Should I even worry about RAW if printing in TIFF! (Page 4): RAW is the complete novel version of Gone With the Wind. Jpeg is the Cliff Notes version.

NCMtnMan Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC

RAW is the complete novel version of Gone With the Wind. Jpeg is the Cliff Notes version.

srt101fan

Bill_de wrote:

Actually there is an advantage. Back in the days b... (show quote)

Glad you pointed that out. I was going to, but your comment is much better than anything I would have come up with!

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

julian.gang wrote:

This question still has me wondering why people seem to be crazy about RAW?...Julian

if you start with Raw and convert/export to Tiff you get an output file that originated in 14 bits and umpteenth times better quality photograph than a 8 bit converted to tiff.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

julian.gang wrote:

The problem is, if it really is one my camera only shoots in JPEG. But if I convert my JPEGs to TIFF do you even need to worry about RAW?...Julian

If your camera only shoots in JPEG, then you can't have anything to do with RAW anyway. It's a moot point.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

via the lens wrote:

Julian, br br A RAW file type gives you the oppor... (show quote)

Thanks for the clear description of the difference between a RAW and JPEG, 16 bit versus 8 bit. I use PS Elements and have noticed the sky color banding you mentioned when using the Elements Editor on RAW files that I process with the ACR editor. Elements is limited to 8 bit and I often get unexpected color results when I try to bring our more detail in a bland sky. There's definitely a limit to what I can do.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

julian.gang wrote:

This question still has me wondering why people seem to be crazy about RAW?...Julian

You should never worry about raw. Just use it, if you like. I'm not crazy about it, but I shoot in raw because it can give me an advantage in processing, and I process everything, anyway.

Guyserman Loc: Benton, AR

julian.gang wrote:

I know this has been said before, but isn't any post-processing, processing a lie?...Julian

Each time you make a picture shooting JPEG, the camera makes a decision how white the picture should be. It often gets it wrong, especially if there is artificial light involved. The camera is presenting you a lie. Post processing allows you to reveal the lie and restore the truth. The "this has been said" people got it backwards.

anotherview Loc: California

Yep.

Longshadow wrote:

RAW usually allows more (better) control over picture parameters.
I make the changes in my RAW editor and then save as JPEG (or TIFF).

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

julian.gang wrote:

This question still has me wondering why people seem to be crazy about RAW?...Julian

Might be time for a new camera. Even my Samsung Galaxy Note5 and now Note8 SmartPhone shoot in Raw! What sort of *%$# camera only shoots JPEGs? Even the first digital P&S (Bridge) camera I had in 2006 Shot Raw. Blaming one's tools as well as not learning the available technology should give one no reason to question others. Sorry.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

gvarner wrote:

Thanks for the clear description of the difference between a RAW and JPEG, 16 bit versus 8 bit. I use PS Elements and have noticed the sky color banding you mentioned when using the Elements Editor on RAW files that I process with the ACR editor. Elements is limited to 8 bit and I often get unexpected color results when I try to bring our more detail in a bland sky. There's definitely a limit to what I can do.

You can even get Ps to process as 32-bit PSD.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Mike, regretfully, my favorite "old" digital only produced files in .jpg and .tif format. That was a Sony DSC-F-707. It worked well, once I learned what I needed to do. Due to the number of years of using that camera, I was reluctant to use RAW when I purchased my Nikon D700. After about two weeks of getting accustomed to the Nikon, a good friend "gently" encouraged me to start using RAW. I did. Never shot in .jpg again with the Nikon.

After a bit of time, I started to learn about exposing techniques that worked exceptionally well with RAW format. Life's been wonderful ever since.
--Bob

lamiaceae wrote:

Might be time for a new camera. Even my Samsung Galaxy Note5 and now Note8 SmartPhone shoot in Raw! What sort of *%$# camera only shoots JPEGs? Even the first digital P&S (Bridge) camera I had in 2006 Shot Raw. Blaming one's tools as well as not learning the available technology should give one no reason to question others. Sorry.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

julian.gang wrote:

Then tell me, why do you shoot in RAW rather than JPEG!...Julian

Here's one reason why - a vacation snapshot. RAW has given me the option of extracting all the detail in this scene even with the extremes of shadowes and light.
It has also given me the option of doing a good B&W if I choose to.

(Download)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Here's an example of one reason RAW works rather well. Though this was an error in shooting.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-133857-1.html

Good photo? Probably not the best I could have done. However, it was retrievable.
--Bob

julian.gang wrote:

This question still has me wondering why people seem to be crazy about RAW?...Julian

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Guyserman wrote:

Each time you make a picture shooting JPEG, the camera makes a decision how white the picture should be. It often gets it wrong, especially if there is artificial light involved. The camera is presenting you a lie. Post processing allows you to reveal the lie and restore the truth. The "this has been said" people got it backwards.

None of my cameras have ever lied to me---JPEG, RAW whatever.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

julian.gang wrote:

I know this has been said before, but isn't any post-processing, processing a lie?...Julian

Here is an example of an original image taken in a dark interior area with a large bright window behind it with a gray overcast sky. It was a difficult shot because of the darkness of the space and the large window behind creating almost a silhouette of the lion. The second image has been adjusted in post processing. Is it a lie to see the subject and its shadow detail in the second version rather than the one obscured by shadow? Which one would you prefer to post. The original image was captured in raw on a Canon 7D Mark II with a slow Canon 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. I challenge you to take the large dark jpeg I provided of the original and achieve even close to the same results I did with a raw file, and with the same level of detail and noise reduction. And no cheating. I'll know if you actually used my second image. Click download to view them full screen and click again on the full screen images to see them at full resolution. Post processing was performed with DXO PhotoLab Elite.

(Download)