RAW vs JPG

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

I always view this in the same way that shrinking an image makes it look sharper and blowing it up makes it look pixilated. Adding more exposure to an under exposed image is liken to blowing up an image. And reducing exposure from an over exposed image is liken to shrinking an image. But like you said, it's more than that because you get to keep more of the dynamic range as well.

I find this most difficult when shooting landscapes with beautiful blue skies or even great looking cloud formations. Then it seems getting a center weighted metering from right where the horizon hits the sky gives you slightly over exposed sky and slightly under exposed land. But some times i've been able to find the right mix and use PS raw conversion to kick up the shadows and dial down the highlights. This is the result when i'm lucky. And without showing raw, i don't think i could get the captured image to this state. I'll see if i can find the raw image for comparison before the conversion in PS.

Well, for some reason, i don't seem to be able to post a picture. Been doing it for years, but for some reason i'm getting the dreaded question mark. Can anyone see it? I tried different images and sizes, but i keep getting the question mark.

Landscapes with a lot of DR really beg for a multi-shot HDR, processed to look realistic. Lacking that, I find that knowing how far you can push the sky without losing it is critical. I'll often take several exposures, including two or three with the sky blinking. I'll process all three and usually the sky will respond with lots of detail and in one or two. The big payoff is shadow recovery when you only need to move the slider a little.

Dave

[Cyberdemon]

My wedding photog shot JPG, and overall we were very happy with the images we got. While I would have liked RAW I talked to him briefly about it and he made valid points:

The storage overhead when shooting RAW is massive, and if you are able to properly expose the image the first time the number of tweaks you need to do after is limited. They store all their images on the cloud for backup and have to pay for that overhead. As well as the time overhead of processing images, which is time that they aren't out shooting or making albums. That would push their costs up higher (and they were not cheap).

With a certain level of arrogance he pointed out "I've been doing this since film when I had 24 chances to get the picture right - it makes you work harder to make sure your shots are exposed correctly". And after having seen the images we got, exposure and focus were never an issue, even for our wedding which had some tricky shots since we were getting married at sunset.

Myself personally, I shoot Raw + JPG whenever possible. With fairly fast SD cards (unless I need to do a burst shot) this gives me the corrected JPG's which come out pretty good on my Sony A7 ii in case I want to ship anything quickly, and I still have the RAW for backup if I want to pull it in and edit it or punch anything up.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Cyberdemon

My wedding photog shot JPG, and overall we were very happy with the images we got. While I would have liked RAW I talked to him briefly about it and he made valid points:

The storage overhead when shooting RAW is massive, and if you are able to properly expose the image the first time the number of tweaks you need to do after is limited. They store all their images on the cloud for backup and have to pay for that overhead. As well as the time overhead of processing images, which is time that they aren't out shooting or making albums. That would push their costs up higher (and they were not cheap).

With a certain level of arrogance he pointed out "I've been doing this since film when I had 24 chances to get the picture right - it makes you work harder to make sure your shots are exposed correctly". And after having seen the images we got, exposure and focus were never an issue, even for our wedding which had some tricky shots since we were getting married at sunset.
.

Bull shit. Storage is cheap. He's a pro and it should be built into his infrastructure.

He's probably using flash for most shots, so DR is seldom and issue. The only issue left is, are you happy with the RAW conversion parameters decided by a committee of Japanese engineers? If so, the shoot JPEG and forget about DR.

"Exposed Correctly" is an old film term. Optimal Exposure will end with a converted JPEG that is Exposed Correctly, showing more DR than an in-camera JPEG exposed in the camera. Much of wedding photography doesn't require a lot of DR, so, if you can get away with it.

For landscape, non-flash portraits, wildlife, Expose Optimally and convert to a pleasing ending product.

[mtecnic]

Agreed storage should not be an issue.

64GB cards even at 25 megapixel will hold 2000 raw images.

I don't think you can take a perfect photo period. Something could always be improved in post processing which is my main argument for RAW.

[allachie9]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Bull shit. Storage is cheap. He's a pro and it should be built into his infrastructure.

He's probably using flash for most shots, so DR is seldom and issue. The only issue left is, are you happy with the RAW conversion parameters decided by a committee of Japanese engineers? If so, the shoot JPEG and forget about DR.

"Exposed Correctly" is an old film term. Optimal Exposure will end with a converted JPEG that is Exposed Correctly, showing more DR than an in-camera JPEG exposed in the camera. Much of wedding photography doesn't require a lot of DR, so, if you can get away with it.

For landscape, non-flash portraits, wildlife, Expose Optimally and convert to a pleasing ending product.

Great reply

As my Canon 5DIII takes 2 cards, I shoot JPEG + RAW.
JPEG on an 8GB compactflash card, and RAW on a 16GB SD card.
Doing it that way, which works for me, I can easily view the JPEGs to sort out the keepers and then process the RAWs.

Whatever works best for you.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Bull shit. Storage is cheap. He's a pro and it should be built into his infrastructure.

He's probably using flash for most shots, so DR is seldom and issue. The only issue left is, are you happy with the RAW conversion parameters decided by a committee of Japanese engineers? If so, the shoot JPEG and forget about DR.

"Exposed Correctly" is an old film term. Optimal Exposure will end with a converted JPEG that is Exposed Correctly, showing more DR than an in-camera JPEG exposed in the camera. Much of wedding photography doesn't require a lot of DR, so, if you can get away with it.

For landscape, non-flash portraits, wildlife, Expose Optimally and convert to a pleasing ending product.

Originally Posted by mtecnic

Agreed storage should not be an issue.

64GB cards even at 25 megapixel will hold 2000 raw images.

I don't think you can take a perfect photo period. Something could always be improved in post processing which is my main argument for RAW.

Originally Posted by allachie9

Great reply

As my Canon 5DIII takes 2 cards, I shoot JPEG + RAW.
JPEG on an 8GB compactflash card, and RAW on a 16GB SD card.
Doing it that way, which works for me, I can easily view the JPEGs to sort out the keepers and then process the RAWs.

Whatever works best for you.

I kind of understood that he was talking about storage outside the camera since he mentioned cloud storage. In that case, storing several thousand raw files could be expensive. Though, i would think you would only need about 20-30gigs or so before you started cycling the images out of storage. Depending on how many customers he has of course.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

I kind of understood that he was talking about storage outside the camera since he mentioned cloud storage. In that case, storing several thousand raw files could be expensive. Though, i would think you would only need about 20-30gigs or so before you started cycling the images out of storage. Depending on how many customers he has of course.

I could never screw up my nerve enough to rely totally on cloud storage. I use it as one level of backup (JPEGs only), but my real storage is composed of two external HDs kept in two locations.

A wedding pro is going to need maybe 10TB, if RAW is kept. Even then, they'll need a destruction plan. Of course, he could shoot RAW and then keep the RAW files for a limited time, destroy them and keep the JPEGs perpetually. I mainly do wildlife and delete 90+% of what I take. A wedding or event photographer should have a much higher keeper rate.

Dave

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I could never screw up my nerve enough to rely totally on cloud storage. I use it as one level of backup (JPEGs only), but my real storage is composed of two external HDs kept in two locations.

A wedding pro is going to need maybe 10TB, if RAW is kept. Even then, they'll need a destruction plan. Of course, he could shoot RAW and then keep the RAW files for a limited time, destroy them and keep the JPEGs perpetually. I mainly do wildlife and delete 90+% of what I take. A wedding or event photographer should have a much higher keeper rate.

Dave

Yeah, i don't know what i was thinking with 20-30 gigs. Maybe if he does only one wedding a weekend and discards raw files after 30days or something.

I just checked my lap top photo file size and it's 50 gigs worth. Like you i don't keep the majority of what i shoot. And after processing from raw, i'll delete all unprocessed raw files. Then i'll shoot the raw files into a 4tb external back up at home. From there i have another 4tb back up that is my Time Machine mac back up. Last line of defense is the high res jpgs that i've uploaded to my smug mug account.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Railgun

I used to think the same thing. Playing with the raw file lends itself to moving away from HDRs. I still play with HDRs from time to time, but a lot of my shots look better without it now than with unless I'm going for a very specific look. While you may get a little more out of clouds for example, I don't think it's necessary.

I'm talking extreme DR, Railgun. I very seldom use multi-shot HDR, finding that I can usually work with a slightly over exposed RAW, pull down highlights and pull up shadows, to get a great result.

The last generation or two of bodies have improved dramatically in this regard. Also, the RAW conversion software seems to have gained a lot of power in the last generation or two.

Dave

[allachie9]

This is turning into an interesting discussion on both HDR and RAW processing, and both of you, Railgun and dcstep are making very valid points with which I would agree wholeheartedly.
I still do try the odd HDR image, here's a recent 5 shot composition, from 2 under to 2 over.



But equally, into the light shots can still work using just one shot and, as you say adjust highlights and shadows as required.
Here's one from a few days ago.



As I said, an interesting discussion.

[M_Six]

Here's a 5 shot HDR where a very wide spread was needed to catch the entire range.


NYC 2015 by Mark Johnson, on Flickr

[allachie9]

Thanks, yes both shots taken just a couple of miles from home here in North East Scotland.
My HDR shots are processed using Photomatix Pro 5.0. I have created my own preset in Photomatix and, more often than not, it gives me the 'natural' effect I'm trying to achieve. Like you I could never get PS HDR to work for me, even using Scott Kelby's method and presets !
The Adobe Raw Converter for me just gets better. I suspect many others on here, like me, subscribe to Photoshop CC and I couldn't be without it.

Mark, that's an incredible example of extreme HDR processing and, as an example, is what HDR is all about. Such detail in building and sky could never really be achieved any other way.

[dcstep]

+1 EV with highlight pull-down and shadow pull-up, 2:1 crop and not much else:

Sunset Over Cherry Creek Reservoir by David Stephens, on Flickr

This is my preferred MO.

For the record, I use DxO Optics Pro for RAW conversion, v. 10.4 at the moment. When I do multi-shot HDR, I use PS to Merge after conversion to TIFF in DxO.

Dave

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Here's a 5 shot HDR where a very wide spread was needed to catch the entire range.

Using Evaluative metering, I'm guessing the building is a +4 or +5EV and the sky is a -3EV, because you're into the sun and still achieved some blues. Between the sky and the building there's about a +3-stop difference.

Without multi-shot, you'd have to decide to just let the sky go to white. (I'd likely do that and then convert to B&W!

Dave

[TurboSid]

I didn't read the entire thread but are you sure the photog didn't give you the JPEGs and still has the RAW files?

To keep it simple for my client's I give them Edited High Res JPG images and if they specifically ask for RAW then I provide them those. RAW format doesn't work on most consumer's pc's and JPG works for most of their needs, they can enlarge prints up to 20x30" or greater without any noticeable loss in quality.

[allachie9]

Originally Posted by dcstep

+1 EV with highlight pull-down and shadow pull-up, 2:1 crop and not much else:

Sunset Over Cherry Creek Reservoir by David Stephens, on Flickr

This is my preferred MO.

For the record, I use DxO Optics Pro for RAW conversion, v. 10.4 at the moment. When I do multi-shot HDR, I use PS to Merge after conversion to TIFF in DxO.

Dave

That works very well too. With enough detail in the area across the water and into the distant mountains.

A similar effect, with a similar method of processing has been achieved with this local sunset shot of mine, taken at Easter.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by TurboSid

I didn't read the entire thread but are you sure the photog didn't give you the JPEGs and still has the RAW files?

To keep it simple for my client's I give them Edited High Res JPG images and if they specifically ask for RAW then I provide them those. RAW format doesn't work on most consumer's pc's and JPG works for most of their needs, they can enlarge prints up to 20x30" or greater without any noticeable loss in quality.

Cyberdemon mentioned that his wedding photog only took JPEG images, no RAW. We discussed that for a while and went back to the advantages and disadvantage and the last page or so has been maximizing RAW images with lots of DR.

I've printed JPG up to 50" and, looking at the image in my office, probably could have gone up to close to 72". It's from a full-frame body with only medium pixel-density.

Dave

[mtecnic]

I have a new lease on this topic after a Track event at Autobahn.

The action photog their and I had a conversation about RAW and JPG.

His team shoots on JPG for action at a track day event. The reason being they are shooting 20k images in a day and there would be 0 time left over for converting/post processing to get all the drivers their requested media or pictures. When I looked at the images he got of me and my car they are all quite nice as JPG. I then asked him about landscape and portrait photography and he said that those are proper situations to use RAW as its very tailored to the client. He emphasized getting the shot right no matter what format.

Summary: There is a time and place for RAW and the same goes for JPG.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by mtecnic

I have a new lease on this topic after a Track event at Autobahn.

The action photog their and I had a conversation about RAW and JPG.

His team shoots on JPG for action at a track day event. The reason being they are shooting 20k images in a day and there would be 0 time left over for converting/post processing to get all the drivers their requested media or pictures. When I looked at the images he got of me and my car they are all quite nice as JPG. I then asked him about landscape and portrait photography and he said that those are proper situations to use RAW as its very tailored to the client. He emphasized getting the shot right no matter what format.

Summary: There is a time and place for RAW and the same goes for JPG.

The time and place for me to shoot RAW is all the time and everywhere. If we were all making a living via photography, this thread would likely be without much comment. But I'm not good enough to always get it right in the camera so i'm shooting RAW all the time. Even at the track.

BTW, that's about 41 clicks for every minute of an 8 hour day. I hope that's between a fairly large group of shooters.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

The time and place for me to shoot RAW is all the time and everywhere. If we were all making a living via photography, this thread would likely be without much comment. But I'm not good enough to always get it right in the camera so i'm shooting RAW all the time. Even at the track.
.

Just to emphasize, if you "get it right in the camera" and you're shooting digital, then you have not achieved "optimal exposure". If the dynamic range is low, then it won't matter a bunch, but the higher the DR, the more information you'll lose.

Dave

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by mtecnic

I have a new lease on this topic after a Track event at Autobahn.

The action photog their and I had a conversation about RAW and JPG.

His team shoots on JPG for action at a track day event. The reason being they are shooting 20k images in a day and there would be 0 time left over for converting/post processing to get all the drivers their requested media or pictures. When I looked at the images he got of me and my car they are all quite nice as JPG. I then asked him about landscape and portrait photography and he said that those are proper situations to use RAW as its very tailored to the client. He emphasized getting the shot right no matter what format.

Summary: There is a time and place for RAW and the same goes for JPG.

Those are special circumstances, working against a deadline. Some sports shooters are wirelessly transmitting their images as they take them and an assistant is picking keepers and publishing them instantly. That's another JPG situation. JPG is "good enough" almost all the time when it's going to be internet or TV.

Shooting for myself at any sporting event, I'd still shoot RAW and process after the event.

Dave

[allachie9]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Just to emphasize, if you "get it right in the camera" and you're shooting digital, then you have not achieved "optimal exposure". If the dynamic range is low, then it won't matter a bunch, but the higher the DR, the more information you'll lose.

Dave

Yep, that's exactly right Dave.

Going right back to the beginning of this thread, and as has already been mentioned, memory is so cheap these days. So, why on Earth would a wedding photographer not shoot JPEG and RAW together ?
Invariably he's only going to get one chance to 'get it right in camera', but what if he doesn't, especially with THE shot of the day ?

OK, as photographers we're probably over critical of our own, and other photographers work. However a blushing bride isn't even going to notice if the odd highlight on her dress is blown out. All she sees is whether her hair looks right, does her bum look big in the dress, and whether the guy stood next to her is really the person she wants to live with for ever.

So the wedding photographer has got this amazing shot but . . . maybe the exposure is just a little too far off to get the best out of the JPEG. If he has the RAW, even if that's the only RAW he wants to, or needs to, process, he can do it. Then just delete all the RAW files.

As I said memory is so cheap these days.
I bought my first digital camera in 2003, A 4MP Canon G3, described as the ultimate photographic tool ! I was so convinced that with the 'massive' files this machine was going to create, I would need to get more memory. The camera came with a 32mb compact flash card and, at that time CF cards were only available up to 256mb. So I bought a 1GB IBM Microdrive, which I still have but no longer use. It cost £175 (175 GB pounds), around $260 US. now I get 8GB (CF & SD) cards for less than £10 ($15).
Amazingly cheap by comparison.