14 replies to this topic

[Nikonite]

Lets say you're on a cruise to . . ... oh say Alaska. You have your camera out and are taking some great shots, but nature calls! While you're answering nature your wife (or husband as the case applies) picks up your camera and starts shooting. They know just enough to set the camera to AUTO and press the shutter button. What turns out on the RAW card as well as Jpeg card is the first picture. It would be a great picture if only the shooter had some knowledge of exposure, ISO, white balance etc. But not only do they not want to know they want to point and shoot without the extra thought! This is where post processing can save the day. I liked the shot my wife took in the first photo, but hated that it doesn't look the way it really was. Well . . ... surprise, surprise the information is there it just has to be extracted like in the 2nd photo. There are many apps that will do post processing. I chose DxO. I like the individualized algorithms for camera bodies and lenses. So . . ... do you have a photo that coulda/shoulda been great, but isn't? Post process it and see what you can find. Oh . . ... the 2nd picture is what DxO calls "standard" correction. In manual it'll even get better if you spend the time to work the correction yourself.

[iNYONi]

I always shoot in RAW format, it takes a while to post process but it's worth the extra work to ensure my pictures turn out as I wanted them. Ok I agree that you should always try and get the camera set up correctly and use the lighting to get the result you want at the time but to be honest, having the RAW format file to play with afterwards is better than finding out the shot just didnt turn out as you expected.

 

p.s, I kinda like the first shot....call me weird.

[Nikonite]

I do too, but I wanted the photo to look the way it really was or at the very least as I remembered it. As you can see it was not that dark and foreboding. It probably is now, but when we were there it had some green. I don't post process ALL my photos. Just the ones that need it like above. Some photos come out of the camera needing no improvement.  

[akanarya]

Why not?

Almost all photos need to be edited up to a certain level, at least cropping.

And it is very disturbing to answer a question that asks the ways to rescue the photo, if it hadnt been taken as raw.

Therefore, I shoot as raw and storage cost is not a big deal.

[Nikonite]

I guess I just don't have the time. It took me a week to go through the eight hundred and sixty something photos I shot in Alaska. If I were to manually manipulate every one of them we're talking months. If I were a pro and selling the photos absolutely, but I'm just a hack shooting photos for my own web site and my wife's Facebook. I hate the way Facebook degrades my photos!

[TBonz]

It can take quite awhile to edit lots of photos...I still have a good ways to go in the 1600 or so (3 different volleyball matches) I shot on Wednesday, but it is part of the process...It really depends on what you are shooting and lots of other factors, but most photos can be improved with something in post whether it is a crop, straightening the horizon, an exposure tweak or a bit of contrast (higher or lower), etc. 

 

All that said, you don't NEED to shoot RAW in order to "save" an image.  Yes it will give you more range to recover things but you would be surprised at how much you can improve a JPEG.  I've had some REALLY dark JPEG images from bad lighting that I didn't think I'd be able to save, but they turned out to be some pretty nice images...take a look back at this thread at my photo of the Baltimore Orioles Bird...didn't have time to change my exposure from the brighter area on field to the darker area by the stands and the image was dark enough I didn't think it would be usable, but it came out pretty well...

 

I still think shooting RAW is the way to go assuming that you have the necessary space (cards and disk) and that you don't need a high FPS with a big buffer which means that most folks can shoot in RAW and have that benefit...Prior to owning my D4, I shot exclusively JPEG for sports and would normally shoot both if I didn't need the speed / buffer.  With the D4's high FPS and big buffer, I normally shoot both (the Bird image above was from my D4 as a JPEG - didn't shoot RAW there)...I basically archive the RAW images and process the JPEG.  I have the RAW if needed but usually don't touch them.  For personal photos, I process the RAW and seldom touch the JPEG. 

 

Of course, if you aren't changing most of your photos, there probably isn't any reason to shoot RAW...

[Nikonite]

True, but as you said the range of correction in a jpeg is less than in raw. After all the jpeg is already compressed. There is enough of a difference that I use 2 different apps when correcting a jpeg vs. raw. When correcting jpegs I prefer Adobe Photoshop elements 12, but as I mentioned when correcting raw I use DxO 9.    

[TBonz]

I guess I just don't have the time. It took me a week to go through the eight hundred and sixty something photos I shot in Alaska. If I were to manually manipulate every one of them we're talking months. If I were a pro and selling the photos absolutely, but I'm just a hack shooting photos for my own web site and my wife's Facebook. I hate the way Facebook degrades my photos!

 

True, but as you said the range of correction in a jpeg is less than in raw. After all the jpeg is already compressed. There is enough of a difference that I use 2 different apps when correcting a jpeg vs. raw. When correcting jpegs I prefer Adobe Photoshop elements 12, but as I mentioned when correcting raw I use DxO 9.    

 

Yes, there is more, but it would have to be a major issue to not be able to fix a JPEG.  The software you use is personal preference...I use Lightroom for almost all (99.9+%) of my processing.  Assuming the software recognizes the RAW file, you should be able to edit either RAW or JPEG in the same editor and get the same results with most images.  No real need to use two different editors other than preference.  In fact, if you don't have as much time to edit as you indicated earlier, you might be better off with JPEG as any special camera settings / effects are included in the JPEG.  RAW image editing can take longer.

[Nikonite]

Granted, but the picture I attached above falls into your "major issue" category. I tried to edit the jpeg first, but couldn't get enough of the green that I knew was there. I went to the raw file and found the green in spades. In fact the picture I put on my web site I had to back off "standard correction".

[akanarya]

A very big thumb for Lightroom

[alden]

I shoot JPEG and from what I have read most pros shoot JPEG too, especially if they are sports or journalist photogs. I have no problems with editing my images in Photoshop or even Win7 photo editor, if I'm in a hurry.

[Cymon]

Hi Alden, the reason behind this is agencies want images fast and untouched, hence why sports and journalists shoot jpeg. 

[Puzbie]

I can't see any pictures in this thread.

[Merco_61]

I can't see any pictures in this thread.

This might be because Nikonite removed his photos when he left the community in 2016.

[Puzbie]

Did he have a hissy fit?