RAW’s advantages elude me- what am I missing? (Page 3): Well I like Toyotas better than Nissans and with six speed manual transmissions...not automatics and painted in luminescent...

Ava'sPapa Loc: Cheshire, Ct.

Well I like Toyotas better than Nissans and with six speed manual transmissions...not automatics and painted in luminescent white, not black and I prefer an SUV to a sedan.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Robg wrote:

Since it might have relevance to what follows, here is what I use: Lumix DMC-FZ300 (set at 12mp; 4000x3000), Dell XPS 15 with external 27” Ultra HD Display, Windows 10 (16GB), Lightroom CC version 3.2.

I’m not a professional and am primarily interested in travel, nature and wildlife photography.

Until now, I've only shot JPG, but with a major trip looming, I want to decide if I should plan to shoot in RAW. So, I took a number of pictures at a marina in RAW+JPG to compare them in post processing in order to "see for myself" if RAW was worth the disadvantages.

In Lightoom CC I compared the effects of various edits on many of the pairs. Bottom line: I saw very little (almost no) difference between the edited JPG’s and RAW’s. Only at the far end of a few of the edit sliders, say the last 5-10%, could I see a difference.

The strongest difference was in the exposure slider where I was able to reveal slightly more detail (with the slider all the way to the right) in the heaviest shadows in the RAW files.

I also compared the pairs after randomly applying some of the presets, and really saw no differences at all between a JPG and a RAW after any preset had been applied.

Lightroom has an “Enhance” feature that works only with RAW images. I tried that on a couple of images and although it made a difference, I can’t say that I preferred the enhanced images. But I can see that there could be images that this feature might improve.

In summary, the RAW advantages that might have some potential value are for images where desired details are hidden in very heavy shadows and for images that would be improved by using the “Enhance” feature, although for the latter I don’t know what those would be.

That didn't seem like much. Hence, the question in the topic title – what am I missing?

What else can I experiment with that would show me some major advantages of RAW? I did not compare the images after severe cropping, or, alternatively as very large prints. Is that where significant differences show up?

On the other hand, with my camera at least, RAW is not without cost. There is a loss of functionality when shooting RAW or RAW+JPG. The “Handheld Night Shot Mode” is disabled, as is the iHDR mode. I have benefited from these modes extensively, particularly iHDR.

Other features that I’m not so dependent on are also not available when shooting RAW, including Super High Burst Mode and digital zoom.

For me the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages of RAW unless someone can help me find other advantages I currently don’t see.

Since it might have relevance to what follows, her... (show quote)

I shoot Jpeg because I shoot birds in flight at 20 fps. need jpeg. to keep my buffer from filling too fast. No issues for using jpeg. Works just fine, I keep my exposures accurate I love the results. Great Egret, Wakodahatchee Wetlands, Sony a9, Sony 200-600 mm lens, iso 1600, 1/3200 sec., f7.1, at 529 mm. Exposure set to capture details in this Great Egret. -3.2 EV.

twice_shooter

I woke up at 7 am and started reading this. I think I’m going back to sleep.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I do it because I can. Period.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

via the lens wrote:

The following sentence, I believe, did not seem to... (show quote)

Good answer!

skipwv Loc: West Virginia

CHG_CANON wrote:

If you can't see the difference, it's not there ...

Possibly the most succinct, and best, explanation ever. 👍

bsmith52 Loc: Northeast Alabama

Linda From Maine wrote:

A recent similar topic went on for 29 pages. Are you sure you don't want to reconsider your question?

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-632410-1.html

.

😄

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

First off, there are no "disadvantages", as you said, to shooting RAW. The advantage is one needs to learn photography to use RAW to its ultimate. As it's said, "Everyone's a photographer until you set the camera to M".

Personally, I couldn't do what I do without using RAW. In addition, I'm very thankful for the advice I received from at least one UHH member which really opened up the potential of digital photography. So, if you are going to approach using RAW with a negative, no pun meant, attitude it will never work for you.
--Bob

Robg wrote:

Since it might have relevance to what follows, her... (show quote)

Stephan G

blackest wrote:

Raw is what your camera starts with and goes on to produce A jpeg from that raw data, please note I did not say The Jpeg this is because what jpeg it produces depends on the settings you have chosen in your camera or have left to the cameras software to pick for you.

There are just 2 things fixed when taking a photo, the shutter speed and the aperture, the ISO is a bit of an artificial construct.
Shutter speed mostly determines how movement is captured and aperture depth of field for any given point of focus in the real world.

The least you can do is point the camera in the direction of interest, and let the camera do the rest. This may result in a good photograph. With a basic slr such as the Pentax k1000 the camera gave you a metering needle which if sat in the middle would ensure that enough light was entering the lens such that a middle gray world was correctly exposed for the type of film you had set when you loaded it.

Even more basic cameras did less than that my old 126 had 2 settings you could twist the lens to change aperture to and from sunny or cloudy. The viewfinder gave a rough idea of what the camera was going to record, parallax ensured it was never identical and besides by the time you got the film developed you wouldn't remember the difference. Cameras have come a long way since then.

They make assumptions that may not apply, The K1000 kind of started with it's needle if you adjusted the shutter speed and aperture and got the needle midway then the shot would be exposing for mid gray, it was on you to figure out focus , if mid gray applied and if the combination of shutter speed and aperture would capture the scene as you wanted. Still only advisory at this stage.

The next generation of camera had the ability to set a shutter speed relative to the aperture you selected and the ISO or ASA or DIN of the film you were using. White balance was a characteristic of the film you were using, balanced for indoor or outdoor light pretty much. Some people had favourite films.

Autofocus came along with a single point looking for maximum contrast...
That was mostly that and it was the formulation of the film and the print paper that mostly determined how your captured image looked.

With Digital you no longer were dependant on the film but on the processing capability of your camera and initially that was quite limited and we accepted it , just as we had with film. Now cameras have many options for producing a jpeg but it is a one time option if you don't save raw.

So there is no 'the jpeg' out of camera just 'a jpeg' with many variations possible.
It's possible with a raw file to correct not just white balance but color balance (using calibrated targets), but I haven't seen in camera processing that allows this maybe some cameras support loading of LUTS (that would be amazing to see in camera). If you are going to post process a raw file is the best starting point.

If not then figure out what your preference is for the jpeg you want the camera to produce or accept the default if you want it is really up to you.

Raw is what your camera starts with and goes on to... (show quote)

Just to add about the good old days. Many photographers ended up doing their own processing in many different ways. It started from modifications in and around the camera. Then it went to film developing in the dark room. Once the film was done, we turned to the printing side. Here was the second camera, again ins and outs. Then the print (or slide) was developed, becoming the end of process. Depending on the degree of expertise at each step, the length of time from "start to finish" was determined. The last thing was thrown out the window when it was decided to experiment. And there were those times that a visit to the drug store to have the whole roll sent to Kodak labs to do it for us.

Then, as now, the path we went was determined by what kind of results we wanted and as to how closely we could get. The main changes are the great number of the steps in the process have been automated and how to end up with our desired result. The one area that blossomed beyond the grasp of many is the experimentation.

The decision is still based on what result is desired. It is, still, in the hands of the photographer.

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

Linda From Maine wrote:

A recent similar topic went on for 29 pages. Are you sure you don't want to reconsider your question?

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-632410-1.html

.

😄

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Robg wrote:

Since it might have relevance to what follows, here is what I use: Lumix DMC-FZ300 (set at 12mp; 4000x3000), Dell XPS 15 with external 27” Ultra HD Display, Windows 10 (16GB), Lightroom CC version 3.2.

I’m not a professional and am primarily interested in travel, nature and wildlife photography.

Until now, I've only shot JPG, but with a major trip looming, I want to decide if I should plan to shoot in RAW. So, I took a number of pictures at a marina in RAW+JPG to compare them in post processing in order to "see for myself" if RAW was worth the disadvantages.

In Lightoom CC I compared the effects of various edits on many of the pairs. Bottom line: I saw very little (almost no) difference between the edited JPG’s and RAW’s. Only at the far end of a few of the edit sliders, say the last 5-10%, could I see a difference.

The strongest difference was in the exposure slider where I was able to reveal slightly more detail (with the slider all the way to the right) in the heaviest shadows in the RAW files.

I also compared the pairs after randomly applying some of the presets, and really saw no differences at all between a JPG and a RAW after any preset had been applied.

Lightroom has an “Enhance” feature that works only with RAW images. I tried that on a couple of images and although it made a difference, I can’t say that I preferred the enhanced images. But I can see that there could be images that this feature might improve.

In summary, the RAW advantages that might have some potential value are for images where desired details are hidden in very heavy shadows and for images that would be improved by using the “Enhance” feature, although for the latter I don’t know what those would be.

That didn't seem like much. Hence, the question in the topic title – what am I missing?

What else can I experiment with that would show me some major advantages of RAW? I did not compare the images after severe cropping, or, alternatively as very large prints. Is that where significant differences show up?

On the other hand, with my camera at least, RAW is not without cost. There is a loss of functionality when shooting RAW or RAW+JPG. The “Handheld Night Shot Mode” is disabled, as is the iHDR mode. I have benefited from these modes extensively, particularly iHDR.

Other features that I’m not so dependent on are also not available when shooting RAW, including Super High Burst Mode and digital zoom.

For me the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages of RAW unless someone can help me find other advantages akingI currently don’t see.

Since it might have relevance to what follows, her... (show quote)

If you like JPG shoot JPG. I like to process images myself. Therefore, I shoot RAW and feel like I am making a mistake when I shoot otherwise.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

My thought is that you can generally end up in the same place by shooting RAW or JPEG with a good technical shot right out of the camera. RAW is handy to make corrections that can’t be made in JPEG. There are a few of those and many opinions about their use and benefit. I know pros who shoot only in JPEG and many amateurs and pros alike who swear by RAW. To each his own. Arguing RAW versus JPEG is like arguing DSLR versus mirrorless.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I have participated in the past in many discussions here about RAW data vs JPEG files. RAW data offers flexible information not available to JPEG files and opening the shadows as you said is one of them. Considerably less noise will be present upon opening the shadows between RAW data and a JPEG file. JPEG files look 100% better out of camera because the RAW data needs editing. The expertise of the person editing RAW is very important to get back all of the information the RAW data has.

In your case and considering you will be traveling soon I would suggest that you keep on shooting JPEG files. Learning to edit RAW data takes time to gain the necessary experience to make that information as good as it can be. Modern JPEG images are of excellent quality. Artifacts are possible with JPEG images if during editing we begin to apply changes to the file. The main problem here is that with RAW data we are working with 16 bits of information while a RAW file has only 8. Banding in the sky and color transitions resulting in subtle shift in tonalities are a possibility. I would say that planning is an important step when shooting JPEG and the least the image is manipulated the better for the final result.

When working RAW data we usually select during editing a wide color space, like ProPhoto or Adobe RGB. There are billions of colors in those wide color spaces that neither our eyes nor the monitor can see. If we are going to use those files usually we end up converting to JPEG, a file that works best with 8 bits and the sRGB color space which is a much smaller color space than ProPhoto or Adobe RGB. What happens when the compression takes place I do not really know. We cannot see the changes in our monitor and I question if we will see them in a print. The majority of professional printers in this country print JPEG files in the sRGB color space only. If I use RAW data to edit I even sharpen to a minimum with 16 bits and when I compress the image I select a reduction that will not affect much the file or so I believe. Unless absolutely necessary I do not sharpen a JPEG image during editing. In my experience modern RAW data have a certain amount of sharpening applied automatically by the editing program we use and I use strictly Nikon proprietary software to make sure I get back the true colors of the RAW data. After initial adjustments a third party software will make no significant changes to the file to the point of changing the original colors. If working to post in the Internet any software capable of editing RAW data is more than enough.

As I said, modern JPEG files have excellent quality and we better keep editing to a minimum in post to avoid shits in colors, banding and other artifacts. When working with an original JPEG it is a great idea to work on a duplicate leaving the original alone. When saving converting to TIFF makes the file loosless.

You have been getting good results from shooting with JPEG and if it is not broken why fix it? Surely before an important trip I do not want to change or experiment with anything photographically.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Robg wrote:

Since it might have relevance to what follows, here is what I use: Lumix DMC-FZ300 (set at 12mp; 4000x3000), Dell XPS 15 with external 27” Ultra HD Display, Windows 10 (16GB), Lightroom CC version 3.2.

I’m not a professional and am primarily interested in travel, nature and wildlife photography.

Until now, I've only shot JPG, but with a major trip looming, I want to decide if I should plan to shoot in RAW. So, I took a number of pictures at a marina in RAW+JPG to compare them in post processing in order to "see for myself" if RAW was worth the disadvantages.

In Lightoom CC I compared the effects of various edits on many of the pairs. Bottom line: I saw very little (almost no) difference between the edited JPG’s and RAW’s. Only at the far end of a few of the edit sliders, say the last 5-10%, could I see a difference.

The strongest difference was in the exposure slider where I was able to reveal slightly more detail (with the slider all the way to the right) in the heaviest shadows in the RAW files.

I also compared the pairs after randomly applying some of the presets, and really saw no differences at all between a JPG and a RAW after any preset had been applied.

Lightroom has an “Enhance” feature that works only with RAW images. I tried that on a couple of images and although it made a difference, I can’t say that I preferred the enhanced images. But I can see that there could be images that this feature might improve.

In summary, the RAW advantages that might have some potential value are for images where desired details are hidden in very heavy shadows and for images that would be improved by using the “Enhance” feature, although for the latter I don’t know what those would be.

That didn't seem like much. Hence, the question in the topic title – what am I missing?

What else can I experiment with that would show me some major advantages of RAW? I did not compare the images after severe cropping, or, alternatively as very large prints. Is that where significant differences show up?

On the other hand, with my camera at least, RAW is not without cost. There is a loss of functionality when shooting RAW or RAW+JPG. The “Handheld Night Shot Mode” is disabled, as is the iHDR mode. I have benefited from these modes extensively, particularly iHDR.

Other features that I’m not so dependent on are also not available when shooting RAW, including Super High Burst Mode and digital zoom.

For me the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages of RAW unless someone can help me find other advantages I currently don’t see.

Since it might have relevance to what follows, her... (show quote)

Search UHH and you’ll find dozens of threads like this. They go on for 20 to 50 pages. Read ‘em and learn.

Upshot?

There are serious reasons to use both PRE-processing (setting camera JPEG processing menus) AND POST-processing (for example, raw conversion in Lightroom, etc.). You have to do the work to know what you need.

lsaguy Loc: Udall, KS, USA

Doesn't it just come down to a single word? Control. With jpeg you surrender it to the camera's software, With RAW you have the potential to shape the image to your vision.

Rick