Hey, I just got asked to photograph for my College's paper. They said they want to talk to me about shooting in RAW. I was wondering why that is? I decided to shoot in RAW today (See my photo from today). Could we discuss the differences?
I am positive someone else can explain this better but here is my go:
Raw is uncompressed. It is the complete data from your camera's sensor. Raw photos require some sort of post-processing as they lack contrast however you can do sooooo much more with a Raw file than you can a jpg. A jpg is basically processed in your camera the way the camera sees fit. Each time you edit and save a jpg, data is lost, thus making the quality suck more and more each time (even it is a simple crop). With Raw, you don't lose data with changes made in post production.
@corgimom Your camera should come with some sort of software that supports it...well at least mine did (Canon)...it wasn't anything special AT ALL. So I got Lightroom :)
I have a Mac and I can import RAW to iPhoto, also if your camera shoots RAW it should have come with some sort of software disk to support it. I also have PSE and it supports RAW.
@corgimom There is a free program you can download called AbleRAWer that will let you open/edit RAW images. No need to buy anything. Unless you want to, of course :)
Using Rawtherapee on Linux here but there's a Windows build too. It supports all the fiddling that I can handle - and then some. Oh, and it's free, so there's no excuses for not trying it.
I shoot in both RAW and jpeg.
If I can get it right in camera then I use the jpeg but love having the versatility of RAW, especially for WB, exposure and b&w conversion.
The RAW file carries all the data associated with the photo so it is a much larger file so requires a lot more storage room.
I use lightroom to do my RAW processing, awesome program. You can buy the latest lightroom 4 from amazon for about $120.
I have just started shooting RAW and using Ligttoom and am pleased with the results. Just warning you tho that RAW file sizes are much bigger (about 5 times bigger) than JPEGs so make sure you take extra memory cards especially if you are on an assignment for a newspaper.
First, a couple of small corrections to what has been said so far.
Firstly, RAW files are not uncompressed, they are losslessly compressed. Unlike JPEG files they do not discard any data, but they are roughly 3-4 times smaller than an uncompressed file containing the same data would be (thankfully for our memory cards!)
Secondly, the mere act of shooting in JPEG does not mean that you need to lose data when you perform crops or other actions. If you load a JPEG, make a change, save it, load it again, make another change, save it, and so on, then yes, you will lose more and more data. However, software like Lightroom will process JPEG files without doing this, so you will not lose more data than you've lost by choosing JPEG in the first place. Similarly, if you use Photoshop and save your changes to the JPEG as a Photoshop (PSD) file, you again will not cause more damage to be done.
Thirdly, I would disagree that if you are printing you *need* to use RAW. A RAW file allows you to do more post-processing work (as I'll discuss in a minute), recover more detail, and so on, and is invaluable for that. To get the best out of your camera you should be using RAW. However, the act of using JPEG mode on your camera does not fundamentally alter the resolution or sharpness of your image, which is what is key to printing. If you have 'fine' mode set on your camera and take a shot that you are either happy with straight out of camera, or requires very minor adjustment in post-processing, you can print that file just as large as you can a RAW file. JPEG is a lossy compression format, but when using 'fine' mode the loss of data due to compression is almost undetectable and will not affect print sizes. The advantages of RAW come from the data that a JPEG file simply isn't able to store.
A RAW file contains simply the raw, unprocessed data from the sensor, before the camera does any processing to it at all. This means that only the camera settings that alter how the photo is output from the sensor have any bearing -- simplistically this can be thought of as aperture, shutter speed and ISO. All other settings, such as white balance, contrast, sharpening, saturation and so on are bypassed.
Additionally, a RAW file contains more data than a JPEG file contains. Camera sensors typically record between 12 and 16 'bits' of data per colour, and this is recorded to the RAW file.
To explain what this means, for simplicity let's take a camera that only shoots black and white images (such as the Leica M-Monochrom). This camera has a 16-bit sensor. What that means is that the camera sees 65,536 different shades of grey -- there are 65,536 values between 'totally black' and 'totally white'.
JPEG files, on the other hand, only save 8 bits of data. If you save an image from this camera as a JPEG, you suddenly have just 256 different shades of grey. The rest of the data has been lost -- the camera has had to pick the closest shade it could to the actual value it captured. This means that, in the deep shadow areas of your photograph, the camera may have captured one thousand different shades of 'almost black', which is stored in the RAW file. The equivalent area of the JPEG will have just 3 or 4 shades of 'almost black'.
This is why RAW files provide so much more leeway to recover information from the shadows. With the RAW file, you can brighten those really dark areas and still have all the subtle different tones that were there. With the JPEG, you have four different shades in the shadow area. If you brighten it, you end up with black, dark grey, light grey and white.
To make things worse, the photos that come out of a camera sensor are typically quite 'flat' and lacking in contrast. Consumers don't want that, so when the camera saves the file as a JPEG it will typically boost the contrast -- even the 'standard' and 'flat' settings on a camera will boost the contrast measurably. Boosting contrast means that you make the blacks blacker and the whites whiter. So what has actually happened is that the 1000 shades of near-black in the shadow area of your RAW file has turned into one solid mass of pure black in the JPEG. And there's nothing you can do to get it back.
This loss of data happens all across the spectrum, not just in the shadow areas -- it's just that that's an easy way to understand what's happening and why it's bad. But the lack of different shades in the mid-tones and whites provides more subtle problems when post-processing. Post-processing shifts colours and brightnesses around, expands and compresses the gaps between them, and so on. With just 256 shades, you very quickly start to run out of data, and end up with 'blotchy' or 'posterised' areas in your photograph. With 65,536 shades, there's always shades 'in between' that provide smooth transitions, even with significant post-processing.
The same process applies with colour images as well, it's just a little more complex. A JPEG stores 16.7 million different colours, a 16-bit raw file stores 281474976710656 different colours.
Now, of course, at the end of the day we're always going to end up with a boring old JPEG that we upload onto this site -- so what's the point? That's where the RAW converter software comes in. The RAW converter does the work that the camera didn't bother with -- it reads the data from the camera sensor (the RAW file), but instead of deciding what to do for you, it lets you choose. If you've underexposed the image, you can boost that -- and you have the data to allow it. If you want to recover highlight detail, you've probably got at least some data to do that. You can set the white balance to what looks best. All of this is done using the original data from the camera, so it gives you the ultimate flexibility -- you can choose exactly which of those 281.5 trillion colours are used to make up your 16.7 million colour final image. When you're happy with how that data is to be used, you hit the 'process' button and it (typically) gets turned into an 8-bit image that you then save as a JPEG -- but you've decided exactly what that image contains and what it doesn't.
And here's an example, as a picture probably shows this better than words.
This picture was a scene with a lot of dynamic range -- the lights in the distance were very bright compared to the rocks in the foreground:
I originally planned to do this using HDR or by manually blending different exposures, however, I decided instead to bring the detail out of the rocks using the data in the RAW file.
Here's a close-up of the rocks as they came out of the camera:
As you can see, this is a clear example of a deep shadow area of the photograph. I then processed both the JPEG version and the RAW version using the same settings in Adobe Camera Raw (exactly the same software as is used behind the scenes in Lightroom).
Here is the JPEG, boosted to bring out the detail in the shadows:
And here is the RAW file having undergone the same processing:
Things to notice are how much detail there is in the rocks in the RAW version -- you can see the texture of the rocks, the light and shadow, and bits of lichen and other detail. In the JPEG file, most of the rock shadow is just a grey-green blob with very little distinguishable detail.
(Note that there are slight sharpness differences that are not due to processing in RAW vs JPEG -- they're primarily because I shoot in RAW+JPEG but with very low-res JPEGs, which I use for ease of cataloguing rather than to actually work with).
seriously I was trying to contribute on multiple levels here.... I do mean that once I tried RAW photography, I have never returned to the dark side of jpegs and I also thought a little bit of cheek (face, bum, whatever) would appeal to others.... ;)
I know my level :) Though for me, it's kind of like what mode to shoot in. Depends on what I am doing, for instance, when doing street photography then only ever JPEG, simply cos my camera seems to take an age saving a RAW file.
@abirkill Thank you so much for your detailed and yet very understandable information. I've noticed how much time and effort you put in to help those of us less experienced! I'm on a huge learning curve...and the more I learn, the more I know I have much more to learn! That should be on my tombstone:p
@bobfoto@jase_h Is there an X rated section of the site? I don't have access! What's the fee???
Hallelujah! Epiphany time! Thank you so much for putting me straight in my next step into processing. I have been making a ton of .jpg mistakes, now to be corrected using the .raw I always take, but store away.@abirkill
for me I shoot raw if i'm gonna be doing a pretty good amount of adjusting. But when I go to events and I know i'll be taking alot of pictures I just shoot JPG because I refuse to edit alot of pictures.
I just bought Lightroom, and I'm having a beast of a computer built for me (presently, I only have access to a computer at work, so that's why my posts have been sporadic).
Starting in May, I want to start shooting in RAW. Any tips for processing with the change in format?
I shoot in RAW all the time with my DSLR. When I take photos with my P&S and have to edit a JPG, I am frustrated by the lack of options for editing compared to when I shoot in RAW. So it's RAW all the way for me.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Raw is uncompressed. It is the complete data from your camera's sensor. Raw photos require some sort of post-processing as they lack contrast however you can do sooooo much more with a Raw file than you can a jpg. A jpg is basically processed in your camera the way the camera sees fit. Each time you edit and save a jpg, data is lost, thus making the quality suck more and more each time (even it is a simple crop). With Raw, you don't lose data with changes made in post production.
-Mark
If I can get it right in camera then I use the jpeg but love having the versatility of RAW, especially for WB, exposure and b&w conversion.
The RAW file carries all the data associated with the photo so it is a much larger file so requires a lot more storage room.
I use lightroom to do my RAW processing, awesome program. You can buy the latest lightroom 4 from amazon for about $120.
The camera applies sharpening to jpegs before saving them. You need to do this to the RAW files.
RAW files give the photographer more control. Allow for better correction of the light temperature, lens correction, etc.
Firstly, RAW files are not uncompressed, they are losslessly compressed. Unlike JPEG files they do not discard any data, but they are roughly 3-4 times smaller than an uncompressed file containing the same data would be (thankfully for our memory cards!)
Secondly, the mere act of shooting in JPEG does not mean that you need to lose data when you perform crops or other actions. If you load a JPEG, make a change, save it, load it again, make another change, save it, and so on, then yes, you will lose more and more data. However, software like Lightroom will process JPEG files without doing this, so you will not lose more data than you've lost by choosing JPEG in the first place. Similarly, if you use Photoshop and save your changes to the JPEG as a Photoshop (PSD) file, you again will not cause more damage to be done.
Thirdly, I would disagree that if you are printing you *need* to use RAW. A RAW file allows you to do more post-processing work (as I'll discuss in a minute), recover more detail, and so on, and is invaluable for that. To get the best out of your camera you should be using RAW. However, the act of using JPEG mode on your camera does not fundamentally alter the resolution or sharpness of your image, which is what is key to printing. If you have 'fine' mode set on your camera and take a shot that you are either happy with straight out of camera, or requires very minor adjustment in post-processing, you can print that file just as large as you can a RAW file. JPEG is a lossy compression format, but when using 'fine' mode the loss of data due to compression is almost undetectable and will not affect print sizes. The advantages of RAW come from the data that a JPEG file simply isn't able to store.
A RAW file contains simply the raw, unprocessed data from the sensor, before the camera does any processing to it at all. This means that only the camera settings that alter how the photo is output from the sensor have any bearing -- simplistically this can be thought of as aperture, shutter speed and ISO. All other settings, such as white balance, contrast, sharpening, saturation and so on are bypassed.
Additionally, a RAW file contains more data than a JPEG file contains. Camera sensors typically record between 12 and 16 'bits' of data per colour, and this is recorded to the RAW file.
To explain what this means, for simplicity let's take a camera that only shoots black and white images (such as the Leica M-Monochrom). This camera has a 16-bit sensor. What that means is that the camera sees 65,536 different shades of grey -- there are 65,536 values between 'totally black' and 'totally white'.
JPEG files, on the other hand, only save 8 bits of data. If you save an image from this camera as a JPEG, you suddenly have just 256 different shades of grey. The rest of the data has been lost -- the camera has had to pick the closest shade it could to the actual value it captured. This means that, in the deep shadow areas of your photograph, the camera may have captured one thousand different shades of 'almost black', which is stored in the RAW file. The equivalent area of the JPEG will have just 3 or 4 shades of 'almost black'.
This is why RAW files provide so much more leeway to recover information from the shadows. With the RAW file, you can brighten those really dark areas and still have all the subtle different tones that were there. With the JPEG, you have four different shades in the shadow area. If you brighten it, you end up with black, dark grey, light grey and white.
To make things worse, the photos that come out of a camera sensor are typically quite 'flat' and lacking in contrast. Consumers don't want that, so when the camera saves the file as a JPEG it will typically boost the contrast -- even the 'standard' and 'flat' settings on a camera will boost the contrast measurably. Boosting contrast means that you make the blacks blacker and the whites whiter. So what has actually happened is that the 1000 shades of near-black in the shadow area of your RAW file has turned into one solid mass of pure black in the JPEG. And there's nothing you can do to get it back.
This loss of data happens all across the spectrum, not just in the shadow areas -- it's just that that's an easy way to understand what's happening and why it's bad. But the lack of different shades in the mid-tones and whites provides more subtle problems when post-processing. Post-processing shifts colours and brightnesses around, expands and compresses the gaps between them, and so on. With just 256 shades, you very quickly start to run out of data, and end up with 'blotchy' or 'posterised' areas in your photograph. With 65,536 shades, there's always shades 'in between' that provide smooth transitions, even with significant post-processing.
The same process applies with colour images as well, it's just a little more complex. A JPEG stores 16.7 million different colours, a 16-bit raw file stores 281474976710656 different colours.
Now, of course, at the end of the day we're always going to end up with a boring old JPEG that we upload onto this site -- so what's the point? That's where the RAW converter software comes in. The RAW converter does the work that the camera didn't bother with -- it reads the data from the camera sensor (the RAW file), but instead of deciding what to do for you, it lets you choose. If you've underexposed the image, you can boost that -- and you have the data to allow it. If you want to recover highlight detail, you've probably got at least some data to do that. You can set the white balance to what looks best. All of this is done using the original data from the camera, so it gives you the ultimate flexibility -- you can choose exactly which of those 281.5 trillion colours are used to make up your 16.7 million colour final image. When you're happy with how that data is to be used, you hit the 'process' button and it (typically) gets turned into an 8-bit image that you then save as a JPEG -- but you've decided exactly what that image contains and what it doesn't.
This picture was a scene with a lot of dynamic range -- the lights in the distance were very bright compared to the rocks in the foreground:
I originally planned to do this using HDR or by manually blending different exposures, however, I decided instead to bring the detail out of the rocks using the data in the RAW file.
Here's a close-up of the rocks as they came out of the camera:
As you can see, this is a clear example of a deep shadow area of the photograph. I then processed both the JPEG version and the RAW version using the same settings in Adobe Camera Raw (exactly the same software as is used behind the scenes in Lightroom).
Here is the JPEG, boosted to bring out the detail in the shadows:
And here is the RAW file having undergone the same processing:
Things to notice are how much detail there is in the rocks in the RAW version -- you can see the texture of the rocks, the light and shadow, and bits of lichen and other detail. In the JPEG file, most of the rock shadow is just a grey-green blob with very little distinguishable detail.
(Note that there are slight sharpness differences that are not due to processing in RAW vs JPEG -- they're primarily because I shoot in RAW+JPEG but with very low-res JPEGs, which I use for ease of cataloguing rather than to actually work with).
@bobfoto
seriously I was trying to contribute on multiple levels here.... I do mean that once I tried RAW photography, I have never returned to the dark side of jpegs and I also thought a little bit of cheek (face, bum, whatever) would appeal to others.... ;)
@bobfoto
@bobfoto @jase_h Is there an X rated section of the site? I don't have access! What's the fee???
Starting in May, I want to start shooting in RAW. Any tips for processing with the change in format?