Discrepancies in Raw files?

Do you shoot in Raw? If so Why? And do you realise you may not be getting what your camera wanted you to have?

I know I know, Raw is meant to give you the best quality as it contains the information from the camera direct - but if you are using a third party Raw editor, like photoshop, you are actually getting the image with adobes own settings of what _they_ think is right for your camera.

With my tests, with the Nikon D40 and the Nikon D300, I found that the best results in the shortest amount of time came from the manufacturers own software - subtle things like noise is clearly much better, and even colour is better.

Yes, I appreciate that you can edit things with RAW and create your own presets (that you then apply to your photos) but that's like creating a magic formula, and it takes a lot of time, and will one preset work for all your photos?. I just want an easy life, take photos yet edit them as little as possible!

Here's a quick comparison:

This is a 100% crop of the file opened as RAW in CS3, no changes have been made to the image, just cropped and saved as jpeg.


Here's the same image, yet this time opened in Nikons viewNX and exported as jpeg, then opened in CS3, and cropped and saved as jpeg.


Look at the difference in noise - it's just handled so much better in Nikons own software.

So why not just use Nikons own software and shut up? Because apart from it's 'accuracy' it's not as nice to use as photoshop!

So I think I will from now own, just shoot in jpeg! It's not like I need to extensively edit my photos anyway - if they come out crap I'll learn to take better photos to begin with

Interested to hear if anyone else has investigated the matter themselves..

I shoot exclusively in raw now. I found my image quality jumped significantly since I started.

I've just searched the web, and it seems I'm not the only one who's discovered this. Some are blaming it on the manufacturers encryption of wb, and some are saying the manufacturer reps are stating that each program handles raw files differently - usually converting them to their 'own' format first, hence the difference.

What software are you using to post process? The files you sent me last week where tiffs I think?

I'm on the fence with the whole 'raw or not to raw' debate.

Let's be honest - for general pictures, raw can be time consuming and heavy on the camera card so unless I'm after the best possible results I tend to just shoot in best quality jpeg.

Raw is certainly better though as it retains the 'raw' info the camera has captured and therefore gives you the most flexibilty once you bring your pictures home.

Once converted to jpeg they wont be any 'better' than shots captured as jpeg so unless you have made full use of the flexibility of the raw file prior to conversion.

A lot of people simply open the raw file, select which white balance looks best and convert to jpeg - what's the point ? Just get the white balance right in the first place.

Raw to high quality tiff then yes.

Raw straight to jpeg via W/B selection then why bother.

PS

It is good to keep a raw file as weeks, months, years down the line you may want to use the image for something different.

To me Raw = extra flexibility rather than extra quality.

I shoot in jpeg.

I have tried raw and only noticed a tiny bit of difference.

As Azz said I dont really want to spend a long time pping so i am sticking with jpeg

I always shoot in RAW, after a friend of mine, who is a professional photographer for a major Newspaper, told me to, after I asked him for his advice. He always shoots in RAW.

As you know I have the Sony Alpha a700, and I have found the Sony software that came with the camera to be far superior to PS, when dealing exclusively with RAW files.

I think there is a certain amount of snobbery when it comes to using RAW over jpeg from some people not saying that implies to anyone on this forum.

I used jpeg with my D40 and then for the majority of the time with my D300, I recently experimented with RAW and have since gone back to jpeg.

I like taking pictures and so I have a lot of pics after I get back, this is slowly decreasing as I get to know when to shoot and what to shoot, and using RAW more than doubled my time from off the camera till the finished article. I've printed pics at 18x12 from both RAW shoots and jpeg and there is no discernable difference, and that was with time spent on the RAW processing not just a RAW to jpeg conversion.


Yes RAW allows you to save pics that otherwise would have been lost, but if you shoot it right in the first place there is no need to use the flexibility the RAW is supposed to offer.

Unless you are a pro and will be printing at very large sizes I don't think RAW serves any real extra purpose for the amateur photographer.

Many of my friends are Pro Togs, and the pictures they shoot are very rarely blown up beyond that of a newspaper backpage, so I don't think it's really the case at all that you should only use RAW if you're printing big!

One guy in particular, who also shoots for a well known newspaper, once told me that he was on a job, and was just about finished, when another story broke just outside the building he was shooting in.
He quickly ran outside and managed to capture the story unfolding. Thinking that he was the luckiest guy in the World, he soon realised that in the heat of the moment, he had completely forgotten to change his camera settings, and found that every single shot taken outside was totally ruined.
Only...
He had shot everything in RAW, and was able to, edit each picture and not only save the images he thought were lost, but have them printed in the national newspaper the next day!
Just shows you that even pro's make mistakes from time to time!

However, the point he was making to me was, you can still take nice, clean shots in RAW, and get it right everytime.... but IF something hasn't worked out quite right, you then have a better chance of salvaging, what would otherwise have been a " recycle bin " shot!

The preference for JPEG or RAW almost always comes down to what you want to do with the shot - alot of the effects i achieve im my images couldnt always be executed with a JPEG file. It allows me much more control over the final image.

The power of shooting RAW, for me, outweighs the need and want to shoot JPEG.

[quote=Stanokella;25113]
[quote ]I think there is a certain amount of snobbery when it comes to using RAW over jpeg from some people not saying that implies to anyone on this forum.

I used jpeg with my D40 and then for the majority of the time with my D300, I recently experimented with RAW and have since gone back to jpeg.

Yes RAW allows you to save pics that otherwise would have been lost, but if you shoot it right in the first place there is no need to use the flexibility the RAW is supposed to offer.

[quote]

Again...not implying this to anyone on this forum...but I feel there is a certain amount of snobbery the other way!

There are people who think that if you "shoot it right in the first place", then you don't need RAW, and shouldn't be using it.
Does this mean that if you do shoot in RAW, you must not be doing it right?

Look....I'm not making this up.
I know countless numbers of professional photographers, who swear blind to only shooting in RAW. I take it they're not getting it right in the first place either then, even though it's their profession!