Home Theater Forum - View Single Post

Man-Fai Wong · 05-22-2007, 04:34 PM

I'd add one more thing. RAW shouldn't only be looked at as some sort of contingency plan for corrections, but given the limited DR (dynamic range) of digital, often, you find that the scene you shoot demands greater DR than what the in-camera settings and processing allow. Sure, there are techniques for squeezing the scene's DR into what the in-camera processing provides, but sometimes, it works better to have the extra bit depth of RAW preserved for later "massaging" in postprocessing where control over the processing is much greater. For instance, you generally cannot easily get the in-camera processing to produce results "just so" that you could otherwise achieve even w/ a simple custom tone curve either during RAW processing or post-RAW in 16-bit format -- well, at least not yet w/ the cameras available today unless you shoot tethered to a laptop or similar.

And RAW processing software can (and do) continue to improve over time too.

But yeah, these issues generally won't matter to the average snapshooter nor will they always matter to the serious amateurs or even many pros.

FWIW, I usually shoot RAW+JPEG w/ low contrast, low sharpening settings on my Nikon D200 -- low contrast helps me get a better indication of exposure (and use of DR) when checking histogram and such, but the JPEG typically ends up needing a quick contrast tweak before output (and it'd be better to apply some final sharpening after that, instead of before). Most times I just use the normal quality JPEG (w/ a quick contrast and sharpening tweak) for quick small prints and the web, if the shots are in good light at reasonably low ISO. But when something matters more or are shot in difficult light and/or high ISO, I will typically work on it in RAW. And RAW processing need not always be very time consuming. You just need to have a good strategy/workflow to help streamline certain aspects of it for most images -- and often, the batch processing facilities provided by good RAW software will help there. In many cases, it would help a lot to plan ahead and shoot w/ full intention to process the RAW. For instance, wedding photogs typically shoot a white/gray card for reference in each lighting situation to be used for streamlined WB setting in RAW processing later (using whatever batch facilities), and such things can be done for various settings too, not just WB.

_Man_

05-22-2007, 04:34 PM	#8 of 10
Man-Fai Wong Member Location: New York City Join Date: Aug 2001 Local Time: 08:05 PM Local Date: 09-07-2008 Posts: 2,401	Re: how many of you use RAW or even need it? I'd add one more thing. RAW shouldn't only be looked at as some sort of contingency plan for corrections, but given the limited DR (dynamic range) of digital, often, you find that the scene you shoot demands greater DR than what the in-camera settings and processing allow. Sure, there are techniques for squeezing the scene's DR into what the in-camera processing provides, but sometimes, it works better to have the extra bit depth of RAW preserved for later "massaging" in postprocessing where control over the processing is much greater. For instance, you generally cannot easily get the in-camera processing to produce results "just so" that you could otherwise achieve even w/ a simple custom tone curve either during RAW processing or post-RAW in 16-bit format -- well, at least not yet w/ the cameras available today unless you shoot tethered to a laptop or similar. And RAW processing software can (and do) continue to improve over time too. But yeah, these issues generally won't matter to the average snapshooter nor will they always matter to the serious amateurs or even many pros. FWIW, I usually shoot RAW+JPEG w/ low contrast, low sharpening settings on my Nikon D200 -- low contrast helps me get a better indication of exposure (and use of DR) when checking histogram and such, but the JPEG typically ends up needing a quick contrast tweak before output (and it'd be better to apply some final sharpening after that, instead of before). Most times I just use the normal quality JPEG (w/ a quick contrast and sharpening tweak) for quick small prints and the web, if the shots are in good light at reasonably low ISO. But when something matters more or are shot in difficult light and/or high ISO, I will typically work on it in RAW. And RAW processing need not always be very time consuming. You just need to have a good strategy/workflow to help streamline certain aspects of it for most images -- and often, the batch processing facilities provided by good RAW software will help there. In many cases, it would help a lot to plan ahead and shoot w/ full intention to process the RAW. For instance, wedding photogs typically shoot a white/gray card for reference in each lighting situation to be used for streamlined WB setting in RAW processing later (using whatever batch facilities), and such things can be done for various settings too, not just WB. _Man_ Just another amateur learning to paint w/ "the light of the world".