Nikon: D600 vs D7100
- Thread starter Pako
- 41 comments
- 4,869 views
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,449
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
Even with my D40X I started shooting in RAW early on but found no advantage to it other than have images that were over twice the size that didn't appear to look any different.
After really finding no real advantage to RAW for me, I just switch to jpg. I guess that is why I am wondering if anyone has had that moment where they said to themselves, "Dang it, wish I would have shot in RAW instead of jpeg."
I realize that RAW is a superior format and should be a better image especially if you are doing any color adjustments, etc., but when has it been an issue that the jpeg counter part just wasn't "good enough"? Is it when you go to large print formats?
After really finding no real advantage to RAW for me, I just switch to jpg. I guess that is why I am wondering if anyone has had that moment where they said to themselves, "Dang it, wish I would have shot in RAW instead of jpeg."
I realize that RAW is a superior format and should be a better image especially if you are doing any color adjustments, etc., but when has it been an issue that the jpeg counter part just wasn't "good enough"? Is it when you go to large print formats?
Last edited:
- 17,865
- 509
You can recover quite a bit more data from highlights and shadows in RAW, along with much better control over color balance in post processing. Additionally, it removes issues of in camera settings such as sharpening and noise reduction, which can have artifacting or destruction of detail. It isn't that you gain pixels with RAW, but rather detail in color and contrast.
If you have no intent to post process your images, you'll see no reason to use RAW. But the reality is most images require at least a bit of post processing to have the desired look. I have a great deal of images from when I first started shooting digital that I wish I had shot in RAW instead of JPEG, as my increased understanding of post processing would allow me to do much more with those images now than I could then. Earlier this year I somehow got my EOS M to shoot JPEG only and, needless to say, I regret it as several shots in dark bars and such are unrecoverable in JPEG that I could easily have pushed values on in RAW.
A great example of a shot, well a set of shots, that RAW let me save from years ago is this panorama. I had used aperture priority without thinking about the difference in exposure required for the fields between the left side and the right side (about 2 stops difference) so the initial stitching from JPEG (how I was building panoramas then) was much, much darker on the left than the right. Going back years later, I corrected the exposure difference in RAW, then set about merging the images again to create the more balanced one I've linked. If I had not had RAW files, the artifacting from pushing my shadows would have been obvious and effectively unusable, where as with this I've made 12x36 inch prints now with little issue. Keep in mind, this was shot with my old XTi (10mp) and the very crap kit lens.
If you have no intent to post process your images, you'll see no reason to use RAW. But the reality is most images require at least a bit of post processing to have the desired look. I have a great deal of images from when I first started shooting digital that I wish I had shot in RAW instead of JPEG, as my increased understanding of post processing would allow me to do much more with those images now than I could then. Earlier this year I somehow got my EOS M to shoot JPEG only and, needless to say, I regret it as several shots in dark bars and such are unrecoverable in JPEG that I could easily have pushed values on in RAW.
A great example of a shot, well a set of shots, that RAW let me save from years ago is this panorama. I had used aperture priority without thinking about the difference in exposure required for the fields between the left side and the right side (about 2 stops difference) so the initial stitching from JPEG (how I was building panoramas then) was much, much darker on the left than the right. Going back years later, I corrected the exposure difference in RAW, then set about merging the images again to create the more balanced one I've linked. If I had not had RAW files, the artifacting from pushing my shadows would have been obvious and effectively unusable, where as with this I've made 12x36 inch prints now with little issue. Keep in mind, this was shot with my old XTi (10mp) and the very crap kit lens.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,449
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
You guys were totally right. Shot the whole day in RAW and most in aperture priority as suggested. I learned a couple things today. 1.) The PV button on my camera will give me a quick Preview in the view finder of how exposure will be. Very cool for making quick adjustments to aperture, shutter speed, etc. The second thing I learned is I will forever shoot in RAW. I cannot believe the difference. I had a couple greatly under exposed shots that were almost black. In the Nikon software, I was able to increase the brightness with very little artifacts. Granted, it was the "best" picture, but could easy be used for a web image, etc. The point is that it was a great exercise in how much dynamic range is actually lost in the jpeg compression process. 
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,449
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
👍 Absolutely! So much color bouncing around. The sunsets here are different then when I was in Hawaii. Although not a brilliant, they certainly cover the whole sky. We don't see a lot of oranges unless there are fires and smoke in the air, otherwise we get a lot of the pinks that you see here.
- 1
- Pakistan
newyear2020s.com i want to cover that event on this site, suggest me the good camera
Similar threads
- Question
