I am a huge fan of the Discovery Channel show, Mythbusters. Part science, part stuff blowing up and part people getting hurt (in the name of science), so what's not to like?

Photo credit: www.discoverychannel.ca

Jamie: "What do you got for us, Adam?" Adam: "You're gonna like this one. We are looking at myths related to the RAW format".


The RAW format is a recurring topic when talking photography with fellow photo enthusiasts, based on their questions and preconceived ideas it's time bust three myths:


1 -- RAW images are too large, and take up waaayy too much space on my memory card not to speak of my hard drive for no good.
2 -- RAW is too much trouble. You need to do a ton of post-process work in order to make the image look as good as the JPG images I normally shoot.
3 -- I don't really see an upside to shooting RAW. At least not one that outweighs the downsides.

To have a fair, unbiased test basis, that would make the Mythbusters gang proud, all the images for this post were shot using the camera's RAW+JPG setting. Meaning every time the camera takes a shots two identical photos (one RAW and one JPG) are recorded to the memory card.

Myth #1: RAW files are waaaayy too big

True, RAW files are bigger than JPG files, but they are not too big. At least not with today's memory prices . This was a somewhat valid concern 3-5 years ago, but not so today.

The reason the RAW files are bigger is that RAW is the 'rawest' format (hence the name) your camera can shoot in. Everything the image sensor 'sees' is saved to the memory card without any processing other than attaching basic shooting information, such as time, date, file#, aperture setting, ISO, etc. That's it. No in-camera processing or compression takes place. What's weird is that the format is so 'raw' we cannot even see a RAW picture, so a temporary JPG copy of the image is processed by your camera (for viweing on the back LCD screen) and computer to view it on the monitor.

↑ RAW image (left) and JPG image (right) straight out of the camera. No post-processing. Note that the histograms look pretty much identical meaning that the RAW file may be larger, but straight out of the camera and with normal processing it looks the same as the JPG image.

↓ Processed images. RAW image (left) and JPG image (right).

Makes sense? A good analogy is the film negative. Back in the good ol' film days when you had a roll of film developed you had to have the film printed in order to enjoy and share your pictures. You couldn't really do that with just the negatives. Same thing goes for RAW files, they have to be 'developed' to JPG format before you can enjoy and share them. Thankfully, the 'development' happens automatically in your camera and computer without the smelly chemicals.

Myth #2: RAW files are too much trouble

Some of you may be thinking: "what's wrong with JPG all of the sudden?" Absolutely nothing. I love JPG. It's a fantastic format for compressing images, or put another way, great for throwing away data with almost no visible effect when you do not need it. Everyday situations were you don't need all your image data include posting images on facebook, sharing pictures via email and printing 4x6" prints.

Getting to the usable JPG image is as easy as 1-2-3. First import RAW images from camera to computer. Here you get a preview (showed on right-hand side below). Secondly, make the same edits (if any at all) as you would make to your JPG images, such as exposure and cropping, shown on the left-hand side below here.

↑ Normal editing of RAW image (left) and preview of RAW file on a Mac (right).

↓ Lastly, you simply export and save the RAW file as a JPG image that you can use for sharing online, emailing or printing.

Because the software does the heavy lifting, there really isn't much trouble with RAW files. Easy-peasy!


Myth #3: OK, so RAW isn't that much trouble but honestly what's the upside to shooting RAW?

Let's revisit the analogy from the film days. Like a film negative a RAW file is never changed. No matter how you edit the file (over-saturated, black and white, high key exposure, etc.), the RAW/negative remains the same. That's a pretty sweet deal! Alterations made to a JPG image stays there forever. My first 3000 digital shots were saved as JPGs. Today the edits I originally made two-three years ago are still there, and that's not always a good thing. Sigh!

OK, so that's one upside to shooting RAW. What else is there? Good question. Instead of telling you, let me show you. Take a look at the histogram below. Any part of the bottom grey graph that touches the right-hand side is pure white in image, which not very much in nature is. The image was clearly overexposed most easily seen by the sky blending perfectly in with the white background of this blog.


↑ Overexposed image. RAW image (left) and JPG image (right).

↓ Corrected overexposed image. RAW image (left) and JPG image (right).

Now look at the histograms above that tell a different story. The graph on the left (the RAW image) no longer has any part of the grey touching the right-hand side, meaning all the pure white in the image has been 'pulled back' to their original color. This is opposed to the JPG image (on the right) where you still have part of the grey graph touching the right-hand side.

See for yourself: the sky in the left-hand photo no longer blends in with the pure white background of the blog which is not true for the right-hand JPG. Also note that the RAW image is crisper and the colors are less washed out compared to the JPG image after 'pulling back' the lost details. This is simply possible because the RAW image contains more original photo data to work with than the compressed JPG image.

↓ The same is true for underexposed images all though to a lesser extent. On the left is the RAW image and on the right is the JPG image.

↑ Overexposed image corrected. RAW format on left and JPG format on right.

When the image detail has been 'pulled out' from the darker areas the RAW image again comes out on top with crisper details and less smudged colors compared to the JPG image.

Myths busted!

Next time you pick up your camera try setting it to shoot RAW format. Granted there is a small learning curve as to how you get the RAW files saved to usable JPGs, but it's a small curve and your images will still be there waiting for you to 'climb it'. You can easily find a program to do the work for you. Start using the proprietary software that came with your camera. If that's not your cup of tea, I suggest the relatively inexpensive Adobe Elements . Heck, even Google's free Picasa does the job. So really, there is nothing to loose. You'll thank me in the long run. Trust me.

For the technically interested: All shots were grabbed with the Nikon D700 paired with Nikon's 105mm f2.8 VR micro lens. A great lens and the only macro lens with built-in stabilization which makes it ideal for handheld close-up photography. For some reason (maybe an engineer @ Nikon can explain this) the lens exhibits less chromatic aberration (purple fringing) on the D700 compared to when I shot it on the D300. Hmm?! All shots are with natural, beautiful light on a sunny Vancouver afternoon.

Message Edited by klausboedker on 06-07-2009 12:08 AM
Message Edited by ElizabethS on 07-25-2009 11:59 PM
Message Edited by Laura on 08-21-2009 10:56 AM