Any point in shooting in RAW if i dont tweak the image?

topcat07

topcat07

Suspended / Banned
Messages
431
Edit My Images
Yes
Been shooting in RAW to experiment but if i am not doing anything with the image in post processing is there any point? would the image quality be the same as JPEG fine detail?

Or am i best shooting in RAW and then using a computer to do conversion for less loss on the image quality? :shrug:

would be ideal if i could shoot in raw + fine but only have raw + basic jpeg
 
Have being wondering this myself. I think ill have a play and see what happens with photoshop
 
IIRC JPEG means the camera does its own processing, which may result in a different photo compared to one you take in RAW and then immediately convert to JPEG. You won't have applied sharpness/colour correction etc that the camera may do.
 
omens said:
IIRC JPEG means the camera does its own processing, which may result in a different photo compared to one you take in RAW and then immediately convert to JPEG. You won't have applied sharpness/colour correction etc that the camera may do.
Click to expand...

would it be better to shoot in RAW and get the PC to do auto processing then compared to the cameras auto process ?
 
I went RAW when I read an article by an Italian wedding photographer that said he could process his images faster in RAW than JPEG. He claimed to process 300 images an hour, so he wasn't doing much more than review, selection and keywords with an occasional tweak.
I gave it a go and have never looked back. I'm not as fast as him, I reckon on 'only' 200 images an hour from covering a typical concert, festival or a local event :)
That was back in the early days of RAW using Raw Shooter Essentials; it evolved into Lightroom :)

Also, Canon and Nikon RAW file sizes use lossless compression and are often only about 3 times the size of the best quality JPEG; so the storage overhead of using RAW isn't 'that' bad and I'd much rather have the RAW in case I've mucked up the Exposure / White Balance or I need to do some dodging and burning.
 
topcat07 said:
Been shooting in RAW to experiment but if i am not doing anything with the image in post processing is there any point?
Click to expand...

Being able to process a RAW file is its whole point. You can maximise the result by your intervention, and make it what you want within its possibilities. It's about control and it seems a sorry substitute to relinquish that. Controlling the exposure comes first, and modifying its output comes second. A camera can't know what you want!
 
It really depends on what you want. If you're the type that basically "gets it right in camera" and do very little PP then arguably high quality JPEG may well suffice for your needs. That said the RAW is effectively a digital negative that can't be altered (well theoretically it can, but that's a whole different discussion), and retains the most detail that a digital image can meaning a lot of flexibility when editing.

As an extreme example: if your camera is in JPEG mode and you've set it to black and white then that image will forever be in black and white. In RAW you'll see it as black and white on the camera, but all of the colour information will still be there, and you'll have a lot of leeway in terms of how you convert it to black and white.
 
one other thing - you might not want to tweak the image now, but if you shoot in raw you'll have the potential to come back and tweak later if you want.

also memory is so cheap these days if you want an instant jpeg you may as well shoot raw and jpeg.
 
unless for example you need the shots really quickly , or you need to send them into a picture desk directly from the field... that's two circumstances where it might be appropriate to shoot jpeg.. there's probably others

the jpeg/raw argument is as daft as film/digital or Canon/Nikon - at the end of the a good photographer uses whatever tool he needs to get it done
 
thanks for all your comments very help helpful and appreciated
 
topcat07 said:
just realized how stupid it is not to shoot in RAW now after watching some of this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S66M04rFno

Just concerned on how much conversion would need to be done to get 200 photos to prints from RAW
Click to expand...

you can always batch it - if all that's required is a basic conversion

Also you get pretty quick with practice - tbh because you can do nearly everything in lightroom (or whatever) its probably no more time consuming than editing jpegs in photoshop
 
big soft moose said:
the jpeg/raw argument is as daft as film/digital or Canon/Nikon - at the end of the a good photographer uses whatever tool he needs to get it done
Click to expand...

Yes, agreed, but exposure modification at the taking stage can be a valuable basic technique - I see a lot of jpg's with blown highlights ...
 
no argument here - this is why I always shoot wedding in raw. But I shoot record only shots in jpeg , just to save faffing about with lightroom when the shot doesn't need any other PP
 
topcat07 said:
jJust concerned on how much conversion would need to be done to get 200 photos to prints from RAW
Click to expand...

Worth bearing in mind that most people rarely print 200 images.
I only print a handful each month.

If you use Lightroom, then in theory you only need to Export/convert the images once you have a purpose; like A3 print, small print, web gallery, email.
Each purpose needs different size images and different media needs different sharpening techniques. If the same image is needed for something else, then it needs to be re-exported using different settings.

One reason Lightroom is fast is it doesn't change the RAW files, it only builds up a recipe which it applies to the image on-the-fly.
Hence the only conversion is when the image is exported (for a purpose) - then it's OK let the computer sweat a little. :)
 
barratt1988 said:
Pointless having the raw facility anf shooting jpeg. PP is a big part of photography as was the dark room in the film days
Click to expand...
Agreed.
I shoot exclusively in RAW and i have tried in jpeg. Jpeg files have fewer variables. There are costs re buffer capacity but unless you are shooting sports etc with multi exposures, stick to RAW. IMHO
 
You will be glad you shot RAW when you you have to perform major editing to salvage a fluffed shot. It happens, sometimes you only get time for one shot.
 
A good thing about RAW is that you can be quite safe in the knowledge that if you need to quickly get a shot and have no time to adjust the camera settings, so long as the photo is in focus it's likely you can recover a blown or under exposed shot much more successfully than you can with JPEG.

For me, I can't see any reason to shoot JPEG unless you are just taking photos of items you want to sell on eBay.
 
IkariWarrior said:
A good thing about RAW is that you can be quite safe in the knowledge that if you need to quickly get a shot and have no time to adjust the camera settings, so long as the photo is in focus it's likely you can recover a blown or under exposed shot much more successfully than you can with JPEG.

For me, I can't see any reason to shoot JPEG unless you are just taking photos of items you want to sell on eBay.
Click to expand...

didnt think of it like that

thats very handy information because sometimes as you say there is no time to get the perfect settings
 
IkariWarrior said:
A good thing about RAW is that you can be quite safe in the knowledge that if you need to quickly get a shot and have no time to adjust the camera settings, so long as the photo is in focus it's likely you can recover a blown or under exposed shot much more successfully than you can with JPEG.

For me, I can't see any reason to shoot JPEG unless you are just taking photos of items you want to sell on eBay.
Click to expand...

Exactly the reason I shoot RAW. I have a 5 year old son and quick shots are a must as he doesn't hang around. If it's sharp and about 80% correct exposure wise, it can be edited nicely in PS.
 
Must admit I've been photographing at all levels at some point over the 25 years I've had an interest in photography. I've done it as a job & as a hobby.
I always shoot in raw but before I do anything I convert them into tiff then into photoshop.

I've never ever felt I'm missing out on anything.
Am I ?
If so what.

All I do these days is photograph stuff for myself.
 
drexyl said:
Must admit I've been photographing at all levels at some point over the 25 years I've had an interest in photography. I've done it as a job & as a hobby.
I always shoot in raw but before I do anything I convert them into tiff then into photoshop.

I've never ever felt I'm missing out on anything.
Am I ?
If so what.

All I do these days is photograph stuff for myself.
Click to expand...

Why are you converting 1st? Just open it in acr then photoshop
 
Hi Adam,

I used to shoot JPEG's, and noticed some hot pixels from my camera which are normal, and pretty much all cameras have them.

I now always shoot in RAW because the raw processors in Lightroom, Adobe Photoshop etc automatically remove these hot pixels from the photographs on import.

So even if you don't edit them, it's always good to know that you won't have hot pixels in your final images.

Thanks! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top