topic Re: RAW in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

RAW

Bdarin — Fri, 26 Feb 2016 19:11:54 GMT

I'm new to Canon, have a Rebel 1200D. I don't fully understand the RAW setting. What does it mean and how does it affect the resolution? Thanks.

Re: RAW

Waddizzle — Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:49:06 GMT

@Bdarin wrote:
I'm new to Canon, have a Rebel 1200D. I don't fully understand the RAW setting. What does it mean and how does it affect the resolution? Thanks.

The RAW setting creates files that are larger than JPEGs, but which allow for greater flexibility when you perform post-processing on the images after they have been shot.

Consider how cameras worked before they went digital. A picture was captured on film, which had to be developed. Professionals could work magic in dark rooms by processing the film and developing a picture in different ways. Think of a RAW file as being similar to a film negative.

But, we also had cameras that produced an instant picture, which could not be processed after it was created. These instant pictures produced no negatives, and there was little or nothing that could be done with an improperly exposed shot. Those instant pictures that were produced are comparable to the JPEG files that the camera can produce.

Finally, always shoot in RAW. Always create that digital negative, so to speak. I have saved many shots because I shot in RAW.

Re: RAW

kvbarkley — Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:26:33 GMT

Raw does nothing for resolution. You get the same number of pixel's either way. As stated it does give you more latitude for post processing. However, I disagree a bit, JPEG processing is so good these days that I don't bother unless it is a tricky, one-of-a-kind shot like a sunset or eclipse.

The RAW processor matters, too. Canon's DPP can do everything the DIGIC Raw processor does, so you can get your image to look just like a JPEG the camera would make - including lens corrections like distortion. There is no guarantee that a third party processor can do that.

Re: RAW

ScottyP — Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:51:41 GMT

I shot JPG for a while when I first got a DSLR becaue I had not yet learned how to process RAW images in post. I fairly quickly moved to shooting RAW + JPG, which creates 2 image files for each shot, one RAW and one JPG. That was like training wheels and it didn't last long, as learning post processing was quicker and easier than I had feared, and because it was tiresome to have TWO of every file.

RAW files are bigger because they contain all the data captured by the camera. You can therefore make any change in post processing you want to, because you are starting with all the pieces to the puzzle. JPG images are smaller because the camera makes the processing decisions for you (sometimes well, sometimes not) and when it does so it throws away some of the data and you are somewhat stuck with the editing decisions the camera made.

If only one of the following reasons existed, I would shoot RAW for that reason:

1.) White balance correction. This is a big one. The human brain adjusts light color so you never notice it, but "white" light comes in a wide spectrum of colors. Ever shoot a shot inside and everything looked orangy? Ever try to take a shot around sunset when everything is supposed to be a nice golden color, but the camera corrected it to neutral? Ever take a green photo under fluorescent lights? Ever get a blue image shooting in the shade? Technically you are supposed to switch your camera's White Balance whenever you move from one kind of environment to another (cloudy, shade, sunny, fluorescent, tungsten bulbs, flash, etc.) but I frequently forget to do that. If you are shooting JPG your ability to fix that color in post processing will be limited. You may not be able to get an acceptable result. With RAW, however, you could deliberately ignore the white balance setting because you can fix it in post processing.

2.) Exposure correction. In RAW you can fix a shot that is underexposed (dark) or overexposed (too bright) much more effectively than in JPG. If you try to push the exposure much more than 1 stop, a JPG image will sort of fall apart on you. It gets very ugly. In RAW you can push an image a couple of whole stops without too much of a problem.

RAW is also better at all other post processing editing, like sharpness, noise reduction, saturation, contrast, skin softening, etc....

Canon's free software will process the RAW files for you. Many people use Adobe products like Lightroom to handle this. Watch a few free internet tutorials on post processing and RAW v. JPG. It is really not difficult.

Re: RAW

Bdarin — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 13:13:38 GMT

Thanks, folks. That helps me a lot. The manual was conspicuously blank on the subject.

Re: RAW

ebiggs1 — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 14:56:46 GMT

"Raw does nothing for resolution."

This may be true. It is possible to get a jpg as sharp possibly sharper than a RAW.

"RAW is also better at all other post processing editing, ~~like sharpness,~~ noise reduction, saturation, contrast, skin softening, etc...."

This is mostly true because you are working on the full data that the camera captured. Jpg compresses the data by 'choosing' some data and deleting it. This is done with the selections you set in the camera. When you work on the RAW image you select what to keep and what to work on.

With the new post editors, some are free, and how seamlessly they work, there is little reason to shoot jpg anymore.

One reason you might prefer jpg over RAW is, if you simply want to post your photos to Facebook, your are emailing them to grandma, etc., for instance.

A jpg is just a RAW file that was developed in the camera. The camera applies noise reduction, sharpening, contrast and a bunch of other things depending on your settings in the camera.

To get a RAW file that looks like a jpg it has to be developed by adding all that processing manually. If you like the jpegs the camera produces there is no reason to shoot RAW. But if you truly want the best your camera can provide you MUST shoot RAW.

Re: RAW

ScottyP — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 15:10:08 GMT

That was meant as "sharpening" in post, as in using the sharpening slider in Lightroom, not sharpness in general, as a quality. Adding sharpening to a JPG gets funny-looking faster than with a RAW file, as does adding basically anything else.

Jpg's frustrate me. A couple of times I have reset a camera to default settings, and then forgotten that this sets you to JPG, and then firing off a couple hundred jpg images. Trying to play with exposure and WB later on the JPG when you are used to RAW was a reminder of why I am not so fond of jpg.

I do notice that the camera can often do a very nice job with the JPG's. I wish you could shoot RAW but then have a simple button in post processing that would show you what your Canon camera would have done with the image, to use as a starting point. I use Lightroom, not DPP, but I wonder if Canon could make DPP capable of doing that. If all these processing programs have a library of lens corrections for 100's of lenses, I'd bet Canon could make DPP able to auto-process a RAW image the same way one of its cameras would have done. I have seen other folks wishing the same thing.

Someone put this in the Canon suggestion box for me please. 😉

Re: RAW

kvbarkley — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 15:13:06 GMT

I believe that this is what DPP does, since Canon understands all the magic settings in the EXIF.

Re: RAW

ebiggs1 — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 15:32:57 GMT

" I wish you could shoot RAW but then have a simple button in post processing that would show you what your Canon camera would have done with the image, to use as a starting point."

Scotty isn't that what RAW + jpg does? Or am I misunderstanding your request?

When I was working I used to set all the second shooter cameras to jpg. My camera was always set to RAW. Jpg has its place just like everything photographic. Use what works.

Re: RAW

RobertTheFat — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 15:53:43 GMT

@ScottyP wrote:
That was meant as "sharpening" in post, as in using the sharpening slider in Lightroom, not sharpness in general, as a quality. Adding sharpening to a JPG gets funny-looking faster than with a RAW file, as does adding basically anything else.

Jpg's frustrate me. A couple of times I have reset a camera to default settings, and then forgotten that this sets you to JPG, and then firing off a couple hundred jpg images. Trying to play with exposure and WB later on the JPG when you are used to RAW was a reminder of why I am not so fond of jpg.

I do notice that the camera can often do a very nice job with the JPG's. I wish you could shoot RAW but then have a simple button in post processing that would show you what your Canon camera would have done with the image, to use as a starting point. I use Lightroom, not DPP, but I wonder if Canon could make DPP capable of doing that. If all these processing programs have a library of lens corrections for 100's of lenses, I'd bet Canon could make DPP able to auto-process a RAW image the same way one of its cameras would have done. I have seen other folks wishing the same thing.

Someone put this in the Canon suggestion box for me please. 😉

The "auto gamma" button in DPP4 sort of does that, doesn't it? More broadly, DPP defaults to the camera settings in matters like white balance, etc.

Re: RAW

ScottyP — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 16:11:19 GMT

I don't know, Robert. I used DPP for about 2 weeks before buying Lightroom so I am not sure how auto gamma and the default WB looks.

I was was thinking of something like a clearly labeled button that makes it really clear that it is showing you a real Canon camera's best effort at processing. And showing it in a non-destructive "recipe" form, not burned-in, so you could just use it as a starting point. This may be my Lightroom bias showing, together with my unfamiliarity with DPP.

i also wonder why Adobe can't approximate the same thing and offer it in Lightroom.

Re: RAW

Waddizzle — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 18:49:48 GMT

@kvbarkley wrote:
Raw does nothing for resolution. You get the same number of pixel's either way. As stated it does give you more latitude for post processing. However, I disagree a bit, JPEG processing is so good these days that I don't bother unless it is a tricky, one-of-a-kind shot like a sunset or eclipse.

The RAW processor matters, too. Canon's DPP can do everything the DIGIC Raw processor does, so you can get your image to look just like a JPEG the camera would make - including lens corrections like distortion. There is no guarantee that a third party processor can do that.

JPEG post processing cannot hold a candle to what you can do with RAW post processing. You should try taking another look at RAW. As noted, you cannot correct the white balance of a JPEG image file. You cannot make fine contrast adjustments to the shadow and highlight areas, either.

Most importantly, IMHO, you cannot apply lens aberration correction to the JPEG image.

[EDIT] You cannot perform lens correction on a JPEG. The OP has a 1200D, Rebel T5, which cannot perform lens correction in camera.. But, you can shoot RAW and perform lens correction in DPP.

Re: RAW

ebiggs1 — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 17:13:34 GMT

"As noted, you cannot correct the white balance of a JPEG image file."

Really? Whoever 'noted' it is screwy!

Re: RAW

ebiggs1 — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 17:13:10 GMT

"i also wonder why Adobe can't approximate the same thing and offer it in Lightroom."

I apologize right off in the first place but this is an amateurish request and Adobe Lightroom is a professional software. It is unlikely you will ever see that request.

Re: RAW

Waddizzle — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 17:15:15 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
"As noted, you cannot correct the white balance of a JPEG image file."

Really? Whoever 'noted' is screwy!

I cannot adjust the white balance of a JPEG. Can you?

Re: RAW

ebiggs1 — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 17:59:14 GMT

Yes.

This is a jpg from my 1D Mk IV being edited in Lightroom.

Re: RAW

ebiggs1 — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 18:02:14 GMT

Why do you think it can't? It is just one of any number of adjustments available in LR. You do not have as much latitude with some of them that is true. But they are still there. I am just curious!

Re: RAW

Waddizzle — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 18:13:56 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
Why do you think it can't? It is just one of any number of adjustments available in LR. You do not have as much latitude with some of them that is true. But they are still there. I am just curious!

Figured you'd say that. Sorry, but Lightroom does not count. Canon's DPP software does not allow it, which is what the OP is most likely using. No WB adjustments are possible.

Re: RAW

ebiggs1 — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 18:26:23 GMT

Doesn't matter what the OP's intent was, the answer to this question .....

"I cannot adjust the white balance of a JPEG. Can you?" .... is, Yes, I can. If you are using DPP and it doesn't do what you need, or want, why are you still using it?

Re: RAW

Waddizzle — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 18:35:00 GMT

Youre going off-topic, Ernie. The OP has a new Rebel T5, and wanted to know what RAW meant. I seriously doubt that the OP is using Lightroom, or ever will for the foreseeable future.

The correct answer is one reason the OP should use RAW is because you are not able to make WB adjustments to JPEGs using Canon's Digital Photo Professional software that came with the camera..