# Examples why you should shoot in RAW.



## alipaulphotography (Jul 29, 2013)

Here is an example from the CLA Game Fair. So much detail to be brought back.







I'd love to see some more examples.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 29, 2013)

Is that the same photo shot RAW+jpeg? I'm guessing also the jpeg is unedited and the RAW is... a cool comparison might be seeing the jpeg opened in camera raw with the identical adjustments used on both to see the differences (I might try that, because I never have)... I'd guess if thats done the jpeg would lose quality much faster with the adjustments...


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 29, 2013)

By the way, your wedding photos are some of the best I've seen... love the emotion and colors


----------



## rumorzmonger (Jul 29, 2013)

Another reason to always shoot RAW is that the conversion software keeps improving over time. I'm always amazed when I go back and re-process old files and see how much better they look with the latest version of LR.


----------



## cmw120230 (Jul 29, 2013)

Overexposure lost the clouds, PS was able to bring them back without underexposing everything else


----------



## unfocused (Jul 29, 2013)

One often overlooked reason to shoot raw: smart objects.

Process the image in raw to get the main layer/subject as best you can. Open as a smart object. Make a new smart object from that layer. Open the new object in raw and you can basically start over again, adjusting specific areas of the image. Using layer masks and the paintbrush tool you can make multiple smart object layers and open each in raw to fine tune the image so that each section of the photo gets exactly the treatment it needs.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 29, 2013)

unfocused said:


> One often overlooked reason to shoot raw: smart objects.
> 
> Process the image in raw to get the main layer/subject as best you can. Open as a smart object. Make a new smart object from that layer. Open the new object in raw and you can basically start over again, adjusting specific areas of the image. Using layer masks and the paintbrush tool you can make multiple smart object layers and open each in raw to fine tune the image so that each section of the photo gets exactly the treatment it needs.



I don't understand how this is something specific to RAW. It sounds like you're describing photoshop. Am I missing something?


----------



## unfocused (Jul 29, 2013)

Jay Khaos said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > One often overlooked reason to shoot raw: smart objects.
> ...



Smart objects open automatically in RAW. So, each smart object layer gives you the full range of RAW adjustments. Basically, you can create an unlimited number of layers and fine tune each one in RAW and then pick and choose the parts you want. And, since each layer is basically a RAW file, you can go back at any time and fine tune any layer.

You are correct in that you can certainly use layer masks and adjustment layers to accomplish some of the same things in Photoshop, but the range is much more limited. For example, you can create an exposure adjustment layer or a contrast adjustment layer or a saturation adjustment layer, but you cannot create a layer that adjusts all three in one. 

With a smart object, you can create a layer that will open in RAW, allowing you to adjust exposure, saturation, blacks, contrast, whites, etc., in an infinite number of combinations all on that one layer. Then, when you return to Photoshop, you can use a layer mask to reveal or conceal the adjustments on that layer.

Take the dog example above. To my eye, the sky is still a bit overexposed and the dog's face is still a bit underexposed. I could take one smart object layer and in RAW adjust exposure, contrast, blacks, highlights, etc. to get the sky exactly as I want it. Then, I could make another smart object layer and adjust the dog's face to get it exactly as I wanted, again making multiple adjustment in RAW to that one layer. Then, it's just a matter of adding a layer mask in Photoshop and painting out portions of one layer to reveal the other.

Could I do that in Photoshop alone? Well, possibly, but I just wouldn't have nearly as many adjustment tools available. I could use an exposure adjustment layer on the dog's face, but usually an exposure adjustment alone won't do the trick. In RAW I can tweak the face so that it has a bit more exposure, but still preserve the deep blacks, protect the highlights and keep good contrast in the face.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Jul 29, 2013)

Jay Khaos said:


> Is that the same photo shot RAW+jpeg? I'm guessing also the jpeg is unedited and the RAW is... a cool comparison might be seeing the jpeg opened in camera raw with the identical adjustments used on both to see the differences (I might try that, because I never have)... I'd guess if thats done the jpeg would lose quality much faster with the adjustments...








Here is the sky of the RAW (right) and jpeg (left) doing my best to get them looking the same. 
RAW makes a massive difference when bringing back overexposed skys. Also bringing back detail from shadows in a jpeg introduces more colour noise and makes the shadow look _hazey_.



Jay Khaos said:


> By the way, your wedding photos are some of the best I've seen... love the emotion and colors



Thank you! Much appreciated!



unfocused said:


> One often overlooked reason to shoot raw: smart objects.
> 
> Process the image in raw to get the main layer/subject as best you can. Open as a smart object. Make a new smart object from that layer. Open the new object in raw and you can basically start over again, adjusting specific areas of the image. Using layer masks and the paintbrush tool you can make multiple smart object layers and open each in raw to fine tune the image so that each section of the photo gets exactly the treatment it needs.



I have never looked into this. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## m (Jul 29, 2013)

alipaulphotography said:


> Here is the sky of the RAW (right) and jpeg (left) doing my best to get them looking the same.
> RAW makes a massive difference when bringing back overexposed skys. Also bringing back detail from shadows in a jpeg introduces more colour noise and makes the shadow look _hazey_.



Is that really the raw on the right?
I think it looks worse. It seems to have fewer colors, showing steps in the sky where the left image is smooth.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 29, 2013)

m said:


> Is that really the raw on the right?
> I think it looks worse. It seems to have fewer colors, showing steps in the sky where the left image is smooth.



Yeah I assumed he meant to say left is the RAW.. because the right one has the color banding like is familiar with editing an 8-bit color jpeg.



unfocused said:


> Smart objects open automatically in RAW. So, each smart object layer gives you the full range of RAW adjustments. Basically, you can create an unlimited number of layers and fine tune each one in RAW and then pick and choose the parts you want. And, since each layer is basically a RAW file, you can go back at any time and fine tune any layer.
> 
> You are correct in that you can certainly use layer masks and adjustment layers to accomplish some of the same things in Photoshop, but the range is much more limited. For example, you can create an exposure adjustment layer or a contrast adjustment layer or a saturation adjustment layer, but you cannot create a layer that adjusts all three in one.
> 
> ...



That makes sense. I've never tried it... but in general I knew that leaving anything a smart object means that it's original file type is preserved when its brought into PS. It's kind of like it treats it like a "link". (Illustrator vectors too, can be clicked on an modified back in AI, so I assumed thats what you meant)

Technically though, if you open a jpeg in camera raw and then open it from there in PS as a CR2 file, it should also work the same (can be reopened and adjusted in camera raw), right? I'm probably going to test it once I get home... It seems kind of pointless to even attempt that... but it might actually be useful since I'm often working with shitty client-provided jpegs at work that I need to save. That's why I'm trying to figure it out


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 29, 2013)

I just made a couple side by sides to sell my brother on the merits of RAW. This is more for the base value of RAW over JPG -- it doesn't address the question raised on 14 vs. 8 bit detail differences.

Besides the obvious simple things (WB, intelligently sharpening based on light/iso in _that_ shot, etc.), I find that RAW processing has the fantastic ability to save things you couldn't see or may have slightly blown out. It's like "one-shot HDR" in that I massively rein in the highlights and bump up the shadows at the same time. It creates an HDR like effect that I personally dislike, but it does save an otherwise blown shot.

I'm sure the pros on this forum have better tricks, but as I rarely have a tripod on me, I need to nail things in one shot. This works for me.

Two examples forthcoming. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 29, 2013)

Shot #2:


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 29, 2013)

:|


----------



## alipaulphotography (Jul 30, 2013)

m said:


> alipaulphotography said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the sky of the RAW (right) and jpeg (left) doing my best to get them looking the same.
> ...



Yeah my bad!


----------



## m (Jul 30, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> :|



black and white is something I dislike as the color is always preserved 
LR will ignore the settings as it does with the others

remembering which image was b/w is tedious


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 30, 2013)

m said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > :|
> ...



???


----------



## m (Jul 30, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> m said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



It doesn't matter if you set the camera to black and white or not, the raw file will have colors.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 30, 2013)

m said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > m said:
> ...



.


----------



## bycostello (Jul 30, 2013)

good examples...


----------



## tombu (Jul 30, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> m said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


I lol'd 

But seriously here's one example I made, single raw file:


----------



## m (Jul 31, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> m said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Sorry, what?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 31, 2013)

Jay Khaos said:


> Is that the same photo shot RAW+jpeg? I'm guessing also the jpeg is unedited and the RAW is... a cool comparison might be seeing the jpeg opened in camera raw with the identical adjustments used on both to see the differences (I might try that, because I never have)... I'd guess if thats done the jpeg would lose quality much faster with the adjustments...


RAW images are intended to be edited, jpeg images are edited by the camera, and then baked in.
Its a matter of doing your own editing, or letting the camera do it for you. 

So Yes, a unedited raw image will look a bit plain and lifeless without some sort of processing. Its the ability to process the image to optimize it on a case by case basis that makes many prefer raw. Otherwise you get a one size fits all.


----------



## tpatana (Jul 31, 2013)

Raw straight from camera, and edited version:


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 1, 2013)

tpatana said:


> Raw straight from camera, and edited version:



Nicely done. An ND grad would have been awesome for that shot. Their heads are below the water line.

- A


----------



## tpatana (Aug 1, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Raw straight from camera, and edited version:
> ...



That's me on the right, and the photographer was our server, so can't complain too much for the composition.


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 1, 2013)

I shoot in RAW for everything that is either critical, or that has a wide dynamic range. So I use RAW about 90% of the time. That said, the 6D I use, generates very clean jpegs, even the higher compression ones.


----------

