what's the point of shooting raw?

[Abraxsis]

Wow, great tip. Glad I bought 2 4GB SD Card, one of my reason was actually cause I never heard photographers say they use 8GB SD card. Guess there is a reason for that but bertpalmer say is not wrong also, considering that now the image size is bigger, 4 GB might not be that ideal anymore compared to 10mp DSLRs.

Every Pro I rub elbows with only use 4GB cards unless they are the Extreme III version, and then they go 8GB. Once those are filled they are off-loaded to either laptop/multiple hard drives, or a data storage/viewer like the Epson P-3000. Last night I was at a Photography seminar with Bill Fortney (author/photog of America From 500 Feet (I and II), bunch of other books, as well as a Nikon Marketing Rep) and this was one of the "Pro" tips he gave as well.

On a personal note, I recommend Lowepro Memory card clamshell cases for field work. I've literally seen them ran over by an SUV and survive. Not a bad price either (I get them for 15.99 at Best Buy, Adorama carries them for 19.99)

http://products.lowepro.com/product/PixelPak-V1,1993,42.htm

I place them face up when I leave the house and as I use them up I return them to the case upside down (contact pens facing up) to know they're full at a glance. Obviously you could also lock them to ensure data integrity.

 

[fiercetiger224]

Oh right, totally forgot that the 50D has higher mp count. But seriously, I dont see the point of kept increasing mp for each iteration and boost the ISO more if image quality still suffers from noise. Fix noise first then only boost mp, that what I will do rather then keep boosting mp and get unusable high ISO images, this applies greatly to APS-C sensor DSLRs

Well actually, the noise is virtually the same when you view the images at 100%. It only "seems" noisier because the image is slightly bigger. Noise gets reduced even more if you shoot at the native 15MP, and reduce it to 12MP. This is true when you shoot with any camera. So in essence, they have improved the ISO performance to use with the increase in MP. Otherwise, it'd probably be much noisier if they hadn't improved it. Looks like they've already hit the point where the APS-C sensor is hitting a wall in squeezing more detail...Oh well, hopefully these masterminds will figure out another process technique that'll squeeze even more detail!

As for people shooting with smaller cards like 2GB and 4GB, say what you will. For more demanding cameras such as the 50D and up, which have RAW filesizes of 20MB and up, shooting with 2GB and 4GB isn't nearly as convenient as it used to be. I personally have a 4GB, 8GB, and 16GB. My 4GB card is 233x, while my 8GB and 16GB are 266x. I shoot with my 16GB the most, and haven't had any corruption problems with it for over a year of shooting thousands of photos. I was able to hold 1000 10MP RAW files on my old XTi, and now it's about 500 for my 5DII. Always filled up the card to full, and reformatted after transferring files.

 

[wheelhot]

Thanks guys!, Im learning something new everyday ^^, yippie!

Well actually, the noise is virtually the same when you view the images at 100%. It only "seems" noisier because the image is slightly bigger. Noise gets reduced even more if you shoot at the native 15MP, and reduce it to 12MP. This is true when you shoot with any camera. So in essence, they have improved the ISO performance to use with the increase in MP. Otherwise, it'd probably be much noisier if they hadn't improved it. Looks like they've already hit the point where the APS-C sensor is hitting a wall in squeezing more detail...Oh well, hopefully these masterminds will figure out another process technique that'll squeeze even more detail!

Yup, I wonder who will tops Canon MP Count, I have a feeling I know though and this company as usual will fail giving the photo quality expected, not to mention cause Canon to do the same thing but with a better job at it. For those who got an idea who this company is, good for those who didn't get it....the company I was referring to is Sony.

Every Pro I rub elbows with only use 4GB cards unless they are the Extreme III version, and then they go 8GB. Once those are filled they are off-loaded to either laptop/multiple hard drives, or a data storage/viewer like the Epson P-3000. Last night I was at a Photography seminar with Bill Fortney (author/photog of America From 500 Feet (I and II), bunch of other books, as well as a Nikon Marketing Rep) and this was one of the "Pro" tips he gave as well.

Ah, IC....so SandDisk Extreme III means ultimate reliability? Hence suitable for 8GB?

 

[FX120]

Hmm, I think the 50D is on par with the D300, ONLY if you're using the best optics though. This is rather true for any camera. 50Ds noise is a little noisier, obviously due to the megapixel increase. Otherwise, if Canon did put it at 12MP like the D300, it'd probably be nearly equal in performance.

IQ at lower ISO might be comparable, but the rest of the argument goes away once you consider AF, metering, on-body features, shooting speed, and high ISO performance the D300 is the clear winner, and it should be considering that the price is higher than the 50D.

IMO Canons next release after a 1D/1Ds update should be a D300 competitor, by either making the 60D more serious, or coming out with a new model, APS-C sensor in the 12MP range with great low light performance, very well built, very fast, with a more serious attempt at AF than their current 9-point system, priced at $1600 for the body only.

 

[SWC]

Bad move, always use smaller cards. You'll only have to lose/corrupt 16GB of data once to realize this. Personally, I never use anything larger than 4GB cards. Preferably only 2 GB cards. With Sandisk Ultra II 4 and 2 GB cards being less than 20 bucks there is no need to move towards the larger cards. I bought four Sandisk Ultra II 4 giggers at Best Buy 3 weeks ago for 14.99 each.

Also, never "fill" a card up. Each images isn't a set number of MB so the amount left shown on the camera is just an estimate. A write failure at the end of a card has the chance of corrupting all the data on it. I never shoot beyond 10 remaining images to ensure the data integrity.

This is all relative to the camera you are using. If using the 5D II at 21 MP you'd want a bigger card compared to say a 40D at 10 MP to keep the same number of pictures on a card. I went from the 40D to 5D II and 4 GB to 8 GB cards and get roughly the same number of pictures on a card.

 

[pprior]

Bad move, always use smaller cards. You'll only have to lose/corrupt 16GB of data once to realize this. Personally, I never use anything larger than 4GB cards. Preferably only 2 GB cards. With Sandisk Ultra II 4 and 2 GB cards being less than 20 bucks there is no need to move towards the larger cards. I bought four Sandisk Ultra II 4 giggers at Best Buy 3 weeks ago for 14.99 each.

Also, never "fill" a card up. Each images isn't a set number of MB so the amount left shown on the camera is just an estimate. A write failure at the end of a card has the chance of corrupting all the data on it. I never shoot beyond 10 remaining images to ensure the data integrity.

Well let's see there. My 1dMIII shoots about 13MB RAW files (and that's only a 10MP camera). So your 2GB card will hold around 100-150 shots (depending on ISO). Shoot 5-10 frames per second, that gives me about 10-20 bursts before I have to change a card. Not very practical when doing sports shooting. I am much more likely to lose a card when carrying the 20 or more I would need by using your system than I am to lose one due to a defective card. Different shooting needs = different demands. Personally I use nothing but 8GB cards, and if it's a critical shoot, I use the 1d dual write to double burn to two different cards. I've never seen a corrupted card in 40,000+ shots.

Now to the original poster, I was a jpg shooter for years and finally switched to RAW about 3 years ago. with modern software I see absolutely NO reason not to shoot RAW for the vast majority of shooters. If you are shooting high volume on a deadline and can nail your exposure and white balance every time, then JPG is a great option. But drive space is cheap, and modern programs like aperture, lightroom, etc have taken the pain out of the RAW format.

You gain tremendous flexibility in pulling down overexposed shots and also tremendous flexibility in adjusting white balance. You just can't do that with jpg.

Yes it takes more drive space, yes it takes a bit more horsepower to process and a bit more time, but not as much as it used to, and it's just a matter of time before that shot that was junk in jpg can be salvaged in RAW.

 

[KettyKrueger]

Can I just ask; is there another format to shoot in?

I shoot in JPEG but hate the idea of my pictures being in a lossy format but I don't want the hassle, nor do I need the control of shooting RAW.

Are there any cameras out there that shoot in .png or .tiff? Would this be even possible? I confess I have no idea of the workings of a camera.

 

[wheelhot]

I shoot in JPEG but hate the idea of my pictures being in a lossy format but I don't want the hassle, nor do I need the control of shooting RAW.

Huh? JPEG is not a lossy format, its a heavily compressed format. TIFF is lossy, but RAW still beats TIFF.

RAW Rules!!! Now if only future version of Aperture is faster and use less power

 

[Cliff3]

Can I just ask; is there another format to shoot in?

I shoot in JPEG but hate the idea of my pictures being in a lossy format but I don't want the hassle, nor do I need the control of shooting RAW.

Are there any cameras out there that shoot in .png or .tiff? Would this be even possible? I confess I have no idea of the workings of a camera.

Nikon pro-level bodies (D300/D700/D3/D2/etc) will record TIFF files. My guess would be that they have one or a few very large customers who have workflows that demand this format. Like NASA or some other governmental entity of similar size (and clout) and with a similar potential for legacy systems. The TIFF format produces very large files with no advantage other than interchange with other systems or applications.

 

[RaceTripper]

I only shoot RAW. Try correcting WB on a jpeg and you'll be a quick convert. I don't worry about the larger file sizes. flash memory has gotten so cheap. I just got 3 x 4 GB Sandisk Extreme III for less than $5 total after mail-in rebate. The other main reason I use RAW is for the support of non-destructive editing and history since changes are written to sidecar files and not the image data itself. That also means I'm not constantly backing up large files anytime I make a minor edit to the image.

Programs like Lightroom make it very easy to batch convert RAW images to jpeg.

Bad move, always use smaller cards. You'll only have to lose/corrupt 16GB of data once to realize this. Personally, I never use anything larger than 4GB cards. ....

+1
Last year I lost a 4 GB card to corruption shooting the 12 Hours of Sebring (sports car race). I lost a couple hours of shooting. If that had been a 16 GB card that would have meant losing the entire race. The only way I'll ever use anything larger than 4 GB is with a camera that takes two cards and writes to both redundantly, but only the top end pro DSLRs do that now.

BTW: the bad card was a Lexar. That company made it extremely difficult to get a warranty claim honored. I only got a replacement card after many months of waiting, ignored email inquiries on status, and excuses when calling. Worst customer service experience ever.

 

[KettyKrueger]

Huh? JPEG is not a lossy format, its a heavily compressed format. TIFF is lossy, but RAW still beats TIFF.

RAW Rules!!! Now if only future version of Aperture is faster and use less power

.tiff is lossy??

Sorry, I probably should have said I didn't want my photos to be compressed not lossy.

Roughly then, if my JPEGs are about 3.3MB and a RAW file is 21MB, the compression ration is roughly 7:1. Can any pros out there see the artifacts produces by a JPEG as opposed to a raw file?

 

[Edge100]

The only way I'll ever use anything larger than 4 GB is with a camera that takes two cards and writes to both redundantly, but only the top end pro DSLRs do that now.

I have never lost a card of data, but this is my nightmare. I just bought a used 1DmkII and one of the things I love the most about it is being able to shoot to CF and have a backup automatically created on an SD card. Highly unlikely that two cards will go bad in one incident. It's just another little thing that the pro-level bodies have over consumer and pro-sumer bodies.

.tiff is lossy??

Sorry, I probably should have said I didn't want my photos to be compressed not lossy.

Roughly then, if my JPEGs are about 3.3MB and a RAW file is 21MB, the compression ration is roughly 7:1. Can any pros out there see the artifacts produces by a JPEG as opposed to a raw file?

TIFF is lossless, and offers a lossless compression format, LZW (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_Image_File_Format)

JPEG artifacts can be hard to see, unless you're really pushing it. But keep in mind that every time you save a jpeg, you're adding artifact. Those will build up over time. Thus, if you shoot JPEG, save as TIFF before you begin editing.

IMHO, the introduction of artifacts is a minor reason to avoid shooting JPEG. The ability to alter WB and to regain blown highlights are much bigger reasons, I think.

 

[Apple Ink]

Imo, the ability to post process WB with 100% detailing preserved is alone worth shooting in RAW.
Also, the 'Recovery' best works in RAW and is the best way to recover details in the burnt out areas...
And finally a 30MB image as compared to a 3MB is pretty reassuring and satisfying... LOL!

 

[mrkgoo]

TIFF is lossless, and offers a lossless compression format, LZW (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_Image_File_Format)

JPEG artifacts can be hard to see, unless you're really pushing it. But keep in mind that every time you save a jpeg, you're adding artifact. Those will build up over time. Thus, if you shoot JPEG, save as TIFF before you begin editing.

IMHO, the introduction of artifacts is a minor reason to avoid shooting JPEG. The ability to alter WB and to regain blown highlights are much bigger reasons, I think.

iPhoto is completely non-destructive. No matter how many edits you make on a photo, it will only make the edits 'once'. Even further edits.

 

[Edge100]

iPhoto is completely non-destructive. No matter how many edits you make on a photo, it will only make the edits 'once'. Even further edits.

You are correct; iPhoto creates a preview based on the initial file, and works on that. It doesn't "apply" the changes until you export.

I was thinking of when one edits in PS and saves those changes.

 

[mrkgoo]

You are correct; iPhoto creates a preview based on the initial file, and works on that. It doesn't "apply" the changes until you export.

I was thinking of when one edits in PS and saves those changes.

Incorrect - I believe iPhoto applies the changes as soon as you hit 'done' on an edit - it saves it to the modified folder. When you open the file for more edits, it pulls the original, reapplies the edits, applies any new edits, and then saves again. If you ever "Revert to Original", it deletes the modified version entirely.

During export it uses the Modified version, if it exists, and if you don't select to export the original.

 

[thebassoonist]

I think jpegs are compressed, so if you have a 10 MP camera and you are compressing your images, you are losing quality, losing precious pixels (I think... if I am wrong, please correct me). If you want to get the most out of your camera, shoot in raw and then you can convert it to a lossless file if you want to shrink down the file size.

When I used my Canon rebel, I always shoot in raw and convert the images to tiff (lossless) to print. They look beautiful.

 

[wheelhot]

Nikon pro-level bodies (D300/D700/D3/D2/etc) will record TIFF files. My guess would be that they have one or a few very large customers who have workflows that demand this format. Like NASA or some other governmental entity of similar size (and clout) and with a similar potential for legacy systems. The TIFF format produces very large files with no advantage other than interchange with other systems or applications.

Wow, didn't know Nikon pro level bodies accept .TIFF, but correct me if Im wrong, isn't a .TIFF image size is most of the time bigger then a RAW image?

I think jpegs are compressed, so if you have a 10 MP camera and you are compressing your images, you are losing quality, losing precious pixels (I think... if I am wrong, please correct me). If you want to get the most out of your camera, shoot in raw and then you can convert it to a lossless file if you want to shrink down the file size.

Yup, JPEGs are compressed, a 10MP camera will produce average 10mb photo size, JPEG will make those photos around 4MB so that should give you an idea of how compressed your photo end up. I find Aperture Recovery tool work best in RAW, Tiff will produce not so pleasing result while JPEG is just...forget it.

One of the biggest good thing about RAW is fully adjustable WB in later post processing, sometime due to the variety of lighting, we tend to forget to change our WB, imagine if you are back from an event and half of your images are ruined just cause you forgot to change the WB setting . That would ruin any Photographers day, that's for sure.

 

[RaceTripper]

I was thinking of when one edits in PS and saves those changes.

In the case of Lightroom, if you are working with RAW and edit in PS, it exports the RAW to tiff and sends that to PS for editing.

 

[RaceTripper]

One of the biggest good thing about RAW is fully adjustable WB in later post processing, sometime due to the variety of lighting, we tend to forget to change our WB, imagine if you are back from an event and half of your images are ruined just cause you forgot to change the WB setting . That would ruin any Photographers day, that's for sure.

When I shoot an auto race, I can easily take 1500 shots in a day. With moving around the track and paddock and changing light conditions, I mostly don't bother with WB settings. I just put it on Auto WB. Later on I'll fix WB after I'm done culling photos and left with ones I'm interested in.

 

[mrkgoo]

I think jpegs are compressed, so if you have a 10 MP camera and you are compressing your images, you are losing quality, losing precious pixels (I think... if I am wrong, please correct me). If you want to get the most out of your camera, shoot in raw and then you can convert it to a lossless file if you want to shrink down the file size.

When I used my Canon rebel, I always shoot in raw and convert the images to tiff (lossless) to print. They look beautiful.

JPEGS are compressed - but compressed just means you use shortcut methods to 'describe' a file. Like - all the sky is blue, so instead of saying: "Pixel 1 is blue, pixel 2 is blue, pixel 3 is blue ...", you can just say "Pixel 1 through 87 are blue". It doesn't NECESSARILY mean a loss of quality itself. You can have very low compression in a JPEG. Maximum quality (minimum compression) actually retains most data, but high compression (low quality) assigns even close coloured pixels as the same, reducing definition, but reducing file size. Of course, successive edits of a JPEG are editing the pixels, so every step typically requires another compression step.

The 'compression' or loss of quality when shooting JPEG comes from the inherent process of converting the RAW data. The camera captures much more data than is necessary to make an image. Let's say a RAW captures this much data *holds hands out wide*, but the the converted JPEG displays this much *narrows hands*. JPEGS cannot carry more info, so it HAS to be converted down.

Shooting in RAW allows you to control that conversion - and as people say the biggest allowance is in the area of highlights and white balance. That is you can mitigate blown out skies or bright areas contrasting with dark, and changing colour temperature and tint is much more accurate, as you are converting differently as opposed to editing pixels.

I don't believe sending your TIFF files off to print are necessarily any better than sending processed JPEGS, or even out of camera JPEGS, depending on the shot.

My point is that shooting JPEGS doesn't necessarily mean you are 'losing quality' - you are just letting the camera decide what parts of the data to use, and that this may not be what you want.

 

[Edge100]

In the case of Lightroom, if you are working with RAW and edit in PS, it exports the RAW to tiff and sends that to PS for editing.

True. This (I believe) also holds if you shoot JPEG and work with LR-->PS, which is great.

If you open JPEGs directly in PS, edit, and save as JPEG, you are increasing the "generation" of the file; artifacts will build up.

 

[Edge100]

When I shoot an auto race, I can easily take 1500 shots in a day. With moving around the track and paddock and changing light conditions, I mostly don't bother with WB settings. I just put it on Auto WB. Later on I'll fix WB after I'm done culling photos and left with ones I'm interested in.

My WB setting hasn't ever left "AWB"; what's the point? I'm going to process the RAWs later anyway, so I might as well do proper WB later on too.

 

[Edge100]

Incorrect - I believe iPhoto applies the changes as soon as you hit 'done' on an edit - it saves it to the modified folder. When you open the file for more edits, it pulls the original, reapplies the edits, applies any new edits, and then saves again. If you ever "Revert to Original", it deletes the modified version entirely.

During export it uses the Modified version, if it exists, and if you don't select to export the original.

I see. I was under the impression that iPhoto worked like Aperture or LR; making a preview of the file for display, and not rendering until you export.

Good to know that, however it's done, iPhoto is not propagating artifacts.

 

[mrkgoo]

I see. I was under the impression that iPhoto worked like Aperture or LR; making a preview of the file for display, and not rendering until you export.

Good to know that, however it's done, iPhoto is not propagating artifacts.

I don't have Aperture nor Lightroom. So both these programs never save an image until export (even JPEGS?)? I guess that's part of the workflow for more 'pro' apps - it's expected that you are editing and exporting. It makes sense.

iPhoto is much more consumer-oriented. People expect a file, or it's just easier to do it since people aren't changing the file formats or adjusting any export settings. I really should move away from it, but I like it's management function.