RAW vs JPG

[Tommo224]

Okay I tried a search, but I think because RAW and JPG are 3 characters the search didn't want to include them.

I've always shot in JPG, and I've been asked why I don't shoot in RAW by people. Well, to be honest, I've never thought about it.

What benefits are there in shooting RAW? I'm only a hobbyist not a professional, and I've always been okay with JPG files. I have an extensive Photoshop knowledge (being a graphics designer by trade) so I tend to be able to correct anything I come across.

And from your own experiences how quickly would it fill up my memory card? (I have an 8gb card)

I'm assuming RAW would be massive file size!

[Rattus79]

I read somewhere that CR2 Raw files from a 550D are about 12 megs a piece. vs a meg or 2 for a JPG depending upon the variance of colour/contrast in a scene.

The big difference is in the bit depth.

JPG is 8 Bits per pixel where raw is 14 or 16 bits per pixel
that effectively doubles the ammount of data per pixel and also doubles the effective colour range available.
and all this is before you take jpg's compression into account.

Me, I shoot JPG, untill i have something i really want to keep or looks awesome in the viewfinder, then i hit the (pentax) dedicated RAW button 1 shot 1 raw.

[kiwi]

I'll give you a simple exercise to go away and try, and I'm serious

Take a shot three stops underexposed, one in raw the other in jpeg. Take another two stops overexposed, one in jpeg the other in raw....process both and look at the result

Another test, change camera white balance to tungsten and take a shot outdoors of a human face and process both to do a colour correction in post processing

Report back the results ok ?

[Doninoz]

Hi Tommo, I always shoot in RAW except with my smaller point and shoot which I use for snapshots such as family birthdays etc.

Generally speaking, each file type has its pros and cons.

JPegs have small file size, processed and fast-save to memory card. The disadvantage of JPEG is that its Compression can delete detail in areas of similar tone/brightness and white balance is selected in camera. Each time you open and edit a JPEG file, you lose some quality!

The benefits of RAW is that RAW is a Lossless format (all data captured by sensor is saved onto the card as data and later can be edited to include or exclude certain data/features of the photo. Also image settings can be applied on the PC (such as image sharpening, contrast etc) later on without loss of quality. Also white balance can be chosen later on computer.

The downsides of RAW is it is normally slow to be processed by a camera due to large file size which takes large amounts of memory card space (but with a lot of the newer SLR cameras and faster memory cards this is less of a problem in 2011). Optimising images on PC takes time.

I know some Wedding Photographers who only shoot in JPEG but I think that is a risk as you don't get a second chance...with RAW, at least you can play around without any loss of quality.

On the other hand a lot of sports photographers shoot in JPEG as they can shoot more shots continuously. But most of them have camera (like the Canon 1D series) that especially caters for high compression JPEG images just for these people in mind.

Another important aspect in the use of digital sensors is to understand what can and can‘t be saved. In digital imaging at the moment, overexposure spells a lost image. Whilst the shadow detail can, to a certain extent be recovered, highlight detail or overexposed areas cannot. If in doubt, bracket of course, but safe = under-exposure.

A problem resulting from too much image compression, particularly for landscape photographers, is the appearance of what are called artefacts in the image. Artefacts occur when there are large areas in the image of a similar, lightly graduated hue (typically sky areas). High JPEG compression will reduce the graduation in order to reduce the file size, resulting in too great a difference in colour between areas, which can then be seen as distinct patches of colour rather than a gradually changing shade.

To be safe, I shoot in Raw and spend time editing. Hope this helps. Regards Don

[GJC]

I always shoot in RAW mode - yes the files are huge - on my Canon 7D they can be between 20 and 30 Mb each. This can make it slow to deal with the images, but at least I'm sure I have exactly what the camera captured, no compression artifacts. I only save images to jpeg, once i have finished all editing, but still keep the original RAW images as well. Thanks god storage keeps getting cheaper.

[William]

The difference, Chalk and Cheese/Black and White, I shoot in the RAW all the time, I love being able to process my images , With all the original data intact, A JPEG Throws a heap of information away ;)

[para]

Depends what I am shooting if shooting sport I shoot jpegs, If doing portraights,weddings etc then shoot raw

[geoffsta]

I shoot in raw for the reasons that doninoz has explained in post #4. Plus the other reason is that if I spent well over $4000 on a camera and lenses, why shoot in a format that can be produced with a $400 point and shoot.
With many genres of photography if you want to do it properly you need every pixel to be a good as you can get. You have a lot more options in CS4/5 camera raw that you can play with as well.
About the 8gb card. I have never filled my 8gig. I might take 200-400 shots on a day, all between 10 - 12Mb each. I just upload them onto the computer, then delete them off the card once I have gone though them, ready for the next day out.

I also hope this helps.

Geoff.

[alistair]

I shoot in RAW, i then batch process to jpeg and send those files to the client asking which images they like, then post process the RAW files to my liking. Following what Kiwi said you will understand exactly why shooting with RAW is important.

[arthurking83]

There is one main point that folks need to fully understand about the differences between shooting raw or JPG in camera, and that is there is no right or wrong answer, only what work well enough for you.

OP said:
Well, to be honest, I've never thought about it. So, there's probably no reason to change anything.

But the main points about raw files have already been stated(and do try the Kiwi exposure exercise if only for the sake of curiosity!!)
The benefits of raw over jpg are:

*Lots of exposure latitude.

*Proper WB adjustment, as opposed to re-tinting an already tinted file.

*The ability to set higher bit depths if required offering higher printing standards. Otherwise this advantage is pretty much useless.(eg. if you only ever publish to the web having access to higher bit depth is ultimately a futile exercise as your final output is always only jpg.

*camera pre processing: all cameras have to process a jpg file. A raw file is just that, an unprocessed file still yet to be processed at all. This is a matter of quality again, and how processing a jpg file slowly degrades the quality of each pixel as you process over already processed pixels. The loss of quality is probably insignificant after the first or second edits, but this doesn't mean it doesn't exist, so further processing is only going to make the file worse.
Raw files don't have this issue. You can process a raw file as many times as you like over the old version, and it never loses any quality in the data it contains. For some folks this can be important.
It means that you don't require a 'master file' as such, as the original raw file is always there for further processing.

As an extreme example of what this means is take a jpg file and process it with a high key look and save it. Once done, trying to further process this jpg file back to a low contrast dark look is impossible without massive degradation of the pixel data now. This means that multiple versions will be required, whereas a raw file can be all of those versions in a single file.


Once again. The most important aspect of deciding whether to use jpg or raw is simply about what works for you.
If jpg files work for your needs, then there is no reason to shoot in raw.
The only advantages that jpg files have over raw are speed/space issues. Shooting jpg in camera is usually done for the purpose of speeding up the camera(shooting rates and buffer clearing reasons) and holding more files onto a single card.
Some people claim that there is a 'faster workflow' in shooting jpg as it eliminates the need to convert raw images into jpgs.. which is technically true, but the process of extracting a jpg out of a raw image is so trivial that this argument easily becomes null and void.

The best summary I can think of as to why you would shoot a particular format is

Raw = Quality

JPG = Convenience

Keep the philosophy simple(and don't get into semantics), each individual then decides which of the limitations of each file type they're prepared to live with.

FWIW: my (two)main reason(s) for shooting in raw is quality of print and whitebalance leeway.
I once shot in jpg as an exercise and was not happy with the inability to control tint via whiteblance adjustment, and instead had to 'warm/cool' the image via a series of tinting steps. This is not the same thing as adjusting whitebalance on a raw file. While it can look similar, it never looks the same.
High quality tiff files print better than jpg files(at a quality print service!.. not your bubble jet printer at home).

[ricktas]

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showlibrary.php?title=New_To_Photography:Appendix_B_-_Raw_and_White_balance

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?47708-JPEG-or-RAW

[Kym]

Personally...


Shoot raw
If in doubt - shoot raw
If you want the most options in PP - shoot raw
If you want creative control - shoot raw
Only shoot JPEG if you really need to (i.e. maybe fast frame rate, or you are in a lazy mood), otherwise shoot raw

[Tommo224]

Wow this thread was more helpful than I originally anticipated :)

Thanks all! I think I might take a step in to RAW and test it out, one of my friends has asked me to photoshoot their car, so I might do it in RAW. Think it'll be a safe situation to test it out :)

JPG has always suited me well, but if you say RAW is more dynamic then by all means I'm going to see how it goes! It's going to change the way I've always post-processed, but I'm willing to give it a go haha..

I'll also try that face thing, sounds like homework, but also sounds quite interesting to try :)

@AthurKing - Very very helpful post, bit of points from both sides in that one, quite well written. Thank you :)

[kiwi]

Be prepared for very dull flat looking raw files....they are like eggs...they need cooking prior to eating

[Ms Monny]

Yep, I was just going to say the same thing Kiwi!

Your monitor on the camera will show a JPEG looking image but when you download it into the computer you will see the flat, unedited RAW photo. Sometimes it is hard for me to get that around my head, as i see a great photo in the camera but not on the computer. Since you are very apt at editing you will have no problem at all with editing RAW files. :th3:

[William]

Be prepared for very dull flat looking raw files....they are like eggs...they need cooking prior to eating

You have to caress/extract the colours and tones that lay hidden in the file :D

[crf529]

Be prepared for very dull flat looking raw files....they are like eggs...they need cooking prior to eating

Not always a bad thing.

Seeing your images in the raw (pun intended, sadly) makes it evident how good a photographer you are and if your improving/what you need to work on, no sugar coating of images there.

[geoffsta]

If in doubt shoot in RAW/jpg all DSLR cameras give you this option. That way you can use the same shot /different format when processing.
See which format gives you the best processing options. Unless you take 200 shots or more you will not fill up your 8gig card.

[Doninoz]

Hi I found a script that enables ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) editing of JPEG and TIFF files. This super advanced script will convert a standard layer in Photoshop CS5, into a Smart Object that can be edited with the Adobe Camera Raw tools. I have tried it on a couple of JPEG files and it looks as though there is no quality Loss but I wonder if others have used it and can shed some light on it. It can be found here at SCRIPT (http://www.russellbrown.com/tips_tech.html). Search for heading "Adobe Photoshop CS5 Standard Edition Tutorials". It is the 1st entry under this heading "CS5 Script: Edit Layers in ACR".

[camerasnoop]

Hi I found a script that enables ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) editing of JPEG and TIFF files. This super advanced script will convert a standard layer in Photoshop CS5, into a Smart Object that can be edited with the Adobe Camera Raw tools. I have tried it on a couple of JPEG files and it looks as though there is no quality Loss but I wonder if others have used it and can shed some light on it. It can be found here at SCRIPT (http://www.russellbrown.com/tips_tech.html). Search for heading "Adobe Photoshop CS5 Standard Edition Tutorials". It is the 1st entry under this heading "CS5 Script: Edit Layers in ACR".

Open Bridge. Right-click on the JPEG. Choose "Open in Camera RAW". Done. Retains settings in xmp file just like a RAW file. :lol:

[ricktas]

A bit of a tutorial on processing RAW files : http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?15590-Raw-Processing-Tutorial

[Doninoz]

Open Bridge. Right-click on the JPEG. Choose "Open in Camera RAW". Done. Retains settings in xmp file just like a RAW file. Snoopy


A bit of a tutorial on processing RAW files : http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?15590-Raw-Processing-Tutorial

Thanks Snoopy and Rick,

I just found member Brodies post with a movie showing how to do it. It was in the CAMERA RAW: Open a JPEG inside Camera RAW (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?78771-CAMERA-RAW-Open-a-JPEG-inside-Camera-RAW) thread.

Rick yours was an excellent tutorial, thanks.

See! What things you get to learn by being a part of a forum such as this. You couldn't do much better being at TAFE!!!

[geoffsta]

You are definitely right there Don. You learn far quicker on here, than any TAFE course could offer. All you have to do is look, listen and learn, and if you are not sure "ASK"
I was never good at school, couldn't be bothered going through the theory of education. But some of the teachers realised that I was a "see and do" type, and not a studier. So they would show me how to do stuff, and I'd pick it up.
Although I had CS5 I didn't know anything about Camera Raw, until I went to get an image printed, and the bloke said "you could do this" and went click click click, got into ACR and darkened the clouds in the shot (at 100mph as the pro's do). It had me fasinated, so I went home and tried to emulate what he did from memory. I now use ACR all the time. Now I go for the video tutorials and pick up something new each time. All which can be found on here, and if not you only have to ask as you did in this thread.
Great site, fantastic member base. :th3::th3::th3::th3::th3:

[Tommo224]

Well after reading this thread before, I got home from work and set my camera to RAW.

A few friends convinced me to go to the Supanova convention over the weekend, and I took my camera with me. I got so many cool photos and had an absolute ball tuning them in Lightroom 3.4 :) I LOVE THAT PROGRAM!


Although, what I can't work out is how to save the modified files data from one computer to another, I did editing on my mates computer on Saturday night, and when I went and opened them on mine on Sunday night, none of the edits were there? The internet said something about an XMP file, but I see none :(

[kiwi]

That's becuase lightroom aren't saved to the files themselves, they are stored in the lightroom catalogue (technically in sidecar of xmp files).....what you need to do is export your photos as a lightroom catalog and then import that catalog onto your machine and all will be sweet

[Tommo224]

Oooh I see! Wonderful, thank you so much :)

[colormeter]

You can use adobe dng converter to convert files to DNG format before processing. I think only benefit of these files is that all the edits made got saved in the same file. so you you never have to worry about copying both files.

another thing you can do is to use bridge's 'copy to' feature. when you right click any image it gives you option of copy and "copy to" . 'Copy to' copies xmp(settings) files as well.

Edit: I am not sure that you get adobe bridge with lightroom also.

[Tommo224]

Nope, but Bridge came with Photoshop. I also have the Adobe CS4 Suite. I'm going to get CS5.5 soon, I like being up to date. But I have to fix a couple of things on my computer, as it carked it a couple of months ago, so I've been using other computers when I've had the chance :)

I might use the DNG converter, I like having everything in the one file as well as JPG copies. Less clutter, more space, less buying of stuff, etc.

The original settings are still stored too right? So no point doubling up if I don't have to :) means less space taken up!

[kiwi]

If you use LR there is zero need for DNG files

have you done my exposure tests yet ? :th3:

[katiedransfield]

I prefer RAW to JPEG due to the ability to edit non-destructively. Although I prefer to capture the essence of my images in-camera, I find RAW provides such greater freedom at the workflow end. I only ever shoot JPG if using my compact camera where I will not want to undertake any post-processing - happy snaps if you like. I also like DNG conversion so that I don't have those annoying xmp files hanging around needing to stick to the images...on the other side of the coin though it depends on what you are intending to do with the image. It is handy to note that a number of competitions want the image in JPEG (which you can easily create from a RAW file) but also want the RAW file as proof of ownership / copyright (e.g Wildlife Photographer of the Year comp). They also won't accept DNG files for this purpose, they specifically request the systems own version of RAW e.g. CR2 for Canon.

[Doninoz]

It is handy to note that a number of competitions want the image in JPEG (which you can easily create from a RAW file) but also want the RAW file as proof of ownership / copyright (e.g Wildlife Photographer of the Year comp). They also won't accept DNG files for this purpose, they specifically request the systems own version of RAW e.g. CR2 for Canon.

That's because RAW files have the camera's serial number encoded into them!

[Tommo224]

Kiwi I haven't done my homework assignment yet, BUT I am shooting in raw now! You guys have converted me by explaining how much more effective raw is. Thread purpose = success.

I love Lightroom, and I love how dynamic things can be in the raw files, how much tuning I can do to the images.


Katie and Don! :) Thanks for that heads up with the competitions thing! I didn't know that the raw files have the camera serial number and stuff in that as well. That'll be handy in case anything goes down!!

[Ebdrel3]

I am a complete beginner to photography and have never used photoshop or anything like that so exuse me if this is a silly question.
Going overseas soon, wanting to TRY and get great pictures, some to hopefully blow up fairly big to frame (if they're any good). I initially thought I'd have to shoot in RAW to be able to do this,but then I thought, I will be wanting to take many many many photos and seeing I'm only a beginner, would it be worth me shooting in RAW and using up so much memory space?

[I @ M]

I will be wanting to take many many many photos and seeing I'm only a beginner, would it be worth me shooting in RAW and using up so much memory space?

Yes, it will be worth it if you do the sensible things.
Save the raw files as originals and don't delete them so that you always have an indestructible copy.
Memory is cheap, take a spare hard drive with you or buy heaps of cards for your camera.

[Doninoz]

...would it be worth me shooting in RAW and using up so much memory space?

You can buy a small digital storage device to take with you. I have one that has 80Gb of space. I just put my memory card in the slot and press copy. It has a small screen on it so I can also review the photos on the device. Most of them you can also print from...sort of like a mini computer if you like. Mine is a Epson P–6000 Multimedia Storage Viewer. Best investment I made! Hope this helps. Regards Don


74335

[Tommo224]

Holy crap, I just searched for pricing on that. $900?!

http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/review/mp3_players/epson/p-6000/259886

[Ebdrel3]

Lucky I saw this thread then as I was going to shoot jpeg just for memory space! Yes I will have to invest in one of those thanks Doninoz:)
HOPEFULLY I take can some half decent pics. Thanks guys

[kiwi]

You can buy a small digital storage device to take with you. I have one that has 80Gb of space. I just put my memory card in the slot and press copy. It has a small screen on it so I can also review the photos on the device. Most of them you can also print from...sort of like a mini computer if you like. Mine is a Epson P–6000 Multimedia Storage Viewer. Best investment I made! Hope this helps. Regards Don


74335

If you look on epson's website at the moment until 30th June they have a great special on these - over half price - I ALMOST bought one

In any case, I think they are great technology but to be honest a better investment would be an ipad or a mini laptop for the same price.

[kiwi]

Lucky I saw this thread then as I was going to shoot jpeg just for memory space! Yes I will have to invest in one of those thanks Doninoz:)
HOPEFULLY I take can some half decent pics. Thanks guys

with the cost of memory these days I think it's a non-issue

[Ebdrel3]

Yes I did see that last night Kiwi and almost bought one too. Still thinking about it but with only 2 and a half months til our trip, I think the hubby may kill me if I don't put the money towards the actual trip lol

[Tommo224]

Yes I did see that last night Kiwi and almost bought one too. Still thinking about it but with only 2 and a half months til our trip, I think the hubby may kill me if I don't put the money towards the actual trip lol

Last time I was there (Thursday) JB Hifi had 16gb 'Sandisk Ultra' (20mbps) memory cards for $45. I was thinking of picking up one or two after pay day (hopefully still on sale then!). Otherwise eBay also have the same ones for sale. Might be worth a look?

And if you have a laptop or eeePC at home that you can pack away, leave it in the hotel and just load the photos off your camera on to it if you're low on memory cards/space.

[Doninoz]

Holy crap, I just searched for pricing on that. $900?!

http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/review/mp3_players/epson/p-6000/259886

You can get it cheaper than that! I paid under $700.00 for my 80Gb. Thee also other cheaper storage units around...ones that don't have a screen.

[Doninoz]

Last time I was there (Thursday) JB Hifi had 16gb 'Sandisk Ultra' (20mbps) memory cards for $45. I was thinking of picking up one or two after pay day (hopefully still on sale then!). Otherwise eBay also have the same ones for sale. Might be worth a look?

And if you have a laptop or eeePC at home that you can pack away, leave it in the hotel and just load the photos off your camera on to it if you're low on memory cards/space.

Just be careful of Ebay with Sandisk Cards...I bought a 32Gb card and when I got it I noticed that I was getting some black dusty stuff around the place where the card goes. Looking at it through a magnifying glass I notices that the card had a very sharp raised edge. I spoke to Sandisk and they asked me to send them the card...It was a fake! Fortunately Paypal refunded me. I finally bought one from Ebay from a dealer in Melbourne (Sandisk confirmed him as a reseller). I can't remember his name now though. It could have damaged my camera though so I was a bit upset.

[Obes]

You guys have converted me by explaining how much more effective raw is.
*noob comment* Isn't it more horses for courses ?
If you are confident your exposure and white balance are good and you are about to take a zillion shots, then JPG saves you time ? Or if you aren't sure you will have enough storage for the number of photos you are about to take. (A full day of shooting school sports for instance)

If the lighting is hard, you aren't sure you have the settings right, the shot is important enough that you want to be able to rescue the shot, then RAW is the better option ?

You can of course take the middle ground and do RAW+JPG (well I assume Canons can ?).

eg. If I am taking a relatively long action sequence I doubt I could fill the buffer of my camera using JPGs but I am pretty sure it fills if I do RAWs, and certainly fills if I do RAW+JPG.

[Ebdrel3]

Thanks Tommo might check JB out. Might not worry about eBay though just in case I do get a dodgy one

[kiwi]

Sean, fair call, if shooting daytime sport I just use jpeg also

[Ebdrel3]

So with the nikon d300s it has the twin card slots. So if I was to shoot in both RAW and jpeg, I can set it so the RAW can be saved onto the CF card and the jpeg to the sd card yeah?

[I @ M]

*noob comment* Isn't it more horses for courses ?
If you are confident your exposure and white balance are good and you are about to take a zillion shots, then JPG saves you time ? Or if you aren't sure you will have enough storage for the number of photos you are about to take. (A full day of shooting school sports for instance)

If the lighting is hard, you aren't sure you have the settings right, the shot is important enough that you want to be able to rescue the shot, then RAW is the better option ?

You can of course take the middle ground and do RAW+JPG (well I assume Canons can ?).

eg. If I am taking a relatively long action sequence I doubt I could fill the buffer of my camera using JPGs but I am pretty sure it fills if I do RAWs, and certainly fills if I do RAW+JPG.

Sean, I reckon that is a pretty good summary of "the needs" of one against another.

Outdoor sport where lighting is fairly good and consistent should allow for consistent exposure and colour and as you said if the operator is sufficiently experienced with their gear then the speed ( camera and card buffer for rapid action sequences ) and storage requirements favour JPEG enormously.

At the other end of the spectrum for someone like Edbrel3 who anticipates taking "lots" of holiday shots I would recommend purely raw images as it is unlikely that pictures are going to be taken at 5+ frames a second to get those "lots" of pictures, rather I suspect that over the course of the trip many will be taken in uncertain lighting with differing white balance needs.

The raw + JPEG option can work well by setting the JPEG image size to "small" for use as a preview or to create quick thumbnails but otherwise I don't see the point in filling two cards with data that should be essentially the same. :confused013

Horses for courses is a very apt description. :th3:

[kiwi]

So with the nikon d300s it has the twin card slots. So if I was to shoot in both RAW and jpeg, I can set it so the RAW can be saved onto the CF card and the jpeg to the sd card yeah?

Yes, but Id do it the other way around and save raw to a SD card and jpeg to the CF card - SD card's in high capacity are cheaper and faster ( I think) - or at least that's the config I have a 16GB SD card and a 8 GB CD Card in a D300s

[geoffsta]

I just recently took over 300 shots in RAW and it only filled the 8Gb sdcard to a bit over half full, 4.75Gb. And that was of the model aircraft. Shootng 3 - 5 shots at a time with no dramas on the D90.
I'm not sure how many Kiwi would take in an outing, but I wouldn't think it would be much more than that.:confused013

[kiwi]

lol, I take on average 400 shots per soccer game and often take 2000 in a day.

[geoffsta]

lol, I take on average 400 shots per soccer game and often take 2000 in a day.

:umm: WOW. Thank god for digital. :crike:

[kiwi]

I know a guy in the states that shoots about 20,000 a weekend doing cheer and dance. He goes through a camera every 3-4 months

[neil70]

This is were i show how much i don't know.
I mainly shoot in jpeg, as i shoot sports (aussie rules and mx). In a day at jnr footy i will take on average 1500 shots and about 500 at MX. I don't use raw becouse the time it takes me to pp is huge (I am not verry experianced at it) where i can do the days photos quicker with jpeg.
This could be becouse i dont know how to do it quicker in raw as i havent used it much but when i do it seems to take forever to pp.

[geoffsta]

This is getting more and more interesting, as this thread develops.
Can I ask whether you Kiwi and neil70 are professional TOGs or not. And is the OP a Pro or hobbyist.
I wouldn't think the average hobby TOG would take that many images.
I know that the 300 I took about 4 hours using CS5 to process, and like neil I'm not at all proficient at it.

I know this may be getting off topic. But this could be good knowledge for the OP. :confused013

[kiwi]

I'm shooting professionally, but even if I shoot sport for fun I still take plenty

I can load into lightroom, crop and flag photos from a 90 minute soccer game, 400 photos and start loading onto my website in about 30 minutes or so

[Tommo224]

I'm a hobby "photographer" :)

I think on my Europe trip I took only about 800 or so photos.
My Melbourne trip I took 680 photos, followed by another weekend long event where I added another 700 photos to that memory card. All JPG and that filled it up! (all in all 1430 before it said card full, I remember because I laughed)

Then when I went to the Supanova thing with some friends, I shot in raw. Over the course of the two days I took around 200+ photos on each day, being about 7.5gb (cleared the card after the first day in case!)

My camera says it can take 220 raw photos on the 8gb Sandisk card, but I took 212 last weekend on it and it said that I had heaps of room! :)


I've decided, since I don't ever do anything that requires me shooting more than say 3fps or whatever, I'll keep shooting in raw. And I'm going to purchase a back up memory card to carry around just in case. I'd rather have the option of raw, than risk having a photo that I wish I could edit deeply (because I got it wrong) than being stuck with a lost chance :)

I have some friends wanting me to take some photos of them at an abandoned warehouse in Cosplay outfits (I have friends in all kinds of social scenes lol) so I'll be taking a small laptop in case I run out of memory card space!

[I @ M]

My camera says it can take 220 raw photos on the 8gb Sandisk card, but I took 212 last weekend on it and it said that I had heaps of room! :)


Tommo, if the Canon system is the same as the Nikon one then the max number of photos showing as available is based on 14 or 12 bit raw images ( whichever your camera is capable of ) containing the absolute full data capacity of each image.

If you are shooting in a compressed raw format and then have fairly limited data range in each image you will be able to fit heaps more on the card than indicated.

[camerasnoop]

Here's a tip for you Tommo. RAW files are all different sizes based on the content of the image. Want to try an experiment? Take two identical images, one at ISO100, and the other at ISO3200. Is the second one bigger? I'll bet it is.

[neil70]

Tommo
I am only a hobbyist photog (hence why Kiwi can process and upload Heeeeeeeeeps Quickers than me:)) But when i shoot sport I am shooting at 8fps and shooting a sequence of action to get the right shot.
Of the 1500 shots i will end up with abut 10-20% good shots. The rest may be duplicates or some one is in the way as you follow the play, but you still need to look at them all.
I mainly do it for the kids, the look on their face when they see a shot of them taking a mark or laying a tackle is what makes it fun.

[camerasnoop]

Last year, I did around 200,000 images spread across 4 bodies. All were RAW apart from less than 100 which were shot in Auto by accident on a 5D. Most taken in a day would have been 4,500 - once again in RAW. Storage costs bugger-all these days. It's been a long time since I paid $400 for a 1GB IBM Microdrive.

[William]

:D I must be a slacker, In my 30D I have a 2gb card, at ISO 100 I can take 222 shots in RAW if I format it before a shoot , I've never filled the card !! :D, Mind you I never use Burst mode , I've done Weddings , 5 hrs at the Quicksilver Pro . Heaps of Sunrise shoots , Maybe I'm just used to the Film days :confused013 :th3:

[camerasnoop]

Try shooting a four-day Campdraft with 2,500 competitors William. 2GB ain't gunna be enough. :D

[William]

Try shooting a four-day Campdraft with 2,500 competitors William. 2GB ain't gunna be enough. :D

Fair enough Snoop, :) Yes I dont shoot professionally , And I do pick my shots , I was'nt trying to be smart, I do know some fellow Photographers that can rattle off up to a Thousand on a day out tho, Always amazes me , A normal day for a Sunrise shoot over 2 hrs is usually 60 to 70 shots , I guess if your getting paid to get all the Competitors in the Campdraft with 2.500 competitors , Shite !! I'd have to take a lappy , The processing would bother me tho - Cheers Mate :)

[camerasnoop]

No problem William. I'm not as quick in post as kiwi says he is, but I can still get through all those in a week. It's usually just a crop and straighten, maybe a fill light, quick contrast and maybe a sharper or a noise reduction. Of course I might have more discards than kiwi to go through and delete too. ;)

[kiwi]

Fair enough Snoop, :) Yes I dont shoot professionally , And I do pick my shots , I was'nt trying to be smart, I do know some fellow Photographers that can rattle off up to a Thousand on a day out tho, Always amazes me , A normal day for a Sunrise shoot over 2 hrs is usually 60 to 70 shots , I guess if your getting paid to get all the Competitors in the Campdraft with 2.500 competitors , Shite !! I'd have to take a lappy , The processing would bother me tho - Cheers Mate :)

Most shooting that much don't do any processing at all, just delete oof shots, no cropping straight onto your website. If you know your stuff you don't shoot crap, 99% are in focus, and you wait until the action is close enough to start with

[Tommo224]

Yeah I take multiples of the same thing :D but usually my subjects are laying still not running around and tackling each other haha.. :D

So far it's been okay on whatever raw setting my camera is set to, so should be alright :)

[geoffsta]

I guess it all comes down to what you want acheive.
Kiwi, and other sport or action pro's rely on their images to put food on the table. Therefore they take 100 images to maybe get 10 they like, and maybe sell one or two. And depends on how many they sell, when it comes to upgrade their gear.
William like me and other hobbyists take 100 images, with maybe 95 or so that we like. We pick our shots to make sure that they are right in camera first. And depends on the misses whether we can upgrade our gear or not.
Other TOGs like Dylan Toh and Xenedis take 100 images, Spending heaps of time making sure that they are right in camera. Out of those 100 they have 99 they can sell or use.
Another consideration is whether you want to take a thousand images in quick succession or a 100 images over a period of time. When choosing to use RAW or JPG.

Is this a fair assumption or not. :confused013

[Doninoz]

I have been following this thread with interest and sometimes I think people see it as a Ford/Holden issue. But it's not and for those of us that do make money from photography (was a full time many years ago and have gone back to part time)...you want the best you can get with no slip ups. In fact at weddings, I am superstitious and take two cameras taking backup shots just in case! So shooting in RAW for me is the only thing that I will consider.

Just on space, I notice that the files from my 5D MKII are an average of 24MB each. I have just done two shoots with a total of 585 photos on a 32Gb Sandisk Extreme 60MB/s card. I notice I have 29.8Gb free and only used 16.1Gb for these photos. I have no problems shooting 4 frames a second and can press instantly and do another 4 frames per second straight away. I have tested lower end cards and the frame rate goes down. Shooting with my 580EXII flash, I can still shoot 4fps with fresh batteries but extended shooting I have to wait a bit. Also I have the battery grip and I understand that helps a bit.

If you are careful editing does not have to take a long time. There are programs out there that do batch processing (Photoshop does) and you can use it to do all kinds of PP from exposure to vibrance...in fact anything that Photoshop will do!

As a photographer you need to take care in framing your shots. Leave the haphazard snapshots to the mums taking kids at sports days! If you are careful, then minimum PP is required and that is a good thing even with RAW.

I never think of combining RAW and JPEG together as it is simple to batch save files to JPEG from RAW back in the studio. The programs that come with Canon and most other cameras have this function. Last weekend I did a shoot for a Ball. I took 500 shots and because they were all in the same lighting situation I was able to batch process the effects that I like to use on the finished shots. I set up the batch to save the JPEG files as 800X533 pixels and was able to give the disk to the client as proofs and for them to upload to their website...took about 30 minutes on my computer while I went away to make a coffee. Why people would even think to take RAW&JPEG is a mystery. I would guess the only time REALLY needed is if you were going to give a client copies straight off your camera on the spot!

Another comment I will make to people who take sports photos outside. Just be aware that if your photo is too light you will not be able to rescue your shadows whereas if you take darker your highlights will always be there and rescueable (unless really very dark) so it is always better to set your camera down a stop or two from what you camera is suggesting when shooting in bright sunlight...but, then again, if shooting RAW you wouldn't have to worry about that!

[camerasnoop]

I think RAW + JPG is used with the twin slot cameras as a backup in=camera. Probably no need to backup RAW files in camera. Just save RAW to one card, and JPEG to another. The JPG being the backup, or in some cases the web file. I'm sure someone who does this will tell us why.

[mcmahong]

It has sort of been mentioned here, but I'll reinstate it. JPEGs are 8-bit only. This means that you only get 256 colours in your image. Mostly, this is enough, and it's all you can use if you are posting to the web. Also, some printers will only print JPEG, so you are stuck with JPEG anyway.

However for broader colour availability, working in 16-bit (e.g. TIFF) gives you 65,536 colours. So much more colour information can be held. If you ever get to compare the histogram of a 8-bit and 16-bit image, you'll see the difference. The 16-bit is smooth, but the 8-bit will have a jagged "comb" effect to it, meaning that colours are missing.

If you capture in RAW, you can convert to TIFF. But if you capture in JPEG, you are stuck with it.

[Doninoz]

Just on what Ged said, for my professional work I actually prefer to work in 32 bit with my RAW images as I do a lot of editing before the file is converted. I then make layers for different editing features and some of them can be 8bit (for Photoshop features that will only work in 8 bit and then I can combine/overlay them with the 32 bit file to finalise editing before converting to TIFF (and JPEG for web only when I finish ALL editing) If I had JPEG images then I could not edit effectively.

[Doninoz]

I think RAW + JPG is used with the twin slot cameras as a backup in=camera. Probably no need to backup RAW files in camera. Just save RAW to one card, and JPEG to another. The JPG being the backup, or in some cases the web file. I'm sure someone who does this will tell us why.

I'm curious why they need to be saved as JPEG as well and hope that someone will share their experience with us on this matter. In 40 years of photography I haven't needed to do that (or at least 10 years in digital photography). I do, however pretty much take two camera on important shoots so I always have backups (but for me, I know that's superstition). I did a wedding back in the mid 70's with my Nikon film camera and after shooting off about 10 rolls of film I was happy with the day until I got a call from the lab saying ALL my pictures were blank!!! The Nikon's mirror failure...SO since then, I have always liked to use two cameras.

[soulman]

I think of JPEGs as an excellent - compact and widely supported - file format to end up with, but not good to start with. Given the fact that most available software now works with RAW files at least as conveniently as JPEGs, including batch processing using the same presets your camera would, I don't see great value for most people in using a format that throws away a large amount of the captured information.



JPEGs are 8-bit only. This means that you only get 256 colours in your image...working in 16-bit (e.g. TIFF) gives you 65,536 colours...This is conceptually correct, but your numbers are a bit out. JPEGs are 8 bit, but that is per RGB channel, so it's actually 2^8 * 2^8 * 2^8. or 16,777,216 colours. This sounds like a lot but, as you point out, the histogram of a JPEG gets jagged as soon as one changes the levels and JPEGs that have subtle gradations of tone will show banding even before they've been manipulated. This tends to get worse after level adjustments.

Most current cameras output either 12 or 14 bit RAW files. These are capable of 68,719,476,736 and 72,057,590,000,000,000 colours respectively. 16 bit files contain even more of course, though these have to be interpolated from the lower bit depth of the RAW files.

[opi2kenopi]

I'm curious why they need to be saved as JPEG as well and hope that someone will share their experience with us on this matter. In 40 years of photography I haven't needed to do that (or at least 10 years in digital photography).

I have been shooting RAW only for probably 6 or 7 years, and only this year have started shooting both RAW & JPEG. The reason I do this is because currently I'm shooting a lot of portraits which aren't posed, i.e. candids but with the ultimate point of getting nice portraits (most often kids). This method is based on a method I found used by a commercial photographer who did modelling shoots. So far I have found it to work quite well, although I have never had any issues shooting RAW only previously. Some of the reasons I am currently using this method are: taking many more photos which aren't usable (subject moves quickly out of focus, turns head, steps out of framed shot etc), it is faster to import JPEGS only, they are smaller files etc (all points noted above).

My workflow is to import JPEG's only (at first), do my first run through where I spend maybe up to 5-10 seconds each to decide if a photo is in or out. If it's in, I flag it (keywording is often done during this run through on photo's I flag using shortcuts). Then I filter for only the flagged photos and run the import again to import only RAWs on the JPEGS I've flagged (so out of 300 JPEGS, I might import 40-50 RAWs). This way I'm not wasting time importing larger files which I would not use anyway and I'm not wasting hard drive space on large files which I won't use either. Having the JPEGs there means I still have a record of what I did (I won't delete them, don't need to because they're so small), but I don't have the wasted space of RAW files. Once imported, I then work on the RAW files until happy and export to CS5. This workflow is done in Aperture 3, I have no idea if LR or other programs have a similar feature.

I absolutely agree that it's horses for courses and that this method is working for me currently. I may very well change back to RAW only again in the future.

[Tommo224]

To bring up this subject and thread again (I haven't had time over the last couple of weeks, work was so busy).

Well, I've been shooting in raw over the last couple of weeks, and so far it's been working pretty good for me. I love using Lightroom, I actually have a lot of fun!

Last week I went to the Abandoned Dunlop Factory, I was able to fit 320 shots on my 8gb card.
Then last Saturday I went to the Abandoned Rozelle Tram Depot to get more shots. I took 308 before it said full!. A difference of 16, weird. But okay whatever, I borrowed a backup card for our second location that day :).

My way of processing these is, I load all of them in to Lightroom, export them all as original JPGs. I like to keep original files, and original JPGs.
I then go through them, mark the ones I want to use, process them (doesn't take long per photo, copy and paste settings also saves so much time for similar lighting), export as a JPG 800 wide and JPG original size in to two other folders.
Hard drives are cheap, I don't mind how much space they take up (I paid $85 for a 1tb internal hard drive, and $120 for 2TB external hard drive).

This whole thing is so new and exciting, I'm loving it lol. I much prefer raw for this, I notice now after having used JPGs and adjustment layers, the level of the ability to adjust is just so much more dynamic!

I've also discovered the "save settings to file" thing. The XMP files.


Oh and I'm going to be making a couple of galleries for my photos at those 2 locations. Just for some critique! :)
Once I get home from work, that is lol.

[kiwi]

Lightroom is cool, but can i ask why do you bother to export all your photos to jpeg ? Lightroom doesn't require that, it's a lossless form.

[geoffsta]

Just a quick question...
I take all my shots in RAW. I do my processing in Camera Raw then CS5. I then save the finished image as a .tiff file. If I want to send them off through the net, (To show on here) I use "save for net" at 900x600 pixels and lower compression so that it is below 250kb.

Is .tiff the correct format for saving, or is there another?

[camerasnoop]

Saving in TIFF is not necessary. You still have the RAW file. 16-bit TIFF files are HUUUGE. I save my edits as PSD or PSB files. They're big enough, and they still contain layers.

[JM Tran]

Last week I went to the Abandoned Dunlop Factory, I was able to fit 320 shots on my 8gb card.
Then last Saturday I went to the Abandoned Rozelle Tram Depot to get more shots. I took 308 before it said full!. A difference of 16, weird. But okay whatever, I borrowed a backup card for our second location that day .

Raw file sizes are affected by the amount of details in one shot, a shot of a forest with a lot of foilage when stopped down to f11 or so - will yield the maximum amount of data possible in the camera's raw file, whereas a scene shot of some blank wall wide open will be half the size of the former. For example, my 5D2 will sometimes hit 30MB a raw file depending on the scene, and sometimes around 19MB for something with less details, on the Pentax 645D I can hit 100MB and down to 60MB even.


Saving in TIFF is not necessary. You still have the RAW file. 16-bit TIFF files are HUUUGE. I save my edits as PSD or PSB files. They're big enough, and they still contain layers.

Thats right. I only ever save to TIFF when I am shooting for some commercial project where they need the detail and large file size for billboard printing or further editing etc. Even wedding clients only get JPEG files, which are fine to print out to 45x30 inch (thats a whopping 114cm x 76cm)

Imagine submitting 500 final wedding photos at 60MB TIFF files = somewhere around 30 gigs:D

[Tommo224]

Lightroom is cool, but can i ask why do you bother to export all your photos to jpeg ? Lightroom doesn't require that, it's a lossless form.

I don't do it for the sake of any programs, if anything I don't use the original JPGs for anything other than supplying to my friends when they ask for them (if they're in it and such). But I also just like having the original unedited JPGs as well as the edited. Anyway, having the original JPGs as well as the edited copies doesn't take up that much extra space in the grand scheme of things, especially compared to how big the raw files are.

[arthurking83]

Raw file sizes are affected by the amount of details in one shot ...


.....

Jackie is right.

The histogram is the clue to how much data is in each file.
Some images contain larger amounts of data.. in the form of colour and brightness detail .. not so much sharpness detail tho.
Most of the data in the file is about colour and brightness levels, and the histogram with information overload is going to produce a larger file. If you take a lot of these types of images, the car fills up quicker with fewer images.

There is no need to convert your raw images before editing for the purpose of archiving an original image. That is the point of the raw file itself.
You make edits to the raw file and then save in different formats(depending on purpose). Even tho you've edited the raw file, the reality is that you haven't, and only adobe image software can recognise these edits.
Any other image viewing software will not see these raw images as you've edited them in Adobe's software.

This workflow method is one advantage in using raw files for editing. You don't need to keep an original image as well as other versions of the file in the form of various edits.

[martismo]

Why is it that some bbrands - in my own experience Pentax- have their own brand of RAW format?
What is the advantage of this?

[Tannin]

There are two answers:

(a) Because this allows the camera manufacturer the ability to customise the raw file format so that it suits the particular camera, and gives you a better result

(b) Because the camera manufacturer wants to lock the customer into its proprietary raw format and processing software, and also because anything not invented in-house s obviously inferior.

You decide which one is true.

[Tommo224]

Good answer!!

Short story on how shooting in raw saved me on the weekend!

I'd been shooting all morning with a new lens, and decided to take another go at rolling shots, so I swapped back to my kit lens and jumped in to the car.

I was leaning out the window of my car (while someone else driving) taking moving shots of my mates car, and I didn't realise that my lens wasn't connected properly. After snapping heaps of shots, we pulled over to swap cars and I reviewed them. They were all extremely over exposed (basically WHITE)! I couldn't work out why. The camera was stuck on F00, etc and wouldn't change, autofocus was being buggy, etc.

I swapped cars and thought after turning the camera off it'll fix itself up, maybe it was confused!

I didn't realise what had gone on, but remembered since I was shooting in raw, all was not lost! I busted them open in Lightroom and rescued the photos :)

Check out the EXIF data on these to see what they were taken in. Manual settings wouldn't change the F-Stop, so I flicked it to auto hoping it'd do something right, but nup! So I left it in auto and figured I'd rescue them in Lightroom.

http://www.omgtom.net/mazpics/galleries/user/tom/160711stivssti/IMG_9906.jpg
http://www.omgtom.net/mazpics/galleries/user/tom/160711stivssti/IMG_9827.jpg


I learned after reading online that if the connectors don't line up properly when fitting the lens the camera will do this. All I had to do was remove the lens and put it back on, but in my panic while we're already driving for the rolling shoot I didn't think of that, and I just kept going with it haha..

[Doninoz]

Check out the EXIF data on these to see what they were taken in. Manual settings wouldn't change the F-Stop, so I flicked it to auto hoping it'd do something right, but nup! So I left it in auto and figured I'd rescue them in Lightroom.

I learned after reading online that if the connectors don't line up properly when fitting the lens the camera will do this. All I had to do was remove the lens and put it back on, but in my panic while we're already driving for the rolling shoot I didn't think of that, and I just kept going with it haha..

Hi Tommo, not quite sure what you are saying but the EXIF looks normal to me as shown in the upload below...

Are you saying even though your lens was not working in unison with your camera it shot a perfect photo? If this is so then maybe the lens itself was left set to the aperture recorded, but I can't understand why you could only see white in viewback on your camera if this is the image you got...doesn't make sense to me? Was it letting in light?


75456

[Doninoz]

Just some interesting information regarding the editing of RAW images.

When I edit my RAW images I do most of it in the program that came with my camera. In my case it is Canon's Digital Photo Professional. I can crop, fix exposure and lighting, highlights and shadows, sharpness and most other things that Photoshop will do but still save the file in it's original RAW format (which means I can revert to the original at any time). I can also batch process groups of RAW images at a time (e.g. Exposure or White Balance adjustments) and after that I can batch convert straight to JPEG images (or in some cases to TIFF for publishing clients)...no need to do any more editing. If I see a file that needs tweaking, I can go back to the original RAW image and open it in Photoshop for final tweaking before saving it as a JPEG.

I don't do much cropping now as I find it is easy to "setup" the composition whilst taking the photo...taking care to capture exactly what you want in the end result. This means watching for unwanted "addins" like people arms or a pole or whatever. In the moments when I fail to observe properly then I crop.

I find this method very fast and efficient, especially when working with several hundred photos from a shoot.

Does anyone else use this method?

[Geoff79]

I'm starting to question myself again. I gave up JPEG earlier this year after using it off and on... mostly for holiday snaps where I didn't have time to properly set up a shot.

But now I'm starting to question my post-processing skills. Like many here, I don't do much - just sharpen, contrast and maybe a slight adjustment to the highlights/shadows etc. And then maybe a tiny tweak with vibrance. They get to a point I like in Photoshop. Then I convert to JPEG and so often when I open them up in, for example, Microsoft Picture Manager, they look saturated and I can't figure out why. I don't know if I just suck that at PP, or what. But it's got me questioning if I should just go back to trusting the "auto" result of a JPEG image.

Plus the space thing is a big thing. It's okay in everyday life, but I often think what the hell I'll do on my next holiday. I have 2 16GB memory cards and I reckon they'd last a week absolute max. I guess I need more... but they aren't cheap. :(

[kiwi]

Geoff, if you arent using the "power" of raw then you might as well shoot JPEG in my opinion, and just have more fun and less processing :)

[Tommo224]

Hi Tommo, not quite sure what you are saying but the EXIF looks normal to me as shown in the upload below...

Are you saying even though your lens was not working in unison with your camera it shot a perfect photo? If this is so then maybe the lens itself was left set to the aperture recorded, but I can't understand why you could only see white in viewback on your camera if this is the image you got...doesn't make sense to me? Was it letting in light?


Tonight I'll upload how the images looked when put on the computer from the camera, they were heaps white. I lowered everything massively in Lightroom to get the image you see above! Weird thing is, if those settings are normal and expected, then whatever happened between the photo and the storage was really weird. Because yeah, on the screen and computer they were massively white lol.



Doninoz, I'm similar in a sense. This is the process I do:
I try and get the composure as good as I can and take the photo, trying to keep the horizon straight (if that's the intention, etc). I always try to minimize the need to crop. Only reason I'd crop is if there was something I noticed after loading on the computer, or if the horizon is slightly askew and I'm feeling pedantic about it.
I load the raw files in to Lightroom, review them, select the ones I want to process. If there is any touching up needed (brightening, darkening, strengthening of anything, etc) I'll do that. I try to not do much editing unless if I feel the need to, or I want to go for "something different" like below.
I then export all my selected photos in to JPG as full size and also at 800x800 max size for the internet/facebook.

I processed these heaps because I wanted to give a different feel to them, something different to my normal photos of friends :)

Check out my topic I put up today:
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?87964-Sunday-TV-Session-up-in-the-Mountains

http://www.omgtom.net/pics/katoomba170711/IMG_0151.jpg
http://www.omgtom.net/pics/katoomba170711/IMG_0140.jpg
http://www.omgtom.net/pics/katoomba170711/IMG_0129.jpg

[Tommo224]

I'm starting to question myself again. I gave up JPEG earlier this year after using it off and on... mostly for holiday snaps where I didn't have time to properly set up a shot.

But now I'm starting to question my post-processing skills. Like many here, I don't do much - just sharpen, contrast and maybe a slight adjustment to the highlights/shadows etc. And then maybe a tiny tweak with vibrance. They get to a point I like in Photoshop. Then I convert to JPEG and so often when I open them up in, for example, Microsoft Picture Manager, they look saturated and I can't figure out why. I don't know if I just suck that at PP, or what. But it's got me questioning if I should just go back to trusting the "auto" result of a JPEG image.

Plus the space thing is a big thing. It's okay in everyday life, but I often think what the hell I'll do on my next holiday. I have 2 16GB memory cards and I reckon they'd last a week absolute max. I guess I need more... but they aren't cheap. :(


Possible that it could be the colour profiles on your computer?

When my power supply in my computer died, I put off replacing it for a while, and was using another computer to do Photoshop stuff. Photoshop would be using one colour profile which I'd create and work to, but when I'd open the saved JPG in Photo Viewer the colours would be darker and duller. Upon uploading them to my website, and viewing them at work, they looked good and the same as they did when editing in Photoshop on the other computer.

[Tommo224]

I had to do a lot to rescue this, but so thankful it was raw :D

If it was JPG, I'd be screwed.

It looked a lot worse than this in my head when thinking about it today lol

http://www.omgtom.net/pics/cars/wrx/IMG_9827-orig.jpg
http://www.omgtom.net/mazpics/galleries/user/tom/160711stivssti/IMG_9827.jpg



I still don't know what I'm going to do about holiday trips and shooting, don't know if it'll be JPG or raw. Yesterday just one day trip I filled my memory card, the photoshoot of the two STI's on Saturday filled my entire card as well. Hmm..

[Geoff79]

Geoff, if you arent using the "power" of raw then you might as well shoot JPEG in my opinion, and just have more fun and less processing :)

I guess the main thing I'm wondering is if a RAW image, as it's shot, is still "better" than a JPEG image.

I was always under the impression that the "point" of shooting in RAW was to have a basic image that was taken in that format with the purpose of having an easily editable (real word?) image to PP? I always thought they actually NEEDED to be post processed. That it wasn't an option, if you wanted the most out of your photo.

But I see a few posts here mentioning that some people even just use the RAW image as it was shot. If this is the case, and all I really need to do is a small sharpen... maybe it's worth sticking with it? I do want the best out of my images if it's worthwhile. From what I understand, the RAW image is supposed to offer much more detail, isn't it?

[Geoff79]

Possible that it could be the colour profiles on your computer?

When my power supply in my computer died, I put off replacing it for a while, and was using another computer to do Photoshop stuff. Photoshop would be using one colour profile which I'd create and work to, but when I'd open the saved JPG in Photo Viewer the colours would be darker and duller. Upon uploading them to my website, and viewing them at work, they looked good and the same as they did when editing in Photoshop on the other computer.

Yeah mate, I have thought about that. I fear it may be the other way round for me, though. That it looks fine in Photoshop, looks crap in Picture Viewer, and the reality of it lies moreso in Picture Viewer. The main thing that has made me think this so far is a duck photo I posted here recently. A member or 2 commented on how saturated it looked, and I agreed. But the truth was I had done almost nothing to adjust or play with the colours. It wasn't making sense to me. But now I'm wondering if I totally, 100% avoid any colour amendment and stick with sharpness only.

Maybe it's the contrast... I alway play with that a little bit. Again, it's very minimal, but that could be it...?

[Tannin]

^ Check your colour space, Geoff. Photoshop has a bad habit of switching you over to Adobe RGB insted of normal SRGB without asking your permission, and that will mess your colours up every time. (It can also be useful and desirable, but if you don't already know why, then that doesn't apply.)

[Gecko Girl]

What an awesome thread! I've been mulling this over myself and now have all the info I was seeking. Thanks to everyone! I too will take a step into "RAW" world :)

[Tommo224]

What an awesome thread! I've been mulling this over myself and now have all the info I was seeking. Thanks to everyone! I too will take a step into "RAW" world :)

I agree, the information I was supplied upon creating this thread has been pretty helpful! I passed on the info to a few friends and they've followed suit :)

[vDaNieLv]

I had my camera repaired recently and I didn't know the settings were reset to JPEG. After using RAW for a majority of the time I've used a DSLR, it was a bit of a headache in post-processing when it came to fixing the white balance. I love you RAW for allowing me to hide my poor photography skills :p

[Mark L]

Is it RAW or raw?
And a good tutorial (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showlibrary.php?title=Tutorials:RAW_:_Starting_to_process_RAW_files) from Rick for those,like me, new to raw (RAW).

[Pin]

Tommo, that is an impressive effort.... not sure I have the patience to tweak for that long, but I can see the amount of work in the before & after! :th3:

[svlord]

I have a canon 1000D, but when I put it onto raw mode it only takes JPG shots. Any ideas?

[ricktas]

I have a canon 1000D, but when I put it onto raw mode it only takes JPG shots. Any ideas?

Do a 'reset' on the whole camera (check your manual on how to factory reset) then change it to RAW format again and see how you go.

[camerasnoop]

I suspect you're trying to shoot in Picture Mode. Those picture modes on the dial don't allow you to shoot in RAW. neither does auto. You'll need to shoot in the semi-auto modes like Av, TV, P, or Manual to shoot RAW.

[svlord]

Thank you, I was in AV, the reset must have done it.

[svlord]

OK, got a CR2 file, but when I double click to open it, CS3 comes up with the error message "could not complete your request because it is not the right kind of document". I have also formatted the memory card. Any ideas on what i need to do so CS3 opens the file?

[JM Tran]

OK, got a CR2 file, but when I double click to open it, CS3 comes up with the error message "could not complete your request because it is not the right kind of document". I have also formatted the memory card. Any ideas on what i need to do so CS3 opens the file?

CS3 is simply too old to open up CR2 Raw files from Canon,

or it may still be possible if you have downloaded the latest raw updates for CS3, small chance your camera will be supported

if its still not supported, download the Adobe DNG Converter and convert your CR2 files into Adobe's DNG files so it can open the raw files again for processing

[svlord]

Yes CS3 is showing its age and I am about to get my laptop upgraded this week so I will hold off until the new laptop arrives.
Thanks all for your help

[Tommo224]

According to the Adobe Help thing I read last week, "Camera RAW" was bundled with CS2. You might need to download it separately as a plug in however, depending which version of CS3 you got. Then it seems you use Adobe Bridge to find the file, click it and choose "Open with Camera RAW".

The version of CS4 I have didn't have that though, I need to search for Camera RAW from somewhere if I want to use that.

[Kylamie]

Alot of info here guys, pros and cons etc, found it to be a good read as im more inclined to shoot RAW only for weddings and corporate. Might try it with portraits etc and see what i come out with.
I have issues though sometimes with my computer and editing raw files, is there any specific addon i can get for either cs4 or lightroom?
cheers

[ricktas]

Alot of info here guys, pros and cons etc, found it to be a good read as im more inclined to shoot RAW only for weddings and corporate. Might try it with portraits etc and see what i come out with.
I have issues though sometimes with my computer and editing raw files, is there any specific addon i can get for either cs4 or lightroom?
cheers

Adobe Camera Raw is the add-on you seek, but if you ensure your copy of lightroom and PS are up to date, using Auto-Update, you should not have an issue. The only time issues occur is as a camera model gets older, Adobe no longer support it in newer versions of the add-on

[camerasnoop]

Actually, you've got that round the wrong way Rick. They DO support older models in new versions of ACR. It's newer models they don't support in old versions of ACR. When they release a new version of Photoshop for instance, they no longer update older versions of ACR for new camera models.

[chrisprendergast]

i have found if shooting jpg a colorchecker passport can also help

[ricktas]

Actually, you've got that round the wrong way Rick. They DO support older models in new versions of ACR. It's newer models they don't support in old versions of ACR. When they release a new version of Photoshop for instance, they no longer update older versions of ACR for new camera models.

Ooops, thanks for the correction. Brain was in neutral

[wahaha]

I'll be going to Canada in two weeks for just a little over two weeks. I'm wondering if 24 gb of storage space will be enough for the shots I want to take assuming I will do them all in RAW. So excited can't wait! But will totally need to practice while I am still in Aus so I don't hold up my significant other from just enjoying the sites.

[camerasnoop]

Would it give you any assistance if I said I shoot more that that at a wedding that takes only 12 hours? 8Gb cards are cheap. Of course they may be even cheaper in Canada. It just depends on where you'll be in Canada. You may not find many bargains in the snowfields. The thing that struck me about Canada was the mountains and the lakes. Don't get many of those around here and I took thousands of shots of them. If you're doing the full guided tour stuff, then you probably will take just as many as I did.

[ricktas]

Agree with Snoop. 24Gb would be no where near enough for me. In Canada I could shoot 24gb a day, the scenery is stunning. My suggestion take a laptop with you (with a decent hard drive) and put the photos onto it each night, also take a small external HDD and copy them onto that, keep it in a separate bag (luggage etc) in case something goes 'missing'.

[kiwi]

If yours good enough at photography or not good enough at post processing just shoot jpeg.

[campdog]

I just had 6 weeks in the USA and came home with 250 gig of raw files on my laptop.

[wahaha]

Thanks for the info guys, I think it'll be easiest if I just bring a portable HDD and transfer from my cards when I can access a computer at the hotels. Can't wait!

[arthurking83]

24 G's of space on a D90 should equate to approximately 1000 photos(give or take).

If you can be ruthless in culling images that are clearly not going to make the cut, then this shouldn't be hard.

On the other hand, if you take a portable computing device that can store a few hundred gigs of images(such as a netbook or something similar ... I got a 320Gig tablet device for this purpose), then a single card should suffice and you transfer at the end of every day's travel.

[Tommo224]

With how cheap portable hard drives are (the small 2.5" ones), like mentioned before, go for that. And like you said, load them up each night in the hotel :)

I really recommend the small 2.5" pocket ones (powered by the USB cable only), as the 3.5" with power supply would be heavy for travel!

16gb SD card in my camera will fit maybe 600-700 RAW photos.

On a holiday, guaranteed you'll smash that!!

1tb = $98
500gb = $69
http://www.officeworks.com.au/retail/products/Technology/Data-Storage/Pocket-Hard-Drives

[geoffsta]

I agree with Tommo. Took the 1gb pocked HDD on my holiday and little laptop. Easy as.
The hard part now is going through them all on the big computer.

[camerasnoop]

Here's something else for you to think about too. Sure you can take ONE of thos portable digital wallets. I have used one myself. So you shoot all day and fill up your cards, so you download the cards to the portable device. So now you have one copy of all of your images, because you are going to wipe your cards so you can use them again. No backup? What are you going to do for a backup? Drop that portable device, and I guarantee it will be dead when you pick it up.

Don't take just one storage device. Take a backup too. Now you're going to have to decide what your backup strategy is going to be. Oh, and don't keep your backup in the same place as the original. People go on holidays and they just forget all about good practice for keeping your data safe. Going overseas and losing all or some of your images might take the gloss of that once-in-a-lifetime trip.

[Tommo1965]

we just got back from a trip .... London /italy for 6 weeks...I had two 16 gig CF cards for writing raw ..and two 16 gig ds cards that I wrote Jpegs to...I had a 700Gig WD P/harddrive...my daughter had a net book.. when the cards were full..we downloaded to these devices.....I only shot raw for the " just in case I got a really good shot moment" or needed to correct what could have been a good image...but mostly the Jpegs were fine

[christay]

I've only just switched over to shooting in RAW. Much better processing but don't like the graininess very much even though you can get rid of 95% of it. :)

[camerasnoop]

I've only just switched over to shooting in RAW. Much better processing but don't like the graininess very much even though you can get rid of 95% of it. :)

Experience will fix that.

[Stevie]

I also prefer to us RAW as it gives me greater control over the image, and I suppose I can create a jpeg if I want, can not go back the other way.

[jgeor21]

I've only just switched over to shooting in RAW. Much better processing but don't like the graininess very much even though you can get rid of 95% of it.
Unlike most ppl, i have only been into digital photography and always used RAW. Haven,t really noticed the graininess but then again not comparing it to jpeg. That being said wouldn't that be due to a totally unprocessed RAW file, no filtering, no adjusted rendering etc ?.
I reckon using JPEG over RAW would be like driving a porsche 911 round corners at 60. Why would you when you could do 100.

[ricktas]

Unlike most ppl, i have only been into digital photography and always used RAW. Haven,t really noticed the graininess but then again not comparing it to jpeg. That being said wouldn't that be due to a totally unprocessed RAW file, no filtering, no adjusted rendering etc ?.
I reckon using JPEG over RAW would be like driving a porsche 911 round corners at 60. Why would you when you could do 100.

I agree, a RAW will likely show more graininess as a JPG using an algorithm to resize the file, compares pixels beside each other and tweaks them to save filespace, this tweaking would mean that some smoothing would occur, just as a by product of the JPG algorithm, thus a JPG may appear to have less graniness (at a high quality JPG level), than the RAW file.

[claytonchatham]

There is no problem shooting in .jpg The only problem is you need to get the shot perfect because there's very little leeway in post. If you shoot in RAW there's alot more opportunity to fix minor issues.

[arthurking83]

.....
I reckon using JPEG over RAW would be like driving a porsche 911 round corners at 60. Why would you when you could do 100.


The analogy of raw/jpg and vehicles is made in reverse.
With the car analogy here, you seem to want to speed, and hence if this is the case, then jpg over raw any time and every time.
One of the reason s you shoot jpg is for speed!

Raw file mode is simply for better control and quality.

That is, if you choose to make an analogy with a motor vehicle, choosing to use raw file mode is similar to driving the latest Roller around this same bend at 50, where you get a more comfortable and quality ride whilst maintaining a lot more control over the manoeuvre.
When compared to the Porsche at 100, which is similar to jpg shooting choosing this style is akin to foregoing quality and control for speed alone.
Make a mistake and you can end up in more trouble as a result.

Raw has nothing to do with speed.


A properly processed raw file will always make for a higher quality final image result than a jog shot in camera.
If you have aspirations to print larger than large, then raw is the better way forward.

[msm1707]

I was wondering if someone could advise me on changing my photos from JPEG to RAW. I know where to change them - but dont know which one to change it to. There are a few different options in there and Im not sure which to go with. I will be shooting a wedding as a backup photographer in a months time and wanted to practice with RAW. It has an option to put it to maximum Jpeg and max RAW at the same time but I just took a photo thinking it would save it as one copy jpeg and one raw - but it didn't. I have a 50D.

Any advice would be great.

Thanks so much

MSM

[Doninoz]

I was wondering if someone could advise me on changing my photos from JPEG to RAW. I know where to change them - but dont know which one to change it to. There are a few different options in there and Im not sure which to go with. I will be shooting a wedding as a backup photographer in a months time and wanted to practice with RAW. It has an option to put it to maximum Jpeg and max RAW at the same time but I just took a photo thinking it would save it as one copy jpeg and one raw - but it didn't. I have a 50D.

Any advice would be great.

Thanks so much

MSM


If you look at page 61 of your manual you will be able to follow how to set the camera to take RAW and also take RAW + a JPEG together.

If you don't have a manual??? then B&H have one here... http://www.bhphotovideo.com/lit_files/80.pdf.

You will have to use the software that came with the camera to edit and save the RAW image or with another program like photoshop that has the Canon RAW add-on.

If you have a big card, go for the RAW with the maximum pixels. You don't need to have a JPEG as well unless you want to give a copy of photos off your camera straight away. But as a photographer, that's not always the best way to present your images...you have the option to "fix up" any problems in RAW before giving them to your customer. Then they don't see your failures!

[Tommo224]

@MSM:
My recommendation is shoot in RAW, then use software like Adobe Lightroom 3.5.
It manages the photos really really well, and is quite easy to use. :)

It is all I use to edit photos now!

New Catalogue, Import Photos, Select the Good Ones, Edit, Export to JPG. DONE!

[jgeor21]

The analogy of raw/jpg and vehicles is made in reverse.
With the car analogy here, you seem to want to speed, and hence if this is the case, then jpg over raw any time and every time.
One of the reason s you shoot jpg is for speed!

Raw file mode is simply for better control and quality.

That is, if you choose to make an analogy with a motor vehicle, choosing to use raw file mode is similar to driving the latest Roller around this same bend at 50, where you get a more comfortable and quality ride whilst maintaining a lot more control over the manoeuvre.
When compared to the Porsche at 100, which is similar to jpg shooting choosing this style is akin to foregoing quality and control for speed alone.
Make a mistake and you can end up in more trouble as a result.

Raw has nothing to do with speed.


A properly processed raw file will always make for a higher quality final image result than a jog shot in camera.
If you have aspirations to print larger than large, then raw is the better way forward.
I agree. The point I guess I was making was more in reference to the capability of a modern digital camera. Why chose a lesser quality setting? You hit the nail on the head Artherking83. SPEED!!!..
I use fast CF cards and when I've filled them up with massive RAW files and had to use my older slower cards you really notice the difference. The other day not the best scenario (their must be an easier way or some trick / technique ?) I was trying to photograph lightning strikes. Wind was blowing trees waving everywhere so didn't want to just open the shutter. So was just taking successive shots one after the other, with the fast cards no problem, but a total waste of time with the slower cards.
At the risk of using another analogy. It,s horses for courses, both RAW and JPEG have there place in digital photography.

[martz8]

I read somewhere that CR2 Raw files from a 550D are about 12 megs a piece. vs a meg or 2 for a JPG depending upon the variance of colour/contrast in a scene.

The big difference is in the bit depth.

JPG is 8 Bits per pixel where raw is 14 or 16 bits per pixel
that effectively doubles the ammount of data per pixel and also doubles the effective colour range available.
and all this is before you take jpg's compression into account.

Me, I shoot JPG, untill i have something i really want to keep or looks awesome in the viewfinder, then i hit the (pentax) dedicated RAW button 1 shot 1 raw.

Same here if I see somthing I like or can work with I will then shoot in RAW

[CHardy]

I have wondered the same thing....RAW v's JPEG...and last week I finally bit the bullet, changed my camera to RAW+JPEG file and snapped a few photos of a 6 month old baby....gave mum the disc of jpeg images, and had a look at the RAW files, and thats as far as I got....:lol: I have Photoshop Elements 9 that I use for cropping and not much else...Reading the above helpful comments, I had better learn to use my elements program, then start to use the RAW option more often. Look forward to seeing some of your images....mine, well, might be a while away yet...:th3:

[wahaha]

Just got back from my trip from Canada, was loads of fun!

Ended up only using a little over 24 GB of shots but would have had plenty more if the missus would have allowed it =)

Will upload some in the land and seascapes forum soon I guess.

Cheers

[Ganzer]

i shoot in raw, because it easier to edit, and in my Canon 1D mkIII i have 16gb between the cards. today at the V8 supercars i took 1094 photos and still have room for another 500 photos.

[bricat]

That wasn't ypu Ganzer lumping a lens around on your shoulders. Caught a glimps on TV HUGE Canon I think

[peterb666]

24 G's of space on a D90 should equate to approximately 1000 photos(give or take).


I get over 1000 raw images on the 16gb card in my D90.

[crazymorton]

don't know if this has been said, quite a big thread i'm working through it, but for OS travel photo back up i'd grab a dropbox account, $9.99 p/mth for 50gb, or $20 p/mth for 100gb. then upload each day.
i use the basic free version and it's great but am going to grab one of the above next trip and transfer from my iPad. after all most countries have better interwebs speeds than us so should be easy.

[arthurking83]

don't know if this has been said, quite a big thread i'm working through it, but for OS travel photo back up i'd grab a dropbox account, $9.99 p/mth for 50gb, or $20 p/mth for 100gb. then upload each day.
......

This sounds like data storage nirvana in an ideal world, but if on average you capture something like 8Gb of raw files per day, the probability that you will upload all that data in a day is extremely unlikely.
The upload speeds will be too slow for people that shoot heavily.
Given that an average raw file from a modern camera is approx 20-30Mb(and increasing with each new generation), if you shoot only 10 images this is 200-300Mb and that is about as much upload capacity you could hope to manage in a full days upload session.

[ViPeR101]

I also prefer to us RAW as it gives me greater control over the image, and I suppose I can create a jpeg if I want, can not go back the other way.

:th3: