p.2 #1 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
Mike_5D wrote:
When I got into photography in about 2008, I went over the raw vs jpg debate. The big advantage of jpg was that the images are ready to go SOOC. But I quickly found that I wanted to run everything through Lightroom for both organization and adjustment purposed. Few images came SOOC exactly as I wanted them. Even something as simple as adding 1/3 stop exposure and leveling the horizon by 0.5 degrees meant using LR. So I figured if everything was going through LR anyway, I may as well shoot RAW, have the maximum data, and as much future-proofing as possible. ...Show more →
I started out using jpeg and have used it a lot recently. Its never really been hard to convert a raw to get close to the same as a sooc jpeg though. Especially in DPP 3.
p.2 #2 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
I'm not sure the OP's question really warrants a discussion because it's missing the point of RAW so entirely, but here I am anyway simply to reiterate what every other response has said -- you can apply automatic lens corrections to RAW files if you set things up right, and the data in a RAW file gives you so much latitude in post processing in every way imaginable.
A more pertinent version of the question would be "why shoot jpeg only?" To which the answer IMO would be two main reasons -- limited storage capacity and/or the need to publish images quickly without the need of a computer to process/convert them. I guess some people also just don't want to bother with post processing at all and are perfectly happy with SOOC jpegs files, and there's nothing wrong with that.
p.2 #3 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
snegron7 wrote:
Posting this on both Canon and Sony subforums, as I own cameras and lenses in both systems (R6II, A7c, A7iv).
Serious, non-troll baiting question; why bother shooting in RAW if you are using low end, consumer oriented, Non "L" or "GM" lenses? I currently have the following lenses for the above-mentioned cameras I own:
- Tamron 17-28mm f2.8
- Tamron 20-40mm f2.8
- Tamron 28-200mm f2.8-5.6
(I used to own several other lenses for Sony FE mount but sold them all the first time I sold off all my Sony-related equipment. Several months later I repurchased an A7c and decided to buy just the lenses I used the most which are the Tamrons I listed above).
Lower end lenses like the ones that I own, rely heavily on in-camera computational corrections. When shooting RAW, you see the "true" image recorded with these lenses. The distortion, vignetting, and lack of contrast is extremely visible in the RAW images with these lensed. After spending a bunch of time on PS "correcting" the RAW images, I end up with what the camera JPEG looked like had I shot in JPEG to begin with. Serious question: why waste time shooting in RAW when I'm going to spend hours in PS correcting lens flaws? The only lens I get decent RAW images that hardly need any corrections on my part is with the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8.
Before I get the usual troll (we all know who he is) saying "you need to shoot with better lenses" or "you need to learn how to take pictures", "you're always complaining", etc., understand two things:
1. This post was meant for folks who can contribute opinions on why shooting RAW is still a good idea even though manually correcting lens issues is time consuming and yields results similar to sooc jpegs.
2. If you are that troll, move along, don't participate in this thread. No one likes you anyway. ...Show more →
You are definitely no troll.
You simply have no clue of editing and editing programs. 😎
p.2 #4 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
Shall I shoot RAW or jpeg? If I were you I would try to test it myself with the gear I have and answer this question basing on the actual results.If you find that in your style of photography RAW format gives no significant advantages over jpeg,than give it up.
p.2 #5 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
snegron7 wrote:
The distortion, vignetting, and lack of contrast is extremely visible in the RAW images with these lensed. After spending a bunch of time on PS "correcting" the RAW images, I end up with what the camera JPEG looked like had I shot in JPEG to begin with. Serious question: why waste time shooting in RAW when I'm going to spend hours in PS correcting lens flaws?
I haven't seen anyone serioiusly answering this part (unless I missed it).
The reason to "waste time" shooting RAW has nothing to do with lenses. Here are some popular benefits of shooting RAW:
- Complete WB control. Automatic WB is a common source of complaints, especially in complicated/mixed lighting.
- Better noise reduction than in-camera JPEG engine is capable of.
- Color grading. Want warmer shadows? Cinematic orange+teal look? Bleach bypass look? RAW editors give you these.
- High dynamic range scenes where shadows need lifting and/or highlights need suppression
- Exposure errors. You could recover up to 3EV from a good RAW file.
I also want to zoom into your "wasting time" point. If you're 100% OK with OOC JPEGs, and I mean really trully 100%, this doesn't apply to you. But even if, say, 10% of your images can take advantage of the benefits above, the RAW can be made extremely efficient. Believe me, you aren't going to waste any time:
- Buy or build your own presets
- Learn keyboard shortcuts
- Use batch processing: for applying edits and for exporting
It's actually the other way around. If you try to adjust for WB, color balance, or aim for a perfect exposure using camera menus/buttons to produce perfect SOOC JPEGs but I'd argue that takes far more time and effort.
TLDR: RAW saves you time if you want perfect output, regardless of lenses.
p.2 #6 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
The least interesting thing that raw conversion programs do to raw files is perform lens corrections. Remapping color and contrast (and sharpness) is best done on higher bit files to reduce artifacts. If cameras could dump 16-bit PNG files, there would be less benefit using raw but still a perceptible one. 8-bit jpgs are rather brittle, if you want to make substantial changes. If you don’t need to make changes, then whatever bit depth will be your final out (printer, web browser, etc) is all you might need.
p.2 #8 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
I know this overlaps with some of the points already made but I think it's worth stating clearly on its own: your tastes in processing may (and likely will) change over the years.
There may come a time when you return to a photo or photos that suddenly have great significance for you, and you will value the ability to reprocess them from the ground up, with no decisions baked in by your camera, not even lens corrections. Only RAW really gives you this option.
p.2 #9 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
Peire wrote:
Shall I shoot RAW or jpeg? If I were you I would try to test it myself with the gear I have and answer this question basing on the actual results.If you find that in your style of photography RAW format gives no significant advantages over jpeg,than give it up.
I did. That's the whole basis of my post. The amount of work I (me, the OP) have to put into correcting the RAW files I've shot (again me, with my equipment) is daunting thanks to the extreme corrections I have to perform when opening up the files in Adobe Camera RAW (of which I have a subscription and have been using for well over a decade).
Many years ago I used to shoot RAW, back when I shot with my Nikon D200. I did this for many of the reasons posted by others here. Especially crucial were WB and noise reduction plug-ins needed to improve my images. I remember having much better results back then probably because I was using professional Nikon glass plus the body was APS-C.
I now find myself spending way too much time correcting all the lens issues befeore I can even get to an acceptable image that I can work with. Distortion, vignetting and lack of contrast are the biggest culprits. I never had that issue before until I started using lower end lenses like the Canon RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM.
p.2 #10 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
It's already been established that the latest update to ACR corrects for your 16-28. If you shot and edited raw files before this update, that's on you, the early adopter. I personally wouldn't try to process raw files from a lens before I had a profile. It just seems like a colossal waste of effort. If I couldn't hold off buying the lens until then, I'd settle for shooting jpgs until the profile arrived.
p.2 #11 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
Non-trolling answer: if you can't post processes a RAW to look better than a JPEG (which is kinda what started this question for you), you don't need to be shooting RAW.
I shoot both, for the record. Sometimes I like the JPEG enough to roll with it, or slightly tweak it and save myself some time, and sometimes I enjoy digging into the RAW.
p.2 #13 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
snegron7 wrote:
I did. That's the whole basis of my post. The amount of work I (me, the OP) have to put into correcting the RAW files I've shot (again me, with my equipment) is daunting thanks to the extreme corrections I have to perform when opening up the files in Adobe Camera RAW (of which I have a subscription and have been using for well over a decade).
That's a long time to use it and not use custom presets.
p.2 #14 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
I don't think it's a matter of cheap vs expensive. It's more about design - more and more lenses, even the expensive ones, rely on software correction to achieve other goals (size/weight notably).
p.2 #16 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
Mike_5D wrote:
It's already been established that the latest update to ACR corrects for your 16-28. If you shot and edited raw files before this update, that's on you, the early adopter. I personally wouldn't try to process raw files from a lens before I had a profile. It just seems like a colossal waste of effort. If I couldn't hold off buying the lens until then, I'd settle for shooting jpgs until the profile arrived.
Exactly!!! I haven't been using any lens profiles (didn't have any when I purchased the lens and haven't seen any updates to include profiles for this lens-learned from group members here today that there is an update), so it has been "a colossal waste of effort" for me as you stated. Hence, the reason for my post.
p.2 #17 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
j4nu wrote:
I don't think it's a matter of cheap vs expensive. It's more about design - more and more lenses, even the expensive ones, rely on software correction to achieve other goals (size/weight notably).
I agree; even expensive "pro" lenses are following that trend.
p.2 #18 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
RoamingScott wrote:
Non-trolling answer: if you can't post processes a RAW to look better than a JPEG (which is kinda what started this question for you), you don't need to be shooting RAW.
I shoot both, for the record. Sometimes I like the JPEG enough to roll with it, or slightly tweak it and save myself some time, and sometimes I enjoy digging into the RAW.
Agreed. That's why I created this post. I was going through way too much work since I didn't have any presets for some of my lenses. Another lens I forgot to mention was a Tamron 11-20mm f2.8 that I used on the R7 I sold. No presets for that lens as it is still relatively new. Sold it together with my R7.
p.2 #20 · Why Bother Shooting RAW with Cheap Lenses?
I use "cheap" RF lenses like the 10-18, 18-150, and 100-400. I find these lenses sharp and with good color. The only potential issue is that they have slow apertures. Shooting RAW gets me the best dynamic range for pulling up shadows. Also, as mentioned above, Lightroom and presumably ACR can apply "AI" noise reduction and RAW detail to RAW files which also helps considerably.
I don't consider the 35 f1.8 a cheap lens. Generally if I buy a lens and it doesn't test as good, no matter the cost, it goes back.
