Essential Photography Equipment only

Old Jun 19th, 2007, 11:27 AM
  #21  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
John -thanks very much John for your time and patience explaining this. No more questions.

I know that going to TIFF does not bring back anything. That is the point, what is wrong with JPG? Likewise, taking a picture at RAW is only a software thing. It does nothing to insure simple technical things like that the image is in focus or sharp. If a buyer/printer wants a big file you can give it to them in any size they want. They want a 600dpi, 10,000 pixel, 100MB file, they got it. TIFF or JPG, sRGB, aRGB, CYMK, your choice, just let Photoshop crunch on it for 10 seconds.

Thanks again, over and out.

regards - tom
cary999 is offline  
Old Jun 19th, 2007, 01:42 PM
  #22  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tom,

No problems. I just wish I had been able to explain it better. Thinking about it overnight, I remembered somebody once told me a RAW file is like a negative or slide. A JPEG file is like a print made from a neg or slide. Most stock libraries (perhaps all) and pic buyers won't accept prints or scans from prints (I once sold a print to a mag, but it was a tough ask. I think they were desperate ).

John

afrigalah is offline  
Old Jun 19th, 2007, 01:48 PM
  #23  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
When I refer to prints (and scans from same) being mostly unacceptable, I mean prints for reproduction, not for hanging on a wall or putting in an album.

John
afrigalah is offline  
Old Jun 19th, 2007, 02:03 PM
  #24  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I run training courses on Processing RAW files using Adobe Photoshop (I'm an IT Trainer).

Apologies if this is slightly technical but it's the only way I can explain it when explaining in text only - usually I work with concrete examples that I can show my students...

A RAW file saves ALL data captured by the sensor.

RAW saves 16 bit colour depth of data (as opposed to 8 bit for JPEGS). What does that mean and why does it matter? Let's switch to talking black and white pictures for a second as it's easier to grasp. Imagine a black, white (and shades of grey, of course) photo. 8 bit colour depth means 256 shades altogether, including black and white. That's plenty to make graduations between dark and light look natural. Cut it down to 20 though and you'd see marked bands as dark areas graduated to light and so on. 16 bit colour depth means 65,000 (approx) shades. Now, the argument that we can't perceive that many, even remotely near that many, is correct. BUT the trouble is, when we only have 256 and we start adjusting contrast what we often do is stretch the data we have that is covering the lighter areas and compress the data that is covering the darker areas. Where the available data is stretched a lot really unpleasant banding starts to show. If I have time I'll put up a photo on flickr to show you what I mean. So, having RAW 16 bit colour depth (in each colour channel, red, green and blue) means I can manipulate the data a lot more without banding. Once I'm DONE I will at THAT stage discard the additional colour depth and save down to 8 bit colour depth.

RAW means no white balance, contrast, saturation, sharpening or other camera settings are actually applied to the data - a note is made in the data about which white balance setting your camera chose but it's not actually applied. Firstly, I prefer to have control over contrast, saturation and sharpening myself. But for white balance, it's a really, really, really great tool to be able to apply the white balance setting I choose at the point of converting the RAW file into the regular format (TIFF, JPEG whatever). Sure, with a JPEG you can adjust the colours a bit but once white balance has been applied in camera, the additional colour data you need to adjust much just doesn't exist anymore. There's a limit to how much colour correction you can do to a JPEG without it causing all kinds of odd effects.

The camera sensor has a limited dynamic range (as does film, as do our eyes). It can't record the details in the darkest shadows and the brightest highlights where there's a lot of difference between them. So usually you either have shadows which are all black but details in the highlights (which is what most photographers would opt for) or details in shadows but blown highlights where the bright areas have all burned out to pure white.

With a JPEG the brightest and darkest ends of what is recorded by the sensor aren't saved. With a RAW they are. I've experimented on this MANY times. A shot taken in JPEG which only just has blown highlights can, if taken in RAW, have the exposure adjusted to take advantage of that extra data stored and voila! No blown highlights!

There's more besides but I may be boring everyone rigid.

I will say this:

IF you are really strong at getting ALL the technicals right in camera for every shot (and some photographers are) then you won't need to worry about being able to adjust exposure or white balance. JPEG at finest quality on a good camera will work just fine.

Though even there, I'd prefer to have the colour depth available in order to play with contrast without causing banding.

Here's one example
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/68/17...263c14fe_o.jpg
Click on ALL SIZES above the photo to see it slightly larger. It's hard to make out in small size but in a print or seen up large you can see very clear degradation in the JPEG with some blown highlights and all sorts.


Here
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/67/17...067f698a6_o.jp
You can see that the RAW has more detail in extreme highlights and shadows that can be pulled back into the shot. The JPEG of the same image just did not have that data to play with.
Kavey is offline  
Old Jun 19th, 2007, 02:11 PM
  #25  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PLEASE USE THESE LINKS INSTEAD

1) http://www.flickr.com/photos/kavey/175554401/
2) http://www.flickr.com/photos/kavey/175554411/
Kavey is offline  
Old Jun 19th, 2007, 02:49 PM
  #26  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RAW is the best. But JPEG can be good enough. That's my point.
regards - tom
cary999 is offline  
Old Jun 19th, 2007, 03:52 PM
  #27  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry Tom

For not getting back to you earlier on this subject.
Quote: RAW is the best. But JPEG can be good enough. That's my point.
regards - tom

This may be true for your old Canon P&S, however you have a great DSLR, the D200 which is ideally suitable for shooting RAW, and you'll get the best out of this camera. RAW files retain more information which, when tweaked a little will give you a better result IMHO.
It's like, you have a Ferrari here and your only planning to use it at speeds of no more than 40mph!
Don't take this as a criticism Tom, it's just that I know you enjoy your photography and you could be getting so much more out of your images. ;-)

Cheers
Marc
africaddict is offline  
Old Jun 19th, 2007, 04:07 PM
  #28  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm nowhere near as technically adept as Kavey but I ALWAYS shoot raw! Raw plus JPeg usually, with my 20D. That way I can throw the jpegs onto the Kodak gallery really quickly, and still have my raw files to really get in there and play with. Plus, if I ever shoot something worth blowing up and framing, I want that raw file available to a pro to help me process it just so. Just my two shillings... really Tom, there is really no reason not to shoot raw! Give it a try!
cooncat3 is offline  
Old Jun 19th, 2007, 05:07 PM
  #29  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I confess that someday I will likely go to RAW. But you'll have to drag me kicking and screaming into it

In the meantime look at what you can do in Photoshop. Kindly take a look at this example I have put up on SmugMug and tell me if you can do this in RAW. It is before and after images of the leopard in the tree from my May safari. Can you, yourself (not is it possible) do this in RAW? If not forget RAW and learn Photoshop. The short cut to it is - http://tinyurl.com/2hyy3q

regards - tom

cary999 is offline  
Old Jun 19th, 2007, 06:03 PM
  #30  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With all due respect Tom, the answer is yes and more with RAW. Especially using the new Nikon Capture NX ;-)
That's not to say that I don't admire what you've managed with that fine Leopard shot .
Cheers
Marc
africaddict is offline  
Old Jun 19th, 2007, 06:11 PM
  #31  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My camera has a RAW + Jpeg setting which seems like the best of both worlds -- what am I missing? A great deal no doubt, but I sure like to know before I head out into the field!
Pula is offline  
Old Jun 19th, 2007, 06:16 PM
  #32  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Marc - somehow I knew that would be your answer
regards - tom
cary999 is offline  
Old Jun 19th, 2007, 06:20 PM
  #33  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
what do ya'll think of .png files?
Momliz is offline  
Old Jun 19th, 2007, 06:43 PM
  #34  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't think anything of them 'cause I know nothing about'em. Why/how do you do you get "involved" with them?
regards - tom
cary999 is offline  
Old Jun 19th, 2007, 06:57 PM
  #35  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Incredible photo Tom. The cropped one, without the tail!
Dana_M is offline  
Old Jun 19th, 2007, 07:06 PM
  #36  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pula - The main thing is storage when using RAW plus JPEG. You need more cards or space on a hard drive or lap top. Yes, it is the best of both worlds, however...
cooncat3 is offline  
Old Jun 19th, 2007, 11:00 PM
  #37  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Raw vs Jpeg:
Kavey said it all. Whichever route you take you're going to be throwing away some of the data that the camera acquired. If you shoot jpeg then you're letting the camera decide what to throw away. If you shoot raw then you make that decision yourself. I reckon I'm the better judge of what image I want.

Cleaning sensors:
Get a rocket blower and blow the dust off your sensor at the end of each day. It's very safe and fairly efficient.
fbirder is offline  
Old Jun 20th, 2007, 12:20 AM
  #38  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks heavens for Kavey. Like Tom, I'm an old stick-in-the-mud, probably even worse because I stay with film and can't be bothered with digital (except as back-up photographer for my BH). But at least, working with her andlistening to what my stock librarian and other experts tell me, I've gained some appreciation of the advantages of RAW.

And I've learned something new today. For years, I've thought the only people in the world who applied the principle of 'close enough is good enough' were Aussies, because we're very casual people. I was wrong

John
afrigalah is offline  
Old Jun 20th, 2007, 12:46 AM
  #39  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
John, I'm glad I could help.

Tom, in answer to your question, you've done a great job there on processing, but there is nothing you can do to a JPEG that can't be done if shooting in RAW. Essentially, you have extra data to start which you use to convert the file and then can apply further processing in Photoshop as required.

The advantages of JPEG, as I don't want them to be forgottembr />
Smaller file size means can fit more shots on whatever sized memory card you are using means you need less storage

Smaller file size also means the camera can write the file to the card much more quickly which means (for all but the top end pro cameras which have incredible buffers) that the camera is ready to take the next shot faster than it would be if it were having to write a RAW file to the card

Less time required to perform all this converting/ processing I'm talking about because you CAN, at the end of the day, do nothing to a JPEG, just view, upload it online, print it as is straight out of the camera. A RAW file cannot be used until it's been converted.

(though the batch processing and some of the other faster ways of working in RAW actually mean I find it faster to work in RAW now than I did in JPEGS because I can do several adjustments from one screen rather than one at a time)
Kavey is offline  
Old Jun 20th, 2007, 08:39 AM
  #40  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ok, now that everyone has said the you can do EVERYTHING in RAW that I can do in Photoshop, let me ask another question or two.
In RAW, you process it with NX, DNG,or Lightroom, or Aperture, which do you prefer?
In RAW can you MASK selected areas of the image for further modification?
In RAW can you work with a chosen hue/color, e.g. blue, and change its hue and luminance?
In RAW can you selectively burn or dodge?
These are things I routinely do in Photoshop. They all require work on a specific/selected (micro) area of an image. An area that is outlined or masked by hand. Of course the image as a whole (macro) always requires adjustments that I'm sure RAW processing can also do.
regards - tom
cary999 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -