Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
geek-accountant

RAW test #1

11 posts in this topic

I am working on a few articles on my site about shooting RAW and thought I would post something here about what may be the first of those post. The question has come up before about how camera settings impact RAW. Specifically does shooting in B&W make any difference at all when shooting RAW? In my opinion, it makes no difference at all. Of course there are settings that make a difference (ISO, shutter speed, etc), but things like color space, sharpening, Hue and even B&W make no difference. One question I still have is White Balance, while I think it shouldn't make any difference, I am not sure, but that is a test for another day.

 

Below are two images taken a couple of minutes apart. All settings where the same except one was shot with the B&W setting and the other was shot using the sRGB color space and these are straight from the camera, you can even see the dang dust on my sensor. They were re-sized for easy viewing. Can you tell which is which?

 

 

Image #1

raw-test-1-874.jpg

 

 

Image #2

raw-test-1-875.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#2 would look to have a little more data in the clouds...they look close enough though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is just due to either the slight passage of time, the fact they are not laid out side by side or the output to jpeg caused something. If you looked at the RAW images in Lightroom and flipped between them going back and forth, I think you would see the only difference was the moving clouds, people and a tree or two. Otherwise the look identical to me.

I do agree that for what ever reason there does seem to be a very slight difference on here, but I am wondering if it is one of the visual effects with how the images are laid out.

 

Try this, right click on each image and then chose open in new tab. Now switch between those tabs that only have the image on it and see if you see the same difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is just due to either the slight passage of time, the fact they are not laid out side by side or the output to jpeg caused something. If you looked at the RAW images in Lightroom and flipped between them going back and forth, I think you would see the only difference was the moving clouds, people and a tree or two. Otherwise the look identical to me.

I do agree that for what ever reason there does seem to be a very slight difference on here, but I am wondering if it is one of the visual effects with how the images are laid out.

 

Try this, right click on each image and then chose open in new tab. Now switch between those tabs that only have the image on it and see if you see the same difference.

 

In looking at the photos side by side there isn't much of a difference, if any. I have switched over to RAW shooting pretty much completely and with using Lightroom and convert each file over to DNG on import...the process has been seemless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have switched over to RAW shooting pretty much completely and with using Lightroom and convert each file over to DNG on import...the process has been seemless.

I've been shooting raw+jpg for a number of years now. The jpg is so I have a quick & dirty image to send off or give to someone while in the field, without having to process the raw. I'm still not converting to DNG. While I like the idea, I'm not convinced that every nuance of the shot is retained by DNG. I'm not saying it isn't; I'm just not sure that it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like shooting raw or raw+jpg when I'm working at a leisurely pace, but when I shoot motor racing I only use jpg. The raw images fill the buffer too fast when continuous shooting.

 

If I have my camera set to ~6mp and a class 10 SD card I can crank off photos for around 15 seconds before the files fill the buffer. At 12mp it's around 8 seconds to fill the buffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like shooting raw or raw+jpg when I'm working at a leisurely pace, but when I shoot motor racing I only use jpg. The raw images fill the buffer too fast when continuous shooting.

 

If I have my camera set to ~6mp and a class 10 SD card I can crank off photos for around 15 seconds before the files fill the buffer. At 12mp it's around 8 seconds to fill the buffer.

sounds like you need a EOS-1D :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like you need a EOS-1D :)

 

I agree...need a camera with a better buffer. I don't have that issue...I rarely shoot off that many photos in a row.

 

I can't be certain that Adobe DNG retains everything but from what I have read it does and I have been pleased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like you need a EOS-1D :)

Which is 5 times the price of my D90. And the wrong make. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is 5 times the price of my D90. And the wrong make. :P

 

/me substitutes a D3S for the EOS-1D :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a big proponent of RAW, but like you mention axoid, there are still times when jpeg is a necessity. I don't have much of a need to send images to people from the field, so in my case, I only shoot RAW since getting Lightroom. Before that, I shot raw+jpeg so I could get images up on my site faster after a sporting event. With Lightroom, my workflow is faster using RAW images than it was before Lightroom using jpeg's. Lightroom really changed my workflow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0