RAW is like ABS
Discussion
Worth reading
http://ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm
Dave, if jpeg meets your needs, great, I'm happy for you. But that doesn't mean it's better.
Martin.
http://ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm
Dave, if jpeg meets your needs, great, I'm happy for you. But that doesn't mean it's better.
Martin.
Edited by V6GTO on Thursday 24th January 10:43
V6GTO said:
As opposed to what?...jpeg? For a start you can record over 2 and a half stops more DR with RAW. Waste of money? How do you work that one out Dave?
Martin.
easy:Martin.
1) time is money
and
2) RAW takes more time
therefore
3) RAW costs more money
therefore
4) I have to charge my customers more
Conclusion - if I can get it right the first time round (in JPEG), then RAW is a waste of money for my clients.
ABS - adds weight and takes control out of your hands
RAW - adds weight and puts control right in your hands
Yup
they're just the same thing then!
Actually - the argument is not to do with one being "right" or "wrong", but rather what is appropriate to the circumstances. Agree that in some cases going straight to the required output format is a plus - some people just don't work that way though.
RAW - adds weight and puts control right in your hands
Yup
they're just the same thing then!Actually - the argument is not to do with one being "right" or "wrong", but rather what is appropriate to the circumstances. Agree that in some cases going straight to the required output format is a plus - some people just don't work that way though.
beano500 said:
Actually - the argument is not to do with one being "right" or "wrong", but rather what is appropriate to the circumstances. Agree that in some cases going straight to the required output format is a plus - some people just don't work that way though.
And the circumstance where RAW is better is when?When you get it wrong whilst you're taking the picture?
Edited by dcw@pr on Thursday 24th January 10:49
Circumstances.
dcw@pr's workflow does require things to move fast, so yes, in his case, JPG is better.
However, I think you've got it the wrong way round, JPG is like ABS, useful when you're doing every day driving, short trips and motorway journeys... on a track, messing around and experimenting with a car, trying to get it to do something crazy or interesting, then no ABS is better - a la RAW.
If you were shooting for a whole day to get 3 or 4 frames, then why wouldn't you shoot raw.
dcw@pr's workflow does require things to move fast, so yes, in his case, JPG is better.
However, I think you've got it the wrong way round, JPG is like ABS, useful when you're doing every day driving, short trips and motorway journeys... on a track, messing around and experimenting with a car, trying to get it to do something crazy or interesting, then no ABS is better - a la RAW.
If you were shooting for a whole day to get 3 or 4 frames, then why wouldn't you shoot raw.
V6GTO said:
When you need the best possible quality you can get from an image...large prints for one instance.
"Pixel Peeping" as someone I know would say.I would challenge you, or anyone else, to tell the difference on any size of print between RAW and JPEG
ASSUMING THE JPEG SHOT WAS DONE PROPERLY
Altrezia said:
RAW is better quality, no JPEG compression losses..
See above post.Would bet you £100 that you could not tell the difference between levels 10, 11, and 12 of JPEG compression in PS.
Granted side by side they would be different, but in isolation you could not tell one was better or worse than the other.
What about on a commercial shoot when you finish editing your images and then the client, the agency, the printers and the marketing people all start saying different things, can you make this a little darker, change that there, perhaps a little punchier, make it pop, blah blah blah blah blah... then no matter how good you are, you can't be certain that your 'right the first time' is the client's final version.
It's not like cameras will stop doing both... can't we all just get along?
It's not like cameras will stop doing both... can't we all just get along?
fto2tuscan said:
What about on a commercial shoot when you finish editing your images and then the client, the agency, the printers and the marketing people all start saying different things, can you make this a little darker, change that there, perhaps a little punchier, make it pop, blah blah blah blah blah... then no matter how good you are, you can't be certain that your 'right the first time' is the client's final version.
You've asked me to do all those things over the years - never has it been the case that we missed out on something because I hadn't shot in RAWfto2tuscan said:
It's not like cameras will stop doing both... can't we all just get along?
UnlikelyI'm not going to get into the debate about whether you can tell the difference in the printed result - all I know is that when I take a picture I want to capture all the information I can. A RAW file gives me options later that I just wouldn't have with a Jpeg.
The best example of the advantages of RAW I could find isn't actually a very good pic, but with a bit of imagination you can see how it could be useful for extracting shadow detail in a real-world example.
1. Section of end shot:
2. +2.5 stops in CaptureOne:
The best example of the advantages of RAW I could find isn't actually a very good pic, but with a bit of imagination you can see how it could be useful for extracting shadow detail in a real-world example.
1. Section of end shot:
2. +2.5 stops in CaptureOne:
I agree.
for me raw is just a ball ache:
I tend not to do a lot of post production on my images unless i'm struggling to get everything into my sensors range i won't use raw. I custom white balance everything i shoot and light with flash 99% of the time. besides, with huge dynamic range comes lack of contrast.
I'm forever pumping up contrast even on jpegs so extending dynamic range isn't called for all that often.
on the other hand there is NO denying that raw is better marginally better quality.
obviously it's horses for courses like neg vs slide.
for me raw is just a ball ache:
I tend not to do a lot of post production on my images unless i'm struggling to get everything into my sensors range i won't use raw. I custom white balance everything i shoot and light with flash 99% of the time. besides, with huge dynamic range comes lack of contrast.
I'm forever pumping up contrast even on jpegs so extending dynamic range isn't called for all that often.
on the other hand there is NO denying that raw is better marginally better quality.
obviously it's horses for courses like neg vs slide.
Edited by Scho on Thursday 24th January 11:14
fto2tuscan said:
Your camera takes it jpgs in 8 bit and it's RAW shots in 12 bit....
Case and point?
And what about the printers - can you see the difference there between 12 and 8 bits per channel?Case and point?
As I have said before (and was the whole point of this thread)
If you get it right first time round, why bother with RAW?
I'm not denying (and never have) that if you balls it up RAW is better for recovery.
Scho said:
I agree.
raw is a ball ache:
I tend not to do a lot of post production on my images unless i'm struggling to get everything into my sensors range i won't use raw. I custom white balance everything i shoot and light with flash 99% of the time. besides, with huge dynamic range comes lack of contrast.
I'm forever pumping up contrast even on jpegs so extending dynamic range isn't called for all that often.
on the other hand there is NO denying that raw is better marginally better quality.
obviously it's horses for courses like neg vs slide.
woohoo - someone else sees the lightraw is a ball ache:
I tend not to do a lot of post production on my images unless i'm struggling to get everything into my sensors range i won't use raw. I custom white balance everything i shoot and light with flash 99% of the time. besides, with huge dynamic range comes lack of contrast.
I'm forever pumping up contrast even on jpegs so extending dynamic range isn't called for all that often.
on the other hand there is NO denying that raw is better marginally better quality.
obviously it's horses for courses like neg vs slide.
Replace the word "marginally" with "theoretically" and you're spot on
I would say RAW is more like driving a Caterham/Seven, whereas JPG is like driving a modern car with power stee. Both are great, but the JPG experience is more... filtered.
You say that you get the image "right first time", but I guarantee you don't. If you are seriously saying that you do no post processing on any image then... well, either your pictures could do with some improvement, or you are a god damn amazing photography genius.
If you accept that you WILL be doing PP on EVERY picture you 'select' (e.g. like enough to publish/print/sell) then surely the only choice is to shoot in RAW?
I personally prefer that the camera does as little processing of the light as possible, because for me post processing is equally as important as capture. I also like that if I shoot in RAW, white balance and colour is almost irrelevant at the point of capture, as these things are not defined in the file, but by how I process it.
Also, Adobe Bridge views Nikon RAW files natively so it's not like you can't see thumbnail previews!
You say that you get the image "right first time", but I guarantee you don't. If you are seriously saying that you do no post processing on any image then... well, either your pictures could do with some improvement, or you are a god damn amazing photography genius.
If you accept that you WILL be doing PP on EVERY picture you 'select' (e.g. like enough to publish/print/sell) then surely the only choice is to shoot in RAW?
I personally prefer that the camera does as little processing of the light as possible, because for me post processing is equally as important as capture. I also like that if I shoot in RAW, white balance and colour is almost irrelevant at the point of capture, as these things are not defined in the file, but by how I process it.
Also, Adobe Bridge views Nikon RAW files natively so it's not like you can't see thumbnail previews!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff