Why RAW?

[Maisiemouse]

I realise I may be labelled a complete dumbo for asking this, but can anyone tell me what the advantages are of shooting in RAW mode?

I can't really notice any difference between RAW and max sized JPG files, apart from the fact that RAW files take up a lot more room.

Answers on a postcard, in words of less than 3 syllables please...........

Sean

[Swampy]

Way greater flexibility on editing/postprocessing for starters. Adjust exposure, color, temp, contrast, etc. LOTs of setting to mess with to get a cleaner picture. You may not notice any difference between JPG and RAW on your screen, but there are serious differences that will make a difference, especially at tighter crops. That's the digested post card version.

[deMille]

More versatile ... too many syllables? ;o)

The RAW file offers far more opportunity for adjustment. Everything else is heavily processed by the camera within the parameters that you set for ISO, exposure, sharpening, contrast, etc.

RAW allows you to change your mind. The idea is that RAW is the unaltered electrical response of the image sensor that you can adjust anywhere within the abilities of the software.

You know that JPG compression is already loosing image information and degrading the image to some degree. TIF files from the camera are already locked into the ISO, exposure, etc. but better because of no compression. RAW lets you have it all. Fix mistakes, change the way you see/saw the scene. Much more creative.

Dale

[Igor]

Sean, you might be surprized with my reply, but you're right. There is not much difference for genereal purpose shooting.
There IS difference when you shoot Kodak SLR/n, but not D70 or S2.

What benefits you get with RAW:
1. More detail, more dynamic range (jpg compression eats both)
2. More options for post-processing like exposure compensation, saturation, contrast, noise reduction (PS CS)
3. You get TIFF files which you can edit anytime later without loosing quality (when editing JPG's)

HTH.

[Maisiemouse]

Thanks - it makes a bit more sense now. I've used RAW mode before, but usually with studio strobes/exposure meter. I guess that shots taken this way would not need too much correction (based on the fact that I spend a lot of time getting everything just right before I press the shutter). This could be a hangover from using film, where the exposure is pretty much set once the shot is taken.

Don't worry Dale - 'versatility' has the max number of syllables for me. Now, if you'd said 'versatility' I would have been struggling :lol:

Sean

[photoworks]

Sean,
another major advantage is that a raw file converted to a 16bit tiff gives a perfect file to work with.
You can adjust levels and sharpness much more precise than a 8bit jpeg.
The differences are noticable in prints bigger than A4 size.

_____
Vasilis

[Maisiemouse]

Ok - I tried it. This was taken at about 9.30pm, 1/15 sec, ISO 800, handheld. Thre are loads of nasty lights around this area, which tend to give a strange colour cast. It took a while to sort the file out, but it is definitely an improvement on previous efforts. I think I may be a convert to RAW.. :righton:

Yeah I know, it's that damned curvy bridge again. It's the only bit of decent architecture round here

Sean

[Swampy]

You may want to try that same shot, at ISO 200~400 on a tripod next time, but this looks good and looks like you got the RAW settings figured out.

Also, try cloning out the light reflections under the bridge to give it a slightly cleaner look as well since they're not in any particular formation/pattern.

[HulaMike]

great shot, RAW rules if you have the inclination.......by the way, you might also consider cloning out the grassy weeds at the bottom. Without them this pic is one clean machine!

[Mike_B]

Hi Sean,

Do a lot of PS work on an image and watch the histogram and how a JPG histogram gets all chopped up to bits. Do the same things to a 16-bit file from RAW and watch what happens to the histogram. There's simply enough date there so the histogram doesn't end showing lots of gaps in the data.

Do a lot of work on a JPG image with a lot of blue sky with various gradations. You'll be amazed how many shades of blue are possible in some skies. More than JPG can easily handle, sometimes, and certainly more than can remain intact with lots of processing. Do a large increase in saturation with a 16-bit TIFF from RAW and you'll be golden. Try the same thing with a JPG and you may end up wondering where the artifacts came from.

All of which is qualified by the fact that I'm fairly new to this. But, since I like to play with problem images quite a bit, this is one of the first lessons I learned.

Viva RAW! Lol.

Mike

[jknights]

The others have said it all.
I put in some flippant comments therefore ;-)
RAW = Really Awesome
JPG = Just Pretty Grotty

On a more serious note...
There are several good RAW converters around that you can use.
The best are the Photoshop CD ACR and the Fuji EX (HyperUtility) closely followed by the Bibble 3.1a and QImage products then the freebie Fuji LE converter.
There is a freeware converter that works well for most images but not all.
http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley-PaloAlto/9919/s7raw.html

Give them a try and see which suits you best.

Good luck.
The move to RAW files will give you much easier images to manipulate.

[hgporter]

Sean, you might be surprized with my reply, but you're right. There is not much difference for genereal purpose shooting.
There IS difference when you shoot Kodak SLR/n, but not D70 or S2.

What benefits you get with RAW:
1. More detail, more dynamic range (jpg compression eats both)
2. More options for post-processing like exposure compensation, saturation, contrast, noise reduction (PS CS)
3. You get TIFF files which you can edit anytime later without loosing quality (when editing JPG's)

HTH.

Igor,

Why do you think that RAW from a Kodak SLR/n has more than a jpg, but not RAW from the "lesser" DSLR's? I can show that RAW from an S2 contains more of all the above than a jpg from the same camera.

GP—

[Tom Nolle]

I have to agree with you on that one GP. I tested all the JPG modes on the S2 against RAW when I first got the camera just about 2 years ago now, and there was no question that RAW held more detail, particularly in shadow and highlight areas, and also stood up better to post-processing by a long shot. JPG is fast, to be sure, and if you have a lot of shots to process in a hurry that matters. But RAW on the S2 is better, and it will show in nearly any shot if you look closely or blow it up big.

Tom