Comment by ShaolinTiger

July 12, 2006 @ 11:37 am

Yeah I’ve been shooting in JPEG Fine, I guess it’s time to start working out a RAW workflow with the Nikon .NEF format, luckily both the software I use understand it (ACDSee and Photoshop CS2).

It’s not too bad for me, I’ll do some tests later, but fine JPEG was around 2.5MB RAW around 5.5MB.

Pingback by Under The Light of the Moon »

July 12, 2006 @ 2:06 pm

[...] This was my first time shooting in RAW and processing to TIFF then jpeg for web. Technorati Tags: d70s, long exposure, manfrotto, moon, night shots, nikon, photography, tripod 0 Views – Filed under: Photography, Night Shots Related Posts:- I like it RAW! (RAW vs JPEG) [...]

Comment by Terenceg

July 12, 2006 @ 3:41 pm

RAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

why jpeg when u can RAW ! anyway, too many exposure to Jpeg, people always say Jpeg without really knowing wut is Jpeg.

I get secretary saying ” aIYAHS save into JAY PEG EASI EASI”

Comment by Intensecure

July 12, 2006 @ 7:54 pm

Of course the ever controversial Ken Rockwell can counter that argument with http://kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm !
Personally, I have tried both, but for speed and simplicity on my ,albeit advanced for a P&S, FZ30 I stick to HQ JPEGs.

Comment by lanatir

July 13, 2006 @ 12:27 am

i think if u read KR’s article in depth and see exactly the arguments that i am presenting then u would understand that it is about choice. if he does not want to take the choice to use these controls, then it’s his choice as well. but better to understand the choices at hand instead of just abandoning the use of one format for the other without seeing the whole picture

KR has used his choice as a professional to produce in quantity. on the other hand, for photogs like me who strive for the ART and need to produce final prints fit for exhibitions and galleries, it is not the path i would take.

Comment by ShaolinTiger

July 13, 2006 @ 2:04 am

Ken Rockwell is a bit of a fundementalist, he has his points but RAW has more good points IMHO, I’ll be sticking with RAW. I’m in it for the art. If I do some event with quick turnaround, I’ll probably hand over fine JPEGs, much faster.

Comment by Lanatir

July 13, 2006 @ 2:21 pm

You sure fundamentalist is the right word to use? Heheh…

Comment by ShaolinTiger

July 13, 2006 @ 3:12 pm

I was being polite..

Comment by Chris Chong

July 17, 2006 @ 10:42 am

I believe RAW is overrated.

Yes, you do get that extra bit of dynamic range and the ability to have better control over your colours and on noise reduction is great.

But in all honesty, JPEGs are perfectly fine if you get your camera settings right. On my D70 I don’t see any real improvement in resolution between a RAW NEF file and a high quality JPEG.

The D70′s metering is fantastic and I rarely get blown-out highlights anyway so I rarely have a need for the safety cushion of 1 or 2 extra stops provided by a RAW file. In any case, I always check the histograms on my camera after each test shot to be on the safe side.

Yes, you can probably spot a group of pixels being sharper in RAWs but even these differences are invisible if you were to print something that’s larger than A3 in size.

The other problem with RAW is that you can’t do batch processing if you want to tweak each individual picture to your exact liking. It’s especially bad if you’ve just came back from an event with over 300 photos to process.

In any case, i find that other things – such as using a circular polariser, making goood use of a flash/reflectors and understanding the strengths of your lens (or lenses) – provide far more tangible improvements than by shooting in RAW and tweaking in Photoshop afterwards.

I shot a lot in RAW when I was starting out. Now, I have enough confidence to shoot solely with JPEGs. And on the plus side, my 1GB CF cards give me a lot more mileage.

Just my 2 sen.

Comment by Lanatir

July 17, 2006 @ 11:43 am

Thanks for your comments Chris. Some interesting and commendable work you have there!

In any case…

Yes, you do get that extra bit of dynamic range and the ability to have better control over your colours and on noise reduction is great.

Yes this is indeed very important to people who shoot in low light conditions as well as for those who need to have a smooth tone over a large picture where banding is a problem. You opinion here does not diminish the importance of these elements to these photogs.

But in all honesty, JPEGs are perfectly fine if you get your camera settings right.

To reiterate, it’s more than just getting your camera settings right. It’s about using the tools to do things that are beyond the capabilities of your camera.

The D70’s metering is fantastic and I rarely get blown-out highlights anyway so I rarely have a need for the safety cushion of 1 or 2 extra stops provided by a RAW file. In any case, I always check the histograms on my camera after each test shot to be on the safe side.

With a good RAW converter and proper techniques in post processing, you can achieve greater dynamic range and latitude. It’s not about achieving the ‘right’ exposure. It’s about increasing the tonal range between black and white. To add to this, it’s more than just exposure, it’s about letting the camera decide what sort of sharpness/contrast/saturation levels that would be applied onto your photos instead of giving you the choice to apply these settings yourself. Note that you have much more flexibility when applying these settings post capture.

Yes, you can probably spot a group of pixels being sharper in RAWs but even these differences are invisible if you were to print something that’s larger than A3 in size.

Again, it’s not just about resolution and sharpness.

The other problem with RAW is that you can’t do batch processing if you want to tweak each individual picture to your exact liking. It’s especially bad if you’ve just came back from an event with over 300 photos to process.

I have to disagree…

- perhaps you’re only confined to certain software but RAW converters like RSP, CaptureOne can do batch processing
- u have the choice to tweak the photos individually and then batch process or just batch process without tweaking. It’s all about the choice. You can have your cake and eat it here.

In any case, i find that other things – such as using a circular polariser, making goood use of a flash/reflectors and understanding the strengths of your lens (or lenses) – provide far more tangible improvements than by shooting in RAW and tweaking in Photoshop afterwards.

Using RAW does not mean that you give up good photographic sense and it certainly does not mean that you give up using these tools (CPL, flash, lens etc). It’s not one or the other. All need to work in tandem.

Now, I have enough confidence to shoot solely with JPEGs. And on the plus side, my 1GB CF cards give me a lot more mileage.

- CF card prices are dropping like mad as they are commodity now.
- In large quantity event photography, if you do not want to do anything to the photos, then more power to you. I would see it as an opportunity to provide a value added service to the client should I choose to post process.
- You are suggesting that all photographers who choose to shoot RAW have a problem with self confidence?

Comment by Chris Chong

July 17, 2006 @ 12:34 pm

Hi Lanatir,

The thing is, the D70 already optimises each JPEG for optimum dynamic range if you set it’s tonal settings to auto (or you could set it manually yourself for each type of setting).

Yes, banding is a possible problem, but not one that I personally encounter.

I personally have no problems with the tonal qualities of JPEGs taken with the D70 either. Your experience may vary from camera to camera, of course.

With regards to batch processing, I said that it’s a problem if you want to tweak each picture to it’s own individual settings (to maximise dynamic range, curves, etc) if you’ve got over a hundred of them.

If you’re just going to apply batch processing on a whole group of pictures, it’s probably because you’ve got the wrong settings for tones and colours on your camera. And if you’re not going to tweak your pictures, why shoot in RAW in the first place?

Also, I never said that you should abandon proper photographic practice when shooting in RAW. And I never said that they were mutually exclusive either. Yes, I do understand that they’re separate issues, but I’m highlighting the fact that some people think that they’ll get better results just by shooting in RAW while ignoring other factors.

I mean, how many times have you seen a newcomer to the DSLR club shooting everything at ISO1600 without a flash simply because “everything looks more natural” — never mind the fact that naturally available lighting isn’t always optmised for your subjects.

And when I tell these guys, “Hey, why don’t you use a flash?” They’d normally go, “Don’t worry, I’m shooting in RAW and can adjust the levels”

Yes, I realise I’m also shifting the goalpost slightly here. My apologies.

…

Yes, CF cards are getting cheaper. But why spend a couple of hundred ringgit when you don’t need to?

As far as confidence is concerned, it’s really up to the individual. I shot in RAW in the past mainly because I was afraid of getting the exposure wrong. Nowadays, I find that I’m getting it right most of the time – also because I’ve learnt how to use my camera to the best of its abilities.

Now, I’m not disputing the fact that RAW files have their uses and I’m pretty darn sure that you’re happy with using RAW files and that they’re important to you – otherwise you wouldn’t be disputing my claims.

Especially if you’re often caught in situations with tricky lighting – like shooting weddings, for example (those white gowns sure are tricky). RAW is definitely the way to go.

But for 99% percent of my photographic needs, JPEGs are fine, especially ever since I’ve owned a D70 (I really can’t praise this camera enough! ^_^)

And I suspect that most people wouldn’t really benefit from shooting in RAW for stuff like birthdays, parties, holidays and so on. And even for creative photography, JPEGs aren’t as bad as what some people are claiming it to be.

Again, I apologise if I’ve somehow irked you but these are my own experiences – I hope you understand.

Happy shooting!

Oh, and the pictures of the clownfish and sheep on my blog aren’t mine, if you’re wondering.

Comment by Lanatir

July 17, 2006 @ 1:25 pm

I think we’ve established the fact that if you do not find the attributes of RAW suited for your personal needs. Fair enough. We’re all entitled to our own opinions. That does not however diminish the benefits of RAW and the possibilities it brings to the table. In summary and stopping short of going through your subsequent comments step by step, RAW is present as an artistic tool – whatever the noobs you meet along the way. Using a screwdriver to hammer a nail does not mean that that screwdriver stops being a screwdriver. I have elaborated several key points a few times here so no point being redundant.

If you find the D70 to be a tool sufficient for you to carve out your photographic world, then good for you. I’m not here to convince you to use RAW exclusively. I’m for the right tool for the right job and it just goes to show that your path is different from mine.

I made this point earlier in one of my comments above where I said, “on the other hand, for photogs like me who strive for the ART and need to produce final prints fit for exhibitions and galleries, it is not the path i would take.”

Comment by kelly

July 3, 2008 @ 3:24 am

I think it comes down to how much you can trust your camera to do the processing you want. The images have to be processed to use anyway. I think this argument is really more about what type of processing is better: in-camera or in-computer. Kind of a funny argument, since a digital camera is largely a specialized computer. It would make more sense to me to argue about which cameras/computers have the best processing software…which would still be very dependent on individual taste. Of course, I see the obvious rebuttal to my argument: that RAW gives you the option to use multiple types of initial processing for the same shot. And, yes, I have had instances, using my XSi, in which I’ve forgotten to reset my white balance or my parameters could have been set better. Even though they were JPEG, I found it fairly simple to edit and nicely salvage the images on my computer. I cannot help but agree with a quote I read somewhere: “life’s too short to shoot RAW”!