RAW

[Bdarin]

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.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"Shows how much JPEG editing I did with DPP3."

Me neither, we are in the same boat there.  That is why I couldn't explain how to do it.  No biggie on either of us.  But when you have done this as long as I have there are some things you just know.

Yes, I plead guilty. I do try to push people to the best.  Perhaps it is a fault but I just want folks to be and to accomplish the best they can.

---

A corrollary of the Law of Diminishing Returns applies in this context: Yes, better equipment will make any photographer better. But how much better depends on how good the photographer already is. The better (s)he is, the more difference better equipment makes. Encouraging relative newbies to buy very expensive equipment is usually not doing them a favor, because the degree of improvement probably won't be worth the outlay.

Often, in this forum, the type of photography a questioner wants to do is almost certainly beyond his skill level. In such cases, it hardly makes sense to have him go out any buy the equipment that a skilled photographer would need to do the job.

[ebiggs1]

"...  it hardly makes sense to have him go out any buy the equipment that a skilled photographer would need to do the job."

Every single one of us started at ground zero. So, it hardly makes sense to have them get better gear?  You didn't stay there in kindergarten so don't expect anybody else to.

The fact remains some will be happy forever with a Rebel and kit.  Some will be happy with a P&S.  Heck some are happy with an iPhone.  But if we don't expand their knowledge, how will they learn or know?

I teach music at our local school.  There are some instrument brands we do not allow.  Why, because there are so many better, or best if you will, instruments available.  Some are just horrible.  This also applies to photography as it does with almost anything you do.

I will continue to push folks to be the best they can be.  If it means Lightroom over DPP so be it.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"...  it hardly makes sense to have him go out any buy the equipment that a skilled photographer would need to do the job."

Every single one of us started at ground zero. So, it hardly makes sense to have them get better gear?  You didn't stay there in kindergarten so don't expect anybody else to.

The fact remains some will be happy forever with a Rebel and kit.  Some will be happy with a P&S.  Heck some are happy with an iPhone.  But if we don't expand their knowledge, how will they learn or know?

I teach music at our local school.  There are some instrument brands we do not allow.  Why, because there are so many better, or best if you will, instruments available.  Some are just horrible.  This also applies to photography as it does with almost anything you do.

I will continue to push folks to be the best they can be.  If it means Lightroom over DPP so be it.

---

I see your point, but I hope you see mine. Buying very good (i.e., expensive) equipment when you're not ready to use it is often a waste of money. When my wife and I upgraded from Powershots, we bought a pair of Rebel XTi's. The XTi was a good but not great camera, but it was what we were ready for. Over time, we've done further upgrades: my best camera is now a 5D Mark III; her best is a 7D Mark II. Suppose that insead of XTi's, we'd bought, say, a 5D and a 30D. Now those cameras are every bit as obsolete as our XTi's, but we would have spent a lot more money on them. And our current cameras would probably still be what they now are.

[ebiggs1]

Bob from Boston,

"I see your point, but I hope you see mine."

Sorta, I guess.  There is always pluses and minuses on each side of every situation.  But your situation is comparing something that is pretty good right from the get go.  I am comparing something, IMHO, that won't do the the job.  Ever!  DPP vs LR.

Yes one is free and one costs $150 bucks or so but LR is far superior.  If the person never uses or advances to the top level LR is capable of, I guess it is a $150 waste.

I don't recommend someone buy a 1Dx Mk II or don't get nut'in.  I do get ruffled when somebody says their iPhone is just as good as my 1Ds Mk III.  I had a yong fellow tell me he could do everything on his iPad that I could do with my Photoshop.

So do you educate him?  Or, do you say well that's OK you just keep that thought?  Or maybe you believe he can?

Why do we buy Canon?  Because we believe it is the best we can get.  It would be indefensible to say, or well I know it isn't very good but I bought it any way. As a for instance, I have tried Nikon.  I own Nikon and Nikkor.  I have found Canon is better so I shoot Canon.  Isn't that just common logic to get the best you can?

[ScottyP]

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.

[Bdarin]

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

[ebiggs1]

"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.

[ScottyP]

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.  😉

[kvbarkley]

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

[ebiggs1]

" 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.