On 14/04/2011 6:53 AM, Kele wrote:
There’s some new info here… Increased dynamic range (luminance between the lightest and darkest areas of an image) is what really makes RAW a useful shooting option. RAW over jpeg is not so much about the finer resolution – if I understand you correctly, Helmut.
I’m addicted to "popping" photos with HDR tools so the info about RAW having inherently higher dynamic range compared to jpeg interests me. Does shooting RAW also maximize the gamut range captured? I presume that if my camera has no choice, the jpeg gamut is sRGB and I can’t increase the color range after the image is recorded.
———–
"Helmut" wrote:
The issue of RAW or not is one of highly personal choice rather than a technical requirement for good photography. As a Working professional photographer for 30 years, I’ve seen a lot of arguments for a lot of practices.
The current argument regarding RAW files is simply described:
If you understand the dynamic range of your camera and can predict if the scene is within the range of the camera to capture detail in both shadow and highlight… Using RAW capture and the intermediate steps of development to produce a picture for printing is a waste of time.
If however, you intend to manipulate the dynamic range or feel more secure in having a stop or two "up your sleeve" so to speak, then by all means use RAW capture.
There are a few highly successful RAW developers on the market that can make some adjustments during opening of the file that make some users think their images are better than they actually are. Other RAW developers that also have some automatic ability, allow you to switch it off and see how bad your images really are.
Any argument about RAW V JPG is subjective, often one sided and almost never informative enough for anyone to make a decision from. When a contributor resorts to bad language and personal insults the whole point of "why Bother" has those of us who once enjoyed the banter of news groups asking ourselves why we, from time to time come back to see if anything has changed.
It hasn’t… All that has changed is the names of those claiming knowledge or intimidating others to get accepted as having knowledge. To suggest someone who came here either hoping to find knowledge or give some of theirs in conversation is "Stupid" says a lot about the person doing the intimidation.
HH
I’d like to clear up the notion that RAW files are sensor data. They are not any more than they are image files. They contain image information derived from the calculation on-board computers make. This is based on what some development engineer considers the parameters of a "good" image need to be.
I once thought I saw green differently than the rest of us because I liked the green foliage as portrayed by Agfa film whilst the rest of us seemed to adore the over saturated, yellow intense greens from Fuji film. In truth what I saw was over use of yellow in the green channel to overcome the effect of transmitting black information in the green channel (TV here).
The only reason a RAW image is thought by many to be superior to a JPG image for the purpose of editing more detail is because of 2 variables.
One is compression. The further you compress an image file, the more data is lost from it. The second variable is the point of clipping. All digital images have to clip the white point and black point. Look at this as being at some point the ability to produce usable imagery has to stop.
Film or analogue data just disappears to nothing or total black but digital has to at one fixed point, switch off or stop… Clip.
OK so look at the structure of a JPG file. They firstly obtain a smaller file size by discarding unwanted or "unseeable" information from the image. This is roughly 5% of the file size.
You might notice if you open a RAW file without any adjustments and immediately save it as a JPG at 100%, the file can be edited to almost recover the same amount of detail in shadows and highlights as are in the RAW file.
Cameras compress JPG files. Most compress RAW files too. Some will even allow you to select the amount of compression in a RAW file just like they offer the same choice with JPG files. Except none of them will allow you to save a JPG file at 100%.
HDR as opposed to tone mapping is one area I think RAW files are a perfect choice to start with. Faced with not having taken a bracket of shots… Developing a number of JPG files from a single RAW file, using the extremes of each end of the tone scale can provide a base series of images that will yield exceptional results.
I frequently use this technique when trying to make a wedding dress shot in bright sun, display all it’s detail. There is a good reason for shooting in both RAW and JPG mode. Being able to use the JPG files virtually straight from the camera is a big plus. Having RAW files to work with in creating exceptional portraits is too.
Those who believe shooting only in RAW mode because that’s what makes them a "Pro" probably need to recognise that photographers in the 50’s and 60’s often used home made cameras and other improvisation to produce the amazing pictures users of Photoshop strive so hard today to imitate.
Mid range DSLRs have dual cards. How much trouble is it then, to shoot RAW + HQ JPG and get the best of both file types?
HH.