Hunting Washington Forum

Community => Photo & Video => Topic started by: boneaddict on December 17, 2007, 06:32:57 AM

Title: Raw
Post by: boneaddict on December 17, 2007, 06:32:57 AM: OK could one of you guys clear something up for me. I always shoot in jpeg because I do all my stuff on the computer. I hear you talking about shooting in Raw all of the time. Can someoen explain the advantage of it, the disadvantages of it. I believe it is like a negative in digital. Can I use my regular photo software etc.....Any info would be appreciated.
Title: Re: Raw
Post by: jackelope on December 17, 2007, 07:09:53 AM: here here...i agree...help plz.
Title: Re: Raw
Post by: Elkman on December 17, 2007, 08:08:04 AM: Best I can do. ;)
Don't have time to type that much.

Format Pros & Cons:
The Pros of RAW format:
RAW is a digital negative holding all of the data captured by your camera providing you a foundational element to which to apply all of your edits to with no sacrifice of image quality.
RAW file software editors allow you to quickly and easily change the output of your image such as adjusting exposure, white balance, noise reduction, image size (interpolation), saturation, contrast, levels, curves, sharpness, output resolution, bits/channel, etc.
RAW file software editors allow you to load saved adjustment settings and some even enables users to batch process a group of files versus making changes to one file at a time.

The Cons of RAW format:
RAW files take up more space on your camera's compact flash card or microdrive than other formats.
RAW files require you conduct some degree of post processing via photo editing software to convert your image to an editable file type for editing, printing and/or online display.
RAW file software editors have a learning curve, even if mild, and for the uninitiated can be intimidating at first.
Batch processing and/or loading multiple files may tax slower machines and require more computer RAM to keep your software running smoothly.

The Pros of JPEG format:
JPEG is a file format that has been adopted as a standard and can be loaded in a variety of programs making display easy and simple.
JPEG files take up less space on your camera's compact flash card or microdrive than other formats.
JPEGs can be loaded easily by most all image editing software applications, requiring no intermediate steps.
Most dSLRs enable you to choose what size JPEG files (S, M, or L) to save to your compact flash card or microdrive when shooting. This enables you to use smaller images that are easier to handle for email attachments, web display or as an alternate preview mechanism if your camera supports saving files in JPEG and RAW formats simultaneously.

The Cons of JPEG format:
JPEGs are not a lossless file format. Each time the file is saved data is compressed, with some data being lost in the process. The net impact can be loss of color saturation, color range and sharpness.
JPEG files reflect a one-time interpretation of your subject based on the settings of your camera (white balance, exposure settings and output resolution, etc.). Altering these settings and re-outputting a new file, as you can with a RAW file, is not possible. What you capture is what you get.
Interpolating or upsizing an image initially saved as a JPEG can result in less than ideal results. Some 3rd party software applications can do this better than others, but you’re still dependent on using another software application to get the job done.
With specific types of photographed scenes JPEG compression artifacts can appear in prints

Some more info:
http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm (http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm)
http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/raw-vs-jpeg/ (http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/raw-vs-jpeg/)
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/rawvsjpg/ (http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/rawvsjpg/)
Title: Re: Raw
Post by: jackelope on December 17, 2007, 08:28:25 AM: thanks for the info. i guess it's supposed to be frustrating at first :bash:
Title: Re: Raw
Post by: huntnphool on December 17, 2007, 08:48:48 AM: Bottom line Bone, if you are looking at printing you shots and maybe blowing them up you should be shooting RAW or Tiff. The main reason being editing and no loss of image quality. IF your simply using your pics on the web, stick with jpeg. Great post by the way elkman, read just like my Canon manuel.

As Elkman said, it can tax your memory so you will probably need at least one more compact flash card, maybe more ram on your puter, and a good software to convert to tiff or jpeg, all of which can get spendy. The reason I do it is just in case I accidentally get a shot like the one Elkman shot or Rainier, I would cry if the print looked like crap because I shot it at 300kb :bash: My suggestion, if your camera has the ability shoot it in RAW and start practicing your conversions, it wont take anyone on here long to learn, everyone seems to be more than qualified to conquer Photoshop CS2 or the like ;)
Title: Re: Raw
Post by: boneaddict on December 17, 2007, 08:56:40 AM: Very much appreciate the information guys.
Title: Re: Raw
Post by: popeshawnpaul on December 17, 2007, 09:28:39 AM: I know what the manual says, but here is what I use it for. I shoot everything raw. Only shoot jpg if your exposure is right on and you are low on card space. If there is a high contrast situation or difficult lighting, raw will give you a big advantage when you go to edit your photo. Lets say I overexpose by two shots...when I'm importing my photo I take the exposure slider and pull it down two stops. If you did this with a jpg you would have lost the detail in the image from the start. However, with a raw file you can adjust exposure quite a bit and get a perfect picture as if you had exposed it correctly in the first place. The second thing I use it for is white balance. I don't want to mess with my white balance out in the field. What if it's sunny one second and cloudy the next, you would have to constantly adjust it or set it to auto. Auto gets you in the ballpark but many of my photos aren't balanced right with auto. I just try out the different white balances when importing my photos with no loss of image quality.

I just use the Canon software that comes with a digital camera. It's easy and very user friendly. Jpg also leaves artifacts and when your photos are blown up I can see the compression. You will see it in the tonal range. A blue sky that fades will really show jpg compression. Every time you hit the save button, it gets worse and worse.
Title: Re: Raw
Post by: boneaddict on December 17, 2007, 10:21:18 AM: Sounds like I have some more experimenting to do. Thanks again!
Title: Re: Raw
Post by: Hornseeker on December 17, 2007, 10:36:55 AM: So how come when I put a Jpeg on my editing software (nothing fancy, just camedia) I can still change the exposure? Is it just not as "good" a change as if I did it in RAW?

Good stuff...

I am probably going to get the Nikon D40 in the next couple months...this stuff could come in handy.

E

By the way Shawn...just saying hi, I'm Ernie from Lolo...
Title: Re: Raw
Post by: Elkman on December 17, 2007, 11:58:47 AM: Im sitting here trying to come up with a better analogy of the difference's. Hmmmmm.

Look at a picture from the side like layers.
In a .jpg it is just one Compressed layer, when you adjust one element like brightness it effects all the other layers to a point also, like hue, color, contrast etc. there is no true exposure adjustment with a jpeg.

With RAW, there are many layers that you can adjust without effecting the other layers.
Try to adjust white balance with a .jpg, can't be done. you can change the hue of the over all image, but you can't come close to what you can do with that image in RAW.

you know that little blue halo you see some times of a bright object in a .jpg? in RAW you can fix that correctly.

Personally I just strated with RAW a few months ago after getting my D200, never did it with the G3.
Title: Re: Raw
Post by: jackelope on December 17, 2007, 12:00:24 PM: i think i'm getting it.
thanks guys...now have to make time to mess around some.
Title: Re: Raw
Post by: boneaddict on December 17, 2007, 12:14:20 PM: ahhh the D200, the camera on my wish list. Can't wait to play. I was also looking into photoshops newer versions CS2 or CS3. I'm not sure if one is an update to the other, or a stand alone. I'm still using elements 2.0 and its about 8 years old or more. I mostly just use it to resize stuff or to crop.
Title: Re: Raw
Post by: popeshawnpaul on December 17, 2007, 05:12:38 PM: You do need the software to work with raw. Most of it comes with a camera and it's all about as easy as Photoshop Elements. Pretty basic stuff. If you don't have that, you can buy photoshop. Photoshop is expensive but a great tool if you become a photo nut and want to learn a very complex program.

Anyone can lighten or darken a photo in jpg. However, you can make revolutionary changes to a raw file and have it look perfect. I was reading the following over at Joe McDonald's website, a good nature photographer that I learned to shoot from by reading his books. He is really amazing and anyone could learn a ton from him or his wife. This link describes a situation and is the perfect example of why you should shoot raw...

http://www.hoothollow.com/Question-April%202004.html

Shawn
Title: Re: Raw
Post by: boneaddict on December 17, 2007, 05:36:36 PM: Thanks Shawn!
Title: Re: Raw
Post by: huntnphool on December 18, 2007, 05:39:16 PM: Good read Shawn, thanks for the link.
Title: Re: Raw
Post by: boneaddict on December 23, 2007, 08:00:10 AM: I'm thinking I might need to track down one or two of those books. Excellent read and some other good articles there as well. Thanks again.