc) and can be done quickly in batch. And you don't have to impact shooting performance or clutter up a memory card by taking simultaneous raw and jpeg dupes as you shoot. If you have the ability to shoot and convert raw, there is no benefit to shooting jpeg. I have found that a jpeg that is at the tail end of a raw conversion is almost always better than one that the camera produces directly.
Posted by Darren White on August 6, 2007 at 6:40 PM
directly out of camera no processing....Jpegs are sharper......Raw files have to be processed....if you are just talking about sharpness....
Discussion
16 repliesI have not seen any postings on this subject, although most of you Pros probably use Raw. I feel like a dork for taking so long to commit to Raw - my first Digital SLR made Raw very difficult to open & edit. Newer cameras & later versions of Photoshop, makes it very easy.
Many of you have pointed out that all digital cameras have an anti-aliasing filter over the sensor, which causes all digital images to appear a little 'soft' & need some sharpening. Makes me wonder if Jpeg magnifies the anti-alias effect.
Regards
Pat Warfield
Bob
I have to agree with Curtis - why throw away data?
Otherwise, I'm with all the rest of the girlie men who don't see any point in throwing things away. Might as well buy a Corvette and strip some of the parts. Sounds like the T-shirt wearers are just looking for ways to pound their chests.
No, I wouldn't shoot Raw for just snaps or candids or other volume kind of shoots. But knowing how great the Raw images are - I would use it for weddings. Raw seems to need less editing than Jpeg. I usually keep my cameras on the Raw + High Jpeg so I have both in the event something turns out important or I need a quick jpeg.
Pat Warfield
1. 12 bit imaging in camera 16 bit processing in CS3
2. Much better shadow detail
3. Easy batch conversion to JPEG with software.
4. Much better control of highlights (read not blowing detail on a white wedding dress)
5. White balance and exposure control much better
6. Prints in 16 Bit (12 bit on the printer) much smoother and detailed than the 8 bit of JPEG
7. Custom 3 phase sharpening creates better results.
Yes, it took a few hours more to get the images processed, but they are significantly better in detail, color and dynamic range than if JPEG were the starting point.
Besides, if it is the modality of choice for Bear, Elk, Rattle Snakes, Birds, flowers and bugs, why wouldn't it be the modality of choice for Brides and Grooms?
It does, however, have many other advantages - many of which are listed above.
We shoot a mix, depending on the shoot, the setting, the lighting, the client, the fate of the photos, and the lab.
Believe it or not, our principal portrait lab prefers jpeg, but accepts tiff. They don't even want to see a file that hasn't been converted to one of those after RAW capture.
I believe it was Robert who used the term "safety net." That's mostly how we use RAW- for difficult or critical situations. Within the controlled settings of our studio there might as well be no RAW capability on our cameras, we use it so seldom. But move out into a location with greater stakes or challenges, and RAW is an important fallback.
It also depends on the application. Many, many applications we encounter these days need jpeg for their own use.
For us RAW is not an emotional or identity issue. It's a very calculated choice used only when necessary. Why not use it as a standard? Because it take so much bloomin' time to do the extra processing. We're already spending way, way too much time processing images each day, and adding ten minutes or even two minutes to each photo means lots less sleep or hiring more employees. If we get the camera and light settings right in the first place, it's unnecesary and frankly a waste of time. On busy days we might process as many as 100 photos for final delivery, and two minutes extra for each adds up to three hours less sleep that night. I don't even want to think what ten minutes extra processing time would do to our lives.
All that aside, when I'm on self-directed nature shoots, my camera is usually set on RAW. That's cuzz I'll be doing the processing in my spare time and at my own pace- not with a client showing up that afternoon or the next day for a delivery.
It's an important tool when needed, but not the only reasonable means to an end. Why use it when you don't need it?
Hey Jim- I always knew Canon shooters were different, but never realized their file format was BUFF rather than RAW.