Yes, Raw is Better
Jun 23, 2019 07:33:18 #
Just for the heck of it, I did a series of shots at an event yesterday with my Fuji X30 using the JPEG setting, although I usually use raw. I was frustrated processing them. They turned out okay, but I couldn't fine tune them the way I've been used to doing with raw files. Raw isn't necessary, of course, but neither is a $1,000 camera. It's just a matter of preference, and my preference will stay with raw.
Jun 23, 2019 07:39:21 #
I recently took a trip to New York City and didn’t realize until I got home that I had inadvertently set my camera to take jpeg instead of raw. I was truly disappointed in my inability to process them as I normally would.
Walt
Walt
Jun 23, 2019 07:45:01 #
Of course RAW is better, if you know how to process the RAW data. If one prefers shooting JPEG, be sure to set the cameras image processing parameters to get the image quality to turn out more like you want it. If you don't set the parameters to your preferences, the camera will apply default parameters and that may result in fairly full unflattering images.
Jun 23, 2019 07:48:16 #
Jerry, not all JPEG engines were created equal. I can guarantee you that the JPEG output from Olympus cameras is excellent.
I shoot both files depending on subject. Raw offers more flexibility but to obtain all the goodness it offers the operator has to know editing. I always mention a sunset as the ultimate test because the original data will never show what the photographer saw in the first place and only good editing will bring back those colors. There are plenty of parameters in a good editing software to manipulate JPEG and TIFF files.
I shoot both files depending on subject. Raw offers more flexibility but to obtain all the goodness it offers the operator has to know editing. I always mention a sunset as the ultimate test because the original data will never show what the photographer saw in the first place and only good editing will bring back those colors. There are plenty of parameters in a good editing software to manipulate JPEG and TIFF files.
Jun 23, 2019 07:58:39 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Just for the heck of it, I did a series of shots at an event yesterday with my Fuji X30 using the JPEG setting, although I usually use raw. I was frustrated processing them. They turned out okay, but I couldn't fine tune them the way I've been used to doing with raw files. Raw isn't necessary, of course, but neither is a $1,000 camera. It's just a matter of preference, and my preference will stay with raw.
Happened to me once also, that's why I shoot RAW,sometimes Raw+
Jun 23, 2019 08:09:50 #
rmorrison1116 wrote:
Of course RAW is better, if you know how to process the RAW data. If one prefers shooting JPEG, be sure to set the cameras image processing parameters to get the image quality to turn out more like you want it. If you don't set the parameters to your preferences, the camera will apply default parameters and that may result in fairly full unflattering images.
I have yet to see any photographer using digital equipment absolutely nail the exposure, contrast, saturation, noise reduction and sharpening, shot after shot, for technically perfect (not counting composition and subject matter).
It was no different with film. You expose to capture the necessary information to Make a good photograph.
The only exceptions are when you are using your own lighting - studio and commercial work - where results are completely predictable.
As Jerry succinctly stated "They turned out okay, but I couldn't fine tune them the way I've been used to doing with raw files."
Jun 23, 2019 08:13:38 #
Whuff wrote:
I recently took a trip to New York City and didn’t realize until I got home that I had inadvertently set my camera to take jpeg instead of raw. I was truly disappointed in my inability to process them as I normally would.
Walt
Walt
Walt, are you sure it wasn't a case of, you forgot to set the camera back to RAW? I know I've done this several times, forgetting to reset some parameter, but accidentally turning off RAW, how can this be, unless there is an external switch that does this. Usually, and in the case of every camera in my collection, RAW and or JPEG is an internal menu setting that only changes when the user tells it to.
And you are so right about the disapointment feeling when you realize you caught some really cool images but you can't PP them the way you want. Been there, done that. I now make it a habit to press the info button before using a camera that has been setting awhile.
Jun 23, 2019 08:19:58 #
Gene51 wrote:
I have yet to see any photographer using digital e... (show quote)
Your point?!
To me you make it sound like I was disagreeing with Jerry, which couldn't be farther from the truth.
I'm not even sure exactly what your first sentence really means. Did I imply anything about technically perfect images?!
Jun 23, 2019 08:27:14 #
kmpankopf
Loc: Mid-Michigan; SW Pennsylvania
I've never heard anyone say, 'Darn it, I wish I had shot that in JPG'.
Jun 23, 2019 08:33:33 #
Most of my photos are "right on" first time. Rarely need or do any post, so most of mine are jpeg. RAW only when an awesome scene presents itself. The D750 makes the jpegs with even more flexibility than the D5100.
Jun 23, 2019 08:42:54 #
rmorrison1116 wrote:
... If one prefers shooting JPEG, be sure to set the cameras image processing parameters to get the image quality to turn out more like you want it...
Every shot is different.
If you have to adjust the camera settings for each shot you will not be shooting anything transient. No sports. No birds in flight. For that matter, probably very few group shots. You will be shooting static objects and taking a lot of time adjusting things before the shot. Shooting raw allows you to do a lot of the adjustments after the fact, although it's still important to get the exposure and focus* right in camera.
Of course, digital pictures are free**, since you have already gotten past the capital expense. So you can take several shots, bracket things, and play with the settings. The downside is that you have to postprocess by selecting one of the resulting pictures and deleting the rest.
*Technology may eventually get us to a point where focus can be adjusted after the fact but we're not there yet.
**free up to the limit of the shutter life.
Jun 23, 2019 08:55:18 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
Every shot is different. br If you have to adjust... (show quote)
This is pretty much why I shoot RAW.
Canon's DP RAW does allow for minor focus corrections. It's not great but it's a start.
Until the shutter or some other component of the camera fails.
What about electronic shutters, no moving parts.
Jun 23, 2019 08:58:55 #
On some cameras you can process one raw in camera using a variety of different presets. So you can shoot raw but send jpg without ever opening Photoshop, then save the raw for later. I like to do everthing from raw in lightroom/photoshop so i dont throw away any data that might be useful later. But i take no offense if someone else wants to shoot in jpeg.
Jun 23, 2019 09:13:02 #
Tried RAW for 6 months - found it to be a waste of time and space. I get what I want using JPEG fine - most with little or no PP. There are no absolutes.
Jun 23, 2019 09:26:27 #
kmpankopf wrote:
I've never heard anyone say, 'Darn it, I wish I had shot that in JPG'.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.