RAW benifits/costs?

[macgyver]

mcgyver,- may i ask what this tread has  to do in any way with mf backs?
i am not often unpolied, but if you were shooting jpegs till now, you might find really better forums for such fundamental steps.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85771\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Rehnniar,

First, I never said anything about Medium Format backs, although my original question works for any camera.

Second, thank you for suggesting I head for fourms more suited for more "fundamental steps", however, you will notice that my question was not a technical one, but an invitation for an open discussion on how shooting raw affects someone's desire for precision.  (For lack of better terms)  The thread has strayed a bit, but still been very interesting reading.

Let me ask all of you this then, did my question make sense to you?  Do you think you know what I was getting at?

-mac

[Jonathan Wienke]

I shoot RAW basically 100% of the time; the only exception being when I have to shoot so fast that the camera will not keep up in RAW mode. This is a pretty rare thing; the last time it happened was when covering a horse show event where I had to shoot 25 horses & riders in an event lasting <5 minutes and get salable shots of each. For the remaining 99+% of my shooting, RAW has the following advantages:

1. The freedom to defer all processing decisions until after the shoot. I don't have to care about white balance, color spaces, tone curves, sharpening, etc.; all I need to think about while shooting is getting composition, exposure, and focus right.

2. RAW gives you 100% of the camera's color gamut and capture dynamic range. Camera JPEGs do not. Period. The amounts of DR and gamut you lose by shooting JPEG vary from camera to camera and depend on the camera settings, but you always lose something. I'd rather not.

3. Your image processing options are much more flexible when working with high-bit image data that hasn't been dumbed down to 8 bits per channel. Noise is easier to get rid of, you don't have any JPEG artifacts, and you can get much more aggressive with levels and curves before encountering banding and posterization. A high-bit workflow will always deliver a better result than an 8-bit workflow; if you perfectly expose and white balance in camera, you can get kind of close with 8-bit. But if you don't get everything perfect in-camera, the 8-bit version will be noticeably inferior.

4. A properly-profiled RAW converter will save you an enormous amount of time color correcting images. All you need to do is set the white balance properly to get accurate, natural colors that in many cases will not need any further tweaking. This is a godsend when batch processing wedding images or yearbook portraits. I use Tom Fors' ACR calibration script and a Color Checker, and my Canon 1Ds, 1D-MkII, and Olympus SP-350 RAWS all deliver consistent, natural colors that require very little tweaking in PS. The same is not true of most cameras' internal JPEG processing profiles, especially if the camera white balance setting isn't quite perfect. It's like using a custom printer profile instead of the canned one-size-fits-all factory profile. Many of you have seen the difference a good printer profile can make for your prints; shooting RAW can do the same for your image files in PS.

Shooting RAW means larger files and more storage, and maybe a faster computer. But it makes a real difference in the end product if you master it. It is not a crutch for technical sloppiness, but it can make the difference between an acceptable and unacceptable end image if Murphy happens to stand over your shoulder when you press the shutter release.

[digitaldog]

but practically possible (because I've actually tried it)

It 'technically' may not be 'white balance', but if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84856\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You can 'white balance' on any file in Photoshop; all you're doing is altering pixel values. We've had the white/gray and black eyedroppers since V1.

The big deal about doing this in raw is you're never touching the raw data, the white balance info is simply some EXIF data recommendations and you can render the WB in the converter as many times and ways as you wish, always producing new sets of pixels from the data source. You could kind of do the same on a JPEG or TIFF by first duplicating the file 10 times and applying 10 different image tweaks which you can call white balance (or gray balance or anything else). You need 10 copies because if you try this 10 times on the same file, unless you do this on 10 adjustment layers, you're going to degrade the file once you stamp the edit(s).

LR isn't any different in handling rendered image compared to Photoshop using 10 adjustment layers in the end. The main differences are the speed and the ability to render only the one edit into the pixels once you find a setting you like. But all LR edits require you build a copy of the original and then apply the edits to the copied rendered pixels. I don't see this fundamentally different from Photoshop other than the workflow involved.

[digitaldog]

As far as I understand, the WB dropper in Lightroom is about the same as the WB dropper in Camera Raw, is about the same thing as the middle grey dropper in Curves in PSCS 2.

Considering that LR and ACR use the same processing pipeline, that's a fair assumption.

As for Photoshop, the big difference I can think of is the fact that you're working in a gamma encoded working space which isn't the case in LR or ACR. Both are working in ProPhoto RGB primaries and White Point (so in Photoshop you'd need to use that) however, in those converters are using a linear gamma encoding. How that may or may not affect WB I don't know (but suspect it would play some role). EVEN with existing rendered images, LR uses this "bastard RGB" color space as it's been described inside of Adobe (a better name is Melissa RGB).

[ErikKaffehr]

Why I prefere raw:

These are the advantages I see with raw:

1) I don't need to care about white balance I leave it on auto and fix later.

2) I can optimize exposure for highlights. My main concern is that I don't get overexposure in important parts of the picture, I can fix the rest later.

I don't really see any disadvantages, but quite clearly it is more work!

Best regards

Erik

First off, I'm not sure if this would go here or in the image processing fourm, but it seems to fall under the "shooting techniques" thing.  At least to me.  So, if its not a good place for it, I'm sorry.

Anyway...

Since I started serious photography, I shot in JPG.  It was a combination of lack of software, hardware limitations and general laziness.  In another thread earlier in the week I made this statement:

"I understand and enjoy and take advantage of how RAW files can be tweaked for better exposure, but I know photographers to have gotten quite lazy when shooting by using the excuse of "well, I'm shooting in RAW, I can fix it later".

There are some of us who, raw or jpg, try to get it as right as we can the first time."

I fully agree with this statement, however I thought of something today.  Only fairly recently have I really started to work with and realize the potential of RAW files.  I've shot two events in the past week or so in RAW + JPG, with the idea to have the jpgs I know and love but also be able to start working with the RAW files.  So far, I've been impressed.  Anyway, this made me consider what I earlier said.  Do you think RAW makes folks lazier?  I, of course, will always try to get it right the first time, but now I have an extra layer of assurance.  I love the ability to fine tune the exposure, WB, etc and all, but I do wonder if in the long run it will make me lazy about things.  Also, it makes me wonder how faithful I'm being to the color and look and all.  I'm one of those people who likes to try to keep it as natural and close to the orginial as possible (usually) and the more room I have to explore, the harder it is to keep it in the original ballpark.

Your thoughts?

-macgyver
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84738\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Tim Gray]

You can 'white balance' on any file in Photoshop; all you're doing is altering pixel values. We've had the white/gray and black eyedroppers since V1.

The big deal about doing this in raw is you're never touching the raw data, the white balance info is simply some EXIF data recommendations and you can render the WB in the converter as many times and ways as you wish, always producing new sets of pixels from the data source. You could kind of do the same on a JPEG or TIFF by first duplicating the file 10 times and applying 10 different image tweaks which you can call white balance (or gray balance or anything else). You need 10 copies because if you try this 10 times on the same file, unless you do this on 10 adjustment layers, you're going to degrade the file once you stamp the edit(s).

LR isn't any different in handling rendered image compared to Photoshop using 10 adjustment layers in the end. The main differences are the speed and the ability to render only the one edit into the pixels once you find a setting you like. But all LR edits require you build a copy of the original and then apply the edits to the copied rendered pixels. I don't see this fundamentally different from Photoshop other than the workflow involved.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86199\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just to reiterate the context of my original post, and for the record I shoot 100% raw.  

In every summary recitation of the benefits of RAW 2 things are mentioned - WB adjustment and more headroom when making level/curve/shadow/highlight etc. etc. adjustments.  I was trying to get a sense of how the LR wb tool fit in the context of those 2 advantages.  I got the comment several days ago from a friend when I was discussing the benefits of RAW that since LR now had an explicit wb tool that can be applied to JPG, that that negated one of the 2 fundamental reasons to shoot raw over jpg.  

As far as I can tell so far, the LR wb tool is easier than doing it in native PS, but still falls considerably short of what you can do in RAW with a challenging file.

[Chris_T]

I shoot RAW basically 100% of the time; the only exception being when I have to shoot so fast that the camera will not keep up in RAW mode. This is a pretty rare thing; the last time it happened was when covering a horse show event where I had to shoot 25 horses & riders in an event lasting <5 minutes and get salable shots of each. For the remaining 99+% of my shooting, RAW has the following advantages:

1. The freedom to defer all processing decisions until after the shoot. I don't have to care about white balance, color spaces, tone curves, sharpening, etc.; all I need to think about while shooting is getting composition, exposure, and focus right.

2. RAW gives you 100% of the camera's color gamut and capture dynamic range. Camera JPEGs do not. Period. The amounts of DR and gamut you lose by shooting JPEG vary from camera to camera and depend on the camera settings, but you always lose something. I'd rather not.

3. Your image processing options are much more flexible when working with high-bit image data that hasn't been dumbed down to 8 bits per channel. Noise is easier to get rid of, you don't have any JPEG artifacts, and you can get much more aggressive with levels and curves before encountering banding and posterization. A high-bit workflow will always deliver a better result than an 8-bit workflow; if you perfectly expose and white balance in camera, you can get kind of close with 8-bit. But if you don't get everything perfect in-camera, the 8-bit version will be noticeably inferior.

4. A properly-profiled RAW converter will save you an enormous amount of time color correcting images. All you need to do is set the white balance properly to get accurate, natural colors that in many cases will not need any further tweaking. This is a godsend when batch processing wedding images or yearbook portraits. I use Tom Fors' ACR calibration script and a Color Checker, and my Canon 1Ds, 1D-MkII, and Olympus SP-350 RAWS all deliver consistent, natural colors that require very little tweaking in PS. The same is not true of most cameras' internal JPEG processing profiles, especially if the camera white balance setting isn't quite perfect. It's like using a custom printer profile instead of the canned one-size-fits-all factory profile. Many of you have seen the difference a good printer profile can make for your prints; shooting RAW can do the same for your image files in PS.

Shooting RAW means larger files and more storage, and maybe a faster computer. But it makes a real difference in the end product if you master it. It is not a crutch for technical sloppiness, but it can make the difference between an acceptable and unacceptable end image if Murphy happens to stand over your shoulder when you press the shutter release.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86144\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Can the RAW shooters comment on whether shooting RAW influences how they set their exposures? Do you use the cameras' AE modes, or do you set the apertures and shutter speeds manually? And why? When shooting film or without RAW, do you set your exposures differently?

[dlashier]

Can the RAW shooters comment on whether shooting RAW influences how they set their exposures? Do you use the cameras' AE modes, or do you set the apertures and shutter speeds manually? And why? When shooting film or without RAW, do you set your exposures differently?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87144\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A: no

B: manual, because it's more accurate and more reliable, and lets you judge the relative importance of parts of the scene yourself.

- DL

[jani]

Can the RAW shooters comment on whether shooting RAW influences how they set their exposures?

Since I know that I have a bit more latitude with highlights than with JPEG, raw can give me more detail in shadows, should the need arise.

I have a fairly good idea about what I can recover of seemingly blown highlights, and that I have a fairly good chance of pushing the image. It provides me with a bit more breathing space, so to speak.

So yes, having the option of shooting in raw mode may influence how I set exposure, but it depends on the shooting situation. Generally, I prefer not to, though, since it's also easy to misjudge the amount of latitude raw provides; the histogram and flashing highlights warning may not be sufficient indicators, and only experience can tell.

In this regard, I find it very similar to shooting with different film types.

Do you use the cameras' AE modes, or do you set the apertures and shutter speeds manually? And why?

I set my exposures depending on the situation.

Sometimes I use aperture priority, sometimes shutter priority, and other times I use manual. I may use program mode in some situations, for instance when someone else is borrowing my camera to take a picture of me.

I use aperture priority when I think it's more important to control depth of field than shutter speed. Typical circumstances include any photography of mostly stationary subjects, and I either use a tripod or have enough light that I know hand-held will do.

Shutter priority is for when I need a certain shutter speed either to capture motion or to reduce camera shake blur, and don't care about depth of field, just getting the shot.

Manual mode is both for when I want near absolute control of exposure, or when I need both a certain depth of field and aperture, such as shooting under difficult light conditions or when I use a flash.

Hand-held shots for street shooting, discreet family events, etc. would be typical for shutter priority or manual mode.

But this really doesn't have anything to do with shooting raw or not.

[Jonathan Wienke]

Can the RAW shooters comment on whether shooting RAW influences how they set their exposures? Do you use the cameras' AE modes, or do you set the apertures and shutter speeds manually? And why? When shooting film or without RAW, do you set your exposures differently?

I'll decrease exposure somehat when shooting JPEG since there is less highlight latitude. I use either manual or aperture priority whether shooting RAW or not; aperture priority when the lighting is changing a lot and manual is not practical (like partly cloudy days when the sun is going in and out of the clouds), and manual the rest of the time.

[bjanes]

In every summary recitation of the benefits of RAW 2 things are mentioned - WB adjustment and more headroom when making level/curve/shadow/highlight etc. etc. adjustments.  I was trying to get a sense of how the LR wb tool fit in the context of those 2 advantages.  I got the comment several days ago from a friend when I was discussing the benefits of RAW that since LR now had an explicit wb tool that can be applied to JPG, that that negated one of the 2 fundamental reasons to shoot raw over jpg. 

As far as I can tell so far, the LR wb tool is easier than doing it in native PS, but still falls considerably short of what you can do in RAW with a challenging file.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86247\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

WB is much easier in RAW than with an image rendered in a gamma 2.2 space since the WB adjustment for RAW is linear and merely requires multiplying each channel by a given WB factor. With gamma corrected data, the WB function is nonlinear. With RAW files you have more bits to work with (usually 12) than in the usual JPEG, which has only 8 bits. Drastic edits such as WB on 8 bit data are liable to posterization. Bruce Fraser discusses this on pages 11 and 12 of his ACR with PSCS2 book.

When doing WB in Lightroom, I would suspect that the results would be better with a 16 bit TIFF rather than an 8 bit JPEG.

Bill

[PeterLange]

WB is much easier in RAW than with an image rendered in a gamma 2.2 space since the WB adjustment for RAW is linear and merely requires multiplying each channel by a given WB factor. With gamma corrected data, the WB function is nonlinear.

Well, that’s what one would expect. Surprisingly, there’s a kind of commutative law in place regarding linear-scaling and matrix-to-matrix conversion (including different gamma). The sequence is exchangeable, because the scaling factor can be extracted from the exponential term, though it changes before vs after.

It’s in fact the common tone curve (brightening, S-shaped) - amplified by further hue & saturation tweaks - which disturbs color integrity and which makes proper white-balance of already Raw processed JPG’s so hard (see above). In this matter, conversion back to a linear space doesn’t help.

Peter

--

[foobarred]

To be honest, your concern about whether it makes people lazier probably makes the ability to shoot RAW similar to the effects of alcohol.

If you're naturally lazy to begin with, yes, it probably brings that out more since it's an enabler and allows you to be more lax in your photography technique.  If you tend not to be a lazy person, but rather a perfectionist, then no, it probably doesn't make you lazier.

Not that lazy is bad.  The pursuit of means to be lazier, when properly applied, can lead to efficiency gains.  This is a common characteristic of computer people who are really good at automating things via scripts et al.

Frankly, I'm more of the school of making sure I get it as close to right as possible and using the flexibility of RAW to bail me out when I mess up on what could have been a missed incredible opportunity.  I still shoot film and it makes no sense to get lazy habits that might transfer to when I shoot film and can't just easily bump the exposure up or down with a slider, or shift the WB with a click.

--foobarred