Author Topic: My first wedding  (Read 2183 times)

My first wedding
Reply #15 on: July 13, 2010, 11:42:35 AM
Quote from: Sam
So all this talk of RAW. Is it better to take pics in RAW than JPEG ?


Short answer, yes.

Long answer, that depends.

I know at least 1 professional wedding photographer (and this ones actually good, unlike the one sexytw met above) who only shoots JPG. He contends its always better to get the shot right in the camera, and hes good enough that he basically doesnt miss.

I only shoot RAW for a few reasons, some practical, some theoretical (ie because Im a bit of a geek)

1. Data quality. The camera (all current DSLRs as far as I am aware) produces 12bits per channel of colour data with a Bayer pattern colour filter. To create a displayable image, the image must be "de-mosaiced" and reduced to 8bits per channel by the application of a tone curve. There are a number of algorithms for de mosaicing bayer image data, the better ones require more processor time and so tend not to be used in camera. Hence shoot in RAW and process on a nice fast PC (or dont worry about how long the processing takes) and you end up with a better quality result with fewer artifacts in the fine detail. Also you get to pick which 8bits worth of data you keep, which gives you a little latitude to tweek the exposure after the fact.

2. White Balance. This is linked to the tone curve above. With a RAW photograph I can change the white balance 100 times having got it totally wrong to begin with and still have exactly the same data available I started with. With a JPG if its gone blue because you shot under daylight with tungsten ballence set there is little you can do about it, because the necessary red and green channel data has already been thrown away.

3. Flexibility. I CAN tweek a RAW to my hearts content. I have spent hours on one photo before now when I really wanted it to be perfect. Or, I can batch convert using default camera settings and get exactly the same output I would have got from the camera shooting JPG. Or, of course, any level in between.


JPG limits your options, RAW sets you free.

From what Ive read above, RAWTherapee (my converter of choice for most shots) is to Lightroom as GIMP is to Photoshop. That is, Lightroom certainly has a few useful features which RT lacks, but wheather the difference is worth the price is quite open for debate.

Also worthy of note are

Bibble
Silkypix
CaptureOne
UFRAW

  • Offline Serious

  • Posts: 14,435
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
My first wedding
Reply #16 on: July 14, 2010, 11:46:54 AM
Quote from: Sam
So all this talk of RAW. Is it better to take pics in RAW than JPEG ?


If you just want some pictures then no, Jpeg is smaller so you can get more of them into a given space. Processing on modern cameras tends to be fairly good so it will normally look OK.

Beyond that in camera processing isnt perfect, you get a significant number of shots where you can improve them over what the camera would do. JPEG is also a lossy format, each time you save you lose data, rather like repetitive photocopying something then doing the same to the photocopy. Eventually it shows.

So you take in RAW then process and if needbe convert to JPEG at the last save.

My first wedding
Reply #17 on: July 14, 2010, 12:27:23 PM
Quote from: Serious
Quote from: Sam
So all this talk of RAW. Is it better to take pics in RAW than JPEG ?


If you just want some pictures then no, Jpeg is smaller so you can get more of them into a given space. Processing on modern cameras tends to be fairly good so it will normally look OK.


This is very true, particularly if you spend a little time setting up the camera contrast/saturation/sharpness settings to produce images the way you like them. Also most modern cameras have pretty good Auto White Ballance and a manual white ballance setting for really hard lighting conditions like indoor sports.

Another potential advantage with JPG comes if youre using "machine gun mode" for sports. For example my K10D can shoot 9 frames in RAW at 3FPS before it fills the buffer and has to slow down, whereas if I select JPG I can hold the button down until the card is full if I so choose (I tested this once, I got bored after 57 frames and decided to just trust it rather than wearing out my shutter)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.