Why I Shoot In The RAW Format: This debate goes on and on. Here is an example of why I shoot in RAW. I love the long lens on the SX50 but when I go above ISO 300, the picture becomes...

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

This debate goes on and on. Here is an example of why I shoot in RAW. I love the long lens on the SX50 but when I go above ISO 300, the picture becomes soft until around ISO 800 where there is noise to be dealt with.

In this example, it was taken at full telephoto (just optical zoom), ISO 80, 1/200 shutter, and f/8. F/8 seems to be the sweet spot of the SX50's lens at full telephoto. I find that I get much better results if I take a photo at a lower ISO and adjust the exposure of the RAW photo. The JPG from the adjusted RAW file is on the left and the camera processed JPG is on the right.

The file from the processed RAW is on the left.

Papa Joe Loc: Midwest U.S.

haroldross wrote:

This debate goes on and on. Here is an example of ... (show quote)

How did you arrive at the exposure you used, since you were obviously under exposing? The results look good, but was just curious how you set the exposure... trial and error? Nice shot, however you did it.

Jim Plogger Loc: East Tennessee

Papa Joe wrote:

How did you arrive at the exposure you used, since you were obviously under exposing? The results look good, but was just curious how you set the exposure... trial and error? Nice shot, however you did it.

I would assume that he meant that the exposure was adjusted in the RAW software.

Papa Joe Loc: Midwest U.S.

jpintn wrote:

I would assume that he meant that the exposure was adjusted in the RAW software.

Yes, I'm sure that's what he meant, but judging by the jpg it appears to be considerably under exposed. I would guess the camera didn't 'suggest' that exposure, do you think?

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

OK. Let me explain it for you by paraphrasing what the OP has told us.

The sweet spot chose F/8.
Results and history (experience)chose ISO 80.
Experience with movement chose 1/200th.
I may have done it differently, but I haven't shot with that camera, and to me the logic makes perfect sense if that is his experience.

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

Papa Joe wrote:

How did you arrive at the exposure you used, since you were obviously under exposing? The results look good, but was just curious how you set the exposure... trial and error? Nice shot, however you did it.

It was bright morning light in the background. I under exposed because I did not want blown out highlights. The woodpecker's chest is still slightly blown out in the adjusted RAW but can be easily corrected in PhotoShop. I choose f/8 because I have found that I get the right depth of field for these kinds of shots. The SX50 sometimes focuses on the wrong thing since it tends to try to lock onto the closest object. I chose 1/200 for the shutter because I was taking the shot at full telephoto, handheld.

Papa Joe Loc: Midwest U.S.

haroldross wrote:

It was bright morning light in the background. I u... (show quote)

Thank you Harold... that's more the answer I was seeking. It was obviously under exposed, and I was wondering what your motive was. Good logic and you got the shot you were seeking. Do you generally under expose when you plan to use the raw image?

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

Papa Joe wrote:

Thank you Harold... that's more the answer I was seeking. It was obviously under exposed, and I was wondering what your motive was. Good logic and you got the shot you were seeking. Do you generally under expose when you plan to use the raw image?

On my 5D Mark III, I try to get the correct exposure but I lean towards slight under exposure.

When I use my SX50, I try to do the same. When the lighting conditions are not optimal, I try to adjust for it. The SX50's small sensor is not the best for low light conditions. Again, I see that from ISO 400 to 800, the photos tend to be soft and above ISO 800 the noise gets bad (this is my opinion). So instead of boosting the ISO, I tend to under expose by about 2 stops.

Yes, I generally under expose slightly to avoid blown out highlights.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

The original 'jpg' side shows that this was 'grossly' underexposed, not slightly. And f/8 is the smallest that this camera offers. Definitely not a 'sweet spot' as ALL lens sweet spots are somewhere in the 'middle' of the f/stop range.

I feel that if this had been shot properly at no more than -2/3 to -1 stop it would have come out very close to acceptable.

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

To me its a poor example - Tell me the this was an unbiased expample of poor setting on the JPEG side. My JPG's are never that far off. I shoot both RAW and JPEG fine to me this is a very Biased expample. I

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

haroldross wrote:

This debate goes on and on. Here is an example of ... (show quote)

That is one reason I shoot Raw if it is available.

Raw is equivalent to negative film regarding latitude where as jpeg is like slide film.

Another reason I shoot raw is I enjoy the post processing. Good images only start in the camera. The computer is as important as the camera.

Dlevon Loc: New Jersey

haroldross wrote:

This debate goes on and on. Here is an example of ... (show quote)

I've done the same thing at times. And I also love the results. Try it with moonshots. It absolutely works great.

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

Wahawk wrote:

The original 'jpg' side shows that this was 'grossly' underexposed, not slightly. And f/8 is the smallest that this camera offers. Definitely not a 'sweet spot' as ALL lens sweet spots are somewhere in the 'middle' of the f/stop range.

I feel that if this had been shot properly at no more than -2/3 to -1 stop it would have come out very close to acceptable.

Not to start an argument but, when it is at full telephoto (you don't have much choice-f/6.5. 7.1and 8), I do find f/8 to gives me the best results. I intentionally took the photo at the setting I chose. The morning sun was shining brightly on the woodpecker and I wanted as little washout as possible.

I got the SX40 not long after it came out and again got the SX50 not long after it came out. The camera can take some pretty good photos. I have spent a lot of time and experimenting to get to know the camera.

Just assume that I did not intentionally take the photo at these settings, again, there is a case for using the RAW format. RAW format allows for more flexibility that the JPG format.

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

Bill Houghton wrote:

To me its a poor example - Tell me the this was an unbiased expample of poor setting on the JPEG side. My JPG's are never that far off. I shoot both RAW and JPEG fine to me this is a very Biased expample. I

I stated I intentionally under exposed knowing I could correct it later. I wanted to show why I use the RAW format. I take a lot of photos in less that perfect lighting conditions and the RAW format allows me to under expose and correct later instead of boosting the ISO and introducing a lot of noise that has to be cleaned up later and usually at the expense of sharpness or clarity.

Radioman Loc: Ontario Canada

haroldross wrote:

This debate goes on and on. Here is an example of ... (show quote)

The jpeg can also be adjusted external to the camera, however there is no question that the RAW gives more picture information to work with.