RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photo Processing Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   JPEGS and RAW (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12581)

norfolksouthern 07-30-2010 10:00 PM

JPEGS and RAW
 
Hello folks!

I want be wonder about JPEGS and RAW images so I curious which most peoples using JPEGS or RAW? And, why? Because RAW images have more rich of color or do something than original JPEGS?

Often I use JPEGS on my Canon 50D so someday I'd try to turn with RAW soon.


- David

JimThias 07-31-2010 05:59 AM

http://bestsmileys.com/eating1/16.gif

Joe the Photog 07-31-2010 01:15 PM

If you've got enough card space and hard drive space, I'd recommend shooting RAW and JPEG. You could theoretically dump all of your RAW shots onto the computer until you're ready to deal with them. Think of RAW as a digital negative. I'm kinda with Janusz when he said yesterday that you seem to have processing issues, not in camera issues. RAW just adds another wrinkle or two to the processing end which you may or may not be ready for.

But I shoot RAW and suggest anyone should.

Freericks 07-31-2010 03:45 PM

I am pretty much the guy Joe describes above... I shoot both (which fills up an 8G card on my 40D lickity split - hey that's the first time I've ever said lickity split in my lifetime).

Anyway - 9 times out 10, I will process the JPEG because frankly, it's easier. The work's already been done by the camera. That tenth time, I'll find that the camera didn't do such a good job and because when a JPEG is created information that is not needed is dumped, I will go to the RAW where that information still exists.

Most of my RAW files, I never look at. I just store. I keep them because I have no idea what the future will hold and I don't know yet if there is information in them that I will need one day (or someone else will want one day). For me, this is the difference between what I shot on Kodachrome and what I shot on Kodak Gold 200. Honestly, at the time I shot them, the only difference I was personally aware of was that one was a slide and one was a negative. Today, I see a massive chasm and realize that there was so much more quality in the Kodachrome. I am protecting myself in case I find that with the RAW.

That being said, card space is an issue, and sometimes on a trip say, I can't just keep banging away what amounts to 20 Meg a frame. In those cases, I have to make a decision, and I usually go the lazy man's direction of JPEG... although in my heart, I know that this is wrong and the smart thing to do would be RAW... but space isn't the only issue... the idea of coming home to process 500 or 1,000 or 2,000 RAW shots with no JPEGs to fall back on is something that would change this from a hobby to a chore for me.

mark woody 08-01-2010 02:34 AM

Hi David i only shoot RAW because i only get to shoot 3-4 times a month and not too many trains, i don't mind processing and it is more involved than JPEG, do what Joe suggests shot both if you have the card space and save the RAW files till you can process them properly, always save to a new file name after processing even JPEG and shoot JPEG's on the highest quality setting on your camera [largest file size] and save also on the largest file size. The shots you are taking have improved a lot and i look forward to more.

troy12n 08-01-2010 07:59 PM

I'm pretty sure the search feature exists for questions like these.

DWHonan 08-01-2010 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 118734)
I'm pretty sure the search feature exists for questions like these.

Since it was your suggestion, why don't you use it and lend a helping hand by providing links for previous threads David should review?

KevinM 08-01-2010 11:53 PM

Hi David,

I switched from JPEG to raw about a year and a half ago. There were three things I noticed:
  • Those raw files fill up my hard drives a BUNCH faster than LF JPEGs do.
  • I had to learn postprocessing all over again, because with JPEGs, the camera had been doing a lot of the work for me.
  • There were shots in which I failed to nail the exposure that were hopeless as JPEGs, but easily salvaged as raw files.
I guess my best advice is that if you shoot just for fun and don't spend a lot of money traveling to get pictures, JPEGs are the way to go. Any shot you miss, you can probably re-do another day. If you're really serious about your pictures, have any ambition at all to sell them, or spend a fair amount of money traveling to get them, shoot raw. You'll be glad you did. :-)

Joey Bowman 08-03-2010 05:46 AM

Ive been shooting in RAW now for almost 4 years.

I love to have the ability to adjust exposure, white balance, and other settings when/if needed. Though the number one reason I shoot RAW is so I can convert to 16bit TIFF files instead of shooting 8bit JPGS straight from the camera.

When I do weddings or portrait sessions I usually nail the exposure and try to get the white balance as accurate as possible to cut down on post processing and usually all I have to do is convert the RAW over to a TIFF (then later on a JPG copy as well). Though its nice to know that if I ever blow the high lights or have some shadows that are a tad too dark I can save it pretty easily.

norfolksouthern 08-09-2010 07:00 AM

Thanks to everyone for definitely!:)

Okay, because I wonder spot most time I see my 50D and files with RAW and JPEGS; so interesting those between JPEGS and RAW are different as JPEGS images has more of images than low of numbers with RAW. So, I thought that probably RAW images has more of capture as amazing and clear than JPEGS that of my mind. :roll: So I know as I wrong...


- David

Chase55671 08-09-2010 03:14 PM

I didn't start shooting RAW until November of 2009 after being convinced by many RP'ers that is the way to go. It took me a while to get used to the format, but eventually adapted.

The files do take up a bit of space both on the memory card and the hard drive, but in my opinion, it's certainly worth it. RAW captures more detail and allows you to correct White Balance easier. The Camera Raw program (I guess it's a program, perhaps just a plug-in?) associated with Adobe Photoshop is very easy to use! Easy settings and will open a RAW file (20-30MB) very quickly.

I encourage all JPEG users to switch over to RAW if you have the time and memory space to edit the images.

Chase

barnstormer 08-09-2010 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase55671 (Post 119133)
I didn't start shooting RAW until November of 2009 after being convinced by many RP'ers that is the way to go. It took me a while to get used to the format, but eventually adapted.

The files do take up a bit of space both on the memory card and the hard drive, but in my opinion, it's certainly worth it. RAW captures more detail and allows you to correct White Balance easier. The Camera Raw program (I guess it's a program, perhaps just a plug-in?) associated with Adobe Photoshop is very easy to use! Easy settings and will open a RAW file (20-30MB) very quickly.

I encourage all JPEG users to switch over to RAW if you have the time and memory space to edit the images.

Chase


I agree with Chase. I have been shooting raw for about 2 months and I won't switch back. You have so much more picture to work with. I does take up more space on your memory card and computer but it is definitely worth it.

bigbassloyd 08-09-2010 07:27 PM

If the shot counts (aka for money) I'll shoot both. If I'm just screwing around taking shots, I only shoot jpeg. Rarely do I blow one bad enough I can't fix the jpeg.

Loyd L.

JRMDC 08-09-2010 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase55671 (Post 119133)
RAW captures more detail

Being a fan of clear discussion ...

What does this mean? Raw does not capture more pixels than jpg.

In theory it is possible that Raw, being 14-bit color (or 12-bit, whatever) will capture two sets of pixels side by side whose color varies ever so slightly, and the jpg would group them into one color. But I don't think this is what people mean when they casually say "more detail". This you would not notice on screen, for example, and it would be difficult to see in print.

Perhaps it means that raw gives you some latitude in exposure so you are less likely to lose detail in areas because they don't blow out. But, it would be clearer to say that with raw one is less likely to have blown out areas.

Anyway, not intending to pick on Chase particularly, but people can be sloppy when discussing this stuff, just human nature, casual board posting, and here it is not clear.

To me the benefit of raw is the white balance and the over/underexposure latitude. For someone more serious/persnickety about color than I, it also means more color detail/richness (if one is printing directly out of software, not if one is printing from a jpg or displaying on screen).

Dennis A. Livesey 08-10-2010 01:14 AM

If you nail the exposure and color every time, shoot JPEG.
If you don't, do it in the RAW.

Freericks 08-10-2010 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey (Post 119148)
If you nail the exposure and color every time, shoot JPEG.
If you don't, do it in the RAW.

Also, if shooting black locomotives (steam or Norfolk Southern), RAW is safer as the light meter is often thrown.

Lastly (and I know I'll get flamed for this, but it's my experience)... if using Rebel, you'll find the RAW is more necessary, as the camera is more likely to have missed the correct exposure, while on a 40D or 50D, I think you'll find you aren't as likely to have to do rescue jobs on AV and TV shots.

Chase55671 08-11-2010 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 119146)
Being a fan of clear discussion ...

What does this mean? Raw does not capture more pixels than jpg.

In theory it is possible that Raw, being 14-bit color (or 12-bit, whatever) will capture two sets of pixels side by side whose color varies ever so slightly, and the jpg would group them into one color. But I don't think this is what people mean when they casually say "more detail". This you would not notice on screen, for example, and it would be difficult to see in print.

Perhaps it means that raw gives you some latitude in exposure so you are less likely to lose detail in areas because they don't blow out. But, it would be clearer to say that with raw one is less likely to have blown out areas.

Anyway, not intending to pick on Chase particularly, but people can be sloppy when discussing this stuff, just human nature, casual board posting, and here it is not clear.

To me the benefit of raw is the white balance and the over/underexposure latitude. For someone more serious/persnickety about color than I, it also means more color detail/richness (if one is printing directly out of software, not if one is printing from a jpg or displaying on screen).

Maybe not "more detail" as much as simply more dynamic range and the ability to recover detail that would otherwise be too blown out or too dark when shooting JPEG.

I concur with your final statements of the broad range of white balance and the easy to use exposure control.

Chase

stevenmwelch 08-14-2010 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barnstormer (Post 119135)
It does take up more space on your memory card and computer but it is definitely worth it.

That's why you be like me and only take one or two photos of each train... ;) I've came home from a big chase with 25 photos on a card...

travsirocz 08-14-2010 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevenmwelch (Post 119371)
That's why you be like me and only take one or two photos of each train... ;) I've came home from a big chase with 25 photos on a card...

I've also come home from big chases with 25GB.

Freericks 08-14-2010 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevenmwelch (Post 119371)
That's why you be like me and only take one or two photos of each train... ;) I've came home from a big chase with 25 photos on a card...

I need to get more like this. I keep telling myself I'm going to, and then next thing I know I've filled another 8G card.

When I do get home, I end up dumping pretty much all but 25 or 50 of those shots. Need to stop taking them in the first place.

stevenmwelch 08-14-2010 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freericks (Post 119382)
Need to stop taking them in the first place.

I recently chased (got it in 3 spots) a SD75M Warbonnet... Okay, so three spots... I came home with 6 photos. Sure is easy to edit... :)

stlgevo51 08-16-2010 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevenmwelch
I recently chased (got it in 3 spots) a SD75M Warbonnet... Okay, so three spots... I came home with 6 photos. Sure is easy to edit...

Wow! That is incredible. When I chased the 844 in April, I can't tell you how many shots I took. At Union Station alone, I took 60-70 photos, including this shot:
[photoid=333905]

I shoot jpeg only, just because I don't want to do more editing. I rarely ever get a bad color or exposure reject. Occasionally I will overexpose something, but it isn't that bad. My one problem I'm having is more with quality. Some of my recent photos have not been great quality wise. Not horrible, just not as good as I expected. I though it was focusing, but I think it is more with the camera. Would switching to RAW help? (Obviously Janusz thinks that isn't true, but I don't know what it could be.)

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=153210194
Take this shot for example. It was focused on the nose of the lead unit, and it was shot on Large jpeg. But I just see a lesser quality image than many other images in the DB taken with similar cameras. Do you agree, or am I going crazy? (By the way I don't agree with the composition/ balance reject.)

John Fladung 08-16-2010 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevenmwelch (Post 119386)
I recently chased (got it in 3 spots) a SD75M Warbonnet... Okay, so three spots... I came home with 6 photos. Sure is easy to edit... :)

I like that logic however what happens Steven if you were to say botch a shot? I like to take a few "extra" shots just in case something is a bit out of focus or there is another odd mishap beyond my control like say a bird flying through the shot or something else odd.

Just my thought.

wirailfan 08-18-2010 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey (Post 119148)
If you nail the exposure and color every time, shoot JPEG.
If you don't, do it in the RAW.

I get a kick out of this response. I hear it from many people that don't understand the other advantages for keeping and using the RAW file. Although it is easier to adjust exposure and color, it is far from the only reason to shoot in RAW.

bigbassloyd 08-18-2010 03:13 AM

I understand all the advantages (more accurate pixel values, not limited to 8 bit gamma compression, ability to use different demosaicing algorithms, etc), they just don't really effect this boy and his cheap camera / lenses. :D

Most people shoot RAW because it's forgiving. Mis-guided or not, it's a fact. It's plan B when you bone a shot.

Loyd L.

Freericks 08-18-2010 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 119668)
I understand all the advantages (more accurate pixel values, not limited to 8 bit gamma compression, ability to use different demosaicing algorithms, etc), they just don't really effect this boy and his cheap camera / lenses. :D

Most people shoot RAW because it's forgiving. Mis-guided or not, it's a fact. It's plan B when you bone a shot.

Loyd L.

Be still my beating heart.

Dennis A. Livesey 08-18-2010 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wirailfan (Post 119664)
I get a kick out of this response. I hear it from many people that don't understand the other advantages for keeping and using the RAW file. Although it is easier to adjust exposure and color, it is far from the only reason to shoot in RAW.

My response, while perhaps glib, was meant to be mnemonic.

It was not intended to be a treatise on the virtues of RAW. Since you have alluded to such knowledge, don't hold back, enlighten the OP.

Knowledge not shared only dies.

travsirocz 08-19-2010 01:51 AM

I shoot in raw because I use a upper end DSLR. I don't own L glass to try and attach to a point and shoot either. If you are using higher end equipment why wouldn't you use a higher end image file? If your reasoning is that you only use the images online then why are you shooting with such expensive equipment? As Thomas said, most just don't get what a raw file really is. A raw file is everything your camera can do.

Joe the Photog 08-19-2010 06:37 PM

To me, not shooting in RAW is like shooting print film and then throwing away the negative. I know there are some folks who do not shoot RAW and get great images. I'm not here to beat the RAW drum all day long. Do what you guys want. But the most irritating comments in these debates are the implication that folks only shoot RAW to fix in post what should have ben done right in camera. Sure. Whatever.

Dennis A. Livesey 08-19-2010 09:24 PM

I've shot RAW since I got my first DSLR, a 20D in 2006. I have done so because I want all that the camera can give me in image quality. I didn't want to lose anything by having the camera throw information away. And I want the flexibility that RAW gives me in post.

During shooting, I don't want add to my workload and have to make decisions about "landscape" or "portrait" or whatever while the loco blasts by in perfect light. In the heat of a chase I just want to concentrate on creative decisions and not worry about settings. So I set the camera to Manual and on neutral settings over all, then reduce the technical variables to ISO, shutter, aperture. I then spend more time shooting fleeting moments than "fiddling."

At home where I can relax and study the image, I can make a full range of choices regarding light, color, contrast.

I love working with a big fat file. You have the benefit of really clean retouching.

(As an aside, working with 70 MB files from my 35 mm neg scans has been very luxurious in how smooth all processing looks.)

I shoot RAW for maximum control of my images. Not because I am sloppy.

wirailfan 08-20-2010 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog (Post 119740)
To me, not shooting in RAW is like shooting print film and then throwing away the negative. I know there are some folks who do not shoot RAW and get great images. I'm not here to beat the RAW drum all day long. Do what you guys want. But the most irritating comments in these debates are the implication that folks only shoot RAW to fix in post what should have ben done right in camera. Sure. Whatever.

Nicely said Joe. My thoughts exactly.

As far as enlightening the OP, a quick search of the forums will provide plenty of information for and against RAW, including my own thoughts. Google it and you will find more information than you can find time to read.

I started shooting RAW with my Canon 10D right before I upgraded to a 20D. My only regret is that I didn't start with RAW day one with digital. All that older power I shot that is long gone and I only have a JPEG file to show for it. What a shame.

norfolksouthern 08-24-2010 06:50 AM

That's interesting as somehow most time I using JPEGS everytime often. And, sometime I switch go with small from large with JPEGS for a balance of numbers.

- David

Joe the Photog 08-24-2010 11:34 AM

Not shooting RAW is a choice. Not shooting the highest JPEG possible every single time is just not smart. It gives you way more cropping area if you need it, but it also gives you a bigger picture to print if you choose to or to submit to magazines when you get to that level.

socalrailfan 09-22-2010 01:59 AM

JPG! And everytime I've posted comparisions here, everyone thought my JPG images were in fact RAW, oops!!!

travsirocz 09-22-2010 02:02 AM

I convert everything to PNG files.

Mgoldman 09-22-2010 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travsirocz (Post 121670)
I convert everything to PNG files.

Why PNG? What is PNG, I can't recall.

I convert to TIFF since that is the format which most magazines and the occasional client may prefer and it is lossless.

The resolution I save files is 2400 X 3600 at 300 dpi.
I've been thinking maybe I should save at a higher res though that seems
suitable for enlargements up to 20X30.

/Mitch

travsirocz 09-22-2010 02:37 AM

Its simple, web friendly, HTML awesome, and doesn't take up much space on thee ole hard drive.

norfolksouthern 10-16-2010 04:49 PM

Um, so that's why most time I using JPEGS on my Canon 50D often.

- David


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.