Any reason not to shoot in RAW only?

HoppyUK said:
You upload files, and they're automatically saved in their native state. Adjustments are made and automatically listed and saved on a separate file as you go, then only applied to the native file when you output - with whatever adjustments were set when you last tweaked it. That's how it always stays lossless. Brilliant system :)
Click to expand...

You just showed why i dont get on wiht it.. I prefer to do the saving .. I want to do the file handling. I want 100% control . also sounds like a lot of HD space needed for all that..

Seriosuly, I did try it and others have said they have.. more than once.. I would really like to get the hang of it as the reviews are so good...

Maybe have another try...when i get a moment :)
 
MartynK said:
I struggled with LR ever time I tried it, but made a bit more effort when I downloaded the beta of LR4, and I decided that I like it after all. It still puzzles me a bit though. Could you explain how the upload and application of the adjustments works? I assume the original raw files aren't touched, or can be restored to their original state? Thanks.
Click to expand...

I just did. The original Raw file in never touched, and is automatically saved in whatever folder you've named (or by date I think, by default, if not) as you upload.

Adjustments are automaticallty saved separately and appear in a list on the left. You can edit or delete that list, or re-set and re-edit as much as you like. When you output, a copy of the original is made, with the last version of the adjustments applied to that. If you want to save separately, maybe a few versions of the same image, then output each one and save to your hard drive Pictures folder (or wherever you keep images).

I don't have LR4 yet. I'm waiting for Scott Kelby's new book to come out (in a few days) as I want to start afresh and try to unlearn some of the bad habits I've got into arranging my library. This one http://www.amazon.co.uk/Adobe-Photo...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335880525&sr=1-1

I would highly recommend a book for newcomers to LR. Not that it's hard at all, at least I didn't find it so which is quite something for me, but if you want to optimise your workflow, be able to locate images quickly, and know about so many things this programme will do that you might otherwise never know about, you need a book.

BTW, LR is a complete workflow programme. From uploading to editing, to outputting in numerous ways and library/archiving. It's a complete solution for 99% of what I do, but if there are things that it won't do, then you can plug-in another programme and integrate it with LR. Eg, I use Portrait Professional like that.
 
MartynK said:
I assume the original raw files aren't touched, or can be restored to their original state? Thanks.
Click to expand...

I think when you open it up it is left in the state you finished editing it in, but there is a Reset button to get back to how it defaults on initial loading.
 
KIPAX said:
You just showed why i dont get on wiht it.. I prefer to do the saving .. I want to do the file handling. I want 100% control . also sounds like a lot of HD space needed for all that..

Seriosuly, I did try it and others have said they have.. more than once.. I would really like to get the hang of it as the reviews are so good...

Maybe have another try...when i get a moment :)
Click to expand...

Tony, seriously give it another go. Get a book, and just do what you're told ;) over the first few pages. Build a proper foundation work base.

Maybe you have to unlearn some of your old ways of working and just trust the thing. I was a bit paranoid about saving finished images lest they get bu99ered up somehow by my fumbling fingers, but I've got over that now :D

But as I mentioned above, if you want to save finished images separately in another programme or hard drive or whatever, just export them and the edits will baked in there, with the virgin untouched originals still in LR (alongside a list of all the edits previously applied).
 
Thanks guys. Richard, I'm sure you did explain it, so let's just put it down to my inability to grasp what you were saying :). I just experimented with post processing in the LR4 beta - in the free trial - and didn't really explore the rest of it. I haven't bought it yet, and I'll certainly look for a book when I do.
 
lightroom...Well I just had a good old play... been a long time since I did... found it just as irritating to be honest..

You know what.. I couldnt even find the exit button.. I had to go into task manager and close it... it was full screen so couldnt get to anything ..

I managed to load some pics in... love the adjustment brush :)

but when i decided i didnt want to work on them i couldnt just load one pic from anywhere else to work on.. it was whole folder or nowt..

yes yes i do need to read the instructions... but i never ever used software before that i couldnt at least load and save files easy peasy

i will try again when i ahve more time... this is lightroom 3.6
 
Hate lightroom, user interface is terrible and i dont want or need libraries or the like, i just want to open from a given location, edit, caption and save and Elements does it all for me
 
Gary Coyle said:
Hate lightroom, user interface is terrible and i dont want or need libraries or the like, i just want to open from a given location, edit, caption and save and Elements does it all for me
Click to expand...

is elements just a cut down version of photoshop?
 
Since getting PS5 my whole idea of photography has changed. I am now finding the PP as much fun as the actual photography, more so in some respects, because I can do things PP that I will never be able to do without it. I shoot both, that way I have a JPEG to compare against.
 
Not sure how photoshop works.. mine says CS2 version 9 .. so is that PS9 or PS2 ?
 
Yep photoshop 5
 
Photodiva said:
I think its more about 'developing' your own picture, rather like in darkroom days. Not about letting the camera do it all.
Click to expand...

Yeah definitely, & if you're just someone who does various post production on their photographs simply 'cause they enjoy doing it & experimenting with new things, RAW is rather like having your toys & being able to play with them in different ways. I hope I'm making sense, just finished a twelve hour shift refitting a RI store & I'm knackered, reading this on la train home.

I'm another who just can't get on with Adobe Lightroom software. I had to use it whilst assisting a photographer back when Lightroom 2 was new out & never wanted to have a go when I shot my own stuff outside of work. Personal prefferances all over :}

munch said:
Since getting PS5 my whole idea of photography has changed. I am now finding the PP as much fun as the actual photography, more so in some respects, because I can do things PP that I will never be able to do without it. I shoot both, that way I have a JPEG to compare against.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have phrased it better myself!
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Hmmm... Not heard that before :thinking:
Click to expand...

Jan/March 2010 page 18 - Improved JPEG Workflow.
No I'm not that sad, I just happened to be reading it Monday morning on the train as I was thinking about getting a Mk4.

Matt
(OK it is very sad I know)
 
I shoot in Jpeg+RAW. I keep the Jpegs for everything as a reference but bin the RAW files on anything that is basically crap and I will never edit. Once I get to the point where every shot is a winner :lol: I will probably only shoot RAW.
 
I guess it all depends on what the photographs are for?
 
eye pad said:
I shoot in Jpeg+RAW. I keep the Jpegs for everything as a reference but bin the RAW files on anything that is basically crap and I will never edit. Once I get to the point where every shot is a winner :lol: I will probably only shoot RAW.
Click to expand...

No point since the JPEGs are identical to RAW you might as well shoot in RAW then use DPP to batch process them into JPEGs if you need to.

DPP will apply any styles you have set to the JPEGs.

And you can resize them to anything you want.

.
 
petersmart said:
No point since the JPEGs are identical to RAW you might as well shoot in RAW then use DPP to batch process them into JPEGs if you need to.

DPP will apply any styles you have set to the JPEGs.

And you can resize them to anything you want.

.
Click to expand...
Forgive my ignorance (and sorry to hijack the thread) but by batch process do you mean that I could convert a load of shots to Jpeg all at the same time rather than one at a time?
 
eye pad said:
Forgive my ignorance (and sorry to hijack the thread) but by batch process do you mean that I could convert a load of shots to Jpeg all at the same time rather than one at a time?
Click to expand...

Yes.


RAW is so easy to shoot I don't understand why people who have it choose not to. it doesn't slow down work flows unless every image that comes out of your camera is never adjusted if that's the case then fair play but all that money your spending on the latest and greatest body your throwing away most of the data your camera captures. I can understand shooting jpg in situations requiring high frame rates etc but I can't understand why people throw it away in other situations. :(
 
Last edited:
One other reason to shoot jpeg is if you're travelling with no PC and therefore no RAW converter. At least you will be able to view your jpegs on pretty much any hotel/internet cafe PC. Assuming you have portable storage or reliable internet availability (at reasonable speed), you can of course also copy your RAW files for safe keeping.
 
For all those that struggle with LR, I felt the same until i bought Scott Kelby's book. Fantastic and it explains it all very simply and in order. It even has workflow recommendations. Not only that it shows you things you can do that you would never even think of.
I still flick back through it occasionally. Failing that there are loads of online tutorials.
 
MartynK said:
Agreed. I shot raw + JPEG for a while but only use raw now. It works very well for me, but it's not a deal breaker, and you're not giving up anything by saving the images to both formats.

There's more controversy on these forums about shooting JPEG only.
Click to expand...

You are giving up a lot of space in your storage for basically nothing. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't most post editing software convert raw to jpeg automatically when you share them. If so how much time are you actually saving (for sending reason) excluding must have now situations.
 
It's quite simple really. If you want immediately usable images then shoot jpeg. If you want the best quality possible then shoot raw.

  • It is always possible to process the raw data to produce an image identical to the jpeg that would have been produced in-camera.
  • Unless the in-camera settings were 100% perfect at the time of shooting then it is always possible to produce an image from the raw data that is better than the jpeg that would have been produced by the camera.
  • If the in-camera settings were close to perfect then the image from the raw data may be imperceptibly better than the jpeg from the camera.
 
KIPAX said:
RAW Shooters...Are all your pictures so bad that you need to do so much work on them ?
Click to expand...

Your poorly-veiled attempt at trolling, together with the tedious LOL I'M JUST JOKING smileyface, is really rather like asking film photographers why they bother developing their photos themselves instead of just taking it to their local Boots.

Clearly photography isn't an artistic pursuit to you, but that's not a good reason to take snide potshots at those who wish to take a more creative route with their own work.
 
onona said:
Your poorly-veiled attempt at trolling, together with the tedious LOL I'M JUST JOKING smileyface, is really rather like asking film photographers why they bother developing their photos themselves instead of just taking it to their local Boots.

Clearly photography isn't an artistic pursuit to you, but that's not a good reason to take snide potshots at those who wish to take a more creative route with their own work.
Click to expand...

Kettle, pot, non white
 
onona said:
Your poorly-veiled attempt at trolling, together with the tedious LOL I'M JUST JOKING smileyface,.
Click to expand...

shame you didnt read the rest of the thread before your personal attack...
 
pablo_paul said:
Yes.


RAW is so easy to shoot I don't understand why people who have it choose not to. it doesn't slow down work flows unless every image that comes out of your camera is never adjusted if that's the case then fair play but all that money your spending on the latest and greatest body your throwing away most of the data your camera captures. I can understand shooting jpg in situations requiring high frame rates etc but I can't understand why people throw it away in other situations. :(
Click to expand...
Bit contradictory there fella, first of all you say it doesnt slow work rate down which is absolute twaddle, you say you dont understand why people who have RAW dont use it then go on to say you can understand where shooting in certain situations (fast fps) its OK, make your mind up. :bang:
 
Shooting in RAW gives photographers a ridiculous amount of creative control compared to JPEG. I didn't even realise this myself 'til recently when I began learning to work with RAW conversions in Photoshop. I'm not looking back!
 
Last edited:
redhed17 said:
No it isn't. It depends on what processing software you have/use.:shrug:
Click to expand...

Yes it is. With a Canon raw file one can use DPP to create a jpeg identical to that produced by the camera. I presume that the Nikon software can do the same. Besides, all raw files contain en embedded jpeg, produced using the in-camera settings. Extracting that embedded jpeg is simple.
 
onona said:
Your poorly-veiled attempt at trolling, together with the tedious LOL I'M JUST JOKING smileyface, is really rather like asking film photographers why they bother developing their photos themselves instead of just taking it to their local Boots.

Clearly photography isn't an artistic pursuit to you, but that's not a good reason to take snide potshots at those who wish to take a more creative route with their own work.
Click to expand...

That's extremely harsh Leigh. The thread has move on and, until now, no-one took offence at Tony's post, not that there was anything to take offence at. I really do think that you have misinterpreted.
 
hollis_f said:
Yes it is. With a Canon raw file one can use DPP to create a jpeg identical to that produced by the camera. I presume that the Nikon software can do the same. Besides, all raw files contain en embedded jpeg, produced using the in-camera settings. Extracting that embedded jpeg is simple.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said it depends on what software you have or use. ;)

If you don't have the the software that came with your camera, or have found software that can extract an embedded Jpeg, (usually low quality) then you will find it quite hard to get the Jpeg rendered from a RAW file to look the same as the camera would have done it, with the Picture Styles and other settings that were set in the camera.

Obviously this is if you want the Jpeg from the RAW file to be as it would have been processed by the camera, I try and get the RAW file to look how I remember it, or how I think it looks best to me. ;)

All 3rd party RAW processing software, as far as I know, ignore nearly all the settings used by the camera.
 
redhed17 said:
Which is why I said it depends on what software you have or use.
Click to expand...

Oh wow! Yes, how stupid off me. I should have made it plainer.

Yes, you can create a jpeg exactly the same as that the camera would have produced. But only if...
  • You have the right software.
  • You have a computer.
  • You have an IQ higher than a sea-squirt.
 
hollis_f said:
Oh wow! Yes, how stupid off me. I should have made it plainer.

Yes, you can create a jpeg exactly the same as that the camera would have produced. But only if...
  • You have the right software.
  • You have a computer.
  • You have an IQ higher than a sea-squirt.
Click to expand...

Oh, OK if we're being arsy and pedantic, you may not actually need a computer. On some cameras you can produce a Jpeg from the recorded RAW file in camera, with either the settings that were set when the picture was taken, or on my camera at least, changing some settings when it processes the RAW file to make the Jpeg. It is obviously a slow and laborious method, but the option is there.

And how would you 'simply' extract the embedded Jpeg btw if not without some software you may have to find? :shrug:

And I was also pointing out that an embedded Jpeg may be a low quality basic one too. Again, on my camera I can produce a Basic, Normal or Fine Jpeg from the RAW file in camera.

Sorry for trying to make things a bit clearer for anyone reading this. :shrug:
 
I was going to start a thread to ask bout this, but this seems as good a place as any.
I don't think this forum has the zero tolerance towards duplicate threads as one or two I've used, but no need to start another thread I think.

I know the two main benefits of RAW are being to correct/adjust WB and also much more scope for editing exposure in images, but if you aren't going to be altering the WB and only to intend to do a small amount of tweaking of exposure - if it all - is there any point to shooting RAW in the first place?

I ask this because I came home with a full 16gb card from a day motorsport shooting yesterday and as it was all outdoors there are no WB issues, and not much exposure issues to deal with either, so all the recommended RAW format has caused me is a load of extra time sorting and converting the images; so I wish I'd just shot jpeg - am I right in thinking this? If nothing else my card wouldn't filled up so quickly!

Is there any other major reason for shooting RAW?
 
I always shoot RAW it retains the most information, Also a good idea to do as little editing to your photos as well and save them to another lossless format like a tiff, If at the end of the day your gonna print them to any good reasonable size you want as much quality as possible.

But Jpegs have there place and there great for low rez applications like websites, snapshots etc.
 
Hotshots said:
But Jpegs have there place and there great for low rez applications like websites, snapshots etc.
Click to expand...

??


Newspapers, magazines, books, prints, TV, posters and much much more.. In fact I can't think of anyhting jpgs can't be used for.. saying good for low rez apps is a little OTT ? IMHO :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top