RAW Critique

[Zach]

Hey everyone I've been wanting to start shooting in RAW for some time now but I needed to get new software and well... I haven't been able to get it (Lightroom 6) but just don't have the money and I don't want a CC subscription either so I was in a bind and finally I took a look into this thing called a DNG converter and learned how to convert my raw files to dng format and now my software (elements 11) can read them so i'm really happy now and wanted to hear your thoughts on these pic's below

honest opinion, are these better than my previous ones?


RAW Moon by Zachary Thompson, on Flickr

Autumn Returns by Zachary Thompson, on Flickr

Let the Sun shine though by Zachary Thompson, on Flickr

Trying to hide by Zachary Thompson, on Flickr

Brown by Zachary Thompson, on Flickr

Soft Beauty by Zachary Thompson, on Flickr

[HDNitehawk]

You were shooting just jpg?

To see if there is a difference save in both file formats, RAW and JPG and compare your RAW processed results to your old method.
I am assuming without looking up your cameras manual that you can save in both.

Do you not use DPP that was provided with your camera?
LR6 is a big leap up from DPP IMO, LR5 would be a big benefit as well if you could find someone that upgraded to give you there old version.

[Kayaker72]

Do you not use DPP that was provided with your camera?

+1

DPP was my original RAW converter and is available for free from Canon. As Rick said, it should have been provided on one of the disks with your camera or you can download it from Canon USA. I am pretty sure there are several forum members that still use it.

BTW.....I "think" I see a difference, but it is hard without doing a side by side comparison and some of the details would be difficult to tell in files compressed to 1,000 pixels wide. Here is a comparison at 100% of a RAW processed photo vs jpeg straight out of the camera under the same conditions.

Its been years since I did a side by side comparison, but I do recall thinking that the RAW files were also a bit better straight out of the camera compared to jpg. But to me, the real benefit of shooting RAW is that their is more information available to you for each photo which gives you more latitude in post processing. For example, you get better results bringing up shadows, better control at adding color saturation or in changes to tone.

I'll have to look, but I also recall that jpeg is more limited in things like DR, etc, compared to RAW.
EDIT---I did find this on dpreview for the 7D and also reference that jpegs are 8 bit files. Here is a Canon write up when they went from 12 bit to 14 bit. Bottom line is with RAW you have a lot more information to work with ~4,000 shades of gray (assuming ~12 stop DR and not 14) vs 256 (jpeg).

[HDNitehawk]

Its been years since I did a side by side comparison, but I do recall thinking that the RAW files were also a bit better straight out of the camera compared to jpg.

I did the comparison when I bought the 7D II. For the last year I have been shooting RAW + JPG because of all the wasted time converting average family pictures for such a small benefit. Properly exposed, decent ISO with the right WB the amount of improvement you can get is really minimal. This was less so with the older bodies like the 7D and 5D II. Both of those bodies had more head room for pp than the new models. I think Canon's firmware has gotten better and we get better files out of the camera because of it.

[jamsus]

It is hard to compare this pictures with the old ones, because the beautyness of a picture can be subjective and dependant on the subject.

As Nitehawk said, try to shoot both format (maybe in a "extreme" situation, low light, high contrast) and try to recover details from JPEG and from RAW.

There you will see a difference, and also in small details.

[Joel Eade]

Totally agree with Kayaker.....RAW gives you way more latitude in post processing especially for white balance and exposure corrections in shadows and highlights.

Also DPP 4 is an excellent RAW converter for Canon cameras....to me it is equally good as Adobe ACR in most respects and may even be a bit better in terms of color rendition and noise control.

I almost always shoot RAW

[DavidEccleston]

I still process generic snaps, since nobody wants you to send them a 20MP image, and, until recently, I had a bandwidth cap.

But yeah, better ability to recover shadows. Better ability to recover highlights (there's an extra stop that would be clipped to white in JPG that you can claim back from a RAW). Better/smoother gradients when applying white-balance, curves, or other modifications. Adobe's noise reduction was superior to everybody else's too... but, recently, some Canon rep said the latest DPP does a better job than the latest Lightroom (when talking about the 7D2). I have not tested that claim.

[HDNitehawk]

but, recently, some Canon rep said the latest DPP does a better job than the latest Lightroom (when talking about the 7D2). I have not tested that claim.

I have tested it with the 7D II, but haven't heard that claim.
The noise reduction in camera is better than it used to be so you have less room for improvement, but Lightroom does a substantially better job with noise than DPP.

I say marketing bs.

[clemmb]

When I was using Elements, it had a ACR(Adobe Camera Raw). With Lightroom or PS the ACR has more options but elements should have ACR.

[Zach]

wow I didn't think i'd get a response like this, 8 comments overnight!

where to start? first thanks for commenting

1: yes until now I've been shooting in jpeg format.

2: my camera can shoot jpeg and raw in the same shot.

3: my laptop disk reader has been broken since before I got my dslr so until recently I had no idea about DDP.

4: I haven't shot any side by side comparisons but will try soon.

5: for awhile now I knew that shooting in raw was better for saving data that's why I've tried hard to find a way to shoot in raw.

thanks Brant for all the links, and thanks to everyone else for your input!

i'm really want to see how the raw does tomorrow at the concert.