Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Some Raw vs JPEG education please

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Some Raw vs JPEG education please

    I've had the E500 for some time now and more recently the E510

    On both the default option I have been using is Raw + SHQ. This in my mind gives me instant files to play with and RAW's for use when I've messed something up (like when I was taking non flash pictures underground and walked back onto the surface taking puctures at 1600 ISO and + 2 stops)

    Mostly my post processing is limited to cropping and some gently sharpening in PSP and Once in a blue moon I do something adventurous like changing the saturation, but honestly I mostly like what I see..

    Point is I hear a lot of you talk abot manually developing your RAW files and wonder whether I should be doing the same ?

    What am I missing ?

    Regards
    Andy
    My Kit (OK I'm a hoarder...)
    4/3 E500, E510, E30 + 35macro, 50macro, 7-14, 11-22, 14-45 (x2), 14-54, 40-150 (both types), 50-200, 70-300, 50-500,
    m 4/3 EM1MkII + 60 macro, 12-100 Pro
    FL20, FL36 x2 , FL50, cactus slaves etc.
    The Boss (Mrs Shenstone) E620, EM10-II, 14-41Ez, 40-150R, 9 cap and whatever she can nick from me when she wants it

    My places
    http://www.shenstone.me.uk http://landroverkaty.blogspot.com/
    https://vimeo.com/shenstone http://cardiffnaturalists.org.uk/

  • #2
    Re: Some Raw vs JPEG education please

    If you're happy with jpegs, then you might not need to use RAW – but RAW gives you a lot more options for the future and can be better quality.

    RAW can mean a bit more faffing about, but software like Aperture or Lightroom has made a big difference.

    If you're happy to keep the RAW files for possible future use then that seems a good policy.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Some Raw vs JPEG education please

      If you don't do any Post Processing, or don't use Lightroom or Adobe RAW plug-in for Photoshop, I guess you don't really need to use RAW. Yes of course, you could be using Olympus Master etc or another RAW manager, but essentially what RAW provides is the ability to adjust more settings. JPG has predetermined algorithms for the things that you can do manually in RAW.

      For example, compression, sharpening, pixelation etc... all of these can be controlled manually using RAW but not so much using a file format that will have already applied many of these parameters.

      Does that make sense...?
      John

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Some Raw post processing opinions please

        I guess I mislabelled this so I've renaned it

        I know of the power of Raw processing and I fully know how do make all the adjustments I was playing with Rawshooter before the almight A took it over and built it into LR.

        It's just that often after a lot of playing around I come to the opinion that the in camera engine does a pretty good job so I end up throwing it all away and going back to that.

        I tend to fiddle with the camera settings at the point of taking the photograph and work with those settings to get the image I want.

        I see a lot of people talking about how they process everying from Raw every time and I wonder how many people are doing that because they think that they have to in order to prove their credentials as a "serious" photographer. Is it better or is it just adjusting the settings in the warm in front of the PC?

        It's like back in the film days when I decided that fuji did a better job at developing provia/velvia than I was ever going to so focussed on reshaping / cropping slides once the basic processing was done.

        Maybe it's worth a poll some time - RAW processing - do you need to do it or do Olympus know a thing or two after all ?

        Regards
        Andy
        My Kit (OK I'm a hoarder...)
        4/3 E500, E510, E30 + 35macro, 50macro, 7-14, 11-22, 14-45 (x2), 14-54, 40-150 (both types), 50-200, 70-300, 50-500,
        m 4/3 EM1MkII + 60 macro, 12-100 Pro
        FL20, FL36 x2 , FL50, cactus slaves etc.
        The Boss (Mrs Shenstone) E620, EM10-II, 14-41Ez, 40-150R, 9 cap and whatever she can nick from me when she wants it

        My places
        http://www.shenstone.me.uk http://landroverkaty.blogspot.com/
        https://vimeo.com/shenstone http://cardiffnaturalists.org.uk/

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Some Raw post processing opinions please

          I also shoot Raw + Jpeg ... and sometimes I use the JPEG that came straight from the camera ... especially if it already looks good and I don't have the time to play with it.

          I treat RAW as my negatives and process the images into my jpegs for distribution just as a photo film developer would, excepting the cases as stated in paragraph 1. I like the option.

          Sometimes when shooting, I also find it easy to take a dozen pictures at various quick settings as well and adjust them later ... that helps me learn and doesn't tie me up with composing one shot for 10 minutes or whatever. I find I get more shots this way and often as has come with experience, I find I can shoot pretty fast anyway and not have to worry about settings because I usually pic the correct ones.

          But just as a purist, I don't like that jpegs are lossy. I like that Raw is lossless. Once that opportunity (the SHOT) is gone, it's gone!! And if you only have jpeg then you have only captured a lossy version of it and are limited with what you can do with it later.

          The only bad thing about Raw IMO is the space it takes on the HD ... but I make multiple back ups to multiple locations and use only HIGH QUALITY dvd discs ....

          Another thing, in Vista Oly put out that codec that lets you preview the Raw thumbnails which is nice because XP doesn't have that option. So before I got Vista (still use XP on other machine), I would have to reference the file name with the jpeg to know which raw I wanted to open .... instead of just importing every RAW into LR or Master ....

          Just my two cents, but each to his own.
          Those who fail to plan, plan to fail ....

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Some Raw vs JPEG education please

            There is an article: Raw Image Format: Pros and Cons

            over on Wrotniak's web site. Makes an interesting read on this topic.

            http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/tech/raw.html

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Some Raw vs JPEG education please

              When I first got my E1 I shot in jpeg only because I wanted to see what could be achieved in camera. Also because I wanted to learn about the camera and not get bogged down by PP. In recent months I started to shoot in Raw & jpeg to start playing around with raw files and making comparisons to jpegs. Now I set the camera to raw only and feel confident about making adjustments in PP that appeal to me. Having said this I do not spend hours on each pic, more like minutes as I get a feel for the software and what I am trying to do.

              Without a shred of doubt altering a raw image is far more efficient than a jpeg. As mentioned raw is lossless and you can revisit it again and again if need be. I would recommend it and suggest you spend a few minutes on each picture ( you can batch process to save time ) For me an image is much about retaining as much detail as possible, especially colour and exposure. Adjusting WB without a hit is also a fantastic facility. With raw you have it in the beginning unlike jpeg where much detail has been stripped out.

              This is not about credentials or showing off, but more about getting the finished product you wanted and influencing that. It may not suit you in which case nothing to worry about. It takes only a few seconds to produce a jpeg from a raw file and doing this in real time and seeing the effects on a PC screen is quite rewarding. A raw file also serves as a digital negative, you always have the master copy.

              At the end of the day it is only a learning curve, time might factor in, but so far for me processing raw files has been quite enjoyable and I assure you I do not spend hours tinkering with one image!

              Horses for courses really, your 510s jpegs will be very very good and if this is serving your needs then do not feel you are missing out.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Some Raw vs JPEG education please

                I used to shoot all jpeg, but in the last year have shot raw exclusively. Apart from any arguments regarding quality, I find it _much_ easier to do exposure adjustments in Adobe Camera Raw, than in Photoshop. We all try to get the exposure right on location, but it doesn't always work out. Even with a 'correctly' exposed image I find it can be quickly and easily fine tuned by holding down ALT and moving the 'exposure' slider to the right until the highlights are not quite blown, then again holding down ALT and moving the 'shadows' slider to the left until the shadows aren't quite blocked. This is such a quick and sensitive process compared to the 'levels' adjustment in PS. Finally, you can easily adjust the mid-tones with the 'brightness' slider and 'contrast' and 'saturation' to taste.

                Another point that I feel is insufficiently emphasised, is that all these adjustments are non-destructive. The adjustment data is held within the file in the case of DNG files, or external xmp 'sidecar' files in the case of ORFs. In both cases the 'as shot' data is unaltered. This means that however many times you fiddle with an image, the original data remains untouched and you can always go back to it at a later date and start again.

                Jim Ford

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Some Raw vs JPEG education please

                  I like this one, it comes up so regularly that you can well rehearse your arguments. Indeed by careful choice of forums/magazines you could devote your whole life to making just this one topic your hobby, in fact I suspect some of the more ubiquitous photography 'journalists' have done precisely that.

                  So my half pennies worth:-

                  It doesn't matter a printers cuss - what has worth/value is the photograph, and the photograph is what you can see with your eyes. Line up a mixed series of photographs, some shot raw, some on film, some with in camera jpeg development and then get a panel of 'judges' to decide which was shot with what technique.

                  But I would also argue it is worth learning to shoot raw, the fact you can play with aspects of colour temperature/noise/sharpening/exposure etc in comfort will give you a far better opportunity to learn to control these settings. Whether ultimately you choose to do so via the camera buttons or via the PC.

                  I shoot raw, because I enjoy both the composition of photographs and the control of the development process. I also like the capability to deal with difficult exposure situations and situations where the white balance/colour temperature can change from moment to moment.

                  But does my choice make be a better/more serious photographer than anyone else, of course not (just look at my images).

                  This is an art, practised for personal enjoyment, both the pallete knife and the calligraphy pen have equal value.

                  Nick
                  Nick Temple-Fry

                  Medicine as a science ranks somewhere between archaeology and economics.

                  www.theChurchPhotographer.co.uk 90 Churches -- Fairford St Mary's, exceptionally splendid
                  www.temple-fry.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Some Raw vs JPEG education please

                    I normally use Raw and JPG. I have some older photo that I did not take using a Raw option, and now I wish that I had.

                    I basically have unlimited storage available, so now it is not a problem. (Currently over 4TB)

                    Just backup, and often.

                    The E-510 SHQ JPG are, in my opinion, very good, and I only get slightly better pictures when processing Raw occasionally.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Some Raw vs JPEG education please

                      I recently started using RAW and thought I'd be converted to using it all the time, but I haven't. There are various reasons.
                      • I don't have the time to edit every picture I take, and it seems pointless to use a standard 'fits all' editing.
                      • The RAW file sizes on the E400 are so big that I'll fill the computer and external storage in no time at all.
                      • I've messed around with deliberately over and underexposed pictures, and no matter how hard I try I can't get the detail out of blown highlights or the deep shadows.

                      So some of the claimed benefits of RAW aren't there, for me at least. It's still important to take care with getting the picture as near right as possible in the first place.

                      I think RAW has got a place though, and I'm also far more confident about editing now. If there's a special occasion, or a special picture, I might use RAW and PhaseOne4.

                      But even so it isn't always the quality of the picture - perfect exposure, perfect colour etc - that's important, it's what it shows. No matter how hard you try it isn't always possible to have the camera on the right setting for "that shot" - the one that would get away if the photographer takes too much time to press the button.

                      So, I'm going back to SHQ JPEGs, bracketed where necessary, and taking care to get it as right as I can before I press the shutter. And I'll be always looking out for that special picture.
                      - my pictures -

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Some Raw vs JPEG education please

                        I shoot 90-95% jpeg, I shoot raw if I think there might be an issue or if I must nail a shot, this applies in the studio or out and about. In the studio you are in control so you should be able to nail it, colour and exposure wise, the only exception tends to be young kids, you are having to take pics so quick the flash might not of recharged fully so the expression is caght but it may be a tad dark then shooting in Raw is useful.

                        Overal I think the jpeg engine in the E-1 is great, the E-400 is good but not up to the E-1

                        Check out the wifes studio shots (she's Cheesy Grins on here if you didn't know) www.cheesygrins.co.uk most of the shots on there are jpeg

                        Cheers

                        Dave

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Some Raw vs JPEG education please

                          I'm glad that I started this thread because some interesting opinions are coming out.

                          I like your collective tone - it ain't something that people should seem *shamed* into, but I think some people begin to feel pressured that way. If you need it for a shoot or a picture or for everything it's a tool in your toolbox.

                          I had begun to think that I was one of the only luddites that prefered to spend time in front of the lens than the computer (too much of that at work) and I agree with all the opinions that you can do more with RAW (and I do sometimes and I do improve things, but in the main I just like taking the pictures.

                          One day I'll find a raw converter that I really like and I'll do more, but I'm not satisfied with anything I've tried so far (and I've tried a lot). Until then I'll use both RAW and JPEG and keep enjoing pushing the shutter

                          Regards
                          Andy
                          My Kit (OK I'm a hoarder...)
                          4/3 E500, E510, E30 + 35macro, 50macro, 7-14, 11-22, 14-45 (x2), 14-54, 40-150 (both types), 50-200, 70-300, 50-500,
                          m 4/3 EM1MkII + 60 macro, 12-100 Pro
                          FL20, FL36 x2 , FL50, cactus slaves etc.
                          The Boss (Mrs Shenstone) E620, EM10-II, 14-41Ez, 40-150R, 9 cap and whatever she can nick from me when she wants it

                          My places
                          http://www.shenstone.me.uk http://landroverkaty.blogspot.com/
                          https://vimeo.com/shenstone http://cardiffnaturalists.org.uk/

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Some Raw vs JPEG education please

                            Originally posted by Ellie View Post
                            No matter how hard you try it isn't always possible to have the camera on the right setting for "that shot" - the one that would get away if the photographer takes too much time to press the button.

                            So, I'm going back to SHQ JPEGs

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Some Raw vs JPEG education please

                              Ellie, Ianc gives excellent and sound advice in his post. I'd wholeheartedly agree with his comments too. Shooting in RAW gives you as the photographer much more control over the end result, than if you only shoot in JPG format.
                              John

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X