Is RAW really necessary? Or are we skinning a hair? - page 2 - RAW Shooting and Processing - CHDK Forum
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Is RAW really necessary? Or are we skinning a hair?

  • 33 Replies
  • 18616 Views
*

Offline Microfunguy

  • ****
  • 4037
    • StereoData Maker
Re: Is RAW really necessary? Or are we skinning a hair?
« Reply #10 on: 22 / April / 2008, 08:53:57 »
Advertisements
Another reason for preferring the (lowest compression) JPG images is when you want to capture high dynamic-range scenes.

You need to take many images and take them quickly so there is minimum movement between images.
Raw cannot do that .. it is slow and consumes memory.

I simply select the most images from dark to light and drop onto a shortcut for the blending application.


Great results in seconds.



David
Logged
*

Offline wontolla

  • ****
  • 413
  • S3 & G9 & A720
Re: Is RAW really necessary? Or are we skinning a hair?
« Reply #11 on: 22 / April / 2008, 08:59:41 »
JPG is good when only minor corrections needed, or no time for post processing.
RAW is useful when you want to tweak a little farther. E.g. recovering highlights/shadows, blending two exposures etc.

Some people never waste memory space by keeping the RAW file. Some people go out, take 3 shots and come back home to spend hours in front of the computer. None of them are right or wrong, they just do what they like to do.

Quote
Is RAW really necessary?
Only if you need extra info and of course, if you want to spend time PP.

Quote
Or are we skinning a hair?
Maybe we are, as Microfunguy says, with 10-bit P&S sensors RAWs. But I see it as an excellent opportunity to learn for future more serious work. I am new to digital imaging too!

Quote
I would rather use my time in capturing images.
I agree. It reminds me when they ask me why I don't get a DSLR. I rather use my money to travel and capture images from wonderful places with my P&S instead of getting wonderful IQ pictures of my parking space.

Again, it all depends on what YOU want.
Logged
*

Offline scharfis_brain

  • *
  • 20
Re: Is RAW really necessary? Or are we skinning a hair?
« Reply #12 on: 22 / April / 2008, 09:02:07 »
I almost everytime save the RAW.
This is due to the following issues that happens with the raw developement within the camera:

- in dark areas the camera desaturates colour
- the camera's noise reduction can leave behind some really weird thresholding artifacts
- the camera is sharpening a lot, so you are getting these ugly halos around hard edges
- the camera doesn't do any chromatic abberation (CA) correction

here an example for my last two points:

Logged
*

Offline Microfunguy

  • ****
  • 4037
    • StereoData Maker
Re: Is RAW really necessary? Or are we skinning a hair?
« Reply #13 on: 22 / April / 2008, 09:25:14 »
Quote from: scharfis_brain on 22 / April / 2008, 09:02:07
I almost everytime save the RAW.
This is due to the following issues that happens with the raw developement within the camera:
-the camera doesn't do any chromatic abberation (CA) correction


Well, if the CA if a function of the radial distance from the centre of the image, there are various plugins that will correct it (on the few occasions you need to).

Just one more batch-process.

I sometimes do that with images taken with a microscope.


David
Logged
*

Offline scharfis_brain

  • *
  • 20
Re: Is RAW really necessary? Or are we skinning a hair?
« Reply #14 on: 22 / April / 2008, 09:43:14 »
But CA-correction cannot be done with JPGs from the camera.
The colour correction, noise reduction, and sharpening are the cause...
Logged
*

Offline lukg

  • ***
  • 162
  • Eos 450D+18-55is+55-250is & Powershot S5is - 1.01a
Re: Is RAW really necessary? Or are we skinning a hair?
« Reply #15 on: 22 / April / 2008, 10:24:10 »
I did a quick try on raw with a contrasted image, just to see if i was able to recover details from under/over exposed areas! Working on jpg didn't give the same good result! Since i'm not a professional photographer, RAW is a little help for me.

Jpg from camera:
http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/9872/provape0.jpg

Jpg from RAW:
http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/4771/provabisyd6.jpg
Logged
*

Offline Microfunguy

  • ****
  • 4037
    • StereoData Maker
Re: Is RAW really necessary? Or are we skinning a hair?
« Reply #16 on: 22 / April / 2008, 10:45:34 »
Well, here is your JPG from camera with the shadow area lightened  :-





David
Logged
*

Offline DataGhost

  • ****
  • 314
  • EOS 40D, S5IS
    • DataGhost.com
Re: Is RAW really necessary? Or are we skinning a hair?
« Reply #17 on: 22 / April / 2008, 10:58:25 »
Thanks for the example. I also forgot to mention that some people actually do 'HDR' from one RAW, so there is zero subject/camera movement (extra). Quite logical, too, since the RAW range is bigger than the JPEG range.
Anyway, boosting the brightness from the JPG made it all green? And look at the satellite dish on the roof, it's lots better from the RAW. I think this is a great example of the camera lacking, lukg managed to correct over- AND underexposure from the RAW.
« Last Edit: 22 / April / 2008, 11:00:24 by DataGhost »
Logged
*

Offline Microfunguy

  • ****
  • 4037
    • StereoData Maker
Re: Is RAW really necessary? Or are we skinning a hair?
« Reply #18 on: 22 / April / 2008, 11:25:31 »
Quote from: DataGhost on 22 / April / 2008, 10:58:25
boosting the brightness from the JPG made it all green?

That is because I only boosted the green channel.

I like green shrubs   :)
Logged
*

Offline DataGhost

  • ****
  • 314
  • EOS 40D, S5IS
    • DataGhost.com
Re: Is RAW really necessary? Or are we skinning a hair?
« Reply #19 on: 22 / April / 2008, 12:02:37 »
Ah, ok. I already wondered... :)
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
« previous next »
 

Related Topics


SimplePortal © 2008-2014, SimplePortal