Should I ditch RAW?

[edgley]

I am beginning to wonder why I work in RAW.

I love the rich colours that I get with JPEG, and whilst the new developer presets do help me get some of the colour back its still not in the league of the JPEG. Plus I get to use the new feature of getting better blacks with the JPEGS.

What I cannt see is a reason to keep using RAW. My workflow just seems to be white balance and try to add colours.

Am I missing something?

I also have notices that the finder seems to show RAW in the rich colour mode, not just showing the RAW like LR does.

 

[Braders]

I am beginning to wonder why I work in RAW.

I love the rich colours that I get with JPEG, and whilst the new developer presets do help me get some of the colour back its still not in the league of the JPEG. Plus I get to use the new feature of getting better blacks with the JPEGS.

What I cannt see is a reason to keep using RAW. My workflow just seems to be white balance and try to add colours.

Am I missing something?

I also have notices that the finder seems to show RAW in the rich colour mode, not just showing the RAW like LR does.

Don't go back to jpeg.

The jpeg is the canned result of the in camera compression. Who says that correct? Who says thats more pleasing than what you can gain from the development sliders in LR?

I have not seen a jpeg that i cant better in LR, especially now with the camera profiles.

The point is to play.

If you have not time to play, shoot RAW/Jpeg send the Jpeg off to the client and play with the RAW in your own time.

 

[Gene McCullagh]

I heartily agree with Brad. Use the camera profiles and you'll get a jpeg like starting point and still have all that data in the file to play with. You can really do a whole lot more with RAW.

 

[Brad Snyder]

Simon,

Your raw files are likely 12 bit, perhaps even 14bit. The jpegs will be 8 bit.
While that doesn't sound like very much, a 12 bit pixel will have the opportunity to have 4'96 times as many colors as the 8 bit. Not 4'96 more colors, 4'96 TIMES as many colors. I just don't see why you'd want to throw that data away.

That being said, if you do choose to work with jpegs, you might want to consider other software, any of the consumer products, Picasa, ACDSee, and the like will work quite well with jpegs. And they will literally fly in speed terms compared to LR. (Want to know why? They don't have to deal with all that extra data and color management too, that's why.)

I don't know what else to say. If you're just not happy with your results, I certainly can't fault you for wanting to try something else. We'll be here, if you want to keep trying with LR.

 

[Mark Sirota]

What I cannt see is a reason to keep using RAW. My workflow just seems to be white balance and try to add colours.

If your workflow involves adjusting white balance after the shoot, you need to be shooting raw. If you set custom WB in-camera before the shoot (by shooting a white card in the same light as the subject and configuring your camera appropriately), then JPEG works fine for white balance.

I also have notices that the finder seems to show RAW in the rich colour mode, not just showing the RAW like LR does.

That's because the finder is showing you the JPEG that's embedded in the raw file, which was created by the in-camera raw converter.

 

[edgley]

I know that there is more data available to me, I do shoot 14bit RAW currently.
I just think that I am doing it because its what I should be doing and not what is right for me.
I installed Capture NX last night. Its no where near as nice to be in as LR, but I get the images I want with very little work. I started to play around with making my own developer preset but in the hour I played I couldnt get any improvement; I then just think how many images I could have done in NX in that time.

 

[Anthony.Ralph]

I know that there is more data available to me, I do shoot 14bit RAW currently.
I just think that I am doing it because its what I should be doing and not what is right for me.
I installed Capture NX last night. Its no where near as nice to be in as LR, but I get the images I want with very little work. I started to play around with making my own developer preset but in the hour I played I couldnt get any improvement; I then just think how many images I could have done in NX in that time.

It would be interesting to see examples of the RAWs and the JPGs. I find that either LR or ACR can be made to produce pretty much anything I want in an image.

Anthony.

 

[patrickt]

I don't know why you ask. If you prefer the JPEG images, shoot JPEG. There is no camera-produced JPEG image that couldn't be duplicated in LR2 but if you are happy with the JPEG, shoot JPEG.

 

[Gene McCullagh]

I started to play around with making my own developer preset but in the hour I played I couldnt get any improvement

You mention presets but have you downloaded the camera profiles yet? These pretty much reproduce the look of the JPEG from the camera yet you still have a RAW file to start with.

If you haven't downloaded and installed them yet you can get them here.

 

[edgley]

I ask because I come to forums for information beyond my understanding.
I have read that loads of people say that they can match the two good enough; I cannot.

I do have the new beta profiles, they are the only reason that I havent ditched RAW. However I shoot my JPEGS in Vivid mode with ADF turned on and I cannot get an image that looks as good, to me.

I am happy to stick some examples up to show the differences that I am mentioning, should the files be original size or should I reduce please?

 

[snowdust]

As was suggested already, I would shoot in RAW/JPG. That way when you do come across that "great" shot that you really want to PP, you will get much better control in processing the RAW over JPG. If you are fully satisfied with your batch of JPG's after a shoot, delete the RAW's.

Did I just say delete a RAW. :roll:

 

[Brad Snyder]

Simon, there's a limit of about 25'kB for direct uploads as attachments. So perhaps jpeg or png screen captures might be the best bet. If you have the images online somewhere, you can add them in-line with the little mountain icon. Or just paste a url we can visit.

If you need instructions:
To upload an attachment, make sure you're in 'advanced' and not 'quick' reply mode. (If you see a button that says 'Go Advanced', below the text box, click it).
Down below, there should be a button which says Manage Attachments. Click that and in the window, tab or pop-up that results, you should be able to 'Choose' a file from your system, and 'Upload' it. Close the manage window, and return to your reply to post it, with the attachment(s)

 

[Kiwigeoff]

Maybe if you post a link to a raw file someone would be able to have a play with a profile and the editor to give a look you like - link a jpeg that you do like of the same file as well.

 

[Victoria Bampton]

Simon, what do you have your camera set to - i.e. high contrast, etc. You should be able to get your raw file to match, and I'm sure we can help you to match it. There's no way I'd switch back to jpeg. Raw has saved some great shots that would have been unusable from a jpeg.

I'm sure I've posted this before, but it is relevant:

If I can use all of Lightroom’s controls on JPEG files, why would I still want to shoot in my camera’s raw file format?

Think of it this way... did you ever play with colored modeling clay when you were a child?

Imagine you’ve got a ready made little model, made out of a mixture of different colors, and you’ve also go separate pots of the different colors that haven’t been used before. Yes, you can push the ready made model around a bit and make something different, but the colors all smudge into each other and it’s never QUITE as good as if you use the nice fresh separate colors and started from scratch.

Your JPEG is like that ready made model - it’s already been made into something before. You can take it apart and change it a bit, but if you try to change it too much, it’s going to end up a distorted mess. Your raw file is like having the separate pots of clay - you’re starting o" with the raw material, and YOU choose what to make of it.

So yes, editing JPEGs is non-destructive, in as much as you can move the sliders as many times as you like and the original file isn’t destroyed in the process. But when you do export to a new file, you’re applying changes to ready-made JPEG image data. If you’re working on a raw file format, you’re making a single adjustment to the raw data, rather than adjusting an already-processed file.

You’ll particularly notice the difference in changing a white balance or rescuing a very under or over-exposed photo.

 

[edgley]

I have just found these pre-sets, and with just a quick play seem to give me the colour I am after.
http://www.onethirdstop.com/

Good job as NX is a pita!

 

[Kiwigeoff]

I have just found these pre-sets, and with just a quick play seem to give me the colour I am after.
http://www.onethirdstop.com/

Good job as NX is a pita!

Thanks Simon, will have a look.

So it's RAW is it!!:cheesy::cheesy::shock:

 

[edgley]

Well, no promises yet; but it still lives

 

[edgley]

I was away last weekend, and there was sun!
And this raised the whole RAW/JPG thing again, so much so that I have done comparisons:
(The two other files are made with the Adobe Vivid setting and the Tom Vivid setting)

 

[edgley]

One more:

 

[Kiwigeoff]

And what are you showing us? I am trying to see what you are getting at.
Can you not post them so large please, not everyone has large screens or broad band service. Thanks....

 

[edgley]

Opps, edited for size.
What I am trying to show is how much richer and vibrate the jpg is. I know it is a little to much in some of them.
When the raw is viewed the in the Nikkon software it looks identical to the jpg.

I am back to thinking why bother with raw. I have to fiddle with every image and it still doesnt look like I want whereas the jpg does most time. Sure, I will still keep shooting raw and wait for the day that Nikkon license their thingummy to Adobe.

 

[Kiwigeoff]

Opps, edited for size.
What I am trying to show is how much richer and vibrate the jpg is. I know it is a little to much in some of them.
When the raw is viewed the in the Nikkon software it looks identical to the jpg.

I am back to thinking why bother with raw. I have to fiddle with every image and it still doesnt look like I want whereas the jpg does most time. Sure, I will still keep shooting raw and wait for the day that Nikkon license their thingummy to Adobe.

Mike, thanks for the resizing.

Yes the jpegs are bright, for my use I use the camera profiles and have little to do to the files to have them look great. I rarely shoot jpeg/raw or just jpeg and when I do the LR processed NEFs are just as good as the jpegs.
What settings are you using on your NEF/DNGs??

What is the Tom Vivid?

 

[edgley]

I flick between the Adobe beta Vivid and the Vivid one from the website I posted above; that is the Tom image.

Maybe this is a quirk of the D3''. A friend has just sent me example images of his Canon. The jpg looks almost identical to the raw; no where near the level of difference of my Nikkon. But it can be done, as Capture NX proves.

 

[Kiwigeoff]

I flick between the Adobe beta Vivid and the Vivid one from the website I posted above; that is the Tom image.

Maybe this is a quirk of the D3''. A friend has just sent me example images of his Canon. The jpg looks almost identical to the raw; no where near the level of difference of my Nikkon. But it can be done, as Capture NX proves.

You too can do it by using the profile editor and making your own tweeks.
I use the camera profile along with autotone and and a couple of other tweeks that is all saved as a develop preset I use.

 

[edgley]

This is what I have ended up doing; for now
I have re-imported my library into another catalog and kept raw and jpg separate this time.
I then go into each folder and autostack all the photos by time of 1sec. This groups them back into pairs, with the jpg on the top. Then if I think the jpg isnt good enough I can open the stack, look at the two images side by side and decide what to do.