Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: raw or jpg for easy post processing

  1. #1

    Default raw or jpg for easy post processing

    Hi all

    I have a basic question here. For easier post processing, should i shoot in RAW ? take for example, a photo of exposed background and underexposed foreground (no fill in flash), is it easier to correct if the original in RAW format ? or just the same effort is required. Even for other kind of adjustments, which is better format.

    Thanks in advance for all you advise.

  2. #2

    Default

    raw takes some time to convert....else there is more stuff u can do in raw..
    if u are talking about fast....jpeg is the way to go..

    i shoot only jpeg..

  3. #3

    Default

    If you're a leisure/hobby shooter, then shoot RAW.
    Adjusting the settings is also quite fun. Don't miss out on raw conversion if you have time.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverspectrum
    Hi all

    I have a basic question here. For easier post processing, should i shoot in RAW ? take for example, a photo of exposed background and underexposed foreground (no fill in flash), is it easier to correct if the original in RAW format ? or just the same effort is required. Even for other kind of adjustments, which is better format.

    Thanks in advance for all you advise.
    If you want to do it that way, either would be fine but the colours would be off if you don't use fill in flash. You can use Shadows/Highlights adjustment in Photoshop to do it. My advice would be to learn to control fill-in flash well and your shots will turn out much better.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AReality
    If you're a leisure/hobby shooter, then shoot RAW.
    Adjusting the settings is also quite fun. Don't miss out on raw conversion if you have time.
    Hi AReality, What is raw conversion ? I am a leisure shooter, why would recommended RAW. Pros like yourself normally shoot in JPEG ?

    Solli, blur blur on this topic.

  6. #6

    Default What is pros and cons of shooting in RAW ?

    I want to thank you for the advise. This is one reason i like this forum.


    Why I am asking this is I want to understand if it is easier to do manipulation if the format in RAW. If not much then , i may just stick to jpeg. btw, i have not tried RAW yet, cos when i insert my 512mb card, it allows me only 38 shots

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverspectrum
    Hi AReality, What is raw conversion ? I am a leisure shooter, why would recommended RAW. Pros like yourself normally shoot in JPEG ?

    Solli, blur blur on this topic.

    No la... I not pro... though no newbie liao...

    goto www.phaseone.com , download the capture 1 trial version, shoot raw, then play with your image in the softwre... U'll be amazed!

    U've gotta go try it out for yourself to know the power...

    Pple who shoot jpeg are those who dun wanna post-process pics. Those with the intention of post processing in mind, will shoot RAW, coz it's easier to process.

    However, shooting in jpeg doesn't mean your shots cannot be post-processed (e.g.: changing contrast/brightness/etc). They can. It just means that it's a little more tedious, coz capture one doesn't support jpeg. & capture one is easy to use.

  8. #8

    Default

    i once had an underexposed pic shot in raw. managed to increase the exposure (not brightness) by up to +2.5 stops in adobe camera raw plugin. turned out image was quite acceptable. if i was shooting in jpeg my options would be more limited. unfortunately this approach doesnt really work for overexposed pics. even -1 stop looks horrible

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by madmacs
    unfortunately this approach doesnt really work for overexposed pics. even -1 stop looks horrible
    Wat cam u using?
    overexposed by 1 stop should be recoverable using Capture One.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AReality
    Wat cam u using?
    overexposed by 1 stop should be recoverable using Capture One.
    10d. hehe...but i think i over by about 2 stops

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by madmacs
    10d. hehe...but i think i over by about 2 stops
    Ahhh... 2 stops a bit too much already...
    Need professional Photoshopper.

  12. #12

    Default Thanks

    Hi Alreality & all, thanks for your advise and I go try and play around. I hear that RAW is easier for post processing.

    One question, like for night shots which may have more noise, am I correct to say that it is better to shoot in raw so that I can process the noise better ?

    For capture one, does it support the Nikon raw format ? I am using a CP5700.

  13. #13

    Default

    Capture one has some noise suppression built into the program.
    Dunno about support for nikon cams.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AReality
    Pple who shoot jpeg are those who dun wanna post-process pics. Those with the intention of post processing in mind, will shoot RAW, coz it's easier to process.
    eh bro..dun like tt la...i shoot purely jpeg le...and i still edit haha....

    raw will give more flexibility in post processing...but with digital if u plan carefully most of ya shots should be almost there one la....in terms of exposure etc..... WB is a tiring prob though...

    but its still possible to do alot of stuff on jpeg.....
    coz raw conversion will take quite abit of time....

    no pun intended....juz my 2 cts worth...

  15. #15

    Default

    Thanks all for your inputs. Will try some shots on RAW and try processing it. I see a conversion time factor here.

    I have read some treads in the forums on PS and it also seems like lots can be done from jpeg as well.

    Thanks again and cudos to CS.

  16. #16

    Default

    Hi pros/experts/...

    Please keep you advise coming in. Appreciate anything at all.

    Trying to steal some brain juice.....

  17. #17
    Senior Member sammy888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    1,568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverspectrum
    Thanks all for your inputs. Will try some shots on RAW and try processing it. I see a conversion time factor here.

    I have read some treads in the forums on PS and it also seems like lots can be done from jpeg as well.

    Thanks again and cudos to CS.
    Contrary to popular sentiments by many RAW shooting hobbists here..JPEG is very editable. Even for printing 10 x 8 inches or a tad larger. For every so call hard core pixel counting perfectionist you might be showing your work to, you will be showing that to thousands of other who might not know the difference. I use to be really sick by making it a habit to test these "experts" after putting some of my work thorough PS and sowing it to them. Before my D70, my first really nice digital camera was a Sony S70 ( 3 megapixel P&S) and some actually thought I did it with a DSLR or SLR after I have done some PSing and printed out poster montages of my stuff for friends.( I have a habit of doing shoots at outings and trips with friends and then put them on prints to give away with texting and other graphic stuff..less boring then just printing the pictures and distribute)

    If you have learnt the right stuff about photography and also have took the time to learn a graphic program like Photoshop, you can almost do anything with it...including making up for all the disadvantage of a photo....RAW OR JPEG plus to some extend it helps you get away with using a cheap lens by imporving on the lens' short coming too.

    Only when I need to ensure I get as much details as I can get for a shoot like maybe a business product shoot then maybe I would use RAW. ANd usually that means I am shooting in door with the camera connected to my PC for direct shooting (PTP) or set to RAW and save to CF.

    But shooting RAW when you are outdoor and for general use is abit too much of a handful. Shooting on JPEG and sRGB I or II would be my preferred way. Imagine at a party with my friends, I could have whack-off about 300 to 500 picture for the entire night. Imagine how many CF cards I need if I shot RAW and also imagine the time it takes for my PC to actually process all the pictures! And they all ends up being recorded to CDROM and passed to friends with just a few ending up being printed and if so...how many would like poster size compared to 3 to maybe 8R size.

    RAW only makes sense if you intend to manipulate the file and enjoy doing that each time you shoot a few hundred shots and you waste your entire weekend just sitting at your PC and watch it batch process the basic stuff from RAW to tiff and then to sRGB..etc and then hand work the rest for each frame to fine tune them. Frankly, I rather shoot jpeg for not so important stuff which might even included those days I go out roaming to shoot whatever I feel like shooting which makes up 99% of the reason why I took up photography to begin with. heheh....

  18. #18
    Senior Member sammy888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    1,568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverspectrum
    Hi Alreality & all, thanks for your advise and I go try and play around. I hear that RAW is easier for post processing.

    One question, like for night shots which may have more noise, am I correct to say that it is better to shoot in raw so that I can process the noise better ?

    For capture one, does it support the Nikon raw format ? I am using a CP5700.
    Hi Bro...you can get noise in RAW mode too leh heheh IT is almost no hard or easy way to get the noise out even for RAW. It depends on how bad the noise really is......Hate to burst your bubble but RAW is not the begining and the end all for the ultimate in saving a picture data from lens to your memory card heh...

    It can contain more information but that is not to say it can keep alot more then jpeg as per say...at least not in the way you might be lead to believe. Meaning if you screw up your shot with extreme exposure..nothing in the world will save it. That goes for out of focus and bad photo composition too. heheh..

    And talking about JPEG...the real problem with jpeg is not so much the compression ratio the camera will use when it capture the picture each time you shoot. It is how many generation you keep saving that jpeg file that is crucial. Let me give you an example. Have you ever recorded your own music cassette tapes. If you record your song to tape 1 and then use tape 1 to record it to tape 2 and then use tape 2 and record it to tape 3 and so on and so on. Each time you use a previous tape to record to a new one...the quality drops dramatically. As this is analoq recording..so all the noise and pops that are inherent in the tape is passed on to the next one as well..along with the music.

    Now the same concept applies to JPEG in a way. JPEG is a compression format. Meaning, it takes a picture and compresses the pixel information into as small as you would want it to when you save the file. The less compression the bigger the file and more accurate it is and the pixel layout is not compromise too much. But the higher you choose to save on size by dictating a smaller file size with a high compression rate the more the pciture will lose it's colour definition and image quality. As the jpeg compression program is not a human being, the way it trys to save the image by removing or averaging similar information between same colour or shape pixel informations are not that good as the compression ratio increases. That could means a more blurry image, distorted pixel alignment to each other, all the sharpness and edges will get distorted as compression increases. Now that is already bad enough the first time you SAVE it...now you take that same file and OPEN it again...again..the JPEG engine will uncompress it and show it to you on your PC screen..and you SAVE it again...the jpeg engine will compress it again ...but this time it compress the picture file again (reworking the compression process again)along with imperfection generated from the first save version...so now it is compressing mistakes or artifacts from the first save version too. SO each time you open it and re-save it...it gets worst! That is really the biggest problem with jpeg. For me when I finish downloading a set of what I shot to PC, I alway record and save this as my first generation without opening them first on my PC. Then I will pick the best shots I like and then will open them and then save them as TIFF or PSD which are format that does not compress the picture file but of course it is bigger but it is now more like a digital file...pixel for pixel. That is the one I will use for all my general purposes if I was going to do anything beyond just printing a copy of it.

    Also note. Never do your graphic manipulation in jpeg mode if you intending to do a lot of saving in between saves!!!. You are doing just that...saving up a lot of imperfection with each time you do something and then saving it as a jpeg and reopening it later to work on it time and again. Each time you do that..you are really adding more imperfection to it. If you want to do it...do it all at once with the file still open. You can periodically save it by clicking save but make sure you dont close the picture file and then reopening it and do something else to it and then re-save again. If you are not sure what I mean...better re-read what I said earlier above. hehe. AS I mentioned if you want to do a lot of reworking on the picture...best to convert it to tiff or psd to do your work. Once you are finish...save that as your master copy and then make a jpeg one for distribution.

    That to me is the only really reason if you want to consider RAW an advantage over JPEG. RAW is just a proprietary data format but at the heart of it...it is really a TIFF or what you can call an uncompressed format.
    Last edited by sammy888; 12th November 2004 at 10:53 AM.

  19. #19
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sammy888
    RAW only makes sense if you intend to manipulate the file and enjoy doing that each time you shoot a few hundred shots and you waste your entire weekend just sitting at your PC and watch it batch process the basic stuff from RAW to tiff and then to sRGB..etc and then hand work the rest for each frame to fine tune them. Frankly, I rather shoot jpeg for not so important stuff which might even included those days I go out roaming to shoot whatever I feel like shooting which makes up 99% of the reason why I took up photography to begin with. heheh....

    Like you said, if it's not impt it's not necessary, and it's vice versa too.



    Quote Originally Posted by sammy888
    Also note. Never do your graphic manipulation in jpeg mode if you intending to do a lot of saving in between saves!!!. You are doing just that...saving up a lot of imperfection with each time you do something and then saving it as a jpeg and reopening it later to work on it time and again. Each time you do that..you are really adding more imperfection to it. If you want to do it...do it all at once with the file still open. You can periodically save it by clicking save but make sure you dont close the picture file and then reopening it and do something else to it and then re-save again. If you are not sure what I mean...better re-read what I said earlier above. hehe. AS I mentioned if you want to do a lot of reworking on the picture...best to convert it to tiff or psd to do your work. Once you are finish...save that as your master copy and then make a jpeg one for distribution.
    Good enough reason to shoot RAW

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •