You are here: Home » Blog » Why Aren’t You Shooting in RAW!?
Advertisement

Why Aren’t You Shooting in RAW!?

by Dan Bailey on June 4, 2010 · View Comments

Shooting RAW gives you the greatest flexibility for adjusting your images.

If you’re serious about your photography, you should shoot RAW. Period. The end.

But wait. Don’t they take up too much room on your hard drive and cause you to spend too much time in front of your computer?

No, and no. Hard drive space is cheap and as you get more comfortable making RAW conversions and establish an efficient workflow, your time at the computer is very well spent. To understand why, let’s explore how digital cameras work.

When you click the shutter, the camera records the amount of light that hits each of pixel on the digital sensor. The sensor itself does not discern color, but special red, green and blue filters that cover the sensor allow each pixel to record this brightness as a specific tonal value for each of those three colors, or channels. Cameras have 12-bit sensors, can discern and record any one of 4,096 different levels of brightness for each color, or channel. Since there are three channels, this represents 4,096 x 4,096 x 4,096, or 68.7 billion possible color combinations, which translates into an extremely wide and smooth range of color gradations.

Before it can be viewed as an image, though, this RAW data must be converted into another format, such as JPEG or a TIFF. This conversion is either done inside the camera, or else by using RAW conversion software on your computer.

RAW Mode:

When you shoot in RAW mode and save the file onto the memory card, the sensor data is written along with an accompanying header file that contains all of the camera settings, such as the white balance, sharpening level, contrast, saturation, and any other meta-data or user defined information about the image. These settings are only tagged onto the RAW image data and do not affect the original sensor data in any way.

When you open the RAW file in your imaging software, you can adjust the image, plus ANY of the settings that are written in that header file in a non-destructive way. You are not actually altering the RAW file itself, you’re only modifying the metadata information and any changes you make to the image are only written into the accompanying xmp sidecar file.

When you finally convert the RAW file, or save the image as a JPEG or TIFF, your edits are written permanently onto the saved image. Your RAW file is not altered though. In fact, RAW files are never written over, which means you can go back and change or adjust your original image in any way you want, any time you want. In that way, it’s like a digital negative.

Also, when you open your RAW file in your software, the color and brightness data is spread out into a 16-bit workspace, which gives you 65,536 levels of brightness to work with in each of the RGB channels. This translates into an enormous amount of latitude and headroom with which to fine tune your exposure and color corrections and bring out detail in all but the deepest shadows and the brightest highlights.

JPEG Mode:

When you take a picture in JPEG mode, the same thing happens up to a point. The light is captured and recorded by the sensor just as if you were shooting in RAW mode.

However, all of those camera settings, like white balance, sharpness, and saturation are merged with the sensor data and written permanently onto the image file. Then, the image is converted down from a 12-bit file into an 8-bit file, which means that those 4,096 levels of brightness that were recorded by the image sensor are reduced to only 256 brightness levels. Finally, the image is compressed with whatever compression setting you have set on the camera, usually, Low, Medium, and High, and saved as a JPEG.

Once the image is saved as a JPEG, NONE of the original camera settings can ever be changed or altered, and when you open the image in your imaging software, you have far less latitude with which to make level and tonal adjustments.

That’s not to say that you can’t achieve high quality imagery and very good results when shooting in JPEG mode, in fact, many digital cameras produce very high quality JPEGs. An 8-bit image still yields 16.7 million possible color combinations, which is the standard bit depth for professional color printing. The limitation is that once you’ve gone from 16-bit down to 8-bit, you can’t go back. The original color information is lost and you can no longer make fine color corrections or rescue any more detail from the shadows or blown out highlights.

Shooting in RAW will allow you to extract the maximum quality from your digital photographs and really make them pop. Most images benefit from some adjustments and you’ll get better results by doing them yourself them on a computer, instead of letting the camera make those decisions for you.

If it’s convenience you’re after, then shooting in JPEG mode is fine. However, if you’re shooting for quality and want the best best possible results from your digital photography, no matter your subject, then you should be shooting in RAW. Period. The end.

Shooting in RAW allowed me to make maximum exposure adjustments, regain lost highlights, and get the best possible results from my digital image.

———-

Dan Bailey is a professional adventure, outdoor and travel photographer based in Anchorage, Alaska. You can follow his own blog at danbaileyphoto.com/blog and see his daily Facebook updates at facebook.com/danbaileyphoto

Bookmark and Share
Advertisements
  • Kodakero
    I guess it all boils down to the purpose of your photography. I shoot news and it's almost insane for us to shoot in raw but there are times that I was compelled to do so. These were times that I needed to squeeze every pixel out of my 5DII to make an insanely small crop out of the photo since my lens and position didn't allow me to have a better shot. So I guess RAW wins the argument of squeezing the most out of your camera. Nothing beats shooting perfectly as possible to minimize post processing instead of depending on RAW to correct your mistakes.
  • Roy
    RAW is always better, period. There are no arguments. More data is better than less. Once you throw away data, you can never get it back. And hard disks are cheap.

    That said, *shooting in RAW* is not always better because of technology limitations. I'd say this will change someday, but I know it won't. I very rarely shoot non-RAW, but I do it a few times a year.
  • My camera has a 4-frame maximum buffer in RAW vs. 8 in JPG and shoots 1FPS slower. So I should always shoot RAW? Really?
  • Strongly disagree. There are about a million reasons why RAW is not the answer all the time. This debate is about as tiresome as Canon vs. Nikon.
  • You're right Mike- there are times when shooting JPEGs makes sense. Digital cameras often render many scenes with perfectly adequate exposure. Plus it's convenient.

    However, when dealing with scenes that have complex or high contrast lighting and tones, there is simply no comparison. An image that's been processed by the camera into a JPEG has nowhere near the amount of tonal and color information as a 12 or 14-bit RAW file.

    Once you let the camera process your capture into a JPEG, you can no longer rescue extreme highlights or deep shadows, or adjust the luminosity on individual tones.

    RAW is essentially a digital negative that allows you the same powerful adjustment flexibility and quality control that photographers like Ansel Adams applied to their best images in the darkroom. No matter what output mode you select, the camera is always shooting RAW captures anyway, so why wouldn't you want to be able to use the best tools in your arsenal and have final control over your exposures when you're processing your highest quality photographs?
  • Dan - it's not only convenient, it's better for a vast majority of photographers who don't spend the money on a quality monitor and do hardware calibrations on a regular basis. To be honest, I work in the photo industry, do you know how many people have no clue what the kelvin of the working environment of the room they are in is, much less how to color / contrast adjust their monitor properly, much less know that it even needs to be or should be done?

    12 vs. 14bit is also subjective to where and how you will be displaying your work. I'm willing to bet that like most photographers 90% or more of your work is never displayed anywhere besides a computer monitor, making your editing subjective to how the viewers monitor is calibrated. Furthermore, the dynamic range of printers, silver halide or inkjet isn't fairly narrow.

    Extreme highlights and deep shadows are also not a bad thing. Yes, in the film world you could dodge and burn in the darkroom, and you could use creative filters like the Cokin graduated filters to help while shooting, but in the end, to represent something accurate or even artistic interpretations doesn't always require saving every white or black pixel.

    The first line of the article is the one that I most strongly disagree with. I've been getting work published in magazines and the web for 10 years now, starting with film and moving to digital. I used to shoot in RAW and for certain situations, still do, however it's not ALWAYS the answer like you seem to imply. Knowing what your output is going to be should help you determine what your choice should be, likewise, properly exposing and shooting is key, not relying on the "I'll fix it in post" mentality of so many of today's sloppy photoshop-photographers.

    Let me be clear, I like RAW and I use it from time to time, but straight up telling me that it's the ONLY way to shoot is misleading.
  • Mike- great discussion. I never said that photographers should ALWAYS shoot RAW, only that they SHOULD shoot and learn how to process RAW images. If shooting JPEG works for you most of the time, then that's great, but if photographers want to achieve maximum quality, tonal range and color accuracy, whether they have a perfectly calibrated monitor or not, then shooting RAW and using the software to process those files is the best way to do that.

    You're right, saving each and every pixel may not always be the best option, but if it's my image, I want to be the one to make that decision. Call me a control freak, but since my images are competing with those of other top photographers in the industry and with the millions of images in my stock agency files, I want to make sure that I can produce the VERY best work possible. My livelyhood depends on it.

    And again, since data storage is so cheap, if you can establish an efficient workflow, why wouldn't you want that? For my own imagery, except for the occasional snapshot and non critical document shot, I shoot ALL my images in RAW.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post:

Advertisement