help with raw

Hi John

I'm probably not explaining myself properly.

As printers use sRGB which is the same old 8 bit standard used by Jpeg (with the exception of some recent printers which are 10 bit) any file format will look the same when printed, it's what you can do with it before you print that's the difference between a RAW file compared to what you can do with a Jpeg.

Below is an example of what I mean

http://www.flickr.com/photos/58632715@N00/2215379324/

With Jpeg you would have to choose from either of the top pictures (or somewhere in between) if you tried to alter the image to this extent it would have torn the 8 bit file to pieces due to lack of data depth and quality would noticeably suffer, but with 12 bits you have the ability to drastically alter, in this case the luminance, to balance the image by remapping the 12 bits into the 8 bits available when printing.

In short you could not get the bottom image with Jpeg except by bracketing and combining, whether people would realise that when viewing a print is doubtful.

A truer test would be to shoot the same scene with both Jpeg and RAW, something with a fairly large tonal range as most landscapes that include the sky are, process both images to get the best out of them, then the detail in the highlights and shadows you can get with the 12 bit RAW file would show through as in the example above.

I don't have an axe to grind, I'm not a dyed in the wool RAW for everything, about 60% of my pics are shot in RAW the rest I shoot Jpeg, and I'm really not trying to knock Jpeg which has served us well for over 40 years, and continues to do so. And I'm certainly not trying to 'have a pop' at you John who has served us well for many years and long may you continue to do so .

Cheers Chris

John, Was the experiment done with images that were "right at the point of capture"?

I prefer to get most of mine right later (ie. get them the way I want them). With the software I use, I can do that better with RAW files.

OK, it's a fair point about "right at capture". Yes, the images were correctly exposed and were not in need of cropping. So levels and sharpening and the job's done.

However, we're photographers with a mass of technology at our beck and call, so why shouldn't they be correctly exposed and surely we should aim for a good composition right from the start?

I'm not actually advocating JPEG over RAW per se but I'll tell you a little tale that illustrates why I caution against the common misconception that to make good images you must use RAW capture.

T came to the club to learn how to use her new DSLR so she could go on a long and expensive trip and get some great shots. Unfortunately she took on board the "must shoot RAW" mantra and went and shot over 600 images. The real problem is that they take too long to process and she's found her PC just isn't up to the task. Interminably slow.

So her real needs were overlooked because of the enthusiasm of those who wanted to process on the PC and be at the forefront of the technology. Now she returns with 600 basically unuseable shots and she is very very disheartened.

It's a great pity she didn't take on board my advice to keep it simple, shoot best quality JPEG and conentrate on shooting the images. Then she would have had 600 easy to process images that would not have stressed out her computer.

I champion the simple life for beginners for this sort of reason. We shouldn't believe that the theoretically best route is the universal answer. I tell epople to start with JPEG, get the image quality right and if they then feel a need for RAW capture by that time they will know why they are doing it.

For myself, I shoot JPEG and expose and compose as though they were colour slides. Sometimes they need hardly a tweak in Photoshop. Other times my imagination runs away with me, as a glance at my EPZ portfolio will reveal!

Jr you are my hero.
I don't give a damn what format you shoot. Photoshop is for taking great shots and making them better than great.
It is not for fixing screw-ups.
Get it right in camera, or go home.

I did that for about twenty-five years: aiming for it. I feel so much more relaxed now that I know I can complete the job at home -- where I have more time and access to better technology -- that I enjoy photography more than ever before, as well as achieving better results.

I agree that complete beginners should be tought to try and get it right from the start -- because of course a lot is learnt from that -- but once past that stage, no-one should feel they are cheating by using their computer to get it right.

I don't agree. Photoshop is for whatever you want. You don't HAVE to get it right in the camera any more.

to each his own.
photoshop won't recover lost highlights....
or lost detial in solid blacks.

nobody who bills/gets paid by the hour can justify the time involved in fixing mistakes vs the time involved in doing it right.

if you think otherwise, your customers will soon be mine...

There is a greater dynamic range with RAW files than JPEGs, therefore the exposure has to be worse before detail is lost in highlights or shaddows. With a RAW you can recover some of what would have been lost if it was a JPEG.

I'm not a professional photographer and I don't have to justify to anyone how much of my spare time I spend on my photographs on the computer versus with the camera. It comes down to personal preference. Each to his own, exactly.

It's not just about correcting mistakes anyway. It's just as much about being able to spend more time to decide what it "right" (if you have it). You don't have so much time in the first place if shooting fast-moving action, for example, or if you'd get hypothermia if you hung around any longer, for another example.

my compliment to JR was well intended, my humor apparentlty lost on some, but my logic is sound.
photoshop can fix mistakes, but as a pro, I cannot justify billing a client extra to fix mistakes, that could've been done properly in camera...that was the point of my post.
sorry if I offended anybody.