home brewer Loc: Fort Wayne, Indiana

I know this is an old topic; but maybe I can some. I am heading to antelope canyon on a photo tour in about a month and want to make sure I get good shots. I am assuming that the raw photos will improve my chances of fixing improper exposures.

This discussion is directed to those who use raw. I have read many of the on-line explanations about raw photos having more color depth, levels of brightness and the file not degrading when it is edited. I notice for my d500 that for the same photo the jpeg is 13.9 mp (5568x3712x24b) and the raw 25.7 mb (5568x3712x48b) there does not appear to be much if any difference between the jpeg and the raw . On the screen of the 4 year old 23" PA248 ASUS the images look the same and the same for the Dell ultra sharp. Resolution is set at 1920 x 1200 for both. The color space is Adobe RGB. The shots were at iso 200, f/10, 1/100s and 18mm with auto white balance facing north on a sunny morning. The shot goes from light shade to bright sun on the trees. I shoot both raw, compressed, 14 bit and jpeg large fine.
Maybe I am missing something; but I think most of the good shots do not need postprocessing. If the shot is important I bracket expose and may change the f-stop and shutter speed.
It seems to me one shoots raw to fix shots that were incorrectly exposed.
I print my photos on an Epson Artisan 810. So far, I have not tried any shop for a larger print. The local drugs stores and other similar places do not good work.
Questions and comments
1. Should I switch to rRGB color space and why?
2. How can I tell how much brightness levels are in the photo? Is it in the histogram? The histogram for the two photos are not the same.
3. The apparent brightness in greater in the jpeg.
4. What changes do you make to most raw shots?
5. Are there good on lind articles on how to process raw photos?
6. What format do you save them in after post processing?

Thanks to all those help

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

The RAW editor I use affords more and control over the image, then save as "adj" JPEG.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

If you cannot see a difference, and cannot see a purpose - and don't think you ever will in the future - then you can continue to do that which you are happy doing, of course, and I won't try to talk you out of it.

A few years back I was basically asking the same questions and seeing the same things that you are, and people here and elsewhere scoffed and said "naw, you don't need to work with raw files, don't listen to the elitists! Working with raw files is only for those who can't get it right in camera, or who like to spend a lot of time sitting at the computer doing post-processing rather than out shooting. "

Listening to that was the worst mistake I ever made in photography. When I finally installed the Canon raw program and looked at raw files I was blown away. As it is I have 5 years worth of shots - thousands of images - that I wish I had the raw files for.

Working with raw files is not necessarily just for fixing mistakes, is not more time consuming, and does not necessarily require special processing skills nor expensive software.

I spend a few minutes with raw files, typically, making minor adjustments to taste - not correcting but rather perfecting in ways that are impossible with JPEGs - and then export in the TIFF format. I could export then as JPEGs, but I like to do that with my old standby Paint Shop Pro - habit, really.

The raw files are gorgeous at first look in the proper software - they aren't "flat," they don't require some sort of extensive processing, and - to my eyes - they are dramatically superior to JPEGs produced by the same equipment with the same settings.

You can always make a jpeg from a raw file. You can never make a raw file from a jpeg. You may not appreciate the value of a raw file today, but what about 5 months or 5 years from now? from now? Why not "keep the negative" so to speak - save raw files of the images you take? There is no downside that I can see.

Mike

BebuLamar

I always shoot RAW but if you compare the RAW and the JPEG before you modify the RAW and if the PP software uses the same settings as the camera when it does the conversion they would look identical. But if you want to change the image in any way then the RAW has a lot of advantages over the JPEG.

terry44 Loc: Tuolumne County California, Maui Hawaii

answer to number 1. https://www.color-management-guide.com/choosing-between-srgb-adobe-rgb-and-prophoto.html your decision, number 2 and 3. yes its in the histogram raw is just not yet processed the jpg is in camera. Number 4. I tone map my photos. Number 5 there are many great links just google what you are wishing to study. Number 6 When the processing is finished and I see what I saw when composing and taking the shot I save a jpg but also save a psd, and the original raw file. Raw to me is one of the reasons to use a interchangeable lens dslr over a bridge camera we have control over the entire process of the photo from composition to the finished product printed or on the web. A jpg is processed in camera so the image immediately looks right a raw file needs to be processed. In my mind why buy a state of the art camera and then just leave it to the camera to create what it sees not you, you are then better off with a bridge camera or dare I say it even your cell phone raw gives you the photographer so much more control and in the long run satisfaction in creating your own unique work.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Anyone who shoot with a digital camera shoots raw. Some of us enjoy the extra latitude, greater bit depth for better tone/color accuracy, wider color gamut, greater fine detail capture, relative freedom from posterization, greater creative opportunities, etc that are not available when you allow the camera to convert from raw to jpeg in the camera.

With some average contrast scenes or subjects with good lighting, you are not likely to see much of a difference.

Recording raw allows you to fix things, but you can also shoot scenes with considerably greater contrast range than you can with jpeg, without blowing out the highlights and taking your shadows into the mud. Such images shot as raw-only appear underexposed. But the highlights are not blown, and the shadows and midtones can be made brighter to make a great image. This is not as successful if all you have to work with is an 8 bit jpeg.

Taken in order:

1. No. While editing you are less likely to clip a channel or cause banding if you perform your editing in a large color space, like ProPhoto, then once you are done, convert down to sRGB as a final step.
2. The histogram while in an image editing program will tell you what you have. You bet the histograms will not be the same.
3. That's because of how you set your camera up for jpeg development.
4. Whatever it takes to produce my vision
5. Tons and tons.
6. For my own work, I save the raw files, and make PSD images for editing in Photoshop and other programs after I have done what I can to them in the raw converter. I produce jpegs as a final step, but never save those - I consider them for output only.

There are a lot of reasons to shoot raw - and a few reasons to just shoot jpeg - you'll need to try it for yourself and see what works for you. I haven't shot a jpeg since 2006. And when I have had to work on a student's jpeg I feel as if I am in a straight jacket.

You can see some of my work here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gene_lugo/

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Yes you are missing something, unless I’m misreading your post. There are times, when the DR (dynamic range) is not there to stress the camera. But if I’m understanding you correctly, you are comparing a processed file (your jpeg) to an unprocessed raw file. And you are saying that you don’t see any difference? Well, you need to process that raw file. However, if you are not good at processing, you can’t really get the benefits of shooting raw. It sounds like that SOOC results are good enough for you, so I wouldn’t worry too much about it.
Btw, shooting raw is not because of trying to fix exposers. I’m going to use landscape as an example. The top photographers all shoot raw, and they have superior skills to the rest of us. Both out in the field, and behind the computer. They shoot the right subjects, at the right time and once behind the computer screen, they understand how to process to squeeze everything out of their cameras.

If you are happy with your results, don’t worry about what others do.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

I disagree... I believe the great majority of shots, even those ideally exposed, can benefit from at least some subtle dodging and/or burning - to control emphasis of the various elements within the image, to improve visual balance of the composition, etc. And then there are fine adjustments in contrast or saturation which, if done smartly, can oftentimes significantly improve an image. Acquiring good editing skills is a must if one wishes to advance beyond simple snapshot photography. This is as much true now as it was during the film era.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I normally shoot JPEG and RAW. I use the JPEG images for viewing and selection and if it's a keeper I process the RAW files into TIFF image files.

illininitt

I read that word a lot on here (raw)'''what does it mean?

illininitt

I read that word a lot on here (raw)'''what does it mean?

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Forgot to include: www.500px.com

Look around on that site, chose any genre and click on “popular” to see the most liked photos. It should help you see photography in a new way.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

illininitt

Thanks for the link. Might as well be in Spanish. I'm an "auto" guy and have no idea what that means. Not knowing it at 69....I think I can get through life without knowing.

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

Depending on the day (or should I say, depending on whether you'll be in Antelope while overhead --outside and above the canyon-- there's full sun, heavy overcast, or somewhere in between) you can expect a range --in Ansel Adams speak-- of 8 to 16 Zones of exposure. Assuming you'll want a pure black (Zone I) somewhere, and highlights that retain some detail and color (Zone IX) before blowing out completely, and accounting for the wide range of tonal Zones you'll likely be presented with, plan on shooting whatever compositions you've chosen some 3 to 5 times (increasing or decreasing shutter speed by 1-2 stops accordingly) so that you can HDR those into an image that incorporates a pure black to not-quite-white (i.e., not quite colorless) final image. Doing so will assure you of getting what you'll ultimately want, regardless of whether you shoot .jpg or RAW.

You asked, however, which format to use. Simply put, RAW files will have more 'information' with which you'll be able to work. Local contrasts/values/etc., will be particularly important, and you'll have far more leeway to modify/adjust those in RAW than in .jpg. Others may disagree, but they're <hurriedly puts on flame suit> crazy.