|
guangzhou
May 22, 2005, 11:27 PM
Post #1 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
I made the switch to digital a few month ago and I am starting to finally understand how digital and slide react diferent to light. I shoot all my photos on Maximum Pix all the time. (^.1)
What I am wondering are some of the disadvantages/advantages of shoot in RAW mode.
I know one disadvantage is the amount of space the pict will take, but beyond that.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
May 22, 2005, 11:40 PM
Post #2 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
i was struggling with this same question a couple weeks back. i asked merock about it, as he went to school for this kind of thing and knows his way around the digi world pretty well.
he said he shoots i jpeg mode most of the time. i forget the technical reasons for this, but he had a long and complicated explanation that i couldn't follow.
he also walked me through some photoshop tricks, and i learned more in 30 minutes than i had in 2 years of dinking around with ps by myself....
|
|
|
|
|
sandbag
May 22, 2005, 11:48 PM
Post #3 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 12, 2003
Posts: 1443
|
Shooting in RAW is the uncompressed format and will yield HUGE files, and slow loading on older Digital cameras. Newer rigs and faster memory cards have fixed this somewhat. Jpegs are quicker and fine for the web posting. However, RAW is the best format to get the highest quality, and you can then save the originals, make copies, and then distill them into .jpeg etc.
Some of the magazines prefer you shoot in RAW too to keep the quality up so they can use them for print. my $.02
|
|
|
|
|
tweek
May 23, 2005, 12:22 AM
Post #4 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2003
Posts: 171
|
The main thing about shooting raw is that it makes any mistakes easier to correct. Although this can be in the form of blown highs or lows due to improper exposure which can be mildly fudged, its real power lies in the ability for later adjustment of the white balance not to mention sharpness, color adjustment, color space, as well as pretty much any other camera setting.
My logic as to when to shoot raw.
1) the picture is going to be printed BIG = raw
2) the lighting is difficult or lit by a wierd light source (tungston etc....) and I didn't do a custom white balence = raw
3) I am not limited on space = Raw
4) I am shooting in rapid succession = jpg
5) Lighting is good, natural light, or the pictures are just for snap shots. = jpg
6) I am not going to have time to post process = Jpg.
7) I am feeling lazy = Jpg
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
May 23, 2005, 5:50 AM
Post #5 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
Sounds like RAW is the equivelant to shooting slides while shooting JPG is like shooting prints.
So far, this has been useful, I will play with the RAW stuff for awhile and then see what happens.
Overall, what I hear is that the Quality of the image is better in RAW.
|
|
|
|
|
capcom1701
May 23, 2005, 6:10 AM
Post #6 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 79
|
If it helps, I've blown jpgs from a 8.0 megapixel camera up to 8 x 10 with no problem... even 11 x 16 jpg looks comparable to slides I've enlarged to that size. I wouldn't bother with raw unless you're planning on going beyond 8 x 10, or are shooting pics of joe famous climber. Or if you really want to learn to play around with them just in case.
|
|
|
|
|
orangeoverhang
May 23, 2005, 7:35 AM
Post #7 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 29, 2002
Posts: 71
|
JPG is a compressed format. When you zoom into a JPG in P-Shop you can see compression artifacts - little blurry blocky stuff creating an in-perfect image. RAW in un-compressed. This creates much crisper images if you are printing them. RAW also gives you a little bit of leeway for over-exposed under-exposed images. Treat a RAW file as a 'digital negative'. I tend to shoot slightly under-exposed in RAW mode as i know i can bump it up later. Using the raw plug-in in photohop lets you control things like contrast, saturation and sharpness without effecting the image as much as 8-bit image file. If you want your photos printed in magazines or made into posters then shoot RAW.
|
|
|
|
|
danegerous
May 23, 2005, 2:54 PM
Post #8 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2005
Posts: 141
|
while shooting for scrapbooks or photo albums, i shoot in high quality jpeg. when shooting for sales or for portfolios, RAW. not to mention, creative manipulation is very easy in RAW. color changes and all that are butta with the "un-screwed with" qualitites of RAW. although it takes some time. a lot of climbing photos, i will be taking in RAW, just because my LCD on the Canon 300D (digital rebel) doesnt do the image justice. and if i get home and see that the background is too dark, ill be pissed. better safe than sorry...
the new 350d allows RAW and jpeg at the same time...mmm, good.
but RAW is HUGE, so a long trip may not benefit from them
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
May 23, 2005, 3:39 PM
Post #9 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
Photoshop CS also has certain features that will only work with RAW files. I'm not sure that it is compatible with all formats, but I know it'll work with NEF (Nikon). It was a happy day indeed when I didn't have to waste time converting files so I could use them in Photoshop 7.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
May 23, 2005, 7:27 PM
Post #10 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
I'm no expert on the subject, so don't take my word as fact. :lol:
While climbing, I shoot jpg. This is mostly because my card, which will hold 343 6-megapixel images, will only hold 39 when they're RAW. That is the biggest drawback I see. My other concern is the processing time. You have to convert all your RAW files to JPG yourself. You can do this as a batch, which basically does the same as your camera but with you at the controls, or do it on each individual photo, which gives you excellent control, but takes FOREVER.
The plusses I've found are that you can correct mistakes you make with exposures and stuff. Shots with shadowed cliff and bright sky can be saved much easier than JPG, and things of that sort. It helps, it's just a lot of hassle, especially if you have a good camera and do things right yourself while shooting. :wink:
That's my take, but then I haven't quite gotten into shooting RAW yet, and don't have a lot of experience. Hope it helps. :)
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
May 23, 2005, 8:33 PM
Post #11 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
In reply to: The plusses I've found are that you can correct mistakes you make with exposures and stuff. Shots with shadowed cliff and bright sky can be saved much easier than JPG, and things of that sort.
and let me explain why. JPG is a 8 bit per color format, hence you will have 256 shades of red, green and blue. A total of 16M colors are possible with those 24 bits. Your camera on the other hand captures 10 or 12 bits (unless it is a crappy camera from early days of digitals) per color. RAW format can store all of the 12 bits per color, yielding to 65000M colors with those 36 bits. I am not sure whether there are 16 bit captures yet, but i am sure there will be soon (we have 16 bits per color (48 bits total) in flatbed scanners for decades). If you are saving to JPG the camera does the work and samples it down to 8 bits.
If you save in RAW on the otherhand, you can apply curve tools to control the downsampling later, to capture enough details in shadows and hightlights in hard shooting conditions.
There is also another problem of compression. JPG is a lossy compression format on top of the downsampling. It does an excellent work in decreasing file size, but it is LOSSY. RAW is not compressed (or losless compression could be used, such as LZW or ZIP), and you will get every recorded pixel exactly how it was recorded. If you plan to blow the image size, or crop extensively to use only a small part of the image, it is important that you do not lose any data, how insignificant your camera thinks!
Thats the key issue here, if you are shooting in JPG, you are letting the camera decide to do the downsampling to 8 bits, and strip the unimportant details. If you are always using the auto mode in the camera, you would not care to let the camera do additional decisions for you, but for control freaks, i would go with RAW. Postprocessing is fun. and long
|
|
|
|
|
buckforester
May 23, 2005, 11:10 PM
Post #12 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 25, 2005
Posts: 15
|
I'm new to digital, but my advice is to shoot jpeg but when you come across something magical and sweet and would perhaps make a very large print, shoot RAW. Actually I'd shoot something incredible in both jpeg and RAW, and bracket both. One pain about jpeg is that if you make a few adjustments and save it and would like to adjust it again, the jpeg saves it progressively at a slightly lesser quality. RAW will allow you to adjust infinitely without loss of resolution and you can resave it again as a jpeg at full resolution with each adjustment. But unless you enjoy spending lots of time tweaking photos in Photoshop, I'd shoot mostly in jpeg.
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
May 23, 2005, 11:32 PM
Post #13 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
In reply to: Actually I'd shoot something incredible in both jpeg and RAW, and bracket both.
btw, some cameras do save jpg and raw together in one shot
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
May 23, 2005, 11:32 PM
Post #14 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
Sounds like I will be shooting RAW. I have two cards and in RAW mode, I can shoot 49 images on each, so that should be plenty for a morning or afternoon of shooting.
Some other quick questions:
I use photoshop CS (7). I normally just download using a card reader. When I down load RAw, will the process be the same (Nikon ) when I use photoshop?
|
|
|
|
|
tenn_dawg
May 23, 2005, 11:59 PM
Post #15 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 3045
|
As I understand, RAW ammounts to no in camera processing allowing you total control over all aspects of the photo after the exposure. White Balance being the first thing to come to mind.
|
|
|
|
|
bosterson
May 24, 2005, 12:47 AM
Post #16 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2004
Posts: 29
|
In reply to: Sounds like RAW is the equivelant to shooting slides while shooting JPG is like shooting prints.
Not really. Like someone said, RAW is sort of like a digital negative. It's all the "raw" light captured by your camera's chip, with no sharpening, white balancing, or compression applied. In some ways, it's more like the reverse of your analogy: JPG is more like slide film, because (at least to some degree) what you shoot is what you get; but RAW is more like a negative because you have a lot of options for tweaking the image before you make a final "print."
In reply to: I use photoshop CS (7). I normally just download using a card reader. When I down load RAw, will the process be the same (Nikon ) when I use photoshop?
Photoshop CS is actually version 8 (I don't think 7 has a RAW converter), so I'll assume that's what you're talking about. I've shot RAW with a Fuji S2 Pro and converted the files using the RAW plug-in in CS on Mac OS 10.3, and the way it works is that you download the images to your hard drive via the card reader, and then when you open a RAW image, you have a bunch of tools to check the histogram, adjust the exposure, white balance, vignetting, etc., and then once you're satisfied, you save it as a TIFF for editing (retouching, sharpening, etc.). I assume the process is the same for Nikon's NEF files. One of the great things about that RAW editor in CS is that if you shoot a series of photos under similar conditions, once you choose your settings for that RAW file in CS, you can choose "set camera default," which will make those settings the defeault for all the rest of the files (until you change the settings), which saves a lot of time. Keep in mind that you'll want to use unsharp mask on your RAW images because they won't have any in-camera sharpening, and will look a little fuzzy.
Honestly, if you're not planning on doing anything super professional with your photos, don't want to spend a lot of time working with the images later on the computer, and have the skills to take pretty good images in-camera, just shoot JPG. If you don't have one of the super speedy DSLRs, it'll also save your buffer a little work when you try to shoot continuous action shots.
|
|
|
|
|
alexc
May 24, 2005, 1:33 AM
Post #17 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 15
|
I usually shoot RAW for two main reasons:
1) You can adjust white balance after shooting. This is key because the Auto white balance doesn't always work right and setting a specific white balance doesn't always work perfectly either, say if the weather is changing because of patchy cloudcover. Sometimes you just want to change the mood of the picture. Fixing white balance without the RAW file is very difficult to do.
2) You can't edit the RAW file, so you are guaranteed that it is the original. With a JPEG you have to be careful to keep the original and only edit copies, because each time you edit and save the file you lose some detail due to the compression and then you can never recover the clean original file.
Having a bit more exposure lattitude due to the 12 bits vs. 8 bits is nice too.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
May 24, 2005, 2:22 AM
Post #18 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
Raw just seems to have more freedom for the shooter to control. I normally use the manual mode on my camera, so I might as well shoot in RAW.
I am pretty sure My version of CS is 7, but I will look into it when I get home.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
May 24, 2005, 3:41 AM
Post #19 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
If you have a super fast high end camera and the time and knowledge for extensive post-processing, then RAW is fine.
If your camera takes 10 or 15 seconds to digest each RAW image, then you're going to miss too many shots at the crux of some climb. Shoot JPEG, shoot fast, and capture many images. Your chance of getting a great expression are better.
The real advantage of Raw is the white balance issue which isn't usually a problem outdoors climbing.
I suggest that you do this. Shoot the same outdoor climbing scene in RAW and also Highest Res Jpeg. Process the images taking note of the time spent. Then compare the results at a 100% view. See what you gain and what you lose
PEace
karl
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
May 24, 2005, 5:56 AM
Post #20 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
Sounds like a good experiment, but I hope to one day get enough quality shots to sale to magazines. Sounds like magazine prefer RAW files to JPG.
Eman
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
May 24, 2005, 6:48 AM
Post #21 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
In my limited experience, magazines and other publishers want Tiff Files, which you can make from Raw files, but also from Jpegs (a bit of an ethical issue there)
Ultimately, the bottom line is that if they like the image and the resolution meets their needs, that's plenty
peace
karl
|
|
|
|
|
atarinaper
May 24, 2005, 3:50 PM
Post #22 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 11, 2004
Posts: 86
|
memory has gotten really cheap now, so in my case i shoot raw almost always. Like people have stated before it allows for my latitude in your post processing, WB, exposure, ect.
for the average consumer, RAW is not going to be an option for them, as post processing is more of a pain in the butt for them. I can get around 193 images per 1 gig card in Raw on my digital rebel, which for the most part is enough as i have 8 gigs worth of memory.
|
|
|
|
|
kiteandclimb
May 24, 2005, 8:45 PM
Post #23 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2005
Posts: 38
|
RAW vs JPG. I have been photographing sports for quite a while now and have had my digital SLR for quite some time with an assortment of lenses. Here's what I can tell you about rock climbing photography:
Compared to some other sports it is easy. The subject is moving slowly and you have forever to get that shot. With other sports (indy/nascar, kitesurfing, etc.) you have milliseconds to catch the car in focus, snap the grab, etc. It is very important to pay attention to focus and timing. With rock climbing, your subject is an easy shot so the attention should be on your camera's settings. Get the settings dialed in before the shot and you have time for this.
JPG vs RAW if you have your settings set optimally will yield very little difference in post processing and print - there's no need to shoot RAW unless you're doing landscapes and want truly rich results. In this case, the best photogs are usually double exposing on the foreground and then again on the sky and merging the two to get the best exposure for the landscape and the sky in a combined format. You couldn't do that with a climber in the shot anyway since the person will move. Usually, also, PS CS or PS will convert the RAW and do some balancing anyway, yielding what you would have with JPG with a good curve or good settings (if you use curves). WB, aperture, exposure, sharpness would be a good start in order.
If you blow up the shot, there are some very nice software packages out there to produce life-size film-quality digital shots from JPG. Truly amazing stuff and its not that expensive of a software. At this point though, you're probably shooting with $3k+ camera bodies and not asking these types of questions.
|
|
|
|
|
bosterson
May 24, 2005, 10:47 PM
Post #24 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2004
Posts: 29
|
In reply to: Raw just seems to have more freedom for the shooter to control. I normally use the manual mode on my camera, so I might as well shoot in RAW.
Which shooting mode you use doesn't really make a difference; RAW is all about what you want to do with the image after you've taken the picture. Obviously, the exception is shooting on auto mode (the point-n-shoot program mode on an SLR), but no serious photographer actually uses that mode so it makes little difference. A nice exposure is a nice exposure regardless of whether you're using aperture priority or program or manual. I'm trying to think of a film analogy, and it doesn't quite transfer, but here goes: RAW is sort of like the ISO speed of film, assuming that you were shooting in a studio and the lighting is infinitely flexible, so your real concern is the size of the film grain. If you just wanted some down and dirty shots, you wouldn't care as much about the ISO speed, and perhaps shoot at 400 or something; but if you wanted to blow the photos up really big or get them published, you would probably shoot ISO 100 slide film for very fine grain. Similarly, for low noise/compression levels, you'd probably want to shoot RAWs for very precise shots for publication, while grab-shots, or even shots that would be posted on RC.com could be JPGs and no one would be able to tell the difference. (I know that's not a perfect analogy because there is a definite aesthetic dimension to film grain, but hopefully you get my point.)
In reply to: I hope to one day get enough quality shots to sale to magazines.
I read that Sunset Magazine (I think) refuses to accept digital images because they don't meet the magazine's quality requirements for full page photo spreads (they only accept medium format and larger, apparently). I don't think rock climbing photography is that strict, but there are obvious quality restrictions placed on which photos are published. Your best bet is probably just to experiment with both JPGs and RAWs, see how they work, and then just go shoot and worry about it later. If you can get a shot that's well exposed, with good exposure (no weird colors in the highlights!), and it's not going to be blown up very big for whatever it's being used for, then you can probably get away with a JPG. But if you have the time to let your camera "digest" RAW files, and carry a large, fast memory card (one of the pro 80x CF cards, and assuming that you're not shooting on a Canon 1Ds Mk. II, which saves like 50mb RAW files or something outrageous like that), then give RAW a shot.
Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
orangeoverhang
May 25, 2005, 12:17 AM
Post #25 of 41
(7851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 29, 2002
Posts: 71
|
See below for Climbing Magazines Contributers Guidelines...
Do you accept digital photos?
Digital photos sent on CD are acceptable for consideration, but each photo on the CD must be accompanied by a corresponding hardcopy print that should be no smaller than 5 x 7 and no larger than 8 x 10. This print is for reference purposes only. Please include a low-res version for quick viewing and the original high-res version too. Whenever possible, please send the RAW files straight from the camera . If you choose to color-correct or run filters on photos before sending them to us, please include a RAW version of the same photo as well. Please do not rez up, or enlarge, your photos using any software. If you have any more questions about our digital requirements, please visit our digital photo submission guidelines page at http://digitalphoto.primedia.com. or contact me directly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
