How useful is RAW to the lazy/unskilled?

[RonFrank]

All correct and I wholeheartedly agree, but did you read the OP's post? He is looking for jpgs out of cam and end of story. To me, worrying about RAW in that case would be similar to agonizing over what wine goes best with a TV dinner.

We are in agreement. But the Op did ask about RAW, and IMO it's worth shooting RAW and purchasing equipment that supports RAW. The Op can make up his mind, but IMO why would one NOT shoot RAW? The answer is obvious, because the equipment he is considering does not support it. But a lot of stuff out there does. He also indicated he will not be using a strobe, or in camera only. That is even a stronger case for shooting RAW as there is no flash to correct for color.

I've done a lot of UW shooting, and doing color correction on JPEG's is much harder, and takes a lot more time vs. just changing WB in photoshop on a RAW image. So in that regard shooting RAW makes things easier and less time consuming for someone who does not want to spend hours in front of the computer messing with images.

 

[bvanant]

The reason to shoot raw is for control. Lightroom does a whole bunch of sophisticated stuff on raw images that are totally non-destructive while multiple changes to jpg files degrades them a bit. Yes you can make JPEG2000 that is non-destructive but not out of the camera. The question though is how much time/trouble are you wanting to take. If you take your camera or card to Costco and print out of the camera and don't care what photoshop can do then it is a moot point. If you are printing 4x6 pics from Shutterfly for your family, don't bother. If you want to make something that you can hang on the wall raw gives you the best chance.
Bill

 

[Bubbletrubble]

A question I've had for quite some time now when post-processing is, how do we know what "reality" is for color? When you "correct" in RAW, what are you "correcting?" How does one know the color temp is the "correct" one?

I'm not a graphics/digital camera/software expert, but I hope these answers help...

There's no magic to it. A RAW image is simply what is "seen" by the sensor in the camera -- without any compression at all. If you learn a little about Bayer arrays, you'll see how photos can have different levels of image noise in the various color channels (green vs. red vs. blue). Learning a little about how S-, M-, and L- cones work in the human eye might also be an interesting diversion. If you're interested, Prof. John Dowling wrote a wonderful intro to neuroscience book entitled Neurons and Networks. Here's a webpage that demystifies sensor design. Nikon and Canon have their own proprietary RAW image data formats which you can imagine complicates the software programming for the various RAW image editors.

The RAW image data is nothing more than a huge matrix of numbers -- with light intensity of a particular wavelength associated with each sensor (red, green, or blue) at a given XY coordinate. Color correction via a graphical editor is just a transformation of those numbers.

Theoretically, the best method to ensure accurate color representation in post-processing would be to go through a calibration process. More specifically, one would bring along a color board on the dive and incorporate that color board in the picture at the same distance/depth/light angle as the subject. Then, in post-processing, the photographer would tweak Photoshop settings (channel mixer/levels/color balance) so that the color board at depth "matches" the true colors of the color board at the surface. I think we can all agree that this kind of calibration is probably logistically impractical (please hold still, Mr. Fishy) and more work than most casual photographers want to do.

Just for kicks, I downloaded the two unprocessed pics (above) and processed them in Elements using the "Underwater" filter that someone (can't remember who) made for PhotoShop.

I'm glad you did this, Peter. This supports the notion that JPGs, as well as RAW images, can be white balanced, doesn't it?
The Underwater "filter" you described probably isn't a "filter," per se. I'd be willing to bet that it's actually a Photoshop Action, a series of image manipulations that can be run by pressing the "play" button in the Action palette. The Action is probably a version of the Mandrake method which utilizes pixel info from the green channel to construct a replacement for the "missing" red channel.
BTW, this is a great example of how Photoshop Actions can be used to streamline repetitive tasks. I wish more people would look "inside" these Actions to see exactly what Photoshop is doing with each step. Much can be learned in this way...but very few people take the time to do so.
Here's a nice YouTube video of a similar UW color correction technique that utilizes channel mixing and level adjustment. If you had the inclination, you could create your own Photoshop Action based on this technique. Enjoy the narrator's accent.

 

[Bubbletrubble]

We are in agreement. But the Op did ask about RAW, and IMO it's worth shooting RAW and purchasing equipment that supports RAW. The Op can make up his mind, but IMO why would one NOT shoot RAW? The answer is obvious, because the equipment he is considering does not support it. But a lot of stuff out there does.

I know that this comment wasn't addressed to me, but I disagree. In a previous post, I outlined a few of the reasons to shoot JPG instead of RAW. Furthermore, the OP can already shoot in RAW (Canon CRW format) using his Canon A620 or his Canon SD1100 -- no other equipment is necessary. Please take a look at the features of the CHDK firmware hack. Also, the OP mentioned looking at the Canon G10, which can shoot in RAW, and is probably waaaaay more camera than he needs to achieve his goals with UW photography. I'd hate to give the OP a consensus opinion of: just buy a big, bad-a** camera with a 15MP sensor that shoots in RAW.

He also indicated he will not be using a strobe, or in camera only. That is even a stronger case for shooting RAW as there is no flash to correct for color.

I think Peter_Guy has demonstrated that shooting in RAW is not necessary for color correction of UW pics taken without a flash.

I've done a lot of UW shooting, and doing color correction on JPEG's is much harder, and takes a lot more time vs. just changing WB in photoshop on a RAW image. So in that regard shooting RAW makes things easier and less time consuming for someone who does not want to spend hours in front of the computer messing with images.

Today's software tools are quite refined. Ron, if you have access to a Mac, you should really check out Aperture 2. The process of white balancing is identical for both RAW and JPG pics. You simply select the eyedropper tool in the White Balance window and click on a neutral gray or white part of the photo. Don't like the results? Click on a different part of the picture. It's that easy. The process takes a couple of seconds. I suspect Lightroom might have similar tools.
Perhaps we should discuss something else..like recommended wine-pairings for Salisbury steak.

 

[Bubbletrubble]

The reason to shoot raw is for control.

This is at the heart of the RAW vs. JPEG debate. Grabbing the RAW data before the camera does its internal JPEG conversion allows the user to decide what information is tossed out. I submit, though, that this JPEG conversion process in cameras is pretty darn good -- it's Sony/Canon/Nikon's bread-and-butter for consumer digital cameras. As we've seen in this thread, ample information remains in the JPEG to do adequate white balancing.

 

[Peter Guy]

Bubble -- Damn -- you've given me some articles that I need to read and here I was having a nice Scotch!

Yes, the "filter" is a PS Action that works in Elements 5 (and I think I'll be upgrading, again, pretty soon). It has seemed to me that the "correction" it does is pretty darn good.

I shoot in JPEG because I'm using a Canon S80 which, last time I checked, had not been hacked (PLEASE, some Geek hack it!). I need to buy a new housing (going to get the Ike one) and thought seriously about upgrading to the G10 but, other than the RAW, I can't figure out a reason to.

(Off Topic question for y'all -- IF I'm going to upgrade, should I continue with Elements and go to Ver. 7 or should I switch to Lightroom? Don't forget, I'm a "senior citizen" now, well sort of, and learning new software is a pain!)

 

[Bubbletrubble]

Bubble -- Damn -- you've given me some articles that I need to read and here I was having a nice Scotch!

Scotch should pair nicely with the literature. Are we talking a single malt...or that blended stuff?

I shoot in JPEG because I'm using a Canon S80 which, last time I checked, had not been hacked (PLEASE, some Geek hack it!). I need to buy a new housing (going to get the Ike one) and thought seriously about upgrading to the G10 but, other than the RAW, I can't figure out a reason to.

The S80 is soooo old that I doubt a CHDK hack will ever be developed. I think you could make a pretty strong case for upgrading the camera + housing. Ikelite is a good choice for the housing. At least the company repairs/supports its housings. Good luck getting Canon to replace a button or even pressure test one of its housings. *sarcasm from a Canon housing owner*

(Off Topic question for y'all -- IF I'm going to upgrade, should I continue with Elements and go to Ver. 7 or should I switch to Lightroom? Don't forget, I'm a "senior citizen" now, well sort of, and learning new software is a pain!)

I have only had minimal experience with Lightroom and I have zero experience with Elements version 7, so I can't really help you decide on one over the other. In many ways, I think Lightroom is similar to the latest version of Aperture. If you upgrade your camera to RAW, you should definitely consider upgrading your post-processing software. While you're at it, get a big bottle of Scotch and work your way through a decent Lightroom tutorial book. You'll be amazed at all the little useful features in the software. Heck, it's just money right?
I don't buy the "senior citizen" excuse. You're still sharp. With a little repetition, I think you'll do fine with the new software. If you need a little more convincing, there are studies suggesting that challenging oneself with cognitive tasks on a daily basis decreases the incidence of Alzheimer's disease. Happy sipping...

 

[Geoff_H]

that was EXCEPTIONAL result! would you share the how-to? thanks in advance.

No problem.. it is very simple. Download the pictures to my PC. Double click the CR2 file (RAW). Click "Auto balance". Save picture...

There are a bunch of more complicated operations you can do; and I have no idea how best to optimize them... I am not a photographer, not a computer graphics expert. I rarely spend more than 5 minutes on my "best" shots and normally about 1 minute to auto-WB, auto-colour and crop.

Now I KNOW these are someone's guestimates of what the colors would be like if all the light was there, but how "real" are any of them because the light, in fact, was NOT present?

The final (corrected) pictures are much closer to what my eyes perceive underwater. If the colours were as washed out in my eyes as in the original pictures I don't think I would dive nearly as much. Maybe our brains do exceptional post processing but the pictures afetr white balance correction are much closer to what I perceive than the originals.

Which of those barracuda pix actually best represents what it looks like when you see them at depth. My guess is the former, more cyan one.

Your guess is not accurate....

As we've seen in this thread, ample information remains in the JPEG to do adequate white balancing.

I agree there that proprocessing on JPGs is possible and very helpful. But it is a moot point in my point; if you are going to do post processing why not postprocess the RAW image? You get better results and zero downside.

Lets restate the pictures - the RAW conversions and the JPG conversions, side by side. I think it is very obvious which gives you the best results.

The fact is JPG compression throws away a huge amount of data, which is useful in post processing. Compare the final sizes - a raw image might be 15 meg and a JPG 2 meg for a 4000x3000 photo. That is 86% of the available information that has been thrown away and is not usuable by your PC to reconstruct the image.

 

[John_B]

I feel like I'm correcting my superiors, but...

I'm an IT guy and a musician. Here's how I "see" the JPEG + white balance deal.

You can record music in a sampled but uncompressed format (for CDs this is PCM, a kissin' cousin to the .WAV format), which is capable of capturing pretty much the full sonic spectrum.

You can also record music in a sampled and compressed format (MP3, AAC, etc.) and, depending on the compression type and level, this is capable of capturing most -- but by no means all -- of the sonic spectrum that your ears can hear using typically available and reasonably inexpensive audio gear.

You can always convert from lossless PCM to lossy MP3, but you can never recapture the full spectrum when converting from MP3 back to PCM or .WAV. For many this is "good enough" so for them its a non-issue.

RAW records exactly what the sensor "sees". (Yes, Canon and Nikon use proprietary formats strictly for convenience but Adobe, bless their pointed little heads, have released a open RAW format that should have some shelf life into the future.) You have the entire range of adjustments available, but it isn't much use without some processing.

JPEG records a processed and lossy compressed version of what the sensor "sees". Much of the processing that happens has to do with white balance. If the white balance is sufficiently hosed up at the time of processing (which is a one-shot deal, when the picture is taken), its possible that no amount of processing may fully correct it. OTOH even though you lose some fidelity, like MP3s, many people will find JPEG is good enough (and damned convenient besides).

 

[Geoff_H]

Your analogy is perfect John. You could also make the point that an MP3 sounds fine on iPod headphones and a JPG will look good at 1024x768 on the web and printed out on a postcard.

However; if you use high fidelity audio equipment you'll want a loseless recording to listen from; and if you want high definition images and large pretty print outs you'll be better off with RAW data to work from.