Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-10-2012, 09:49 PM   #16
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,913
QuoteQuote:
I will just have to tweak the settings so the jpegs come out right.
Well, good luck with that. Every shot is different and the settings for one may not be the best for others.

You already have the Ken Rockwell bias of describing processing RAW as "fiddling", so it's not likely anyone will sway you, nor do we need to.

However, a camera has a limited set of controls, with only a few variations. There are, frankly, more available tools and their range is greater in most raw processors. And, for non-fiddlers, you can just use some preset conversion without the fiddling.

But for gawds sake, open your jpgs and level the horizon and spot for dust.

04-10-2012, 10:27 PM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,812
Perhaps shooting RAW+JPG for a while might help get a feel for this situation.

Try so that the paired JPG is about a good as one can get.

Then use the paired RAW to -
1) match the JPG
and better still
2) improve on the JPG.

It's not when everything is "perfect" that RAW will show its strongest advantage -
it's when the photo is difficult - not necessarily user mistakes - just difficult lighting etc.

Then the RAW image will give much more room for manipulation than the JPG.

Having said that, I shoot almost exclusively JPGs and find it adequate for my usage -
and like you I try to get the photo as good as I am able to - to minimize having to do any extra processing.
But I more than acknowledge that RAW has more flexibility in the right hands and situations.

Last edited by UnknownVT; 04-10-2012 at 10:46 PM.
04-10-2012, 11:20 PM   #18
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
What is the perfect RAW?
For me the perfect RAW is the one with the most image information, so yes it needs to be processed to make it look right.

A RAW file that doesn't need to be tweaked much is handy but not perfect in my eyes but handy is also good =]
04-11-2012, 01:25 AM - 1 Like   #19
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
A RAW file is not an image; it is a mass of data that MUST be interpreted. It is the equivalent of a latent image on film -- it's nothing until it's developed. Any latent or RAW image can be developed in numerous ways. The data is there; YOU (or the design engineers) get to decide how to work with that data.

I shoot RAW-only almost exclusively with my K20D. Yes, I use various JPG settings, which carry-over as defaults into the RAW developer. Yes, sometimes I shoot images such that I needn't tweak those settings during development. Other times I'll develop numerous versions of an image to work with in PP|editing.

One of my rants: What you think you see, what you want to see, what the camera sees, and what is really there (if anything), are NOT the same. There is no photographic purity, no perfect translation from reality to presentation. Someone decides what data to capture and how captured data is to be processed. Is it you?

04-11-2012, 03:27 AM   #20
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by PPPPPP42 Quote
Is it possible to have a perfect RAW photo? Or does it have to be fiddled with (white balance ect) when its converted to JPEG?
And also do we rely too heavily on post processing and consider it normal?

I started playing with film cameras again, suddenly all the DSLR stuff I take for granted now seems rather fiddly. Do they actually design the camera to produce a perfect RAW image so long as the exposure is correct, or is it deliberately intended to be adjusted either by the camera or PP afterwards?

I seem to recall correctly framing the photo when I took it rather than rotating or cropping after and getting the exposure right the first time to be standard procedure back in the day, no color adjustments necessary. With digital I feel like I've gotten lazy and sloppy all of a sudden.
If you learn your jpeg settings (WB, saturation, sharpness, contrast adjustment, etc.... for the camera, and the raw processor you use reads the JPEG settings that are carried with th eimage (for thumbnail reproduction) and you automatically apply these when opening the raw file, YES, or alternatively, if you have worked out a standard processing in your raw importing workflow, and appl these settings then yes.

For me, i shoot jpeg and work very hard to get settings right at the time of shooting, to avoid having to do it later. your assessment is correct, the use of image processing and the attitude of who cares I can fix it later in photoshop is the big reason people shoot raw. it has made us lazy
04-11-2012, 04:05 AM   #21
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,406
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
One of my rants: What you think you see, what you want to see, what the camera sees, and what is really there (if anything), are NOT the same. There is no photographic purity, no perfect translation from reality to presentation. Someone decides what data to capture and how captured data is to be processed. Is it you?
That is where art comes in, trying to capture the feel of the moment rather than just some reflected stray photons hitting a bit of silicon. No in-camera processing can do that reliably.
04-11-2012, 05:27 AM   #22
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
your assessment is correct, the use of image processing and the attitude of who cares I can fix it later in photoshop is the big reason people shoot raw. it has made us lazy
Since when can you really fix a photo?
Sure i don't care about WB during shooting with RAW but does that make me lazy, i see it more like one less thing to worry about but exposure, framing perspective are still very important.
04-11-2012, 05:43 AM   #23
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Charleston, SC
Photos: Albums
Posts: 350
Raw file is raw data from the sensor, not an image. At the very least a demosaic algorithm will need to be run on it and a camera specific input color curve needs to be applied (or the colors will be a mess). Also, WB has to be taken into account. This can come automatically from EXIF, but is not inherently part of the raw data. Lastly, because of the AA filter in the camera, you almost certainly want at least a tad of sharpening. So not, raw files have to be developed in a way that is different, but at least analogous to film being developed.

04-11-2012, 06:20 AM   #24
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,913
QuoteQuote:
the use of image processing and the attitude of who cares I can fix it later in photoshop is the big reason people shoot raw. it has made us lazy
An attitude thoroughly debunked in previous threads :-) Mastery of camera controls is not mastery of the image.

You could just as easily say jpg shooters are lazy because they don't want to spend time in PP.

Last edited by SpecialK; 04-11-2012 at 06:30 AM.
04-11-2012, 07:07 AM   #25
Veteran Member
PPPPPP42's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Albums
Posts: 847
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by SpecialK Quote
You could just as easily say jpg shooters are lazy because they don't want to spend time in PP.
Thats so me I find I just dump the pics on the hdd and "get to them later" these days, love taking them hate the homework. It really does feel like homework to me, some people probably love it as creative editing.
04-11-2012, 03:05 PM   #26
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
Since when can you really fix a photo?
Sure i don't care about WB during shooting with RAW but does that make me lazy, i see it more like one less thing to worry about but exposure, framing perspective are still very important.
There are lots who go on and on about the benefits of raw and say who cares if I miss it or not, I can always fix it later In Photoshop.

I am not naming you specifically or intentionally but only pointing out the prevailing attitude these days. Keep in mind, I came from shooting film, and would use Kodachrome if I wanted warm shots, ektachrome if I wanted cold shots. Would pick print film if I wanted more dynamic range slide if I wanted contrast. I would push ISO 400 B&W film to 3200 ISO for night shots, etc...etc... The point is, I guess by shooting film I am perhaps more conditioned to think about the whole process, lighting contrast, etc, when shooting than someone who never had to deal with those issues.
04-30-2012, 11:33 PM   #27
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 95
I am a beginner, but based on what I have read, doesn't dynamic range (and may be some other things) differ between JPEG and RAW ?

Also, if we have to change some settings (WB, sharpness, ...) while taking a photo, what is the difference if we apply these changes later on PC ?

I think it is even better to shoot RAW since we can shoot faster, without caring about settings, and if we want to use some presettings with JPEG, we can also use
batch processing with RAW files.

Am I correct ?
05-01-2012, 01:05 AM   #28
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,620
QuoteOriginally posted by PPPPPP42 Quote
Is it possible to have a perfect RAW photo? Or does it have to be fiddled with (white balance ect) when its converted to JPEG?
And also do we rely too heavily on post processing and consider it normal?]
I suppose this depends on how you take the shot. ie. in many cases, I WB my scenes(using WB caps) prior too shooting. This usually sets things off in the right direction. However, there are times when I'd prefer to shift things over despite the fact that they were accurate for none other than to cater to a preference after the fact(so much grey area there <- no pun intended )

QuoteQuote:
I started playing with film cameras again, suddenly all the DSLR stuff I take for granted now seems rather fiddly. Do they actually design the camera to produce a perfect RAW image so long as the exposure is correct, or is it deliberately intended to be adjusted either by the camera or PP afterwards?
Having shot film, I saw it this way... If you shoot and have someone else develop for you then that could be likened to JPG output. However... if you shoot and are into developing your own film then RAW becomes a rather fitting alternative.

QuoteQuote:
I seem to recall correctly framing the photo when I took it rather than rotating or cropping after and getting the exposure right the first time to be standard procedure back in the day, no color adjustments necessary. With digital I feel like I've gotten lazy and sloppy all of a sudden.
I think much of this can be dealt with at the camera level of things(settings, and preparation), though I think the digital age has brought something which wasn't feasible back in the day. ie. I couldn't imagine the amount of work and effort involved in getting the results I do with digital using film. The learning time alone would have likely never made it possible.

Having said all that, I've began working with Raw Therapee profiles over the past year in an effort to produce the ultimate one click image solution. Which works in most cases insofar as preparing files for retouching etc. though in my type of shooting, I rarely(if ever) develope straight to print. In fact, even when I shot film, I still found myself scanning and post processing prior to printing and so for me... digital was an open and shut case affair.

But I'm guessing that just isn't the case with everyone either.

PS. IMO. the perfect RAW file, is the one that gives me the best results with the lease amount of effort. Though I couldn't see myself ever calling a RAW file perfect if I didn't put my touch on it. Otherwise... why shoot RAW?
05-01-2012, 07:00 AM   #29
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
PS. IMO. the perfect RAW file, is the one that gives me the best results with the lease amount of effort. Though I couldn't see myself ever calling a RAW file perfect if I didn't put my touch on it. Otherwise... why shoot RAW?
It's been mentioned that a RAW file is like a silver-photography LATENT IMAGE. Until it's developed, it is nothing but potential. And it can be developed in many many ways. The 'perfect' RAW file is IMHO one that I can develop as I see fit, which may include doing many manipulations. In my profile, I list my interests as "capturing and torturing sounds and images". If I haven't tortured an image, feh, it's boring.
05-01-2012, 08:00 AM   #30
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,271
IF an exposure is perfect for what you wanted it to look like then it is possible. most raw programs preview based on the settings in the camera for jpeg. lightroom will apply a preset , but you can just override it on import. Thing is before you can use it for anything a raw file needs at minimum conversion to jpeg or another final file format like TIFF
In that case you may as well have shot jpeg

thing is there is no one perfect exposure for a scene, you can choose to develop it many ways. that is one of the advantage to RAW (Add when you finally do output it it is the first and last compression - edit a jpeg and you add artifacts every time you save)

Like working in a wet darkroom with negatives over time your skills at developing improve and you can revisit the original and come up with a completely different final output - a huge benefit.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, exposure, photo, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RAW photo not showing up in Photoshop Tracie Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 5 06-22-2011 10:12 PM
Landscape My first Raw posted photo--with j-peg for comparison charliezap Post Your Photos! 21 02-22-2011 01:35 PM
Perfect subject with perfect light codiac2600 Post Your Photos! 13 07-20-2008 06:35 AM
Raw Therapee: free RAW converter/photo editor wheelgate Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 10 10-12-2007 06:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:25 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top