Raw -v- JPG - something Richard posted in another thread

[Devildog]

Richard, I've been using DPP3.2 and it has all of the features you describe (although I'm downloading the 3.4.1 update from the Canon website. I believe that whatever version you have, you can update for free from canon.co.uk I am, as you can probably tell, a huge fan of DPP

[Hoppy]

Hello DD. Yes, I've been a bit slow with DPP and it seems that previous versions have a lot of the image correction data I've recently discovered. I don't know which versions have what exactly, but the v3.1 shipped with my 40D does none of this clever stuff, while v3.5 has all of it, plus profiles for loads of EOS SLRs and just about every EF and EF-S lens Canon has ever made

Richard.

[rickya]

Sorry to dredge this thread up but after reading it a few weeks ago & umming & ahhing over whether I should take pics in RAW or Jpeg, as for a beginner there may not be as much need for RAW. (so I thought).

Cut a long story short, this weekend I was able to spend some time taking family pics on Fathers day & spend some time processing in Picassa. I used to just shoot Jpeg since I bought my A200 a couple of months ago. This time I shot in RAW+Jpeg. (2 files for each pic). I then processed both pics to the best of my limited ability to try & get the best out of each.

Apart from a few, for most there was a huge difference between the RAW pics & Jpeg,, I was surprised in fact how big a difference. Though the RAW pics before processing didnt look very good & the jpegs looked better. But after processing both, the Raw pics were far superior IMO. In terms of vibrancy of colours; shades of colour (especially skin tones); details were more visible & not washed out (e.g clouds). Im no expert, but from a laymans view the differences were clearly visible.

Unless I am just shooting very causually with no intention of processing the pics then I will shoot in jpeg. (which I think won't happen with the A200 & if this is the case I will be using my compact Lumix TZ3 for this anyway). From now on I dont think I will even bother with RAW+Jpeg & just shoot in RAW.

A couple of comparision test shots I took, to follow.

[rickya]

JPEG

RAW


JPEG

RAW

[mgcvk]

With the Nikon system I never use RAW with people as I find it just creates more problems than it solves when it comes to processing time and producing good photographic prints. I don't get my exposures wrong. With wildlife I only ever shoot RAW as not shooting RAW creates more problems than it solves as you want as much feather and fur detail and options as possible. Whatever works best for you.

[rickya]

For me as a beginner Im still getting exposures & other things wrong so I find this gives me a second chance to almost take the pic again, but better.

[Hoppy]

I think I've mellowed a bit since I wrote that Blimey, I did go on a bit!

Truth is a lot of people get more out of shooting Raw, so good luck to them. But I still say that if all you do in post processing Raws is tweak the levels in the same way as you adjust the Picture Styles presets for JPEGs then Raw is a waste of time. But of course, if you do more than that for whatever reason, then Raw will always have more scope. And what is a bit of memory these days.

I've recently come across another thing about people using Raw to correct white balance, and that is if you do not get the white balance at least approximately right in shooting then you run the risk of a lot of noise when you correct the Raw.

TBH I've not experimented with this, and it may even be a camera specific thing, but the theory runs like this. If you shoot an indoor scene under artificial tungsten light, and the white balance is way off, then the blue channel will be badly underexposed,

You are often unaware of this, as the regular histogram is generated from a JPEG tagged to the Raw file (even when you shoot Raw only) and it looks okay. But if your camera can show red, blue and green channel histograms, you will see that the blue channel is way down unless you get the white balance right before shooting. Sure you can boost the blue in post processing, but if there is bu99er all signal there to start with, you get a lot of noise.

To see what I mean, just shoot a plain white wall, once with the white balance at max, and again with it at min Kelvin colour temperature. And why not do one at normal colour temperature for luck. In both cases (or all three) the general histogram looks identical, but switching to red/blue/green you will see the red and blue channels are dramatically cut/boosted (with the normal shot, they will all be equal) and, I believe, these levels are also adjusted in the Raw (or not, if you haven't bothered to get the white balance anywhere near right).

Anyone care to comment on this? Now I've gone on again.