RAW

[randell]

Ok, I'm officially converted.  I'm using RAW from now on (or maybe RAW+JPG).  Many of my pictures from my most recent trip had vignetting and other problems that are difficult to repair in a JPG.  I have been researching more and am finally convinced RAW is superior to JPG.  I never completely understood the advantages until yesterday after much research and tinkering. 

Too bad I don't have any really exciting trips planned for a while.  I don't think I'll get many good pictures next weekend when I backpack in the Big Thicket.  The beauty is very subtle there - no grand vistas.  I've been scouring the web for some inspirational photos of the Big Thicket but there just aren't many there.

Mabye I'll find a talking pitcher plant...

[Casa Grande]

good for you...welcome to the elightened world of RAW imaging

[xseption]

I read about RAW and was coverted as well, so now I shoot RAW. But nowadays with the current versions of Photoshop and Lightroom, JPEGs can be altered similar to RAW, even exposure, with a click and drag.

~ edd

[badknees]

I read about RAW and was coverted as well, so now I shoot RAW. But nowadays with the current versions of Photoshop and Lightroom, JPEGs can be altered similar to RAW, even exposure, with a click and drag.

~ edd

While this may seem to be true, it is most definitely NOT. Be aware that you are editing in an 8 bit environment with a jpg. Raw is 16 bit (or probably 12 bit), allows more latitude, and reduces the possibility of posterization and artifacts. In addition the only way to prevent additional compression artifacts from occurring when doing multiple saves and edits is to save the jpg as a 16 bit tiff first.

Either way you do it you still dump 8 bits when you allow your camera to save a jpeg. In addition you allow the camera manufacturer to tell you how the scene looked. Most internal RAW to Jpg conversions in the camera firmware are designed to oversaturate and process a "punchy" jpg. In most cases it is NOT realistic.

-White balance is a difficult fix in a jpg, and a breeze in RAW.

-Most cameras will save jpg in sRGB and possibly aRGB. If you use RAW you can edit your file in ProPhoto RGB which has a gamut that encompasses most of what the human eye can see, unlike sRGB or aRGB. Most good inkjet printers will reproduce colors outside the gamut of sRGB and maybe even aRGB, so if you are interested in printing I would definitely recommend the additional gamut of ProPhoto RGB that can only be realized by shooting RAW and editing in 16 bit (or 12).

I've said my piece. Obviously I shoot in RAW.

[xseption]

Well done! You presented your arguments well.

Given the experience of actually printing large photos (say 2' x 3'), I agree with most of what you say. Depending on your camera and software, I think you can make the adjustments necessary to have good output. The lab I use only takes JPEGS and not RAW, TIFF, or other file formats. I will have to check what color space they specify.  You have given me some information that I will have to investigate in regards to process my printing.

I read about RAW and was coverted as well, so now I shoot RAW. But nowadays with the current versions of Photoshop and Lightroom, JPEGs can be altered similar to RAW, even exposure, with a click and drag.

~ edd

Last night, I was at a photography seminar and the speaker made all the same adjustments to a RAW file and a JPEG file (he shot both file types at the same time, both were underexposed) and the pictures came out looking good and identical. He did this in both Photoshop and Lightroom. Hence my previous statement.

Thanks!

~ edd

[Casa Grande]

The lab I use only takes JPEGS and not RAW, TIFF, or other file formats. I will have to check what color space they specify.

Labs don't print in RAW because of the various forms of RAW images out there.  They will waste their time converting.  Supply the lab with a nice TIFF file from your manipulated RAW file, not JPG, if you want to maximize your results, especially if you're printing such large pics.  JPG is very lossey, kind of like VHS is to DV.

[xseption]

The lab I use only takes JPEGS and not RAW, TIFF, or other file formats. I will have to check what color space they specify.

Labs don't print in RAW because of the various forms of RAW images out there.  They will waste their time converting.  Supply the lab with a nice TIFF file from your manipulated RAW file, not JPG, if you want to maximize your results, especially if you're printing such large pics.  JPG is very lossey, kind of like VHS is to DV.

I understand that the labs do not use RAW files to process photos. The two labs I use and have used will not allow TIFFs either, they request JPGs only.

Another lab I have used could not use 16-bit TIFFs and had to resave the files as 8-bit TIFFs.

That's been my experience at least ...

~ edd

[Casa Grande]

The lab I use only takes JPEGS and not RAW, TIFF, or other file formats. I will have to check what color space they specify.

Labs don't print in RAW because of the various forms of RAW images out there.  They will waste their time converting.  Supply the lab with a nice TIFF file from your manipulated RAW file, not JPG, if you want to maximize your results, especially if you're printing such large pics.  JPG is very lossey, kind of like VHS is to DV.

I understand that the labs do not use RAW files to process photos. The two labs I use and have used will not allow TIFFs either, they request JPGs only.

Another lab I have used could not use 16-bit TIFFs and had to resave the files as 8-bit TIFFs.

That's been my experience at least ...

~ edd

get a new lab, that's pathetic

[xseption]

get a new lab, that's pathetic

I have had great results with the different labs. I have given 16x20 photos as gifts and I have sold several bluebonnet shots.

I could try other labs. Is there one in San Antonio you would recommend?

~ edd

[tjavery]

I love shooting in the RAW. Er... the photos are in RAW... not me. Naked photography anyone? 

If you're serious about getting the most quality out of you're digital photos, then I'd definitely recommend you shoot RAW (if your camera can do that; most DSLR's will and a very few digital point-n-shoots will too).

Now, I have managed to get decent results from shooting straight JPG files in the past. But the JPG files that I've shot that didn't look good (i.e. didn't stand up well to editing and printing large) were because I'd underexposed them and the white balance was off.

The creation of the JPG file in-camera does toss some quality out the window. As mentioned, you'll go from 12-bits to 8 (most normal DSLR's are like this; some of the most recent models will now do 14-bits and still cut down to 8 when JPG'ed), and the compression used in the JPG is LOSSLESS, i.e. some data gets tossed even at the highest quality setting.

EDIT: That was supposed to say "LOSSY"  I.e. the compression procedure will lose or discard some photo data.

RAW works best for me because there are two major outlets for my photos: web use and printing at home which require the sRBG and Adobe RGB color spaces, respectively. RAW lets me choose the color space during the conversion to TIFF.

RAW does eat up a lot of memory, but the cost of memory has fallen dramatically in the past few years. The cost of a Sandisk Ultra II 4 GB CF card now is about the same price as the 1 GB version just three years ago, for example. The cost of memory seems to drop each year about the Feb - Mar timeframe, so hopefully this will happen this year too.

I think the best advice is to shoot whatever you're comfortable with now. When I got my first DSLR, I shot in JPG exclusively. As I learned and practiced editing my files, I began to want more control and better quality. Over time, I slowly shifted to shooting RAW.

One last thing: RAW conversion software is ever-changing and improving. Shooting RAW now means that years down the road, you might have new tools for the conversion process that produce even better results!

[badknees]

I love shooting in the RAW. Er... the photos are in RAW... not me. Naked photography anyone? 

If you're serious about getting the most quality out of you're digital photos, then I'd definitely recommend you shoot RAW (if your camera can do that; most DSLR's will and a very few digital point-n-shoots will too).

Now, I have managed to get decent results from shooting straight JPG files in the past. But the JPG files that I've shot that didn't look good (i.e. didn't stand up well to editing and printing large) were because I'd underexposed them and the white balance was off.

The creation of the JPG file in-camera does toss some quality out the window. As mentioned, you'll go from 12-bits to 8 (most normal DSLR's are like this; some of the most recent models will now do 14-bits and still cut down to 8 when JPG'ed), and the compression used in the JPG is LOSSLESS, i.e. some data gets tossed even at the highest quality setting.

RAW works best for me because there are two major outlets for my photos: web use and printing at home which require the sRBG and Adobe RGB color spaces, respectively. RAW lets me choose the color space during the conversion to TIFF.

RAW does eat up a lot of memory, but the cost of memory has fallen dramatically in the past few years. The cost of a Sandisk Ultra II 4 GB CF card now is about the same price as the 1 GB version just three years ago, for example. The cost of memory seems to drop each year about the Feb - Mar timeframe, so hopefully this will happen this year too.

I think the best advice is to shoot whatever you're comfortable with now. When I got my first DSLR, I shot in JPG exclusively. As I learned and practiced editing my files, I began to want more control and better quality. Over time, I slowly shifted to shooting RAW.

One last thing: RAW conversion software is ever-changing and improving. Shooting RAW now means that years down the road, you might have new tools for the conversion process that produce even better results!

compression used in the JPG is LOSSLESS

I believe you meant to say "LOSSY"

One thing I have done to improve my printing at home is to have a custom printer profile built. I used a custom profile service to generate the .icc profile and I am getting prints that match my calibrated monitor. The results are outstanding and I highly recommend to anyone the value in getting a custom profile made. Of course this is only one part of a color managed workflow and will not fix anyting unless you have a hardware calibrated monitor.

[SA Bill]

I would try SA Photo Lab if you haven't already.

http://www.saphoto.com/index.htm
   Bill

[/quote]

I have had great results with the different labs. I have given 16x20 photos as gifts and I have sold several bluebonnet shots.

I could try other labs. Is there one in San Antonio you would recommend?

~ edd
[/quote]

[tjavery]

I believe you meant to say "LOSSY"

I do believe I did  Thanks for catching that. The pain meds are affecting my brain functions.... I had my gall bladder out yesterday, so I'm hopped up on pain meds and bland food... uch...

[badknees]

I believe you meant to say "LOSSY"

I do believe I did  Thanks for catching that. The pain meds are affecting my brain functions.... I had my gall bladder out yesterday, so I'm hopped up on pain meds and bland food... uch...

Sorry to hear. Hope the meds are good ones.