I Don't Shoot RAW

Ah, I hear a big collective sigh and imagine a few of you clutching your hearts. I know a 'serious photgrapher' would never utter those words, but I have not had a good experience with developing RAW files. It's been rather frustrating really. I have tried and tried, but finally gave up after months of filling my hard drive with large, useless (to me) data. That was a few years ago, so it's been that long since I have taken pictures using the RAW format. My camera is the Nikon D70s, opening RAW files with Adobe's Camera Raw utility and pp with PS CS3.

Through reading magazines, watching tutorials and following online discussions on the process I understand that RAW is the way to go in order to get the most out of every pixel. However, in the past I found when I develop a RAW file the darker colours (especially browns) come out looking muddy. It's the best word I can find to describe the result. It's really yucky. I didn't get that with my JPGs, (which pretty much always get the same post treatment...adjust levels, apply basic curves and sharpen).

So far, I am enjoying being a member here and I figured, if this relationship is going to carry on I'd better get back to shooting RAW before someone beats me up.

With that in mind yesterday, I went for a little drive with my camera set to take NEF/JPG (not ready to give up JPG just yet...lol).

Here, I'll post one result of that outing, a "Country Road" scene. I must say, overall I am much happier with the RAW image because I found I was able to open up the shadow areas much easier without blowing out the highlights. (I couldn't get the shadows lightened in the JPG at all without it seriously affecting the highlights.) I still found the (RAW) browns, eg; the large tree trunk, a bit 'muddy' looking so in PS I applied a small curve. I suspect that could be overcome with more knowledge on how to develop properly in ACR. I am convinced though, that RAW is better if I can learn the process. That will be my new self challenge. I hope you feel better now...lol


I have uploaded 3 files for anyone interested in looking, commenting or even having a go at processing with your vision. I didn't spend much time on either of them, a simple quick process, no crop, slight cloning in the upper right area to block out a few branches and a dust spot.
Bear in mind these are done for experimental purposes, when I tell you I didn't use a tripod either. I know, I'm a total 'sinner'.

Full size JPG from JPG

Full size JPG from RAW

RAW original in zip form


I'll appreciate any feedback you may have concerning RAW vs JPG, such as best software, learning resources, etc. Comment or critique the overall image if you like, but this thread isn't really about that. I'm more interested in your experience using RAW files, and a nudge in the right direction.

Thanks in advance for your help. Cheers.

Hello Sandra,

I think that OPF is one photo forum, perhaps one of the few, where you can offer such confessions without fear of excommunication or serious abuse.

Yes, there are undeniable technical flexibility advantages of RAW image files. That, however, is far from the whole story and does not leave RAW the only intelligent choice.

Personally, yes I usually use RAW file formats for "serious" work with large-sensor cameras. But I do often use large/fine JPG files in small sensor / p&s-style cameras (ex: Leica D-Lux 4, Canon G10/G11, Canon S90). Here's why.

1. Tiny sensors with high resolutions are inherently noisy. Yes, Canon in particular has made great strides toward ameliorating this phenomenon. But it cannot be eliminated. (Even Canon hit its limit with the G10's 14Mp resolution and decided to back down to a much smoother and more manageable 10Mp with the new G11 and S90.) JPGs represent the vast majority of image processing technology development investments in these small cameras, and it shows. The JPGs from the best of these cameras are stunningly better than those from cameras of yore. Tonality, contrast, sharpness are all nicely manageable and quite good from high-end p&s JPGs these days. Meanwhile RAWs from these cameras (within resolution bins) have remained mostly the same quality for years.

2. The ability of tools such as Lightroom and ACR to enable editing JPGs in the same style as RAWs is terrific. Often it's hard to notice that I'm working on a JPG!

So when using small cameras I tend to follow the money and use the camera's largest JPG and manage tonality in-camera to the degree practical based on the camera. (I generally try to dial contrast down a click, dial saturation up a click, and dial sharpness down a click, and create a preset embodying these settings.)

The greatest benefits of RAW photography with nearly any camera lie far outside Web browser presentations or small prints. Images prepared for larger, high-resolution prints are really where the benefits of wide bandwidth color processing pays off. I know this runs contrary to the opinions of the photo forum crowd but it's true. HOW you shoot, how well you really know your camera, and how well you understand light are the primary determinants of your results with any camera.

I agree with Ken…
Though I never shoot jpegs (I dont have P&S camera)
However, when one have to try a rescue and do a heavy processing, I think it's better to start frpm raw.
Ken's advice is the best to follow if the photographer (the person who clicks the shutter) do shoot with appropriate settings to avoid potential needs of rescue ;-)

Sandra, for at least the first year I shot, I refused to shoot RAW. I hate photoshop, RAW seemed a major pain, and I couldn't see any benefit from it. Asher continually chided me about it until (ok, being honest here) I started shooting RAW just to hush him up.

Now, I shoot ONLY RAW. I refuse to use space on my CF card for jpeg (my images are huge..over 3744 x 5616 px). I look at images I shot jpeg and mentally kick myself relentlessly for not shooting RAW. Trust me....shoot RAW. Always shoot RAW.

(In regards to Ken's comment..I rarely shoot with anything other than my 5dII. And I almost always need some rescue work.)

Bonsoir Sandra
I gave a try to your raw file in:
Capture one: 3 clicks (my workflow in Capture one is posted somewhere in OPF)
CS4: a very little light/shadow with midcontrast (20%), desaturated the sky, saturated a bit yellows and red, sharpen, resized to 800 pix…

Oops, and also desaturate the road that was too bluish for me…

Hi Sandra,

Here's a conversion using RSP which is my all-time favourite raw converter. It was killed by Adobe some years ago, but still supports the D70s.
The 16-bit TIFF was loaded into Elements 3, processed with the Shadow Illuminator plugin, re-sized and saved as JPEG.



Always save your images as raw (actually all cameras shoot in raw, it's just a matter of where the conversion is performed). You never know when a new and improved converter will become available, and you can re-process all your old images. Of course, you need to be retired to have the time to do this

Regards,

Stuart

BTW, It's a lovely shot.

Sandra,
I mostly shoot RAW.. I realized that I was doing the same steps in the post as with JPG. Except I had to deal with the JPG conversion the camera was doing.. The time involved was the same. Anyway I fiddled with your RAW version. I use Lightroom for 99.9% of my shots. The biggest issue I had with your shot was the big difference between the left and right sides. The contrast on the left side was a pain to balance with the right side. So here are two quick RAW conversions.. On the 2nd I decided to get rid of the problem (for me) area and crop it out.. The contrast between the dark tree and the bright sky was tough for me to balance with the right hand area. Basically .. adjust balance, saturate yellow, blue.. light the really dark area (fill light in Lightroom).. If it were my shot, I would crop the left side out and give it a more square format.. I like square(ish).. Must be from using medium format 6x6....
Adjust 1 no crop.

Crop and adjust

Thank you, thank you, all. I'm not ignoring you..just busy with something else ATM. I'll be back to respond fully asap. [|

Raw is necessary if you want the finest quality your camera can deliver.

Raw does take more knowledge since you have to convert the image youself while jpegs are converted by the camera's software.

Think of Raw images as a fine cuisine made from scratch and jpegs as fast food. While there's a need for both, there's little doubt which one is better.

Hi Sandra,

Here is my attempt at converting this very nice picture of yours.

...............

Sandra I just wanted to say outstanding image.

Sandra Jones said:

Thank you, thank you, all. I'm not ignoring you..just busy with something else ATM. I'll be back to respond fully asap. [|

Click to expand...

...and I'm back. First off, I must apologize for not getting back to this thread sooner. I know it can be irritating when people take the time to participate and the original poster doesn't come back to acknowledge. I have a few good excuses *wink* one of which is that I've started a new job in the last week and have been trying to concentrate on that. Another is, what little time I do have here now I've spent looking at your posts and enjoying your images, all the while feeling guilty for not getting back to this thread. So here it is, a lovely Sunday morning, I have a fresh coffee in hand and it is time to purge my guilty conscience at last by acknowledging all of you who kindly took the time to offer comments and advice. Cheers.

Ken Tanaka said:

Hello Sandra,

I think that OPF is one photo forum, perhaps one of the few, where you can offer such confessions without fear of excommunication or serious abuse.

Yes, there are undeniable technical flexibility advantages of RAW image files. That, however, is far from the whole story and does not leave RAW the only intelligent choice.

Personally, yes I usually use RAW file formats for "serious" work with large-sensor cameras. But I do often use large/fine JPG files in small sensor / p&s-style cameras (ex: Leica D-Lux 4, Canon G10/G11, Canon S90). Here's why.

1. Tiny sensors with high resolutions are inherently noisy. Yes, Canon in particular has made great strides toward ameliorating this phenomenon. But it cannot be eliminated. (Even Canon hit its limit with the G10's 14Mp resolution and decided to back down to a much smoother and more manageable 10Mp with the new G11 and S90.) JPGs represent the vast majority of image processing technology development investments in these small cameras, and it shows. The JPGs from the best of these cameras are stunningly better than those from cameras of yore. Tonality, contrast, sharpness are all nicely manageable and quite good from high-end p&s JPGs these days. Meanwhile RAWs from these cameras (within resolution bins) have remained mostly the same quality for years.

2. The ability of tools such as Lightroom and ACR to enable editing JPGs in the same style as RAWs is terrific. Often it's hard to notice that I'm working on a JPG!

So when using small cameras I tend to follow the money and use the camera's largest JPG and manage tonality in-camera to the degree practical based on the camera. (I generally try to dial contrast down a click, dial saturation up a click, and dial sharpness down a click, and create a preset embodying these settings.)

The greatest benefits of RAW photography with nearly any camera lie far outside Web browser presentations or small prints. Images prepared for larger, high-resolution prints are really where the benefits of wide bandwidth color processing pays off. I know this runs contrary to the opinions of the photo forum crowd but it's true. HOW you shoot, how well you really know your camera, and how well you understand light are the primary determinants of your results with any camera.

Click to expand...

Ken…thank you for taking the time to explain all that. I’m relieved you didn’t give me and JPG the boot. [| I didn’t realize ACR enabled editing a JPG. Hmmm, tempting. lol
I haven’t yet printed anything from a RAW file, I don’t print much at all and when I do it’s not ‘large’. No one is paying me to do large, high res prints and I probably won’t do it for the sake of experiment, so I may never get to see the ‘greatest benefit of shooting RAW’.

Nicolas Claris said:

I agree with Ken…
Though I never shoot jpegs (I dont have P&S camera)
However, when one have to try a rescue and do a heavy processing, I think it's better to start frpm raw.
Ken's advice is the best to follow if the photographer (the person who clicks the shutter) do shoot with appropriate settings to avoid potential needs of rescue ;-)

Click to expand...

Nicolas….yes, my aim is always to try and get it right in camera, but I know from books, magazines, and forums such as this, even those that seemingly ‘get it right’ in camera still make post adjustments. They may not always need rescuing, but most need tweaking.

Rachel Foster said:

Sandra, for at least the first year I shot, I refused to shoot RAW. I hate photoshop, RAW seemed a major pain, and I couldn't see any benefit from it. Asher continually chided me about it until (ok, being honest here) I started shooting RAW just to hush him up.

Now, I shoot ONLY RAW. I refuse to use space on my CF card for jpeg (my images are huge..over 3744 x 5616 px). I look at images I shot jpeg and mentally kick myself relentlessly for not shooting RAW. Trust me....shoot RAW. Always shoot RAW.

(In regards to Ken's comment..I rarely shoot with anything other than my 5dII. And I almost always need some rescue work.)

Click to expand...

Thanks Rachel…I chuckled. Ok, Ok, I will always shoot RAW. I don’t need Asher down my back either...lol

Nicolas Claris said:

Bonsoir Sandra
I gave a try to your raw file in:
Capture one: 3 clicks (my workflow in Capture one is posted somewhere in OPF)
CS4: a very little light/shadow with midcontrast (20%), desaturated the sky, saturated a bit yellows and red, sharpen, resized to 800 pix…
Oops, and also desaturate the road that was too bluish for me…

Click to expand...

Nicolas…I like your edit very much, especially the saturation of the yellows. Nothing is overdone. Good idea to remove some of the blue of the road, too. 3 clicks, eh? That’s not bad. I must have been close to getting it right. lol thanks.

StuartRae said:

Here's a conversion using RSP which is my all-time favourite raw converter. It was killed by Adobe some years ago, but still supports the D70s.
The 16-bit TIFF was loaded into Elements 3, processed with the Shadow Illuminator plugin, re-sized and saved as JPEG.
Always save your images as raw (actually all cameras shoot in raw, it's just a matter of where the conversion is performed). You never know when a new and improved converter will become available, and you can re-process all your old images. Of course, you need to be retired to have the time to do this

BTW, It's a lovely shot.

Click to expand...

Stuart…thanks for the compliment and taking the time to do a conversion on my image. I looked up the Shadow Illuminator plugin to see what it effect it produces. It may be ok for opening up the shadow area, but I am concerned what it did to the rest of the image. The trees look washed-out to me and the blue sky is too saturated. Using the Shadow Illuminator plugin may be a good start, but it still needs more work, possibly adjusting levels and curves. ?? I realize you probably didn't devote much time to this particular process because your own images are outstanding.

Duke Beattie said:

Sandra,
I mostly shoot RAW.. I realized that I was doing the same steps in the post as with JPG. Except I had to deal with the JPG conversion the camera was doing.. The time involved was the same. Anyway I fiddled with your RAW version. I use Lightroom for 99.9% of my shots. The biggest issue I had with your shot was the big difference between the left and right sides. The contrast on the left side was a pain to balance with the right side. So here are two quick RAW conversions.. On the 2nd I decided to get rid of the problem (for me) area and crop it out.. The contrast between the dark tree and the bright sky was tough for me to balance with the right hand area. Basically .. adjust balance, saturate yellow, blue.. light the really dark area (fill light in Lightroom).. If it were my shot, I would crop the left side out and give it a more square format.. I like square(ish).. Must be from using medium format 6x6....

Click to expand...

Duke, thank you too, for taking the time to edit, and explain the process you used. You (and Lightroom), did a great job of opening up the heavy shadows and balancing the tones. I am a fan of 'square', too but in this case I think I like the original size best. Cheers.

Alain Briot said:

Raw is necessary if you want the finest quality your camera can deliver.

Raw does take more knowledge since you have to convert the image youself while jpegs are converted by the camera's software.

Think of Raw images as a fine cuisine made from scratch and jpegs as fast food. While there's a need for both, there's little doubt which one is better.

Click to expand...

Hello Alain...from now on I will be dining on only the finest cuisine. It's too bad I am forced to use inferior utensils. :-(

Cem_Usakligil said:

Hi Sandra,

Here is my attempt at converting this very nice picture of yours.

Click to expand...

Ahhh Cem, thank you so much. This may very well be my favourite conversion (no offence to anyone else, please). I am really struck by the richness of the yellows and 'rightness' of the blue sky. It feels very warm and beautiful, much like what my eye saw in the first place.

Erik Jonas said:

Sandra I just wanted to say outstanding image.

Click to expand...

Thank you Erik. It really means a lot to me.