atufte Posted February 6, 2010 Share #1 Posted February 6, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Why shoot RAW – The real answer | galerielux Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 6, 2010 Posted February 6, 2010 Hi atufte, Take a look here Why shoot RAW - The real answer. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
atufte Posted February 6, 2010 Author Share #2 Posted February 6, 2010 Why shoot RAW – The real answer | galerielux Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_newell Posted February 6, 2010 Share #3 Posted February 6, 2010 Why shoot RAW – The real answer | galerielux It's basically similar to the comparison between shooting film vs. shooting Polaroids in the 1970s or 1980s. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakepottery Posted February 7, 2010 Share #4 Posted February 7, 2010 Very interesting. I have always shot RAW but never really known the reason why, only that it is the correct way! Now I know! Thanks Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikki Posted February 7, 2010 Share #5 Posted February 7, 2010 Unfortunately, with the M8's heavy RAW compression, there's not much gain anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atufte Posted February 7, 2010 Author Share #6 Posted February 7, 2010 Unfortunately, with the M8's heavy RAW compression, there's not much gain anyway. I promise you, it is, i have sold lot's M8 pictures mounted on ALU as big as 150X100cm in both color and B&W, so i know this by trying both, since i also have a fine art print shop i do this all day long every day, and there is, no matter what you believe a HUGH difference between M8 JPEG and M8 RAW's....HUGH...!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmacintyre Posted February 7, 2010 Share #7 Posted February 7, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) What I don't understand is the relevance of 12 bit RAW imported to 16 bit Photoshop in that article. Surely the best you can ever get from a 12 bit image is the 12 bit - you can't add image data which was not originally recorded. Even after importing to 16 bit it is still 12 bit image quality upsampled to 16 bit format. Or am I misunderstanding something? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan States Posted February 7, 2010 Share #8 Posted February 7, 2010 Unfortunately, with the M8's heavy RAW compression, there's not much gain anyway. Huh? I can't imagine shooting an M8 in Jpeg....the quality lost is immense. Why would I choose to lock in the camera's idea of sharpness, color and noise reduction? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbgeach Posted February 7, 2010 Share #9 Posted February 7, 2010 I agree, you get more creative control with RAW, you can also tidy up more. But I am not sure you get an entire stop advantage. Also if you have your in camera settings correct, it will process your RAW for you. Now, when I shot canon, I would regularly use JPG, especially for sports. But with a leica, considering the true cost per shutter actuation, I can see very little reason to use in camera jpg. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Thawley Posted February 7, 2010 Share #10 Posted February 7, 2010 you accidentally underexposed your image by 2 stops or even worse by 3 stops, then you are really screwed with a “in camera JPEG”, but if you do the same with RAW, you can salvage this image and get superb results, even though you made the wrong exposure Accidentally underexpose your image by 2 stops or even worse, by 3? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted February 7, 2010 Share #11 Posted February 7, 2010 Why two identical threads in different parts of the forum? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ross Posted February 7, 2010 Share #12 Posted February 7, 2010 The raw vs. JPEG is ging to go on for a long time, because there is no direct comparison data. The raw file is larger in pixel count than the JPEG file and so they don't line up or register. You can't use a photo editor to calculate and disply the "absolute difference". This puts the matter into the subjective realm and we have to start deciding on print/display size and qualities, raw developer and paper/ink & monitor type in order to talk in the same room. IMO, the smaller the final output size, the less you will notice any differences without magnification. So, the point at which raw becomes "better" could vary by viewer. I shoot both on a "situation ethics" basis....lighting mix, subject matter, the detail I want to capture.....all for the most likely final output . A commercial pro wouldn't have that luxury and may not know what the client will do with the image. There is always the "getting the best that your tool can do" and there is what you need for the best final output. Since the final output involves other devices and processes, the differences may not be as obvious as some imply. Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakepottery Posted February 7, 2010 Share #13 Posted February 7, 2010 Unfortunately, with the M8's heavy RAW compression, there's not much gain anyway. i think I have missed the point somewhere! I though RAW was RAW, uncompressed, un fiddled with and un anything else you can throw at it? Straight off the sensor and straight onto the card. Clearly I am wrong somewhere? Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted February 7, 2010 Share #14 Posted February 7, 2010 The M8 uses a logarithmic conversion of the sensor data in the raw (DNG) file which means that you need less file space (by a factor 2), this has been discussed at length previously and seems to give minor or invisible change in the image quality. Nevertheless there are always people that do not believe in science and therefore insist on the original data. Hence, the M9 with compressed and uncompressed DNG mode. This converion does not change the overall dynamic range, it changes the emphasis of the information to be on the low end of the intensity scale. This is inspired by the sensitivity of the (human) eye which also is roughly logarithmic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atufte Posted February 7, 2010 Author Share #15 Posted February 7, 2010 Why two identical threads in different parts of the forum? Sorry for that....just remove it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atufte Posted February 7, 2010 Author Share #16 Posted February 7, 2010 Accidentally underexpose your image by 2 stops or even worse, by 3? Yes, ever used Aperture mode when taking a portrait against the sun?, this happens all the time, and is the reason i mainly meter manually...(but not everyone does that) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted February 8, 2010 Share #17 Posted February 8, 2010 Rich, that is definitely an amazing change in image. I agree that raw is the photographers dream and the ability of the M8 to preserve shadow detail amazed me with my first night shot the day I got the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
styx Posted February 8, 2010 Share #18 Posted February 8, 2010 More on raw Sometimes, Raw is thought of as simply another image format like TIFF or JPEG. This is entirely wrong: a good analogy is to think of a raw file as comprising a stack of photos, each varying slightly in exposure, colour balance, etc. The sheet in the centre of the stack represents the photo taken with the actual settings on your camera, and as you go to sheets further and further away from this central sheet, the image quality becomes increasingly worse. The TIF or JPG created from the Raw file is one sheet taken from that stack. DNG is based on TIFF, and TIFF is actually a RAW image format. You can read about it here Tag Image File Format / Electronic Photography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative_(file_format) Best, Rudy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcoombs Posted February 8, 2010 Share #19 Posted February 8, 2010 Rich, thank you for the very useful explanation of RAW above. There is one point where I am still a bit confused, however. When I open up a DNG file in LR it is not clear to me exactly when and where the raw converter process takes place. Is it when I initially import the file or when I "export" it and LR asks if I want it as a DNG or TIFF file. That is, pre- or post- "development"? It's relevant to me since I want to archive a "raw converted" version of my image. I realize this question is elementary to you pros, but I'm just now trying to learn my way around the whole pp world. Currently using LR v. 3 beta. Thanks, Doug Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcoombs Posted February 8, 2010 Share #20 Posted February 8, 2010 Thanks! Got it. LR does have an automatic back-up feature which clearly backs up only its catalogue which contains the changes made in pp. They also make it clear that it is not backing up your original image, but it includes a map to the location of that image on your hard drive. Appreciate your help, Doug Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.