[abmj]

... that classic plasticky look that is associated with NR.

I think you meant to say "improperly applied NR." When noise reduction is done right, with a light touch, that "plastic" look is pretty much non-existent.

[lithedreamer]

I have to wonder if, in constantly urging relatively inexperienced users to shoot Raw because "it is better," we may be doing them a disservice. I am not suggesting the OP here falls in that category at all. He/she may know exactly what he is doing and what is required when shooting Raw. In general, however, it seems that a lot of folks switch to Raw who are not really ready to undertake the full control that Raw requires and may not even really understand WHY it is "better" or what is needed to make it so.

This might just be me projecting my own feelings on the topic, but I would guess that most of us have gone back to look on a favourite photo we've taken with some sadness at not being able to save it (whether due to incorrect technique, setting, or sometimes the file format). RAW means that we can go back and fix things, particularly if we edit in a non-destructive application like Lightroom. For example, I have a couple of shots I took three years ago. They tug at my heartstrings, but they also include technical errors and noise I really wish I could fix.

With that in mind, I'd like to recommend RAW+ (save the keepers as RAW on your computer) but I've never shot in it. I taught myself how to edit RAW files almost entirely through trial and error and Google-fu. These tutorials have particularly 'clicked' with me, but find what works.

[SpecialK]

In general, however, it seems that a lot of folks switch to Raw who are not really ready to undertake the full control that Raw requires and may not even really understand WHY it is "better" or what is needed to make it so.

Then they are no worse off than shooting jpg and will be on the road to improvement.

[gor80]

I have shoot only raw. I disabled suppression a noise on my camera, all noise i remove in light room and no problem

[phoenixvision]

The point of raw files is that they dont receive any in camera processing, so they may appear noisier when you see them pre, post-processing......but if you intend to do any edting, raw is the only way to go as jpegs are limited......

[Na Horuk]

Yep, an untouched raw might have low contrast, unsaturated colours, relatively low sharpness, and even noise at low ISOs. But you should post process these things, to make it look as good as the jpeg - or better! Definitely have more freedom to make it look closer to your vision. But if jpegs give you satisfactory results or you don't want to spend time post processing, go ahead with jpeg. No shame in that, a good photo is a good photo, a memory is a memory.

[Paul MaudDib]

They just think that shooting Raw will make their images better automatically.

Shooting RAW will make your images better "automatically". Lightroom does better RAW->JPG conversion than your crappy built-in DSLR RAW-JPG convertor, out of pure availability of processing power.

Auto-develop vs auto-develop - Lightroom usually wins.

---

Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 11-02-2014 at 01:05 AM.

[abmj]

Shooting RAW will make your images better "automatically". ...

But that is my point exactly. You have to buy and learn Lightroom. The beginning snapshooter won't do that. He or she just wants to take the shot and "get a picture." He has no interest in fiddling with a computer or becoming a Lightroom technician. He doesn't even want to become "A Photographer." <taa-ta-taaaa!> He just wants snapshots of the grand kids or the pretty rainbow.

<Full disclosure, I am a Raw shooter who doesn't like Lightroom and doesn't use it.>

Could the beginner get better results with Raw plus post-processing? Probably. But without post, Raw is a hindrance, not an improvement.

I have friends who don't even remove their images from their camera. They just take the whole thing down to Walgreen's and use the included cord to plug in to the magic machine that spits out prints. They don't want to do more in spite of me offering to show them how. They gripe at me when I e-mail photos to them because they don't know how to get "real pictures" from the electronic ones I send them. And don't want to learn. I have to make prints of family photos for them to carry around and show to their friends.

Admittedly folks like those above are far better off with a nice point and shoot camera but many fall for the advertising and think they can take better pictures with a "better camera." I have a dear friend who has unknowingly insulted me by raving over some of my images and saying that it really shows how much better the pictures are when you have a "really good camera."

I am done here. I made my points. Further argument would just be for the sake of defending our own biases and do little to further the discussion.

[lithedreamer]

<snip>

You have a valid point, but is it relevant to the OP? I mean, if they are asking this question in the first place, they probably have some interest in making their photos better with a little effort.

[Paul MaudDib]

But that is my point exactly. You have to buy and learn Lightroom.

What I'm saying is that if you import your RAWs into Lightroom, click the "auto develop" preset, then click "export to JPG", you will get better results than if you just use the camera's RAW->JPG converter. Even if you skip the "select auto develop" step - your results will probably be better just by virtue of Lightroom being able to throw more cycles at processing the image.

You don't need to be a post-processing master, you just need to use a workflow that lets you apply a better auto-processing algorithm. Again, are there people who don't know enough to do that? Are there people who don't have a copy of Lightroom or Aperture? Of course. But that doesn't change the fact that you will "automatically get better results" just by virtue of generating your JPGs on the PC rather than on the camera.

Now in terms of "scene modes" - sure, those produce better results because they change settings on the exposure. If you take the RAW file that resulted from shooting in a scene mode, and ran it through lightroom - you'd still get better results than if you just used the JPG out of the camera.

[lithedreamer]

I have to ask, have compacts gotten largely better in recent years? My K-x took remarkably better photos than any compact camera even before I learned how to move beyond the scene settings. Maybe some people really do benefit from a ILC that they never move off of auto?

[eddie1960]

What I'm saying is that if you import your RAWs into Lightroom, click the "auto develop" preset, then click "export to JPG", you will get better results than if you just use the camera's RAW->JPG converter. Even if you skip the "select auto develop" step - your results will probably be better just by virtue of Lightroom being able to throw more cycles at processing the image.

You don't need to be a post-processing master, you just need to use a workflow that lets you apply a better auto-processing algorithm. Again, are there people who don't know enough to do that? Are there people who don't have a copy of Lightroom or Aperture? Of course. But that doesn't change the fact that you will "automatically get better results" just by virtue of generating your JPGs on the PC rather than on the camera.

Now in terms of "scene modes" - sure, those produce better results because they change settings on the exposure. If you take the RAW file that resulted from shooting in a scene mode, and ran it through lightroom - you'd still get better results than if you just used the JPG out of the camera.

that is somewhat camera dependent. I agree my ds/k10/K7 and oly e300 were/are always guaranteed to be better through lightroom. My Fuji meh not so much (and in fact LR has the option to apply the Fuji film presets which are really very good.) in fact I've barely opened LR since getting this camera because the jpeg output is so good and the exposure so accurate.
I'm sure once i'm over the novelty of having top notch SOOC jpegs i'll revisit some raws (if only to use a different film preset - hopefully the new chrome setting becomes available for the XE2)

---------- Post added 4th Nov 2014 at 10:53 ----------

I have to ask, have compacts gotten largely better in recent years? My K-x took remarkably better photos than any compact camera even before I learned how to move beyond the scene settings. Maybe some people really do benefit from a ILC that they never move off of auto?

there are some pretty amazing compacts out there (fuji x10/20/30 the sony RX100 series, the new Lumix coming this month with an m4/3 sensor, the Ricoh GR..... in fact a plethora of choice. but the low end have improved as well because they need to compete against some pretty darn good cell phone cameras for the P&S customer - there needs to be a good reason to carry 2 cameras

[jcdoss]

... they don't know.... And don't want to learn.

Alas, this is the bigger problem in our society, but I digress.

I've resigned to taking RAW+JPG as standard operating procedure now. I've used up about 5% of my Google Drive subscription, and therefore think that the volume of photos I produce will never catch up with the cheap and seemingly already endless storage options available. I process most of my RAW images, and my JPGs are instantly transferred to my phone (Eye-Fi) and these are selectively shown online or in emails. However, even the JPGs end up with a pass through Snapseed.

I enjoy tinkering with images in Lightroom to an extent... i start to lose patience after the 10th or so image. I like the romantic idea of retouching an image from 2005, but odds are I never will. Maybe that'll change in 10 more years?

Long and short of all this is... use RAW+JPG since each have their use.

[neostyles]

I shot jpegs ever since i picked up my first camera in 2012. I didnt really start shooting raws until a few months ago when i graduated college. Even as i started to become more experienced, jpegs still had their uses. Me and my friends would often just do very casual photoshoots where i would put my d600 to contuous shooting and gun everything down. Plus, i get pretty damn nice results with even jpegs. I could get 1200 shots on a single 16gb card which was more give me around 2 hours of shooting at 5.5 fps. Translation, jpeg allows you to shoot a crap load of shots. Plus, when she wanted the pics i could simply copy them over to her computer. No special software needed to view. With raws, i would have to have waited until later that day to process them inw which i would have to rely on her internet to transfer the files . 16 gb of pics over usb can transfer in a matter of minutes but over cloud storage it could take a day.

Stil, on the other hand, raw has has been an invaluable tool for landscape, especially with ettr (exposore to the right.(

[Mikesul]

Sure jpgs can be just fine. However, you want to have raw for special situations such as tough lighting where you need to work on exposure, wb, noise etc which cameras rarely deal with perfectly when conditions are challenging. For instance, I am currently working on a large set of indoor photos I took of an all night school event. Most of the jpgs were ok for quick review but I need to work with each photo in raw to make them really special.