Why RAW?


Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 11, 2008
38
0
0
98
#1
If not printing photos, is there any reason for shooting in raw? I know it captures more detail than jpeg, but ignoring editing, if i shoot in raw then convert to jpeg, will it be the same as shooting directly in jpeg?
Thanks
 

Jun 25, 2008
696
0
0
Pasir Ris
#2
If not printing photos, is there any reason for shooting in raw? I know it captures more detail than jpeg, but ignoring editing, if i shoot in raw then convert to jpeg, will it be the same as shooting directly in jpeg?
Thanks
For me, the extra flexibility (and its ALOT of extra flexibility) in editing that RAW format gives is the ONLY reason why i bother to shoot in RAW and spend time converting it to JPEG. Ignoring editing is like ignoring a photographer's portfolio when you're looking to hire one.
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#3
when you camera save the images into jpg, it does apply setting and process it before save it into jpg.

if you just simply convert raw file into jpg, without apply any setting, it may look far worst then the jpg straight from the camera.
 

ahbian

Senior Member
May 23, 2006
2,467
0
0
#4
In short, if you don't wish to edit at all, shoot jpeg.
 

pro_FHM

New Member
Nov 3, 2005
838
0
0
#5
it's better to adjust details such as color balance, sharpness, saturation, etc in RAW as details are not lost as much compared to JPEG. :)
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,518
32
48
Pasir Ris
#6
Basically, if you select the same settings for jpg conversion as in your camera then the result will be the same. But: by doing it with your PC you have the chance to select those settings for each picture before the conversion takes place. In the camera it's done within seconds and there's no way back. At your computer you can repeat the steps without end, each time using different settings, till you get the result that you want. That's the freedom of choice you have with RAW. It doesn't matter whether you will print of publish for web.
Converting in PC also will preserve the RAW file for later experiments, converting in your camera means the RAW file is gone after conversion (unless you shoot RAW+JPG).
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#7
if you apply the same setting as in the "in camera jpg conversion" to the RAW file, you will have more fine details on the jpg out from the Raw file compare to the camera jpg.

however, even batch conversion of RAW to jpg with apply setting, it will also take a few hours for automation processing for few hundreds files, you have to think is this justify for you to do so.
 

Oct 2, 2008
431
0
0
#8
Simply for the flexibility... and also cause i usually mess up my white balance
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#9
If not printing photos, is there any reason for shooting in raw? I know it captures more detail than jpeg, but ignoring editing, if i shoot in raw then convert to jpeg, will it be the same as shooting directly in jpeg?
Thanks
no.

just think of raw as a piece of raw meat. compared to jpg, which has been cooked for you by the camera. with raw, you can cook it with more creativity, there is more potential to be unlocked.. and you can produce different styles of cooking.

but for the jpg file, it has been cooked thoroughly, it is limited what you can do to it. maybe add some sauce, some toppings, but it's done.

of course, there is nothing wrong with shooting in jpg - especially if you know how to instruct the camera to cook the picture the way you want it.. but of course not many people are able to do that, so raw is safe. :)
 

#10
no.

just think of raw as a piece of raw meat. compared to jpg, which has been cooked for you by the camera. with raw, you can cook it with more creativity, there is more potential to be unlocked.. and you can produce different styles of cooking.

but for the jpg file, it has been cooked thoroughly, it is limited what you can do to it. maybe add some sauce, some toppings, but it's done.

of course, there is nothing wrong with shooting in jpg - especially if you know how to instruct the camera to cook the picture the way you want it.. but of course not many people are able to do that, so raw is safe. :)
Thanks for the analogy.
Always had problem understanding RAW vs Jpeg. Went for a course and instructor said no need raw. so was confused.
TY again.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#11
The rest have given u the input. There are reasons for taking either. If you are not doing heavy post exposure editing, taken well, Jpegs are very usable and printable too.

Ryan
 

#12
The rest have given u the input. There are reasons for taking either. If you are not doing heavy post exposure editing, taken well, Jpegs are very usable and printable too.

Ryan
Yes,sir. Will follow my honourable tutor.
One other consideration is that I am still always taking many, many redundant shots. So I think will need to bring many extra cards along for both RAW+jpeg.
 

Jan 23, 2005
1,095
0
0
Singapore
#13
however, even batch conversion of RAW to jpg with apply setting, it will also take a few hours for automation processing for few hundreds files, you have to think is this justify for you to do so.
That boils down to the approach one takes to photography.

If one machine-guns everything that one encounters, obviously one will have a problem. Similar with film: if you take a few hundred frames a day you won't have the time to make quality prints, but have to resort to canned automated machine printing.

On the other hand, many people are entirely happy if they come home with half a dozen exposures after a day out. If you carefully deliberate over each exposure, it would be foolish to waste potential by committing to canned in-camera processing and lossy compression.
 

Last edited:

kino2

New Member
Apr 16, 2008
82
0
0
#14
catchlights said:
if you apply the same setting as in the "in camera jpg conversion" to the RAW file, you will have more fine details on the jpg out from the Raw file compare to the camera jpg.[/B]

however, even batch conversion of RAW to jpg with apply setting, it will also take a few hours for automation processing for few hundreds files, you have to think is this justify for you to do so.
This is what I have observed as well, a jpeg conversion using in-camera settings in dpp yields more details compared to a camera jpeg.
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#15
That boils down to the approach one takes to photography.

If one machine-guns everything that one encounters, obviously one will have a problem. Similar with film: if you take a few hundred frames a day you won't have the time to make quality prints, but have to resort to canned automated machine printing.

On the other hand, many people are entirely happy if they come home with half a dozen exposures after a day out. If you carefully deliberate over each exposure, it would be foolish to waste potential by committing to canned in-camera processing and lossy compression.
sorry for what I have not made clear earlier..

I'm referring to shots from my assignments, plus minus 1k images for a wedding, few hundreds for a ROM, after wiping off unable image, about 5%... if I would to just run a batch conversion, still has to let my PC do the batch conversion job after I sleep.

Nowadays, discussion of shooting in RAW or Jpg, can be a very sensitive issue, I will not elaborate much here..
 

Jan 23, 2005
1,095
0
0
Singapore
#17
I'm referring to shots from my assignments, plus minus 1k images for a wedding, few hundreds for a ROM, after wiping off unable image, about 5%...
No offence, but if this is not machine gunning, what would you consider machine gunning?
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#18
No offence, but if this is not machine gunning, what would you consider machine gunning?
this is very common amount of shots from a typical local Chinese customary wedding plus dinner celebration. if it goes into a 4R album, it will be choose 1 from 3. those shots wedding before, should know this is very moderate amount of images.
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#19
That boils down to the approach one takes to photography.

If one machine-guns everything that one encounters, obviously one will have a problem. Similar with film: if you take a few hundred frames a day you won't have the time to make quality prints, but have to resort to canned automated machine printing.

On the other hand, many people are entirely happy if they come home with half a dozen exposures after a day out. If you carefully deliberate over each exposure, it would be foolish to waste potential by committing to canned in-camera processing and lossy compression.
would you call a nat geo photographer a good one? :)

i would. most of them come back from any assignment with what you might term "machine-gunned" results; because you are addressing the issue as a purely quantitative one. fact is fact, none of these results are machine gunned, they just want to milk the cream of the crop of what they got. until you know the full story and have seen everything, it is certainly very unfair and unbecoming of you to just tar everyone over with one black brush.
 

Last edited:

attap seed

Senior Member
Feb 16, 2006
588
0
16
41
#20
No offence, but if this is not machine gunning, what would you consider machine gunning?
when it comes to digital, most ppl, i assume dun mind shoot a few more and then choose the best one.

during film days, i hardly remembers shooting more than 2 rolls a day. now, i routinely shoot >100 images per outing (not photo outings, but travelling around for work).

now, tinking of going back to medium format film (holga). maybe the cost will make me tink twice before releasing the shuter.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom