Post processing age old debate!

[WayneF]

RAW, they are just file formats, one being more "malleable" than the other. I dont know how you can associate a file format to the value or usefulness of your equipment.

...

It's a bit snobish to draw a line in the sand and say that the only proper and useful way to use a DSLR, is to shoot in RAW. I am sorry, but it's laughable.

​

Not the only way, but the idea is that it is so much easier to shoot in Raw, it opens new possibilities. Raw is not just a file format, it is a philosophy for better pictures.
But of course, many shooters really don't care about getting the best result. JPG is for them, to accept whatever they get.

This is what is laughable: If one obviously does not yet have any clue yet about Raw, then I would discount the opinion as unlearned. When you think so many are wrong, it may be time to reevaluate your own notions. Investigate a bit.

I was doing serious darkroom work in 1960, and I've been practicing, but alas, I am not yet good enough to always get it right for JPG. Sure, I would rather get it right in the camera, but things just happen sometimes, you know? Pretty often too. But Raw allows fast easy tweaks to get White Balance right, and to get exposure right, and to correct several other flaws, like lens distortion, vignetting, etc. It all becomes trivial, not hopeless. No big deal to fix it with the easy tools.

For one example, setting white balance in the camera is very crude, most often it is simply wrong (lets say less than correct). There are many colors of incandescent, many colors of daylight, many colors of flash, and the crude one-size-fits-all setting the camera is simply grossly insufficient. We cannot say exactly what the light out there is. Auto WB is of course no better. WB will need attention, and Raw makes this be very easy to correct it.
Or, you can shoot JPG, and simply ignore all of the issues in your pictures. Difference of philosophy.

It wasn't always right on film either, but the darkroom could fix it too. Tools were crude then, but fantastic today. But of course, some simply don't worry about fixing it, they don't know, don't care. Sad, not laughable.

 

[J-see]

Look at it like model building. RAW is buying a box that contains all individual pieces, JPG is opening the box and discovering the manufacturer already pre-glued and pre-painted it. In the second case, if not satisfied and desiring something different, you'll have great difficulty doing so.

A large part of photography is post processing. It's the digital version of the old darkroom. I wish I could create the perfect photo each time but even with all the options and settings, it's not possible. That's when post is required. If I'd be against post-processing, I could not use any settings but aperture, ISO and shutter speed since all the other settings are a very simplified manner of doing pre-"post-processing".

 

[SkvLTD]

Look at it like model building. RAW is buying a box that contains all individual pieces, JPG is opening the box and discovering the manufacturer already pre-glued and pre-painted it. In the second case, if not satisfied and desiring something different, you'll have great difficulty doing so.

A large part of photography is post processing. It's the digital version of the old darkroom. I wish I could create the perfect photo each time but even with all the options and settings, it's not possible. That's when post is required. If I'd be against post-processing, I could not use any settings but aperture, ISO and shutter speed since all the other settings are a very simplified manner of doing pre-"post-processing".

Rather I'll put it this way - if there was a way to tell the camera EXACTLY how to render jpegs, then getting the right exposure would just do the trick, but alas.

In fact, I wonder why the heck all the companies haven't added such a setting to higher end bodies, or, have they?

 

[J-see]

If the camera could do that, it was probably smart enough to do the rest too. I'd wake it up in the morning and tell it to take some bug-shots while I have coffee and read the newspaper.

I think many see the RAW vs JPG issue in a wrong light. Using JPG doesn't imply you won't be satisfied about your end-result. It's not an inferior format that by definition produces lower quality images. If you like the JPG, all is well. The problem only surfaces when you're not satisfied. Then you regret not having used RAW.

 

[WayneF]

If the camera could do that, it was probably smart enough to do the rest too. I'd wake it up in the morning and tell it to take some bug-shots while I have coffee and read the newspaper.

Really neat icon. Clever design, the colors, etc.

 

[Felisek]

It seems to me that everyone is forgetting one thing. There is no such thing as "shooting JPEG". You always shoot RAW. Always!

RAW file is simply data collected from the camera sensor and saved into a file. When you "shoot JPEG", your camera collects RAW data from the sensor, does post-processing, converts these data into JPEG image and sends it to the card. The RAW data are discarded after this. But they are always there in the first place.

Please note that I intentionally used the word "post-processing" above. This is what camera software actually does. It applies a profile (e.g. standard or landscape) that contains several arbitrary parameters (as contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc.) in order to create an image. You cannot avoid post-processing, even if the camera is doing it for you.

So, this discussion is a bit misguided (in my opinion). We all shoot RAW. The only difference is that some of us rely on in-camera post-processing and discard RAW data, while others (myself including) keep RAW data and prefer controlled post-processing.

 

[RON_RIP]

It seems to me that everyone is forgetting one thing. There is no such thing as "shooting JPEG". You always shoot RAW. Always!

RAW file is simply data collected from the camera sensor and saved into a file. When you "shoot JPEG", your camera collects RAW data from the sensor, does post-processing, converts these data into JPEG image and sends it to the card. The RAW data are discarded after this. But they are always there in the first place.

Please note that I intentionally used the word "post-processing" above. This is what camera software actually does. It applies a profile (e.g. standard or landscape) that contains several arbitrary parameters (as contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc.) in order to create an image. You cannot avoid post-processing, even if the camera is doing it for you.

So, this discussion is a bit misguided (in my opinion). We all shoot RAW. The only difference is that some of us rely on in-camera post-processing and discard RAW data, while others (myself including) keep RAW data and prefer controlled post-processing.

Control, that's what I'm talking about. i get out of control when I am not in control. I do not want the little Japanese man inside my camera body controlling my image. I am quite competent to screw it up on my own. Thank you, thank you very much.

 

[J-see]

It's indeed about control but some desire more than others.

It's also about practicality. If you do your settings Pre, you have to make decisions based upon the output of a screen that small you actually need a macro lens to really see what goes on. If you do it post, you can do it comfortably behind a monitor.

 

[Felisek]

I am quite competent to screw it up on my own.

That's brilliant. Can I use it as my motto?

 

[RON_RIP]

Feel free. we should probably get T-shirts made.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Feel free. we should probably get T-shirts made.

I'd be all over a beach towel, personally...

....

 

[mac66]

Interesting analogy. Never thought of it like that. I should have thought back, like you said, about the old darkroom days. Now that I think about, your right on. BTW...just want to put this out there. Several years ago, came across an article, that stated it was better to convert a jpeg to tiff for photo processing, then after, convert it back to jpeg. At least, that's what I recall. Anybody heard of that or used that method?

 

[WayneF]

Interesting analogy. Never thought of it like that. I should have thought back, like you said, about the old darkroom days. Now that I think about, your right on. BTW...just want to put this out there. Several years ago, came across an article, that stated it was better to convert a jpeg to tiff for photo processing, then after, convert it back to jpeg. At least, that's what I recall. Anybody heard of that or used that method?

That certainly was a popular philosophy, in scanner days (scanning film and photo prints), at least until camera Raw files became available.

TIFF and JPEG are the exact same RGB image (RGB converted from the original camera Raw file). The difference is in the later file compression. TIFF just has no JPEG artifacts. And also, TIF files can be 16 bit color, where JPG is limited to 8 bits. Otherwise, they are equal RGB images, except for the added JPG artifacts.

Converting a JPG to TIF still copies the original JPG artifacts (nothing removes them), but TIF does not add more. So if you are going to edit the image several times, saving it each time, then TIF is a proper way to go. Then you only have the first set of JPG artifacts, and the final set of JPG artifacts (if you convert back to JPG for use when done - but this is not always necessary), but no more. No more JPG artifacts at every edit Save as JPG - which accumulate and add up. Plus the 16 bits is superior for drastic tonal shifts during edit. Cameras and scanners are 12 bits internally for the White Balance and Gamma shifts, it is necessary. White Balance correction is more poorly done in JPG images.

Raw is the same way in this JPG artifact respect, except it also of course omits any original JPG artifacts too. And Raw is 12 or 14 bits, same advantage of 16 bit TIF (since it all comes from the first camera Raw file - any 16 bit conversion is the same 12 bit data stored in 16 bit computer words). At any later edit, today, or next month, we always simply discard any temporary (expendable) JPG, and go back to the original Raw file (which is always the pristine original Raw file, but the edit data since is also saved). This is lossless editing, another pretty big deal/advantage (TIF and JPG are NOT lossless editing, tones are shifted back and forth). So with Raw editing, we simply change our edit, and output a replacement JPG. The only JPG artifacts are in the one final save, hopefully we choose High JPG Quality.

The only proper solution (for Raw) is to archive the original Raw file, which is NEVER modified itself (lossless editing). The list of edits is saved, and the toneal values are shifted only the one final time at JPG output (not back and forth repeatedly). Raw offers many advantages. IMO, the biggest one is that we edit it AFTER we can actually see it, and then KNOW what this one needs, instead of in the primitive camera settings made before we even arrive at the scene.

The Raw file stores 1.5 bytes per pixel (12 bits), where a 16 bit TIF file is 6 bytes per pixel, and a 8 bit JPG (not a very good archive) is 3 bytes per pixel (and the JPG file is compressed much smaller, maybe to say 10% that size, more or less). But small file size is not the property we seek. Image quality is the desired property, and a small JPG is counterproductive to that.

Actually, JPG sort of sucks, unless we are just totally incapable of doing anything about it. Mine is more of a purist attitude (biased), but JPG, at its very best, is almost good enough.

 

[RON_RIP]

You know it all depends on what you intend to do with your photos. If you are just sharing on social media or creating a home scrapbook, jpegs are probably good enough. If you have to produce images immediately with no time for extensive edits, jpegs are probably good enough.
If you are trying to produce quality prints or exhibition quality images you have got to shoot in raw and take the time to master the editing program or programs of your choice. There simply are no easy options open to you. If Ansel Adams had just taken his photos and turned them over to some one else to post process we probably would never had heard of him.

 

[WayneF]

You know it all depends on what you intend to do with your photos.

You are of course saying "it all depends on what you do NOT intend to do with your photos".

 

[RON_RIP]

We have a bingo at the front table.

 

[mac66]

Where you a scientist in your past life, lol! WOW, quite a detailed answer, thanks for that! I guess I must be on the right track. I'm not yet capable of editing RAW files, but have been shooting everything in RAW+F. (I received a tip from a pro some months back, to do this). I typically duplicate the jpeg image for editing and save the original. I then put the RAW file in a folder and save them to DVD for future use.:friendly_wink:

 

[RON_RIP]

Sounds like you are on the right track. It is always good to go back and review your files every 6 months or so. That allows you to look at them with fresh eyes an reedit based on any newly acquired knowledge.

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Buying an expensive DSLR and then shooting JPG sorta strikes me like buying a Testarossa but never taking it out of first gear. While there's nothing wrong with doing so, it's *your* Ferrari after all, it leaves me scratching my head just the same.

....

 

[WayneF]

I'm not yet capable of editing RAW files, but have been shooting everything in RAW+F. (I received a tip from a pro some months back, to do this). I typically duplicate the jpeg image for editing and save the original. I then put the RAW file in a folder and save them to DVD for future use.:friendly_wink:

So now you will have the Raw images, which could be a plus some day. Why wait though? Or maybe shooting JPG at first could be good experience, or at least, an experience. Maybe its good experience for a carpenter to start off with a manual screwdriver and a hand saw? It will certainly all make us appreciate the better life.

I would suggest Adobe Raw software, and point out that Photoshop (very expensive), and Elements (pretty minimal), and LightRoom (relatively new, and very popular, and not too expensive)... all these three products have the same Adobe Raw module in them. If you have a newer camera, you will also need a newer version of them.

And if you have a few minutes, and are interested in Raw, I would suggest you can get a good look at this in the video near top of page at
Why shoot Raw?

If you see nothing else there, start about 7:45 minutes. Point is, extremely powerful, and extremely easy to use, you'll love it. All of the Adobe software versions will work like this.