Post processing age old debate!
- Thread starter AC016
- Start date
If you are interested in playing around with RAW processing, Nikon's Capture NX-D will give you the capability and is FREE. What better way to get started? Also, it keeps the original RAW file without changing it. Good if after processing you want to start over. So much fun playing. Ha!
The way I look at RAW is
. It contains the sensor data and all the setting of the camera.
. In PP you check if the camera settings are to your liking and change them to suit your perception.
. Modern sensors have much more DR than can be displayed on the screen or printed. What you see normally (and in jpeg) is the brighter portion of the image. With PP you can maneuver the DR to extract data from the darker areas. What RAW gives you is the ability to utilise the full DR of the sensor.
Jpeg is a lossy compression, so it never recreates the image faithfully. There are always areas where the compression has glossed over the details. So every time you work with it and save, you are loosing details some where. These are what we call jpeg artifacts. For some photographers (press sports etc), where the faster the images reach the audience the better, jpeg is welcome. It is equivalent of the "Polaroid" shots of yester years - click and the picture is ready.
The reason I use RAW, is that
. I rarely get the exposure right, RAW makes it easy to correct it
. At times I expose for brightest region, but also want the shadows clear. Instead of HDR I use the sensor DR and recover the shadows. Of course there is a limit, but it works most of the time.
. I have to scan the images, sort them and then resize the images I like. It does not matter whether I do them in a RAW processor or an Image Processing Software, the time is same. The Nikon Capture NX-D that I am using is all that I need, so shooting RAW does not impact or even slow down my work flow. As others have said, I can always convert the RAW to jpeg, but jpeg to RAW is not possible as yet. That will happen when 16 bit jpeg standard comes.
Regarding TIFF vs JPEG. The former is a lossless format while the latter is a lossy format. If any processing has to be done, I prefer lossless format, as in a lossy format, every write will deteriorate the image further.
. It contains the sensor data and all the setting of the camera.
. In PP you check if the camera settings are to your liking and change them to suit your perception.
. Modern sensors have much more DR than can be displayed on the screen or printed. What you see normally (and in jpeg) is the brighter portion of the image. With PP you can maneuver the DR to extract data from the darker areas. What RAW gives you is the ability to utilise the full DR of the sensor.
Jpeg is a lossy compression, so it never recreates the image faithfully. There are always areas where the compression has glossed over the details. So every time you work with it and save, you are loosing details some where. These are what we call jpeg artifacts. For some photographers (press sports etc), where the faster the images reach the audience the better, jpeg is welcome. It is equivalent of the "Polaroid" shots of yester years - click and the picture is ready.
The reason I use RAW, is that
. I rarely get the exposure right, RAW makes it easy to correct it
. At times I expose for brightest region, but also want the shadows clear. Instead of HDR I use the sensor DR and recover the shadows. Of course there is a limit, but it works most of the time.
. I have to scan the images, sort them and then resize the images I like. It does not matter whether I do them in a RAW processor or an Image Processing Software, the time is same. The Nikon Capture NX-D that I am using is all that I need, so shooting RAW does not impact or even slow down my work flow. As others have said, I can always convert the RAW to jpeg, but jpeg to RAW is not possible as yet. That will happen when 16 bit jpeg standard comes.
Regarding TIFF vs JPEG. The former is a lossless format while the latter is a lossy format. If any processing has to be done, I prefer lossless format, as in a lossy format, every write will deteriorate the image further.
I would word it that the Raw file contains NONE of the camera settings. That is what Raw is... Raw. The Exif does show the camera settings, but they have not been put into the Raw file data. After we see the image, then if we decide Vivid can help, then we can add Vivid. It makes so much difference to see what we are doing.
Nikon Raw software can implement those camera settings later, from the Exif (maybe that was your meaning). Adobe Raw software can only add White Balance, sort of, but of course, the original camera WB setting was probably too imprecise anyway (one reason we use Raw, to fix it). We do need to look at White Balance again. Some of us never look at it until later, when we can fix it.
The camera settings do affect the preview image we see on the camera rear LCD, and the histogram, which is from an embedded JPG also in the Raw file.
As much as I dislike Auto WB, I do use it with Raw, just to see something a little closer on the rear LCD, but without much concern at the time.
Me too. Of course, naturally I do always get it correct, but sometimes after I see it, and the scene changes, then I change my mind later.
Last edited:
Another reason to use TIFF is that TIFF standard allows 16 bit per colour data, while the current jpeg standard is 8 bits per colour. JPEG2000 is supposed to circumvent it, but few software apart from satellite processing ones support it. Most scanners could give you 12 bit data and some could go upto 16 bits, so using 8 bit jpeg would loose the extra colour depth available.
A 16 bit TIF file for the 36 megapixel D800 size would be 36*6 = 216 MB.
TIF is better than JPG (all except tiny file size), but TIF is RGB and requires lossy editing. Meaning, any tonal change actually changes the data, and the original data is lost. Cannot be recovered. Any subsequent change has to shift it again, back and forth. That is not a plus.
Whereas Raw only shifts data ONE TIME, the one last final output time. All prior edits merely keep a list of the changes, to be preformed that one later time at output. Lossless editing. The original raw data is never affected, always perfectly retained. Any subsequent edit merely changes the list... does not repeatedly shift the data back and forth.
Exception: Adobe Raw can do lossless editing on JPG and TIF, storing the list of changes in the file, and applying them one time at output to a new file. Other software looking at the file does not know how to see the changes, and only sees the original data. A new file has to be output for all uses. So, we might as well just use the Raw file.
The Raw tools are better than photo editor tools anyway, more oriented to camera images (white balance, exposure, noise, distortion, etc, etc.)