RAW vs JPEG

[seadragon]

Here's an example of why I shoot RAW and process in Lightroom...

We were at Disney World's Magic Kingdom one morning before the park opened for the day. This allowed for some photos without the usual crowds of people.

I clearly messed up this photo as it is severely underexposed. I was in a rush when I took it and wasn't paying attention to all the usual settings.

Anyway, here is what I started with:


And here is the result after processing in Lightroom:

 

[Apple fanboy]

Here's my example for why I shoot RAW.

We were at Disney World Magic Kingdom before the park opened for the day allowing for rare photos of the park with nobody in it.

I took a quick shot of the castle as we were walking past it. At first, I thought this was going to be a throwaway as it was severely underexposed. But, thanks to RAW and Lightroom, it turned out great.

What I started with:
[url=http://photos.kenj.ca/photos/i-CFK8p88/0/L/i-CFK8p88-L.jpg]Image[/url]

And after a trip to Lightroom:
[url=http://photos.kenj.ca/photos/i-HD8Hdp3/1/L/i-HD8Hdp3-L.jpg]Image[/url]

Nice PP, but why so underexposed in the first place?

 

[seadragon]

Bad form. I wasn't paying attention to the histogram.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Bad form. I wasn't paying attention to the histogram.

Histogram? What about the exposure meter!

 

[kallisti]

I am not sure what this thread is about now.

There isn't any sane reason to not shoot raw except the rare one I mentioned above.

acearchie and afb explained it nicely. the raw file is like the negative in film days.
why would anyone not like a negative?

I think this has been a productive discussion. Thanks to everyone that has posted. Love the other examples people have provided.

My initial images focused on highlight recovery. Didn't post examples of shadow recovery. In a global sense, if you are overexposing or under exposing by 2 stops, there is either something wrong with your camera or something wrong with you.

*But* as I stated in the OP and others have pointed out, there are many images that have a dynamic range that precludes a perfect exposure. Some parts of the image are going to be over- and/or under- exposed no matter what. ND grads can help with this but aren't perfect. Exposure bracketing and then doing something like an HDR treatment can help with this. But having more data available in a RAW file can be a much simpler solution.

I also didn't provide examples regarding white balance. My understanding (and this may be incorrect) is that when shooting in JPEG the sensitivities of the individual color channels are influenced by the chosen WB. So even though the overall ISO might be x, the ISO for the individual color channels might be very different. If the WB is chosen correctly, the ISO sensitivity of the individual color channels is optimal for the scene. If the WB is off, then individual color channels might get blown out with zero chance for recovery later. Would love for someone to either confirm or deny this. When shooting RAW this never becomes an issue obviously

I also agree that if you plan to do more extensive manipulation in post either with plugins or Photoshop, having more information at your disposal to play with is always a good thing.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I think this has been a productive discussion. Thanks to everyone that has posted. Love the other examples people have provided.

My initial images focused on highlight recovery. Didn't post examples of shadow recovery. In a global sense, if you are overexposing or under exposing by 2 stops, there is either something wrong with your camera or something wrong with you.

*But* as I stated in the OP and others have pointed out, there are many images that have a dynamic range that precludes a perfect exposure. Some parts of the image are going to be over- and/or under- exposed no matter what. ND grads can help with this but aren't perfect. Exposure bracketing and then doing something like an HDR treatment can help with this. But having more data available in a RAW file can be a much simpler solution.

I also didn't provide examples regarding white balance. My understanding (and this may be incorrect) is that when shooting in JPEG the sensitivities of the individual color channels are influenced by the chosen WB. So even though the overall ISO might be x, the ISO for the individual color channels might be very different. If the WB is chosen correctly, the ISO sensitivity of the individual color channels is optimal for the scene. If the WB is off, then individual color channels might get blown out with zero chance for recovery later. Would love for someone to either confirm or deny this. When shooting RAW this never becomes an issue obviously

I also agree that if you plan to do more extensive manipulation in post either with plugins or Photoshop, having more information at your disposal to play with is always a good thing.

Agree this has been a worthwhile discussion. Can't help with your question on jpeg shooting though, as I'm a RAW shooter.

 

[seadragon]

Histogram? What about the exposure meter!

Nevermind.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Nevermind.

Hay we all do it. Wasn't trying to make you feel bad. Sorry if you didn't realise I was just messing with you.
Your picture was a good example of why to shoot RAW.

 

[kallisti]

.

seadragon, I liked your example! Bummer you deleted it. This thread *isn't* about flaming people for missing the exposure initially. It happens to the best of us . But your examples were perfect for this thread--why shooting in RAW helped you create something that wouldn't have been possible if shooting in JPEG. I hope you post those example pics again

 

[seadragon]

Thanks Apple fanboy and kalliti. I've restored the pics. I clearly messed up taking the photo to begin with. But shooting RAW saved the image.

I actually shoot RAW+JPEG and this way I can have the best of both worlds.

 

[Meister]

This thread shows impressively why shooting raw = good idea.

----------

Thanks Apple fanboy and kalliti. I've restored the pics. I clearly messed up taking the photo to begin with. But shooting RAW saved the image.

I actually shoot RAW+JPEG and this way I can have the best of both worlds.

the image you posted is really nice after Lr processing. Thats what it is all about!

 

[Apple fanboy]

This thread shows impressively why shooting raw = good idea.

----------

the image you posted is really nice after Lr processing. Thats what it is all about!

Agreed. Glad you put it back. It would be interesting to see how well you could edit the Jpeg as you shoot both. Not even close to the edit above I'd bet.

 

[seadragon]

Agreed. Glad you put it back. It would be interesting to see how well you could edit the Jpeg as you shoot both. Not even close to the edit above I'd bet.

Interesting question you pose. Intrigued to see, I just processed the JPEG to see how close I could get it. It didn't fare too badly in Lightroom to be honest. However, as you can see, the RAW file just has more detail and looks better overall.

The processed JPEG file:

 

[Apple fanboy]

Interesting question you pose. Intrigued to see, I just processed the JPEG to see how close I could get it. It didn't fare too badly in Lightroom to be honest. However, as you can see, the RAW file just has more detail and looks better overall.

The processed JPEG file:
[url=http://photos.kenj.ca/photos/i-wBV4cVw/0/L/i-wBV4cVw-L.jpg]Image[/url]

The processed RAW file:
[url=http://photos.kenj.ca/photos/i-NfttbNW/0/L/i-NfttbNW-L.jpg]Image[/url]

That illustrates the point even further.

 

[Oracle1729]

Almost.

I recommend anyone who is going to edit their photos shoot RAW.

I'm not sure I'd even go that far. I once had a co-worker ask me to see what I could do with a poorly exposed image her daughter had taken at a family function.

Even people who don't think they'll edit their files might be able to find someone to do it or years later might get a lot more interested in photography and wish they had those old raws. With storage was cheap as it is, everybody should be shooting raw, even if they just store the raws on a hard drive somewhere and use the jpegs.

----------

I usually shoot RAW or RAW + JPEG, but that's BS. Learning proper exposure isn't exactly rocket surgery.

Every photo can benefit from some post. Unless it's an amateur snapshot you don't care about. It's actually quite interesting to study the masters and see the amount of post they do and even did in the wet darkroom.

 

[Small White Car]

Nice PP, but why so underexposed in the first place?

It's interesting, isn't it, that had he exposed it higher he would have lost the clouds and been unable to create that perfect image he ended up with.

Based on that, I dare say I'd call that image *perfectly* exposed.

 

[Apple fanboy]

It's interesting, isn't it, that had he exposed it higher he would have lost the clouds and been unable to create that perfect image he ended up with.

Based on that, I dare say I'd call that image *perfectly* exposed.

Not sure I'd go that far, but I was always told to under expose rather than over expose, as it's easier to recover shadows than highlights.

If anyone was doubting if they should shoot RAW or JPEG, I think this thread has been a useful demonstration.

 

[Razeus]

When you learn to shoot properly, meaning knowing how to expose and stop shooting willy nilly, the RAW vs JPEG debate is moot.

With that said, for more artistic stuff or portrait sessions, I shoot RAW. When I'm just shooting family and friends, it's all jpeg.

 

[acearchie]

One thing I don't get is why people capitalise raw? It's not an acronym in the same way that JPEG is.

Not sure I'd go that far, but I was always told to under expose rather than over expose, as it's easier to recover shadows than highlights.

Underexposing and correcting will introduce more noise (signal to noise ratio) but over exposing reduces the dynamic range (less stops over than under).

Some cameras act differently.

For example. With the blackmagic cinema camera it's advised to shoot to the right and pull it back in post on ever shot for the best detail and least amount of noise.

 

[Apple fanboy]

One thing I don't get is why people capitalise raw? It's not an acronym in the same way that JPEG is.



Underexposing and correcting will introduce more noise (signal to noise ratio) but over exposing reduces the dynamic range (less stops over than under).

Some cameras act differently.

For example. With the blackmagic cinema camera it's advised to shoot to the right and pull it back in post on ever shot for the best detail and least amount of noise.

Agree completely. Learn your camera, and the correct exposure. I know by looking at the RAW file in LR what is beyond saving.
I find the correct exposure varies by which lens I'm using as well, even if the have the same aperture. I believe someone referred to on here the other day as a tnumber rather than a fnumber, but what do I know.
Anyway the point remains the same. Getting to know your camera and how to set it up properly are important lessons.

 

[BJMRamage]

I like seeing these types of threads.

I posted one a while back with my experience...I have some photos in there (no need to post again in this thread) This shows the original RAW file, a saved JPG and "fix" and a RAW "fix":

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1655522/

and some more of my Flickr Album with RAW shots edited:
https://flic.kr/s/aHsjVFcneX

OK, I will post one split screen here...This is a shot I took after being out the night before or maybe I was indoors inside spaceship earth trying to get some shots...anyway, I simply forgot I bumped the ISO and aperture for this. I came back and saw how terrible it was and that I saw the problem and adjusted the camera to shoot the next shots in better exposure.

But I held onto this shot and figured I'd try out the RAW file and see how far I could push it. I was pleased...not perfect but to get this from the original was shocking to me.

[/url]
Spaceship Earth Epcot Aperture by BJMRamage Photos, on Flickr[/IMG]

 

[acearchie]

I believe someone referred to on here the other day as a tnumber rather than a fnumber, but what do I know.

F stop is a mathematical calculation whereas t stop is looking at the actually transmission of light through the lens.

If you have t2.8 on two lenses and don't change any camera settings, the exposures will be the same.

 

[compuwar]

Histogram? What about the exposure meter!

It's a scene with lots of light-toned area, the exposure meter, unless he's spot metering is going to underexpose, hence the auto exposure will underexpose.

Plus, the histogram is going to allow you to get the largest number of bits for the tones and colors in the image.

Paul

 

[robgendreau]

RAW? I've read several explanations, but most seem to say that it harkens back to the old capital letter convention for file extensions of all types, like JPG or JPEG or TIFF or EXE. I like it capitalized because I don't wanna write "I like taking pictures in raw"

I just decided to start shooting only RAW, not JPG+RAW. I used to think it was handy to have the JPGs, but not so much anymore. I can generate them in the camera if need be, and RAW handling is much more common now.

I also helps to remember you never see RAW. You see previews. Every camera generates them, and software on your computer does too. It's sort of cool once you realize that ANY image you see is actually an interpretation, either automatic by the camera's computer or your laptop or whatever. Maybe cuz I started in the darkroom I'm used to that; the line my instructor told me was that he could hand me Ansel Adams' negatives and I still wouldn't produce an Ansel Adams. Sometimes my camera, or LR, or Capture One or whatever produces something from the RAW data I'm perfectly happy with, but why not always have the chance to change it if you can?

JPGs are sorta like the instant snapshot cameras, which is also sorta cool if you're using a non-RAW camera. It was often a crapshoot to see if you'd get anything good. And as that same instructor said, the difference between a photographer and a camera user is that the former ultimately gets the image on paper (pre computer days) that he or she has in their head, while the latter only gets something good by chance. And don't sneer at that; a look at some of the amazing stuff on just Instagram will show you that the format isn't what makes a photo art.

'course that advice didn't help me tons when I started doing slides, which you can't even crop....

 

[MacRy]

RAW vs JPEG

Yep, definitely shoot in RAW. Especially in challenging lighting situations.

Otherwise you're just a noob.

These were all JPEGS. Too much camera snobbery over RAW and JPEG in my opinion.