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

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

  • 33 Replies
  • 16273 Views
*

Offline A630Lover

  • ***
  • 115
Re: Is RAW really necessary? Or are we skinning a hair?
« Reply #20 on: 22 / April / 2008, 13:01:14 »
Advertisements
Well... I read a lot of things here. We could discuss the topic for hours (even if I think that it has already been done) but I believe an example is worth a whole explanation.
Basically, and it has already been said, if you intend to produce "small" prints (that is to say for example 8x10 inches max with an 8mpix cam), and if you are sure that you have selected the right white balance and the right exposition, don't bother with raw. BUT if you are not sure of the white balance, the contrast, the sharpness you want to apply and that you want to produce a BIG print, use raw. There IS a gain in detail with raw. In fact, the in-camera processing does a great job at retaining detail as well as containing noise, but it makes a compromise, and you cannot change anything to that. But if you shoot raw, you can do this. So, yes, you will get more noise, but you will also get more detail. Or the other way round. But finally you can do that home, quietly in front of your screen, and not in a rush, when taking the picture and concentrating on the subject.

Oh yes, I forgot to mention...I upsampled both samples from a crop of 500x500 to 1000x1000 in order to see the differences easier.
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 #21 on: 22 / April / 2008, 13:20:03 »
Quote from: Microfunguy on 22 / April / 2008, 10:45:34
Well, here is your JPG from camera with the shadow area lightened  :-





David

Trust me David, in full size results are not as good as in raw. (more noise in lightened areas, less detail specially in floor tiles on the bottom-left, less/not recovered details in overexposed areas like on the rooftop or foliage on the top right).

And to be honest, the jpg from the camera is horrible (my fault ok), editing the raw gives you better chance to "save" your shots.
« Last Edit: 22 / April / 2008, 13:34:19 by lukg »
Logged
*

Offline mrproper

  • **
  • 92
Re: Is RAW really necessary? Or are we skinning a hair?
« Reply #22 on: 22 / April / 2008, 13:50:08 »
YES, RAW is necessary.
YES, JPG will be used more often once you get better.
Logged
*

Offline ripwink

  • **
  • 55
Re: Is RAW really necessary? Or are we skinning a hair?
« Reply #23 on: 22 / April / 2008, 14:06:42 »
I think that by starting this thread I have touched the RAW nerve. I never thought it would generate so much enthusiasm.I think Barney Fife is almost right. You need to use RAW where it is really needed. OK! where you can use RAW?

For all candid, sports, action, animal, bird, nature photography you may have to rely on JPEG's as they save faster and probability of missing action is reduced to a large extend. Leave aside CARTIER-BRESSON's decisive moment.

For stills, landscape, architecture, static closeups, studio portraits you may use RAW. But then you can always use JPEG's and bracket the exposure.

OK as a safety factor you shoot everything in RAW and archive them so that when needed you have once in a life time image in RAW by which you can bring out details (by ferricyaniding) of the face of the criminal in car or your spouse's lover in darkened room while you have set your camera with CHDK running MD script. 

The corollary of this is that you are most likely to miss the face of the intruder while your camera is busy writing the image to the card.

Whether you use RAW or COOKED, an image is better than no image.

Most of us are missing the point I raised. Use your time to develop your eye and capture images which pleases you and gives you a sense of achievement. Good JPEG's will need little processing and processed bad RAW images are still bad images.

Why waste time when your camera produces excellent JPEG's.
 
Logged
*

Offline A630Lover

  • ***
  • 115
Re: Is RAW really necessary? Or are we skinning a hair?
« Reply #24 on: 22 / April / 2008, 14:16:17 »
Finally, it's a worthless debate. Everyone does what he/she wants/likes.
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 #25 on: 22 / April / 2008, 14:47:12 »
Quote from: ripwink on 22 / April / 2008, 14:06:42

Why waste time when your camera produces excellent JPEG's.
 

Maybe cause it's not a waste of time for someone else (maybe it's fun like shooting or playing piano), maybe cause someone could prefer a bad RAW instead of a bad JPG (like me), maybe cause someone is able to get better pictures from raw by itself instead of making the camera doing it, and so on....

Quote
Finally, it's a worthless debate. Everyone does what he/she wants/likes.

I agree. Raw is necessary if you think it is necessary.
Logged
*

Offline wontolla

  • ****
  • 413
  • S3 & G9 & A720
Re: Is RAW really necessary? Or are we skinning a hair?
« Reply #26 on: 22 / April / 2008, 15:29:39 »
I'm in the mood for a worthless debate. (I blame today's spicy lunch).

Quote
Why waste time when your camera produces excellent JPEG's.
Because not always the excellent JPG is enough. For example:

spt15-9-07_14 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

When the subject is moving exposure bracketing is not an option.
Logged
*

Offline mrproper

  • **
  • 92
Re: Is RAW really necessary? Or are we skinning a hair?
« Reply #27 on: 23 / April / 2008, 06:52:34 »
One big problem with JPGs. If they're bad, you can't repair the damage. The sharpening applied to them can't be removed or redone, and the range is forever fixed and changing it degrades the picture.
Logged
*

Offline obitus

  • *
  • 25
Re: Is RAW really necessary? Or are we skinning a hair?
« Reply #28 on: 23 / April / 2008, 09:27:43 »
Hello,
why not shoot always RAW (unless you don't have time) and don't do much in raw conversion if you like the photo?
Or save both?

I always shoot RAW, and if it's just to crop and turn the photo a bit.
Logged
*

Offline thunderstorm

  • *
  • 46
Re: Is RAW really necessary? Or are we skinning a hair?
« Reply #29 on: 27 / April / 2008, 15:28:19 »
For me, i benefit from the RAW develop function.
I use the RAW function to sum/average RAW frames losslessly, and then develop them to a JPG on-camera.
It's much better than combining series of JPG's on the computer afterwards...

That's the use of the RAW function to me.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
« previous next »
 

Related Topics