DSLR photography

[asthmatic camel]

I use PIXresizer. It's not one-click, but it's very simple (I can use it!). The site is HERE. Hope it helps.

That's just what I was looking for; easy and fast. Thanks!!!

[Harryprice]

I do know some people who have been semi-pros for years and only shoot JPEGS and do hardly anything in Photoshop for proper image development. The reason? They simply have not taken the time to learn Photoshop and often dont understand what RAW is.

There are other good reasons for doing this. There's fitting plenty of shots on a chip. There's the time saved in converting lots of shots. Then there's the fact that Photoshop can never give you what you never had in the first place. It is better to put the maximum effort into getting the perfect shot because you can't insert detail later in any photo package. Of course, if detail isn't crucial then that's not a problem. But if detail isn't a problem, why use RAW anyway?

The next one on my personal shopping list is around £1000 (its going to take me two years to save for that!!!!).

Just out of interest, what is the lens? Is it a big telephoto?

[Dr B]

There are other good reasons for doing this. There's fitting plenty of shots on a chip.

Very true - but most decent memory cards can accommodate a great number of shots now. At 8 to 16MB you can get around 550 - over 1000 images on a card at maximum size and resolution (in RAW). These figures increase if you just shoot JPEG of course (as you rightly point out above).

There's the time saved in converting lots of shots.

For people wanting the best results I dont fing this reason convincing - but yes, this is why many amatuers shoot straight to JPEG. Digital images need developing properly as well and if you are going down the DSLR root - shoot RAW otherwise, stick with a compact. The RAW file contains more information to facilitate better image development.

Then there's the fact that Photoshop can never give you what you never had in the first place.

This is an argument for shooting in RAW - because it will always give you more to play with from the point of capture. But yes, Photoshop can only work with what it is given.

Of course, if detail isn't crucial then that's not a problem. But if detail isn't a problem, why use RAW anyway?

Absolutely!!!! but then, why get a DSLR instead of a much cheaper compact camera? If you get a good quality DSLR and only shoot JPEGS and only use standard modes, you are not recruiting a whole host of facilities your camera has the capacity to use (and was designed to do). Might as well use a good compact and work it to within an inch of its life than get a DSLR and use 20% of its capability. You get more of a return on your investment that way.

Just out of interest, what is the lens? Is it a big telephoto?

Glad you asked! No, its a wide-angle lens {12mm - 24mm) nano-crystal coated optics, vibration reduction, fast silent focusing, etc etc....you can get current models for around £800 - but I'm waiting for the new version with some improvements in the optics.

As a side note - would you recommend that anomalous photos submitted as 'ghost photos' be taken in RAW? I think I would. It is the digital negative but I dont know if it can be tampered with without an obvious digital record of the alterations. I know you can open JPEGS in the RAW converter of Photoshop, but i dont think you can "back convert" them. Might be a good way of upping the standard in that area of research?

[Dr B]

I've been speaking to an engineer who works in the camera industry and he has told me something interesting in relation to the magapixel myth and what we are discussiing here.

It seems that the future development of DSLRs may not be to keep adding more pixels to sensors. 10mp appears to be enough for most people. High end semi-pro DSLRs have between 12 and 16mp and the really high end Nikon / Canon units have around 26mp. This is close to entry level medium format cameras so there seems to be little reason to go further down this route except for a specialsed market.

I've been told we should all expect more 'gadjets' on cameras. My own DSLR, a Nikon D90 has high-definition movie capture - but I've never used it and did not buy it for this reason. Its a top notch still camera and that's why i got it - i find these gadjets a distraction for me.

Seems more and more units will go down this route. Another development we can expect to see is greater noise reduction and artefact processing / removal. Expect faster focusing, improvements in metering, frames-per-second and buffering, low-light facilities (take a look at the new Nikon D3s for example), etc.

[Harryprice]

Very true - but most decent memory cards can accommodate a great number of shots now. At 8 to 16MB you can get around 550 - over 1000 images on a card at maximum size and resolution (in RAW). These figures increase if you just shoot JPEG of course (as you rightly point out above).

But do you store them on disc? They will eat up a disc in no time!

For people wanting the best results I dont fing this reason convincing - but yes, this is why many amatuers shoot straight to JPEG. Digital images need developing properly as well and if you are going down the DSLR root - shoot RAW otherwise, stick with a compact. The RAW file contains more information to facilitate better image development.

I would challenge most people, even good photographers, to see the difference between a well shot low compression JPG and the same photo converted from RAW.

This is an argument for shooting in RAW - because it will always give you more to play with from the point of capture. But yes, Photoshop can only work with what it is given.

My point is about overuse of photo editing. If you want a highly accurate photo then you should put 90% of your effort into the image capture with only a little light noise reduction or sharpening if required. If you are just using the original image as a starting point for artistic expression then the initial quality is not a big deal.

Absolutely!!!! but then, why get a DSLR instead of a much cheaper compact camera? If you get a good quality DSLR and only shoot JPEGS and only use standard modes, you are not recruiting a whole host of facilities your camera has the capacity to use (and was designed to do). Might as well use a good compact and work it to within an inch of its life than get a DSLR and use 20% of its capability. You get more of a return on your investment that way.

I disagree completely here. People don't buy DSLRs just for the ability to get RAW - indeed many DSLR owners never use it. You buy a DSLR for exchangeable lenses (faster, wide angle, zoom), better lenses, faster shooting, more control over exposure parameters and lots of other variables. RAW is just one feature of DSLRs and, in my opinion, not a crucial one. See Wrotniak for a typically sensible discussion of this issue. His conclusion "While I believe that 95% of photographers will be perfectly happy storing their images as low-compression (1:4 or better) JPEGs, you may belong to the remaining 5%."

In fact, I would go so far as to say that RAW mode is another DSLR myth! Many inexperienced photographers buy a DSLR and think RAW is the way to go. They end up with photos much the same quality as they would with low compression JPG, but having expended huge amounts of time on each of them. For some people with critical applications RAW is essential but those people will already know that. Those who don't know probably don't need RAW.

Glad you asked! No, its a wide-angle lens {12mm - 24mm) nano-crystal coated optics, vibration reduction, fast silent focusing, etc etc....you can get current models for around £800 - but I'm waiting for the new version with some improvements in the optics.

Wow! What difference do you expect to see from it?

As a side note - would you recommend that anomalous photos submitted as 'ghost photos' be taken in RAW? I think I would. It is the digital negative but I dont know if it can be tampered with without an obvious digital record of the alterations. I know you can open JPEGS in the RAW converter of Photoshop, but i dont think you can "back convert" them. Might be a good way of upping the standard in that area of research?

Absolutely not - far too big to email around! Having examined hoards of anomalous photos many are very low resolution and poor quality. However, on requesting 'the original' uncompressed version I usually find it is little better. The photo itself was poorly exposed in the first place! Indeed, it is the poor quality of the photo that often makes it 'anomalous'. So poorly defined detail becomes a 'face' or a 'figure' or a UFO when a better shot would have revealed what it really was. Sometimes I've requested other shots of the same scene and they have revealed what the 'anomaly' really is! I've almost never seen a really well exposed shot that contained an anomaly.

Seems more and more units will go down this route. Another development we can expect to see is greater noise reduction and artefact processing / removal. Expect faster focusing, improvements in metering, frames-per-second and buffering, low-light facilities (take a look at the new Nikon D3s for example), etc.

Yes I've read about some of the stuff proposed for DSLR - a lot of it makes them more like compacts! The crucial point about these things is that you can turn them off!

[Dr B]

But do you store them on disc? They will eat up a disc in no time!

No, and no one I know does - eveyone i take picutres with or have taken advice from uses portable hard drives. I have one with terra-byte capacity for under £100 so its really cheap and trust me, I have over a thousand RAW files and god knows how many JPEGS - its hardly made a dent. This really is not an issue and big advances have been made in this area. Its no issue at all.

I would challenge most people, even good photographers, to see the difference between a well shot low compression JPG and the same photo converted from RAW.

Dont get me wrong, there is nothing 'wrong' with JPEGS and i use them all the time in emailing stuff and on websites etc - but not for images I sell or print for my own art (I generally convert to TIFF). I am not 'dissing' JPEGS but making the case for RAW. There are certain types of images and certain resolutions where you can spot the difference in image quality between the formats (large tonal range etc) - but yes, you generally need some training on this. I have seen it in my own images on a proper calibrated colour monitor in terms of saturation and tone.

However, your question is also loaded a bit as RAW can help salvage certain errors - which would perhaps not be present if every picture you ever took was, as you say, 'well shot' in the first place. So you are being a circular here. Even the pros make mistakes and RAW gives them options as you are working with much more data. Its not always practical to say - well, dont make mistakes. RAW also does more than allow to to correct for errors - but i use it as an illustration.

My point is about overuse of photo editing. If you want a highly accurate photo then you should put 90% of your effort into the image capture with only a little light noise reduction or sharpening if required. If you are just using the original image as a starting point for artistic expression then the initial quality is not a big deal.

Thats a separate point about RAW - but you raise a point i see photographers arguing about all the time - often in relation to HDR images. Personally, i dont see it as an issue. Photography is an art - if it pleases you and you get nice results - its valid.

I do agree with you completely that photography is about image capture and you need to do as much as possible at the front end and not rely too much on post-production (as a general rule)...but thats not against an image processing point of view if that's what you desire (artistically) - the two are not mutually exclusive - at least to me.

I disagree completely here. People don't buy DSLRs just for the ability to get RAW - indeed many DSLR owners never use it.

I never once said they did...in fact, you make the same point I do - most people dont use it. However, I see RAW as something people should explore to see if they can get results from it. Its not 'absolutely' crucial or a deal breaker - but to me, i see the difference, so it is important. So we may well be agreeing, but its just a point of emphasis.

You buy a DSLR for exchangeable lenses (faster, wide angle, zoom), better lenses, faster shooting, more control over exposure parameters and lots of other variables.

All of which can be represented better in a RAW file assuming all other things (good photography) are in place. Dont get me wrong, i am agreeing with you but your points here are not against using RAW. If you have the capacity to use RAW then give it a go and see. If it does not work for you, in your opinion fine.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that RAW mode is another DSLR myth! Many inexperienced photographers buy a DSLR and think RAW is the way to go. They end up with photos much the same quality as they would with low compression JPG, but having expended huge amounts of time on each of them. For some people with critical applications RAW is essential but those people will already know that. Those who don't know probably don't need RAW.

This is where I disagree - RAW containing a greater amount of data about the captured light, tonal range, etc is not a myth - what you are taking about is whether the average joe can notice it - not whether such differences are real. But then, who says the average joe is right?

I now know what chromatic abberation is and have learned abit about composition errors - now I cant miss these when i see them.


Think of it scientifically. How important is the integrity of your data (or at least as its represented in digital form) that leads to the final image? Do you view your images on a calibrated monitor?

Any changes you make to a JPEG (i.e., sharpening etc), no matter how small, is based on a hghly compressed image (as i understand it). RAW allows you to sharpen your image to your hearts content on a non-compressed format.

[Dr B]

Wow! What difference do you expect to see from it?

The unofficial reports so far are major improvements in image sharpness across the image (utterly crystal clear apparently), less susceptible to distortion (chromatic / luminance / fringing / aberration / etc) - but I am waiting for the product launch and an indepth test of it from independent reviewers. Lots of pros are very excited about it.


My point about asking for the RAW version of anomalous photos was directed at the fact that it may help you see if the image has been tampered with. The RAW converter tags alterations and i dont think its possibly to really fake picutres within the RAW converter - but i could be totally wrong on that .

Thanks for the chat - maybe you can help out with the factsheet when we produce it - your comments would be greatly appreciated.

[Harryprice]

Any changes you make to a JPEG (i.e., sharpening etc), no matter how small, is based on a hghly compressed image (as i understand it). RAW allows you to sharpen your image to your hearts content on a non-compressed format.

If you use JPG, your camera converts from RAW as you take the shot. Using RAW means you move this process onto your computer. It allows you to alter parameters and rerun the process repeatedly. However, the things you can adjust can also be applied to any JPG images in photo editing software. On recent DSLRs you can actually set the default RAW conversion parameters that the software in the camera uses - indeed many photographers do just that. You can even change them, while reviewing the shot in the display screen, and reshoot with different values if you like.

Looking at a RAW conversion versus the same adjustments applied to a low compression JPG (say 1/2.5) in photo software, most people would not spot any difference. There are few applications, including professional ones, where such a tiny difference would have any practical effect.

I don't think people new to photography, buying their first DSLR, should bother with RAW. It will tempt them to spend a lot of time post processing to vainly try and fix mistakes they made while shooting. They would be far better off concentrating on shooting technique. The 'myth' here is that using RAW can somehow fix mistakes you made in shooting - it cannot. Modern automated cameras can churn out excellent photos in almost all conditions but to get really great shots, a knowledge of how photography really works (which hasn't changed from film cameras) is needed. You may not notice the f-stops, focal length and shutter speeds but they are still there and still have the same effect. Indeed, digital sensors are even more sensitive to incorrect exposure than film.

My point about asking for the RAW version of anomalous photos was directed at the fact that it may help you see if the image has been tampered with. The RAW converter tags alterations and i dont think its possibly to really fake picutres within the RAW converter - but i could be totally wrong on that.

Image manipulation forms only a tiny proportion of anomalous photos. The vast majority of anomalies are artefacts of the basic photographic process (like long exposures, focussing), most of which are fairly easy to spot. Indeed, image manipulation is often painfully obvious as well. That's because people try too hard and they don't know much about the paranormal.

[Dr B]

If you use JPG, your camera converts from RAW as you take the shot. Using RAW means you move this process onto your computer.

It means you have access to the RAW data. Think of it as an experiment. Do you want to see the RAW data or just have the final summarised statistics? One way allows you to do both (shooting RAW), the other way only allows you to see one.

Also shooting in RAW allows you to apply your own tweaks in a more controlled manner while not necessarily relying on the assumptions of the manufacturer which are far more crude.

However, the things you can adjust can also be applied to any JPG images in photo editing software.

That's not strictly true. The RAW converter offers more direct adjustments (split toning / colour temperature etc) and the converter is applying those changes to a data set with more integrity. You can find other ways within the main software to achieve similar results with JPEGS - but they are not the same and often involve more steps of digital processing which was something you said above - yuo were less fond of.

A few tweaks in RAW can save you time in the main package.

Now, things can get more complicated as you can open JPEGS in the RAW converter - but any action applied is only ever going to be working with a compressed image which makes a host of assuptions you may not agree with.

Looking at a RAW conversion versus the same adjustments applied to a low compression JPG (say 1/2.5) in photo software, most people would not spot any difference. There are few applications, including professional ones, where such a tiny difference would have any practical effect.

You keep saying this, but i can tell you, on a calibrated colour-temp monitor, I can with some of my own images as I have done it both ways. The colour is noticably different in a number of circumstances - but I agree with you, that it may not be obvious. Its also noticable on the highest quality colour printers as well.

I don't think people new to photography, buying their first DSLR, should bother with RAW. It will tempt them to spend a lot of time post processing to vainly try and fix mistakes they made while shooting.

Why are you assuming RAW is for fixing mistakes? - it isnt what it is for, though as i noted above, it can help with minor errors (like highlight burnout). I actually find that a few tweaks in RAW can save me time as it makes the need for additional and more long-winded changes in the main software redundant.

They would be far better off concentrating on shooting technique.

Oh I totally agree with you there - but that is not an argument against using RAW. Why not work on both?

The 'myth' here is that using RAW can somehow fix mistakes you made in shooting - it cannot.

That myth is perhaps, with respect, your misunderstanding over what i am saying and what RAW really is. No one said its there purely to solve mistakes. I used an example above as an illustration of its use - but even the best picutres benefit from being shot in RAW. RAW is, analagous to being the digital negative - and as such, merely requires developing.

I totally agree with you that people who view RAW as a way to fix mistakes is a fallacy. But that's not what it is for so you are over-stating your case here and arguing against a view of RAW which is not correct in the first place. RAW can help with mistakes - but its so much more than that.

I have some info on firmware of chips / sensors which i will post later - which makes RAW even more important particularly for Nikon users

[Harryprice]

It means you have access to the RAW data. Think of it as an experiment. Do you want to see the RAW data or just have the final summarised statistics? One way allows you to do both (shooting RAW), the other way only allows you to see one. Also shooting in RAW allows you to apply your own tweaks in a more controlled manner while not necessarily relying on the assumptions of the manufacturer which are far more crude.

We're talking photos here, not scientific experiments. For the vast majority of people in the vast majority of situations, nobody needs the raw data! They just want a photo they like, and that can be done more simply and quicker without using RAW.

That's not strictly true. The RAW converter offers more direct adjustments (split toning / colour temperature etc) and the converter is applying those changes to a data set with more integrity. You can find other ways within the main software to achieve similar results with JPEGS - but they are not the same and often involve more steps of digital processing which was something you said above - yuo were less fond of.

I said I was not fond of post processing at all! Ideally, with a really good photo it is hardly needed, if at all. The difference between the perfectly composed and exposed shot and the others is huge and obvious. You can even seen on the little screen on the back of your camera after you've taken the shot. You know straight away it's a gem. I throw away the vast majority of my photos because they are too ordinary. Having a RAW version would make no difference to me except extra work.

Now, things can get more complicated as you can open JPEGS in the RAW converter - but any action applied is only ever going to be working with a compressed image which makes a host of assuptions you may not agree with.

You keep saying this, but i can tell you, on a calibrated colour-temp monitor, I can with some of my own images as I have done it both ways. The colour is noticably different in a number of circumstances - but I agree with you, that it may not be obvious. Its also noticable on the highest quality colour printers as well.

You're talking theory here - the question is, is there any PRACTICAL difference? I'd say in most situations, no there isn't! You have to ask, who are these photos FOR? If it's for a customer, do THEY have a special monitor or printer? Even if they do, would they notice any difference? If it's purely for yourself then obviously you must spend as much time and money as you want producing photos by any method you like. You can, after all, appreciate the difference. Personally, I'd rather be out taking photos, looking for the elusive 'perfect shot', than spending hours in front of a computer screen trying to get just the right shade of purple.

If you're writing a guide for inexperiencied photographers, I think you should tell them not to bother with RAW until they've mastered shooting techniques. I know inexperienced people who have bought DSLRs and spend a lot of time processing their RAW images (which they've been told are better!). The problem is, their photos are terrible, badly composed, poorly exposed, far worse than the 'ordinary' JPGs I throw away! Photography is an art enabled by technology. But, in the end, if you're happy with what you are getting, you're doing it right.

[Dr B]

Hi Harryprice

Nice discussion – I’m enjoying it. I think we are getting off-topic a little and although I think you are making a number of important and salient points – they are not necessarily directed at the issue at hand. So let us re-cap.

Firstly, in terms of our proposed guide (the purpose of this thread) – this is mainly directed at helping consumers make purchasing decisions and the way company marketing and sales groups have used the concept of megapixels to induce in people the false perception that the more megapixels you have, then the better quality images the camera is capable of producing. This is not strictly true and we believe that informing customers of this would be a good thing. However, the hard version of the megapixel myth is also questionable and requires qualification. So, the main idea here is a short factsheet or article on manipulative marketing with the idea to give the non-expert consumer the opportunity to be better informed on the issue. Megapixels are one concept, but there are likely to be others when we look at the issue more closely. We could also approach a major manufacturer for an interview as well and get some quotes. If you are aware of some myths to do with how these units are being sold to the masses (ones you find dubious) – and want us to address it – then let us know.

Secondly, the article is meant to be punchy and catchy so it won’t be an in-depth discussion of philosophical approaches to photography – though I for one think that’s an excellent area for a discussion (though it’s not really marketing advice).

Thirdly, the additional and tangential discussion we have had about RAW versus JPEG is interesting and a hot-topic amongst amateur photographers – though again, perhaps not the most pressing issue for consumers. Most DSLRs can shoot both JPEG and RAW anyway – so it’s a decision that can be made after purchase. Having said that, lets now here, and just for the interest of the present discussion, continue exploring the issues surrounding these concepts – but let us set the context first. I will do this in some following posts.

[Harryprice]

OK, fine. Wasn't there a study that said the more expensive a purchasie is, the more satisfied the customer feels afterwards?

I'm going to be very cynical here and say I'm happy for people to buy expensive cameras when cheaper ones would serve them equally well. That's because it increases sales volume and brings down overall prices for people who really appreciate a quality model.

More seriously (), one issue with DSLRs is lenses. Once you decide on a model, you buy into a system. If you go for four-thirds, for instance, you can't then use old 35mm lenses (well you can, with an adapter but it's not ideal). So you need to research the whole system of lenses before you decide. If you are going to need a big telephoto, you might be better off with a four-thirds system because the high end lenses will be a lot smaller and lighter.

Of course, most people won't see beyond 'Canikon' (the big two) but there are other options out there. Alas, I think many people still buy a 'name', maybe because they liked the old film models that manufacturer made or just because they've heard of it. In reality, almost any DSLR should give you good results these days. In our current consumer-orientated world, any brand that fails to follow a trend set by its competitors will soon suffer. For instance, in the 'dust on the chip' problem, almost everyone has now moved towards Olympus's solution of vibration, simply because it works best (though no doubt someone will come up with an even better idea soon).

[Dr B]

I'm going to be very cynical here and say I'm happy for people to buy expensive cameras when cheaper ones would serve them equally well. That's because it increases sales volume and brings down overall prices for people who really appreciate a quality model.

Indeed. Also, now that adding unecessary gadgets to the new wave of models becomes the norm - you will be able to buy the older models dirt cheap as well. A good example is the Nikon D300 - its currently tumbling in price as the new D300s has been launced (exactly the same camera with some small tweaks and video mode). Its still over £1000 but keep an eye on it over the coming months - shops will have unsold units on their shelf and will want to move them at some point.

More seriously (), one issue with DSLRs is lenses. Once you decide on a model, you buy into a system. If you go for four-thirds, for instance, you can't then use old 35mm lenses (well you can, with an adapter but it's not ideal). So you need to research the whole system of lenses before you decide. If you are going to need a big telephoto, you might be better off with a four-thirds system because the high end lenses will be a lot smaller and lighter.

Very true. I mentioned the importance of lens quality earlier - but yes, lens range is also a big deal. My D90 has a DX cropped sensor - so its not full frame. However, Nikon have a variety of lenses to support the range. I think their D5000, D300, D90 etc all have cropped sensors so the company is well behind the format. If you want full-frame - for me that would be a D700 or D3x - which range between £2500 and £6000 - way out of my league and I would need new lenses to fully capitalise on the full-frame.

Of course, most people won't see beyond 'Canikon' (the big two) but there are other options out there. Alas, I think many people still buy a 'name', maybe because they liked the old film models that manufacturer made or just because they've heard of it.

I agree. I spent a year reading articles and websites for tests on semi-pro cameras - but i know I'm a bit obsessive that way. My decision was based on numbers - not just the price but also image quality, noise levels (major issue for dslr), metering results, features, lens options, and so on. I then also went for Nikon because, in my opinion - they make the best lenses in the world for the mass market. I know most people wont put this effort in and that's fine. I've always been one for doing research before parting with cash.


Will put up some other comments on the RAW debate later. Nice chat

[Dr B]

OK


With regards to my original comments on RAW. I originally said I would advise if you can use it, do so – broaden your horizons. I stand by this completely. Obviously, if it does not work for you (too much time / files too large, etc) – then don’t use it, however that decision is based on choice and not necessarily image quality. I advise people explore what it may offer them - if you dont like it - fine.

I noted in an earlier post that RAW is often referred to as the ‘digital negative’. This is not strictly true (I borrowed the term as a metaphor) – digital photography has no negative in the true sense of the word. However, RAW is data from what your sensor records devoid of excessive processing assumptions made on your behalf by the camera / manufacturer. It is the nearest thing in the digital domain to a negative – so it works as a metaphor in that sense.

It seems to me that you are not arguing about the data in terms of what RAW files are and what they contain. RAW files are much larger as they contain much more data about what you have captured (typically 12-bit colour) and contains the complete data from the sensor. The RAW provides a higher dynamic range of colour and light. However, your issue seems to be that this may not translate into really noticeable (i.e., perceptual to a human observer) differences in image quality (though you have not told me how you evaluate the quality of your images – is it just on a standard computer screen or high quality prints?).


I’ve seen one internet proponent who is very vocal on this issue and agrees with you – but his website is notorious for not actually having a single piece of real data on it and he is generally viewed with suspicion amongst the professionals I have spoken to for this reason - he enjoys a rant. Moving on, other comments from above can be summarised as;

(i) the idea of the advantages of RAW could itself be a fallacy
(ii) People who use RAW do so because they make more mistakes
(iii) You assume that using RAW is analogous to an over-reliance on post-processing – yet suggest a format which is itself perhaps the most post-processed of all (JPEGs).
(iv) RAW processing takes too much time



I certainly contest the notion that the advantages of RAW are fallacious for all the reasons already given. There are perceptual differences in high-quality prints – I’ve seen them on my own images working with a printing lab here in Brum and there are numerous websites and professional articles out there one can read which support this. So there is a real difference – but the issue is – is that difference large enough to warrant the jump to RAW for the average Joe? I agree, for many people perhaps not – but that’s not the same as trying to argue there is no perceivable difference. If you are doing standard 6 x 4 prints from a 1-hour print shop – don’t bother. But if you are using a professional print shop with the latest high-quality printers and want to produce the highest quality print your camera is capable of (assuming you have captured a good image) – then I would recommend it.



Of course, a few years ago, neither monitors nor printers were capable of representing the data captured by a good DSLR - but things have changed tremendously in the last few years and these other technologies have now started to catch up. Back then TIFF and / or JPEG would be all that was available - but not now.
The idea that people use RAW to compensate for mistakes which they should not make in the first place is a gross misunderstanding of RAW. RAW can help with silly errors, but that’s a side issue to the fact that it simply contains more unprocessed data for the photographer to work with. You can add most of the transformations available in RAW in the main software – but only via more convoluted processing steps which actually takes more time and involves more post-processing! In RAW it’s often a simple step.



An implied value judgement in some of the comments over previous posts is that using RAW is an over-reliance on post-processing – but then you suggest (rather oddly) that a JPEG (one of the most post-processed formats) is a better solution. If your issue with RAW is the presence of an over-processed image then you cannot suggest a JPEG as a viable alternative as it is heavily compressed and tweaked as a format. The only difference is – the camera does all the work for you. Your decisions are made irrelevant by the camera. I would argue that properly developed RAW images are never as ‘contrasty’ or ‘over-saturated’ as JPEGs can be. In addition, the tweaks I make in RAW are very minor. A small tweak on contrast, sharpness etc, that’s it. This can hardly be described as over-processed and in fact – working with RAW means I hardly need to do anything to my images in the main software.


As for RAW processing taking too much time - well, all I can say is that I can go from RAW image to final print in under 2mins with most pictures. This gives me more control over the final image as my data have made fewer automatic assumptions. I like it when there are fewer assumptions – as sometimes, they are unnecessary and unwarranted.

Some responses to some other quotes from posts above.

We're talking photos here, not scientific experiments. For the vast majority of people in the vast majority of situations, nobody needs the raw data! They just want a photo they like, and that can be done more simply and quicker without using RAW.

Actually, as I have said repeatedly above – you can see the difference across both images particularly in terms of colour representation, saturation, sharpness, etc for some images – especially when printed. I’ve seen differences at A4, A3, and A0 type sizes. So I am talking photos – but ones with scientific data to back up the perceptual differences (which is always nice). There are plenty of examples on the net but the professional literature provides the best examples. Now, it is true that some monitors are not well suited to examine such differences in images – so have a think about whether you are talking about pure digital format pics (i.e., for websites etc) – or quality prints for sale or your own pleasure. The tonal range that landscape photography throws at you is better represented when originally captured in RAW and printed via high quality printers. None of this means JPEGS are not capable of supporting great pictures. As I said above, I use JPEGs all the time, particularly during file sharing or for websites – but not for serious photography.

I also think you underestimate and slightly patronise the community out there. There are more photography magazines than there have ever been, camera sales have climbed during the recession (unlike most other areas) and more and more courses / groups are being set up to address the need for learning more and getting more from their DSLR camera. These individuals want to learn more and engage with their cameras more professionally. In fact, the point-and-shoot happy snapper may be soon a minority! Of course, I accept such photographers are out there and in reality make up a sizable amount of consumers, but modern compact cameras feed the majority of this thirst and you can now get inter-changeable lenses on non-DSLR formats as well (again – for the point and shoot market). I agree that this market may not care about the RAW / JPEG issue and I doubt whether their cameras facilitate RAW anyway. These consumers are also less likely to care about megapixels!!!!! Compact cameras are sold more on price, DSLRs on features – it’s the latter audience we are speaking to – but its not as if what we want to cover is irrelevant to the point-and-shoot photographer.

I said I was not fond of post processing at all! Ideally, with a really good photo it is hardly needed, if at all.

But this is surely a fallacy – as the JPEG is post-processed, - just by the camera itself – so don’t kid yourself on that issue. It’s a compressed and beefed-up image. JPEGs have colour saturated, contrast turned up, sharpening applied, etc, all automatically. Although you can alter some in-camera settings - the mere format of JPEGs means the camera is always making assumptions for you many of which cannot be undone (or at least not easily or effectively). On a personal note I do often find JPEGS to be a bit too ‘contrasty’ if that’s a word. Hence, some of them have had more severe algorithms applied to them than an image developed from RAW. So I think what you really mean is, it’s more convenient to shoot JPEG - which is very true. However, you’re not taking any photographic high-ground here. JPEGs are highly processed – just without you or your intellectual input! They may even be more processed (ultimately) than a RAW file.

Also, there is an issue with sensors / chips worth discussing which complicates things more. Even when in RAW some manufacturers set the default algorithms as being slightly more ‘cooked’ or ‘warmed up’ than others. A RAW file should look flat (low contrast) and be under-saturated in colour, etc on purpose. However, Canon RAW files are typically punchier than those from Nikon (for the semi-pro range at least). Why? Well, I am reliably informed that Canon have identified the enthusiasts market and general consumer as being their main target audience with their semi-pro mid-range cameras – and that this audience would find punchier RAW files more appealing to work with (thus – less post processing even in RAW). However, this means the manufacturer has made far more assumptions about how you want your images to look – even in RAW. Nikon have taken a different route – and to my mind, arguable a more scientific one. Their RAW files assume much less – thus, they make far fewer assumptions and leave a multiple of decisions (and their extent) to the photographer (ultimately giving you more control). Of course, the downside is that the RAW files can be unappealing at first glance and turn people off to either this format or even Nikon units. More processing time? Possibly, but if so, it’s a doddle once practiced. Also, the level of control is much more in the hands of the photographer – which is exactly as it should be. Both manufacturers have different philosophical approaches here, it’s really down to you and what you want. But the point is, the development of the RAW image is more necessary with certain units relative to others – but this does not make you a bad photographer or over-reliant on post-processing. Ultimately, shooting in RAW gives more control over how you want your image to look – a fundamental part of photography.

You're talking theory here - the question is, is there any PRACTICAL difference?

No – I am using measurable information (data) to furnish my position rather than just the excuse of less work. There is a practical difference – but it is up to any individual as to whether that is worth it. This is really the essence of our conversation. I think it’s worth it for the results, you don’t think it’s worth the extra effort – that’s fine, but to argue that the debates about RAW are a myth does not stand up to scrutiny.

Perhaps it is about what is best for you, under your personal constraints (be they time or space). But this is a different point to there being no perceptual difference between correctly processed RAW and a basic JPEG. I am aware of people that make that argument – but I have examined the numbers, and perceptually seen the difference in many of my own printed images (as have the people who print my images for me). There are other practical reasons for shooting RAW. You can return to the RAW file time and time again and make whatever changes you want without losing any data – you cannot do this with JPEGs without starting to lose information and quality.

Personally, I'd rather be out taking photos, looking for the elusive 'perfect shot', than spending hours in front of a computer screen trying to get just the right shade of purple.

.
If you are speanding hours in RAW – then you are doing something very wrong. That says more about the photographer than the format.

Many inexperienced photographers buy a DSLR and think RAW is the way to go. They end up with photos much the same quality as they would with low compression JPG, but having expended huge amounts of time on each of them.

You answer your own point here – inexperienced photographers! All you are really saying here is that someone who does not know what they are doing is going to find a simple procedure easier and cock up a harder procedure due to inexperience. This is not really an argument against learning and using RAW to great effect, as a skill and thus gaining experience.

RAW developing does not take a great deal of time. Once you have the basics down, it’s just a question of practice. I think some people try it…don’t put the effort in…get scared off…and just drop it.

Photography is an art enabled by technology. But, in the end, if you're happy with what you are getting, you're doing it right.

I could not agree more with that sentiment. Spot on.
The main argument against RAW is space – but as I said ages ago, this is no longer the issue it once was. If you don’t like to use RAW, don’t want to learn it – then fine. The nice thing is – you don’t have to. But if you want to start creating high-quality photography, for your own enjoyment, to show or to sell – working in RAW makes a great deal of sense. There are no short-cuts. This is of course, just my opinion.

[Harryprice]

I noted in an earlier post that RAW is often referred to as the ‘digital negative’. This is not strictly true (I borrowed the term as a metaphor) – digital photography has no negative in the true sense of the word. However, RAW is data from what your sensor records devoid of excessive processing assumptions made on your behalf by the camera / manufacturer. It is the nearest thing in the digital domain to a negative – so it works as a metaphor in that sense.

Quite so. RAW is simply the data from the sensor. Since different camera models have different sensors, the RAW format varies between models, unlike JPG or TIFF which are agreed standards.

You are not representing my points accurately here. Specifically:

the idea of the advantages of RAW could itself be a fallacy

No, I'm, saying there are marginal advantages for those who want them but most people wouldn't appreciate them anyway.

People who use RAW do so because they make more mistakes

No. I said I knew inexperienced photographers who habitually use RAW simply because someone said it was better. In reality, their own shots are of such low quality that they should be concentrating on taking better shots in the first place. I also said some people thought if they use RAW they could correct mistakes made in poor quality shots. I am talking about inexperienced photographers here - isn't that who this proposed leaflet is aimed at? Experienced photographers should know enough to make an informed choice.

You assume that using RAW is analogous to an over-reliance on post-processing – yet suggest a format which is itself perhaps the most post-processed of all (JPEGs).

No I don't. While using RAW of necessity involves post processing, many inexperienced practioners use the same settings as their camera would anyway, so completely wasting their time. When I started doing digital I used TIFF in the belief that uncompressed formats contained most information so they must be the best. What I have found by experience is that you can compress a photo to a surprisingly high degree before you start to notice any significant difference. There is simply no point most people keeping huge versions of photos when compressing them will save space and show little difference.

RAW processing takes too much time

If there is no significant advantage to using RAW then, yes, obviously any time used on it is wasted. With JPG you have your photos as soon as you load them opn your computer - any computer, anywhere!

Given your misunderstandings of my points, there's no point me commenting on everything you wrote afterwards. Instead, responses to certain points.

As I said above, I use JPEGs all the time, particularly during file sharing or for websites – but not for serious photography.

It's a good thing I only do silly photography then isn't it?

I also think you underestimate and slightly patronise the community out there.

I can only speak about photographers I've met. There are some who produce simply stunning work that I envy. However, it is mostly due to their skill in the field rather than what post processing they do. There are also some who use RAW all the time whose work is terrible.

But this is surely a fallacy – as the JPEG is post-processed, - just by the camera itself – so don’t kid yourself on that issue. It’s a compressed and beefed-up image. JPEGs have colour saturated, contrast turned up, sharpening applied, etc, all automatically.

I'm talking about spending time messing around on computers. I set the parameters on the camera for how I want my JPGs to be produced.

Although you can alter some in-camera settings - the mere format of JPEGs means the camera is always making assumptions for you many of which cannot be undone (or at least not easily or effectively). On a personal note I do often find JPEGS to be a bit too ‘contrasty’ if that’s a word. Hence, some of them have had more severe algorithms applied to them than an image developed from RAW. So I think what you really mean is, it’s more convenient to shoot JPEG - which is very true. However, you’re not taking any photographic high-ground here. JPEGs are highly processed – just without you or your intellectual input! They may even be more processed (ultimately) than a RAW file.

I don't want to be any 'high ground', I just want to take photos that please me and the JPGs are fine. I know, from experience, that it is what happens when you press the shutter that is the big difference between a great photo and an ordinary one so that is where I put all my effort. I don't believe processing from RAW would improve such a great shot - just gilding the lily as they say. Nor do I believe it would save a bad shot. It would simply waste my time when I'd rather be doing something else.

No – I am using measurable information (data) to furnish my position rather than just the excuse of less work. There is a practical difference – but it is up to any individual as to whether that is worth it. This is really the essence of our conversation. I think it’s worth it for the results, you don’t think it’s worth the extra effort – that’s fine, but to argue that the debates about RAW are a myth does not stand up to scrutiny.

You can't measure the appeal of a photo. What pleases you might do nothing for me and vice versa.

Perhaps it is about what is best for you, under your personal constraints (be they time or space). But this is a different point to there being no perceptual difference between correctly processed RAW and a basic JPEG. I am aware of people that make that argument – but I have examined the numbers, and perceptually seen the difference in many of my own printed images (as have the people who print my images for me). There are other practical reasons for shooting RAW. You can return to the RAW file time and time again and make whatever changes you want without losing any data – you cannot do this with JPEGs without starting to lose information and quality.

But if the perceptual differences are so slight that you have to examine the shot carefully to see them, how is it worth it? It's like those HiFi buffs who can tell what metal leads are connecting the speakers. Great for them but no one else.

You answer your own point here – inexperienced photographers! All you are really saying here is that someone who does not know what they are doing is going to find a simple procedure easier and cock up a harder procedure due to inexperience. This is not really an argument against learning and using RAW to great effect, as a skill and thus gaining experience.

No, once again, I'm saying inexperienced photographers could use their time more much more profitably by concentrating on the techniques of taking photos rather than marginal differences through using RAW. I've been doing photography for decades and there is still so much more to learn about actually taking the shots.

RAW developing does not take a great deal of time. Once you have the basics down, it’s just a question of practice. I think some people try it…don’t put the effort in…get scared off…and just drop it.

Or maybe they realise they have better ways to spend their time. If you are happy using RAW then that's fine by me. All I can say is that experience has taught me that for my photos it really isn't worth it.