Raw Imaging with Cameras

[Eric Flescher]

How many of you use RAW images with your cameras? I have dabled a little with them? I have tons of books that I have reviewed that have RAW info in it / tutorials etc

I would to like to open the following questions for discussions?

(1) Have you used RAW images with your camera (which) ?
(2) Have you found it helpful for defining better quality of images?
(3) How do you feel they these RAW images ultimately make for better pics?
(4) Display an example if you want and point who,what, when , where and why?
(5) Anything else? comments, ideas, ?'s

Thanks I look forward to hearing about these parts of the topic

 

[John Diel]

My cameras are pretty old compared to the current bodies out there. I've got an old Olympus E-10 and it's RAW format is essentially a TIFF file. I've also got a Canon 10D and have used RAW there as well.

It's a real good indicator of how well you are shooting as the image is exactly what the CCD/CMOS Chip captures in raw format. No processing, just the raw data. It's the format of choice for those looking for perfection in their final images and allows for some basic manipulation BEFORE sending it to TIFF or a more lossy format and it excellent for post processing. It's lousy for space saving though. Some of the files are HUGE!

I've used TIFF, RAW and Low Compression JPEG on photos and produced 16X20 prints that you couldn't tell the difference between then without a scope. Anyone that gets that particular is looking for something other than a photograph in my opinion.

Today's software is much better at handling RAW format, in particular Adobe's software is really pretty good. There's a couple of others out there, but are pretty much out of the expense range of most amatuer photographers.

For me, it boils down to what I'm doing at the time and what I hope to do with the final photo. If I'm using several different exposures to capture as much of the dynamic range as I can, I usually go with RAW or TIFF, if it's something where I need more on speed than absolute quality, then I will go with high quality JPEG.

Hope that helps!

 

[Cris Schroeder]

I shoot almost exclusively in RAW mode. I use a Canon Rebel XTi. I shoot landscapes, sunsets, etc. so I'm not concerned about the time it takes to post-process the image. If you're willing to take the time, you can get significantly better image quality shooting RAW, unless you just happen to have all the quality settings (white balance, sharpness, saturation, etc.) just right when you shoot the JPEG.

The biggest advantage with RAW is the ability to go back later and correct for white balance, color casts, exposure, and other aspects of the photo. The next biggest advantage is the bit depth. You can import the RAW file into Photoshop as a 16-bit image, which makes a HUGE difference in quality when you have to make significant exposure corrections.

The biggest disadvantage is that you can spend days working on tweaks to a single image. With JPEG you can just bang away on the shutter and be done with it. Both formats have their place, and you can get great quality with JPEG, but go with RAW if you want that extra detail or control.

FYI, I can set my XTi to record both RAW and JPEG versions of each image, so I can get a quick look with the JPEG and have the full RAW control for later post-processing. Best of both worlds if you don't mind dragging around a lot of storage capacity.

I'll post a couple of pics later, but I don't think you'll see any difference on the monitor. The biggest difference shows up in larger prints. I don't have many images with both a processed RAW and a JPEG. Maybe I'll shoot a couple this evening just for fun.

Most people would probably never know the difference, or care that you went to all the trouble to deal with the processing of a RAW image. I'm a bit of a perfectionist, so I enjoy knowing I did the best I could with what I had.

 

[John Wetter]

I shoot RAW with my Nikon D80, and have good success. This is my first year with this setup having just come over from Slides but have already done lots of shooting as I did a 'warm-up' by visiting several parks this sprink and getting flower pictures, etc. I like being able to do the WB, Exposure, etc. corrections and you can't beat the quality. I use Adobe Lightroom to manage my RAW workflow; it lets me do all of these tweaks non-destructively.

-John

 

[Tom Mitchell]

I have been on both sides of the fence, and currently am on the raw side.

The important points of raw to me:

More data to recover. Blown out highlights are usually recoverable. Adjusting a high dynamic range image produces a cleaner file using raw, by which I mean I find jpegs and their 8bit to produce visible graduations in the shadows and transitions in the sky. It is primarily the shadow detail and associated transitions that keep me shooting raw.

As for WB and batch processing, I use Lightroom, and it processes jpegs just as well as raw. I do find a marginal improvement in the response to WB correction in raw, but usually only in mixed lighting situations, like when I shoot a wedding here in Japan and the spotlight is one color, the ambient lighting is another, and the door is being held open letting sunlight into the room hitting the brides off-white dress as she is leaving the room. But I usually keep pretty good track of WB while I shoot with expo-disc or a grey card.

Shooting raw is also makes you much cooler than those who don't.

All that being said, 99.99% of photographs taken as jpegs can be made to look just as nice as those taken in raw, unless the viewer is specifically looking for the telltale signs of jpegs-muddy shadow detail, and slightly less graduation between areas of contrast.

One more good point of raw is that you can slight overexpose to maintain detail in shadows, and still not lose detail in the highlights. With a jpeg, I find it easy to lose detail in the highlights, or in the shadows, depending my exposure. With raw, I expose to keep the histogram to the right, and have had no trouble maintaining good detail throughout the image.

I shoot with a D200, D70/80, 5D, 350XT, or 30D, depending on who I am working with on any given weekend.

I don't have any good examples to show the difference, sorry.

Overall, I have found raw to be valuable sometimes, if not most of the time.

Whatever you do, please do not ask about which colorspace is better, sRGB or aRGB!!!

Have a great day!

Tom

 

[Eric Flescher]

thanks for the raw info

I will have to see if this can be done on my XT both RAW and JPEG versions of each image (is this called anything special>?).

Thanks for posting your ideas etc on EAW.

Post some pics to show how RAW makes a difference would be good.
thanks



**
FYI, I can set my XTi to record both RAW and JPEG versions of each image, so I can get a quick look with the JPEG and have the full RAW control for later post-processing. Best of both worlds if you don't mind dragging around a lot of storage capacity.

 

[Cris Schroeder]

On the XTi it's MENU-->Quality-->"RAW+L". If the XT is different, look in the menu settings where you select the size and quality of the JPEG files. If you can shoot both there should be something like "RAW+L".

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

I will have to see if this can be done on my XT both RAW and JPEG versions of each image (is this called anything special>?).

Thanks for posting your ideas etc on EAW.

Post some pics to show how RAW makes a difference would be good.
thanks

Eric, I'd suggest you shoot JPEG. Generally, if you have to ask people why RAW is better, you won't really know how to do a better job than your camera at post-processing your images. If you do want to learn how to do a better job than your camera post-processing your images, I'd suggest giving Google a whirl -- there is way more information on this this topic than would fit in a Stormtrack post. Ultimately, though, you have to be committed to learning at least a little bit about post-processing and you must be willing to spend time post-processing each image that you care about. If this is a workflow that's cool with you, then shoot RAW; you will get better results. If you'd rather not bother with all that, then shoot JPEG.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

As far as RAW and the whole "exposure compensation" in conversion--I'm still not sold you get any better results through it than you could get using levels or curves. Some conversions let you do 3 stops of adjustment. I've had some blown out images with the sun involved and dropping it down 2 to 3 stops does not do what you'd get had you shot the thing right in the first place, with 2 or 3 stops less exposure. At least I'm pretty sure of this. And going the other way, if you try to increase things after the fact with this "exposure compensation" it will add noise, noise that you'd likely not have if you had it right to begin with, and similar noise as if you'd just use normal levels or curves to do this. Maybe others have had better luck, but I just don't see it being any more useful than normal post-processing tools, and like those, it's not as good as if you'd shot it right in the first place.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

— Possibly the biggest advantage of shooting raw is that one has a 16 bit image (post raw conversion) to work with. This means that the file has 65,536 levels to work with. This is opposed to a JPG file's 8 bit space with just 256 brightness levels available. This is important when editing an image, particularly if one is trying to open up shadows or alter brightness in any significant way.

To me it's a no brainer. If you are shooting a detail filled scene you can get away with less(jpg). Eyes seem to notice less when there is more. If you shoot a storm and work with very slow gradients, I'd want the RAW. Also, to go a step further, it's wise to work in 16 bit with your RAW file and not 8. Not all aps will work in 16 bit, but most newer ones I think do. I used to get bad banding from my old kit lens on high contrast storm shots. As soon as I started to work them in 16 bit that issue vanished like magic.

 

[Eric Flescher]

what I was hoping for

Ryan and all
I have used RAW images and have tons of resources and books related to RAW that I have reviewed for publishers. I do alot of editing. What I was hoping to look at more examples of the use of RAW sampling with stormchaser photos so compare before and after.If some chasers have this on their site, I would be interested in knowing.Also you can post such images on this thread or send to me directly.


**

Eric, I'd suggest you shoot JPEG. Generally, if you have to ask people why RAW is better, you won't really know how to do a better job than your camera at post-processing your images. If you do want to learn how to do a better job than your camera post-processing your images, I'd suggest giving Google a whirl -- there is way more information on this this topic than would fit in a Stormtrack post. Ultimately, though, you have to be committed to learning at least a little bit about post-processing and you must be willing to spend time post-processing each image that you care about. If this is a workflow that's cool with you, then shoot RAW; you will get better results. If you'd rather not bother with all that, then shoot JPEG.