what's the point of shooting raw?

[Edge100]

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.

LR and Aperture are completely non-destructive. They create a preview of your original file, which encompasses all of the edits you've made in that program, so you're never working on the original file. In fact, you can view the preview even if the original file is offline; you can't edit the preview without the original, but you can view it. The edit settings are stored as metadata in the catalog, and you can transport that catalog to other machines and keep working.

Once you export, the program applies the edit settings to the output file; the original remains completely untouched. Moreover, you don't have any edit versions of the file; this would get really big, really fast for large catalogs. You only have a small (relatively) file that describes the edits. My LR catalog is about 9000 images totaling about 60GB, and the catalog file itself is only 100MB.

 

[RaceTripper]

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.

I would not want Lightroom to ever create and export a jpeg automatically. That would be a waste of disk space. I might generate 4000 RAW files in a shoot and only ever use 100 or less in jpeg form.

In the case of Aperture I believe iPhoto treats the Aperture database as a library automagically so you can always view and make jpegs on the fly. Lightroom does not have iPhoto integration, but there is an export to iPhoto plugin for it.

disclaimer: I don't really use iPhoto.

 

[RaceTripper]

One thing to add about Lightroom (and Aperture) is that since the edits are done in sidecar files and not on the actual image data, you can have multiple sidecar files for a single RAW source file, each with different edit histories, such as one for web, one for print, or for different crops, etc.

Also, notice I mention "histories"? With sidecar files you can instantly go back to any point in your edit history without loosing previous or subsequent edits, and even take snapshots at any point. very powerful, very flexible, very cool.

 

[Edge100]

One thing to add about Lightroom (and Aperture) is that since the edits are done in sidecar files and not on the actual image data, you can have multiple sidecar files for a single RAW source file, each with different edit histories, such as one for web, one for print, or for different crops, etc.

Also, notice I mention "histories"? With sidecar files you can instantly go back to any point in your edit history without loosing previous or subsequent edits, and even take snapshots at any point. very powerful, very flexible, very cool.

I usually make multiple edits in LR using virtual copies. Is there an easier way that I'm missing?

 

[RaceTripper]

I usually make multiple edits in LR using virtual copies. Is there an easier way that I'm missing?

That's pretty much what I'm talking about.

 

[Edge100]

That's pretty much what I'm talking about.

Good to know I was doing it the right way all along.

I love this ability to quickly make different versions of the same shot. Along with the new and improved Photomatix plugin (with the ability to automatically reimport), this feature makes my LR experience absolutely terrific.

 

[mrkgoo]

LR and Aperture are completely non-destructive. They create a preview of your original file, which encompasses all of the edits you've made in that program, so you're never working on the original file. In fact, you can view the preview even if the original file is offline; you can't edit the preview without the original, but you can view it. The edit settings are stored as metadata in the catalog, and you can transport that catalog to other machines and keep working.

Once you export, the program applies the edit settings to the output file; the original remains completely untouched. Moreover, you don't have any edit versions of the file; this would get really big, really fast for large catalogs. You only have a small (relatively) file that describes the edits. My LR catalog is about 9000 images totaling about 60GB, and the catalog file itself is only 100MB.

I realise that it keeps an edit file, but I didn't know about a complete history (but not unexpected) or that it doesn't create any files until you export.

iPhoto really is quite good for a consumer management program - it too keeps an edit file (obviously, since it is no destructive). You have no access to it, of course, but you can copy the changes made in one photo across to other photos and so on.

One day, when my actual photography on the camera side gets good enough, I will move to aperture/LR.

Thanks for the comments.

 

[RaceTripper]

Good to know I was doing it the right way all along.

I love this ability to quickly make different versions of the same shot. Along with the new and improved Photomatix plugin (with the ability to automatically reimport), this feature makes my LR experience absolutely terrific.

HDR is not really something I can take advantage of with cars racing by me at triple digit speeds. But LR is really pretty nice.

I tried to evaluate Aperture at one point, but it does not support LR sidecar files so there was no chance to migrate my work. Since a sidecar file is just XML that seems like a missed opportunity for Apple to convert Adobe customers. Otherwise, Aperture is just not compelling enough for me to start over for new shoots and maintain LR for older ones.

 

[Edge100]

HDR is not really something I can take advantage of with cars racing by me at triple digit speeds. But LR is really pretty nice.

Maybe...but maybe not. Try doing some pseudo-HDRs using a single RAW, processed as -2, 0, +2 in LR; not really HDR, but a cool effect in moderation.

I tried to evaluate Aperture at one point, but it does not support LR sidecar files so there was no chance to migrate my work. Since a sidecar file is just XML that seems like a missed opportunity for Apple to convert Adobe customers. Otherwise, Aperture is just not compelling enough for me to start over for new shoots and maintain LR for older ones.

I tried Aperture as well (and I have a copy handy for compatibility), and it just didn't suit me. It's still slower than LR2 on my MBP, and there are just things about it that bug me (the plug-in architecture is nice, though).

 

[RaceTripper]

Maybe...but maybe not. Try doing some pseudo-HDRs using a single RAW, processed as -2, 0, +2 in LR; not really HDR, but a cool effect in moderation.

Thanks, I'll try that for fun sometime, but my shooting is more about action anyway. Contrast isn't really as important.

 

[jaduffy108]

^
hmm ok.Thanks. i think ill just shoot in jpeg for the time being.

I haven't read the entire thread yet...but I would encourage you to reconsider your decision.

Shooting RAW is essential for producing high quality results. Of course, if you're only sending 5x7 images to family and friends...then jpeg makes sense.

I'll read the rest of the thread before commenting further.

 

[jaseone]

I haven't read the entire thread yet...but I would encourage you to reconsider your decision.

Shooting RAW is essential for producing high quality results. Of course, if you're only sending 5x7 images to family and friends...then jpeg makes sense.

I wouldn't say it is essential, sure it helps in recovery if you mess something up but if you can nail every shot with the right exposure and white balance then RAW isn't essential for high quality results.

 

[fiercetiger224]

I haven't read the entire thread yet...but I would encourage you to reconsider your decision.

Shooting RAW is essential for producing high quality results. Of course, if you're only sending 5x7 images to family and friends...then jpeg makes sense.

I'll read the rest of the thread before commenting further.

Your mom shoots RAW.

Kidding aside, I agree with your assessment. Yes, shooting RAW requires the step of processing the photos to JPEG (or to whatever format you choose), but the end result is always better shooting with RAW. In-camera processing of JPEGs usually softens images, especially if you have a higher megapixel camera.

 

[gangzoom]

^
hmm ok.Thanks. i think ill just shoot in jpeg for the time being.

As other people here have said, if your camera gives you the option to shoot in RAW use it!! I only recently upgraded to DSLR from a compact superzoom, and find post processing images in RAW so much easier...

Been able to adjust the "white balance" and exposure (to some degree) is worth the large file size alone..if you've never thought about doing it before, give it a go and your wonder how you managed all this time with JPEGs!! (bur you may need to ditch iPhoto and go for Apeture or Lightroom)

 

[jaduffy108]

I wouldn't say it is essential, sure it helps in recovery if you mess something up but if you can nail every shot with the right exposure and white balance then RAW isn't essential for high quality results.

I guess "essential" is relative. My perspective: Try submitting a 8bit jpeg image to a publication, stock house or simply printing larger than A4...then get back to me. I can't believe it's necessary to argue the enormous benefit of avoiding jpeg compression. Depth of 256 vs 65,000 (8bit vs 16bit). This is true whether you "nail" the shot or not.

RAW is **not** in the realm of pixels....so staying in the non-destructive realm of RAW as long as possible before committing your decisions to pixels is extremely wise. There are more reasons for working in RAW than simply correcting exposure or WB. If you or someone else uses Adobe Camera Raw...it "misinterprets" dynamic range like crazy even on RAW files...how much worse must it be on jpeg??? yowsa.

I recommend reading Bruce Frazier's books and online articles as a good resource.

 

[jaduffy108]

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.

Sorry to be so blunt...but this is simply wrong. This thread is making my head hurt.

I wonder...what is your goal? If you invested in a dslr camera capable of high resolution images ......why would you then negate much of it's benefit over shooting with a p&s by shooting / printing as 8bit jpeg? I love jpegs for convenience....family emails, etc....but for the love of God...SHOOT RAW!

If you want to see what your dslr is capable of....shoot raw....edit as much as possible non-destructively before converting to pixels (16bit Tiff or PSD). For edit tools beyond the abilities of your raw conversion app....open the 16bit file in PS or the plugin of your choice such as Nik or onOne software.

When done....save a copy as a jpeg. Print both the 16bit and jpeg files at A3.

The difference will be obvious.

Lastly...shooting RAW allows you to return to images taken years ago and use the latest and greatest raw conversion applications. Hopefully, they continue to improve. Adobe Camera RAW, for example, isn't anything to be thrilled about.

 

[Phrasikleia]

If you shoot in RAW, you have everything the sensor is capable of capturing. If you shoot JPEG, you're accepting some subset that the camera deems appropriate. The latter might be sufficient for casual snapshots, but if you really care about the images you're recording, you'll want control over how they turn out.

 

[mrkgoo]

Sorry to be so blunt...but this is simply wrong. This thread is making my head hurt.

I wonder...what is your goal? If you invested in a dslr camera capable of high resolution images ......why would you then negate much of it's benefit over shooting with a p&s by shooting / printing as 8bit jpeg? I love jpegs for convenience....family emails, etc....but for the love of God...SHOOT RAW!

If you want to see what your dslr is capable of....shoot raw....edit as much as possible non-destructively before converting to pixels (16bit Tiff or PSD). For edit tools beyond the abilities of your raw conversion app....open the 16bit file in PS or the plugin of your choice such as Nik or onOne software.

When done....save a copy as a jpeg. Print both the 16bit and jpeg files at A3.

The difference will be obvious.

Lastly...shooting RAW allows you to return to images taken years ago and use the latest and greatest raw conversion applications. Hopefully, they continue to improve. Adobe Camera RAW, for example, isn't anything to be thrilled about.

Sorry for being wrong.

I do understand your point.

 

[dmz]

This thread is making my head hurt...

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

More bluntness is required, my head is also hurting after reading this.

Compression is of two types - lossy and lossless. Lossless means no data is missing when the file is compressed and then de-compressed. If anything is changed in this process, it is lossy compression.

The TIFF specification (version 6) allows for both types of compression. A TIFF file saved without compression is lossless. The methods of compression specified for TIFF files can be lossy, i.e LZW or JPEG(!!!!) or lossless, in fact, through user-supplied "tags" (TIFF stands for Tagged Image File Format), any form of compression may be used.

JPEG is a lossy format - there is no way to recover the original data from any JPEG file, even on the lowest compression setting. JPEG does offer variable lossiness, and a lower compression does retain more of the original data, but never all of it.

RAW can't "beat" TIFF, because they are not the same thing. While TIFF and JPEG are published file formats, RAW is not. RAW is type of file produced by a digital camera's sensor incorporating an enormous, uncompressed colour-space, defined and refined by the camera-maker themselves, and not in a format that is standardized in any way.

JPEGs were only introduced because back in the bad old days, no one could imagine sending full-resolution images via modems, or anything less than the high-speed internet we have today, or saving hundreds of images on a hard drive that was less than a gigabyte in size. JPEG solved that problem early on for camera-makers, but unfortunately, that low-speed legacy has followed us into the world of high-speed, high-capacity devices.

So, I see the question the other way around - what's the point of shooting JPEG? In fact, why use JPEG at all? For sending smaller files the PNG format is far more useful than GIF or JPEG to web-designers and allows for decent, lossless compression.

Yes, JPEG compression in the camera allows for faster "bursts" of motor-drive like shooting, but I'm sure we'll see the camera-makers improve on this one aspect of digital photography that seems to still somewhat justify the existence and use of JPEG.

And, let's not lose site of the fact that, once a JPEG is "opened" in photoshop or any image editor, it is not 2 or 3 megabytes of data, it is whatever the pixel-count is after decompression. For example, a 9 megapixel image may be compressed down to few hundred kilobytes, but it will occupy at least 27 megabytes of memory when you are editing it - no saving there!

Please, let's get the fundamentals right!

dmz

 

[mrkgoo]

More bluntness is required, my head is also hurting after reading this.

Compression is of two types - lossy and lossless. Lossless means no data is missing when the file is compressed and then de-compressed. If anything is changed in this process, it is lossy compression.

The TIFF specification (version 6) allows for both types of compression. A TIFF file saved without compression is lossless. The methods of compression specified for TIFF files can be lossy, i.e LZW or JPEG(!!!!) or lossless, in fact, through user-supplied "tags" (TIFF stands for Tagged Image File Format), any form of compression may be used.

JPEG is a lossy format - there is no way to recover the original data from any JPEG file, even on the lowest compression setting. JPEG does offer variable lossiness, and a lower compression does retain more of the original data, but never all of it.

RAW can't "beat" TIFF, because they are not the same thing. While TIFF and JPEG are published file formats, RAW is not. RAW is type of file produced by a digital camera's sensor incorporating an enormous, uncompressed colour-space, defined and refined by the camera-maker themselves, and not in a format that is standardized in any way.

JPEGs were only introduced because back in the bad old days, no one could imagine sending full-resolution images via modems, or anything less than the high-speed internet we have today, or saving hundreds of images on a hard drive that was less than a gigabyte in size. JPEG solved that problem early on for camera-makers, but unfortunately, that low-speed legacy has followed us into the world of high-speed, high-capacity devices.

So, I see the question the other way around - what's the point of shooting JPEG? In fact, why use JPEG at all? For sending smaller files the PNG format is far more useful than GIF or JPEG to web-designers and allows for decent, lossless compression.

Yes, JPEG compression in the camera allows for faster "bursts" of motor-drive like shooting, but I'm sure we'll see the camera-makers improve on this one aspect of digital photography that seems to still somewhat justify the existence and use of JPEG.

And, let's not lose site of the fact that, once a JPEG is "opened" in photoshop or any image editor, it is not 2 or 3 megabytes of data, it is whatever the pixel-count is after decompression. For example, a 9 megapixel image may be compressed down to few hundred kilobytes, but it will occupy at least 27 megabytes of memory when you are editing it - no saving there!

Please, let's get the fundamentals right!

dmz

This puts it much more clearly (and accurately) than I did and ever could. Thank-you!

I admit I was all over the place in my description. I swear, the more time I spend on the more time I spend on the internet, the more confusing I become.

 

[wheelhot]

Thanks for your reply DMZ, made me realize that they are still many things I dont know and stupid mistakes that I made

How do you know so much about these anyway? Cause it seems you got the topic about file conversion covered pretty much.

Sorry that your head hurts

 

[dmz]

I am very fortunate to have been "exposed" to photography from a very young age, I grew up in a darkroom you might say. In the sixties, my father was a professional news and feature photog for UPI/CP. In fact, his best friend invented the Nikon motor drive - a fact I can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt. In the early seventies, my Dad moved into cinematography, and I followed. I also was fortunate to meet and be friends with a lot of other great photogs - portrait guys, sports guys, combat photogs (remember Vietnam?), etc. I even managed to meet and work with Yousuf Karsh and his brother Malak. So I got a great, practical education in all kinds of photography.

For some reason, probably because I was surrounded by amazing photographers and was somewhat in awe of them, I did not pursue photography as a career, though I worked in several still and motion picture film labs through my teen years. Instead, I got involved in computers in the early 80's. The company I worked for was pioneering some electronic publishing technologies with Xerox and Kodak - digital scanners, imagesetters, and typography - and because of my background, I was soon brought into the circle to help develop the imaging side of digital publishing.

Long story short - the high-tech company went the acquisition route and I found myself looking for work. The Mac had just come out, but more importantly, Linotype released it's first PostScript imagesetter, and I found myself an expert in a field that did not yet exist - digital imaging. I have kept myself at the bleeding edge of this technology, and with my background in traditional techniques and awareness of current technologies, find myself well-equipped to help others understand the science and the art of photography, or, digital imaging. I have taught for years at the college and university level, and have just received approval to go ahead with my first book, a pixel primer!

I thank my Dad and all those others who helped me along the way. Those guys were awesome, and I'm still in touch with several who have also made the journey from film to digital. Now, finally, I can help them!

dmz

 

[Wakakanada]

More bluntness is required, my head is also hurting after reading this...
And, let's not lose site of the fact that, once a JPEG is "opened" in photoshop or any image editor, it is not 2 or 3 megabytes of data, it is whatever the pixel-count is after decompression. For example, a 9 megapixel image may be compressed down to few hundred kilobytes, but it will occupy at least 27 megabytes of memory when you are editing it - no saving there!


dmz

HuH?!? ack, now MY head hurts!

I'm new to DSLR and appreciate reading these forums for your insights, but this comment made my mind boggle. Are you saying that a smallish jpeg occupies as much computer memory as a RAW file upon editing? If so, this is fascinating and I would appreciate you or someone expanding on this concept a little.

As a beginner, I intend to shoot basic vacation-type shots in jpeg but important shots in RAW, on the premise that the RAW shots are ones I may want to edit/re-edit for years to come. But I assumed that the RAW files would take more space on the computer not just on the memory card.

Is your comment referring to the fact that a single jpeg file opened for editing will occupy as much memory as a similar RAW file opened for editing, or that 10 edited jpegs will occupy as much space as the same ten edited RAW files.

 

[pdxflint]

I used to scan lots of film, and generally saved it as .tiff files, non-compressed. Some of these files were easily 28-30MB as saved files. If I would edit, and "save as" any of them converting to .jpg files keeping the originals intact, they might be 1, 2, 3 or 5 MB in size, depending on the .jpeg settings I used, and the complexity of the image (the more complex the image with little large areas of same tone/color the more 'data' required to be saved while compressing as .jpg)

If I were to re-open a saved .jpg file in photoshop and check the size of the file I was working on in the application, it would show something identical to, or very similar to the original .tiff image size. That's because photoshop uncompressed/decoded the image from .jpg format into some kind of 'temp' file in order to edit it. Once I "save" the changes, it would simply recompress back using the .jpg settings I had originally set, although now it's compressing a file that had been opened from a previously compressed file, complete with all the 'lost' data from that compression. So, again, it's tossing data out as it re-compresses back to the .jpg. Open it again, edit, and save again... more data lost. After two or three of these straight "save's" without preserving the original.... well, you get the picture. Yet, the file size would remain similar, especially when re-opened in photoshop, (i.e. decoded back to a 'temporary' .psd file, or whatever format it's in before saving.)

And... file size isn't really a matter of displayed/captured pixels - file sizes are defined in megabits or megabytes of data. Images can be described in various ways, depending on the intended output, and dimensions. Print is one thing, usually dpi and dimensions; screen display usually as pixel height and width. Neither have anything to do with describing file size.

Anyway... now my head hurts...

 

[compuwar]

More bluntness is required, my head is also hurting after reading this.

The TIFF specification (version 6) allows for both types of compression. A TIFF file saved without compression is lossless. The methods of compression specified for TIFF files can be lossy, i.e LZW or JPEG(!!!!) or lossless, in fact, through user-supplied "tags" (TIFF stands for Tagged Image File Format), any form of compression may be used.

Please, let's get the fundamentals right!

dmz

Yes, let's- LZW is lossless, not lossy compression.

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.

Canon and Nikon don't do "match the last body" arms races, and frankly we'd be much worse off if they did.

I've never seen a corrupted card in 40,000+ shots.

I've seen lots of corrupted cards, but I'm probably out in worse conditions- I probably average a card a year or so, but usually the older ones that I don't shoot that often because of their age/sizes.

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.

The point is that many raw converters can apply that setting automatically so when you have to batch 5,000 pictures from an event you'll be able to let the computer do the work and may not have to go back and re-balance any of them depending on the lighting.