Should I shoot RAW????

[Mike W]

And now they're posted the things that set them apart on my monitor - better detail and dynamic range on the shot from RAW - appear to have gone.

Oh for the days of Fuji Velvia and none of these blindin' digits....

[KenByrne]

For some reason setting the WB in post seems to work far better with blue water than with green.

As shot


ACR WB


That said I took some shots on the Thistlegorm a couple of years ago and when I'd finished processing I realised I taken out the blue to the extent that it looked like a scrap yard and I had to go back and start again.

Apart from the compression with the DSLRs the bit depth is greater in RAW. Up to the D300 it was 12 bits I think the D300 uses 14 bits, JPG is 8 bits. This means there is more colour information to play with. When you change the colour balance you lose some data, on a JPG file you can end with gaps in the spectrum so that a histogram looks like the teeth of a comb. Using RAW in 16 bit mode and then converting down to 8 bits at the end preserves more colour information.

Also the sensor only actually records B&W data and that the light is filtered by Red Blue and Green lenses so that each pixel has only recorded one of these colours. The value of the other two colours for each pixel is calculated by inspecting the pixels around it. In camera JPG means this is done before you get at the file and all three values are already calculated for each pixel. In RAW you get to influence the process of calculating the values for each colour at each point from the recorded data. This should give a better result than trying to change it in the JPG file after the conversion is done.

[KenByrne]

Mike ensure that before posting you convert the colour space or colour profile to sRGB. This is the default for web browsers and any other colour space can look flat when posted. In Photoshop the Edit Convert to profile menu allows you to change this. It's probable the JPG files already use this profile but the RAW file may well use another. I use ProPhoto RGB in the RAW processor as this is supposed to give the biggest colour space when working on the file. I always try to remember to convert to sRGB before posting.

[Mike W]

Cheers, Ken, very useful - I've not really got into the software and post-processing side of things much. I know the camera and Photoshop are sRGB, but never thought to check the RAW converter......

Anyway, everyone knows I prefer black and white!

[Mike W]

[quote=KenByrne;38625]For some reason setting the WB in post seems to work far better with blue water than with green.
QUOTE]


I wonder if this is to do with what makes water green? In theory all water should absorb light to the same extent and have the same effect on colour, and I've seen UK waters look blue some days when the vis has been especially good.

[Mike W]

An old comparison of RAW and jpeg - things have probably moved on a bit, but this is still an interesting read

Raw vs JPEG experiment

And this is fascinating, files sizes and formats from the Nikon D200

Nikon D200 File Format Settings

[Cussy]

Mike,
They are both good reads.

The RAW vs Jpeg: I do wonder how much affect low light levels and an incomplete light spectrum have on the end result. Shadow detail is something I find better in RAW and this is where RAW comes into its own.

Ken Rockwell: Tim and I have discussed this very webpage. I find it strange that Ken, who I do greatly respect, has an amazing array of kit, yet he shoots in total auto mode and settings aimed at small file sizes and high saturation. I'm not convinced that approach would work underwater too well.
Rob

[Mike W]

Originally Posted by Cussy

Mike,
They are both good reads.

The RAW vs Jpeg: I do wonder how much affect low light levels and an incomplete light spectrum have on the end result. Shadow detail is something I find better in RAW and this is where RAW comes into its own.

Ken Rockwell: Tim and I have discussed this very webpage. I find it strange that Ken, who I do greatly respect, has an amazing array of kit, yet he shoots in total auto mode and settings aimed at small file sizes and high saturation. I'm not convinced that approach would work underwater too well.
Rob

The quick look at RAW I had yesterday suggested the ability to tweak exposure and especially to tweak the relative exposure levels of highlights and shadows was a benefit, as you say, but I've not enough experience with RAW to mount a convincing argument either way - so thanks for posting the thread and making me get off my backside and find out!

As for Mr Rockwell, it looks like he sells pics to non-photographers mostly, and they like sharp saturated prints in the main so that's probably why he shoots the settings he does.

What does come across strongly however is that it's horses for courses - I can't see a sports photo-pro shooting RAW just as I can't see Ansel Adams using jpeg.

[simonmort]

I can't see a sports photo-pro shooting RAW just as I can't see Ansel Adams using jpeg.Today 13:08

Thought i would add my two cents, a family member,does do sport pics. With a couple (4) people in different locations around the world.
They all seem to use jpg files no large than 200kb size, partly to do with file size limits and upload times to the papers, magazines.

Mostly they seem to use fotostation for a quick light fix, and send.

Now i can understand raw captures more information than jpg. But i think the question is, do you need this ?

Plus on the compact side, with raw settings by the time the camera saves the image,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, bugger that lag.
i will re`word that by the time my oly saves the image i could make a cup of tea. Let alone trying to find that fish for a second shot.

But on the SLR side, my nikon will do 5fps with a 80frame buffer. so for sports is spot on.

simon.

[KenByrne]

My thought is that underwater I need all the help I can get to compensate for the reduced spectrum, low light and lighting difficulties. RAW helps a lot with these and I find it far easier to get a good final result from RAW than I do with JPG. With JPG I find that correcting one colour can throw another out completely, in particular when you increase the red to bring out other tones anything red in the picture ends up over saturated. So I use RAW underwater all the time. If my camera was really slow at recording RAW files I'd have to think again but the D80 clears the buffer faster than the flash recycles.

On land I mostly shoot RAW because it's the habit I've got into. However when I was taking pictures at a footbal match recently I used JPG large fine and was perfectly happy with the results. Shooting JPG gave me the option to shoot continously for more frames, in RAW the buffer fills and the time between shots increases. In this situation the WB isn't a problem and auto or one of the presets works fine. Space on the card or the need to e-mail or post the results without processing wasn't an issue so I used large fine. I really don't see the point of shooting at lower res than the maximum. This gives me the ability to crop or enlarge the result to a greater extent than lower settings would. I can see under certain circumstances a smaller file size might make sense but it does limit your options later.