RAW’s advantages elude me- what am I missing? (Page 12): This conversation is it going to make the poster understand. If you do not see the benefit, or know what to do with RAW, THEN...

williejoha

This conversation is it going to make the poster understand. If you do not see the benefit, or know what to do with RAW, THEN DO NOT USE IT.
WJH

williejoha

My above reply is garbage. This conversation is not solving anything. If you do not see the benefit of RAW, THEN DO NOT USE IT.
WJH

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

williejoha wrote:

My above reply is garbage. This conversation is not solving anything. If you do not see the benefit of RAW, THEN DO NOT USE IT.
WJH

Why not <edit> your response instead of creating a string of silliness?

Bill_de Loc: US

selmslie wrote:

You can find a complete explanation at Basic White Balance.

Very nicely done Scotty!

--

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

BlackRipleyDog wrote:

A jpeg at 8bits has 2 to the 8th power information. A raw file at 16bits has 2 to the 16th power information. If you don't need that much then own a simpler cheaper camera. Leave the 850's and others like them to those of us who appreciate the power.

Not to be too picky, but it’s actually 2^8 x 2^8 x2^8 (there are 3 8-bit color channels represented in a jPEG color value). Same is true for 16 bits (2^16 x 2^16 x 2^16)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Here is another Daylight WB comparison of raw vs JPEG exposed so that the cloud highlights are not blown in the JPEG. The clouds are in sunlight but the foreground is slightly shaded (partly cloudy).

Coincidentally, the camera's Daylight setting (Sunny) for the Nikon Df is identical to the Capture One Sunny setting so I am showing only one of them.

The foreground is under partly cloudy light. The Cloudy WB setting uses a slightly higher (+767°K) temperature which results in a shift toward yellow and away from blue. While this may make the foreground look more natural, it also turns the clouds and the reflection of the sky in the water slightly yellow. That's an inevitable problem when you have two light sources. It would be easy to fix in this image by using layers and treating the foreground, sky and water separately.

Or you can just split the difference.

The original JPEG SOOC ISO 100 1/250 @ f/8 (LV=14)

(Download)

Sunny - 5227K, 0 .0tint
Sunny - 5227K, 0 .0tint...

(Download)

Cloudy - 5994K, 0.2 tint
Cloudy - 5994K, 0.2 tint...

(Download)

Custom - 5610K, 0.1 tint
Custom - 5610K, 0.1 tint...

(Download)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Bill_de wrote:

Very nicely done Scotty!

--

Thank you. I gave a presentation based on this article at our local camera club (about 40 members at all levels) on Thursday. It went over well and generated a lot of discussion.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Willie, the OP already tipped his hat with a statement in the original post, "order to "see for myself" if RAW was worth the disadvantages. " At reading that, I made a comment back on one of the first pages essentially stating that I'm not going to waste my time. I found the shit storm that followed for some number of pages interesting to say the least.
--Bob

williejoha wrote:

This conversation is it going to make the poster understand. If you do not see the benefit, or know what to do with RAW, THEN DO NOT USE IT.
WJH

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

Hey guys "raw" in high end movie making is here. Shooting raw
with an Arri video (filming) has been here for a long time. A version of
it is to use color grading and shooting in a lighter version to add the
dynamic range to the video filming. Raw is better for critical adjustments
for those who want complete control of post work. jpg's are good but
less flexible. So it is simply what you intention is.
Every high end commercial or movie your watch is color graded and image adjusted
all the time. So that is our raw.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

Hey guys "raw" in high end movie making is here. Shooting raw
with an Arri video (filming) has been here for a long time. A version of
it is to use color grading and shooting in a lighter version to add the
dynamic range to the video filming. Raw is better for critical adjustments
for those who want complete control of post work. jpg's are good but
less flexible. So it is simply what you intention is.
Every high end commercial or movie your watch is color graded and image adjusted
all the time. So that is our raw.

Ritz

Very well put. I was wondering the same thoughts. Thank you.

11bravo

Robg wrote:

Thanks for your post. Yes, nightshot is disabled with RAW. Page 78 of manual.

More importantly, to me, is that iHDR is disabled in RAW. I benefit from that a lot. The camera uses it automatically when needed and it's much easier than using bracketing with RAW. Plus, I see the results immediately rather than weeks later on my computer.

Thanks for the clarification. Looked at the manual (sorry no FZ300 present), and a couple of questions:

Instead of intelligent imode, what if you have RAW+JPEG set, and use Scene mode, P. 99, #17, for handheld nightshot? Would that allow the capability without having to manually disable RAW?

Next trip, I'll have to have my partner try imode, especially HDR, for a day and see if she likes the results. I was unfamiliar with that, so thanks for suggesting. Like I said, she's coming from "mobile photography", so anything more than Auto mode is a bit overwhelming. She's comfortable switching between A, movie, and panorama modes, and that's about it. Other than our yearly trips, she's too busy with life for any camera use.