Raw is it necessary

R

raythefab

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,145
Edit My Images
Yes
Ive never shot in raw before, now i am trying to learn cs2 with the help of the scott kelby book is it a must that i shoot in Raw it seems a bit daunting to me:)
 
RAW isn't that difficult, it just may seem that way initially.

Best way to tackle it is to take some working shots. Doesn't need to be anything spectacular, just something to work with.

Then whilst you're getting used to RAW continue to shoot jpeg. Once you are comfortable with RAW then switch.

Alternatively you could set the camera to shoot RAW + JPEG but it will use up more card space.
 
I'd say "yes" - raw is effectively the negative of a digital pic.a jpeg is more akin to a Polaroid image, where the camera has already done the processing for you and in doing so has discarded a lot of the detail you camera has captured.
 
Shooting raw files isn't daunting - look at it this way; you shoot a JPEG and then open it up, resize it, adjust the curves and levels and then output it for print. With raw files, you open them in S, the raw editor window comes up, you sharpen, adjust the levels etc, and then set the output size, press okay and the image appears as a final print quality, Save it and there you go.

Raw is great because it gives you bags more details in the highlights and deep shadows than JPEG ever will. It's only the larger file size and slightly different processing route that differs when you're touching them up
 
Thank you guys i will give it a go with one camera and jpgs with the other until i get the hang of it cheers:)
 
I was like you, up until a few months ago.
The thing that put me off was the time you have to spend editing. At least with JPEG you can just load them onto the PC, and away you go!

But once you see the difference in the two, there's no turning back.
You have more control over RAW's. An over (or under) exposed shot can be rescued very well in RAW. A JPEG isn't that easy, if not impossible to rescue.

There's also a way of editing a whole batch of RAW's using Adobe Bridge.
Which saves time doing each one individually.

I would never go back to JPEG now!
 
I'd say - it depends

How useful is that !!! :lol:

In the studio environment there's no real benefit in shooting in raw over jpeg as there's no need for altering such as exposure or white balance (assuming it's set correctly in the first place!); but it does take up a huge amount of extra card & harddrive space

For everywhere else where there's less certainty, then raw can certainly be more useful for its latitude for adjustment

So, it depends on what you're trying to achieve and to a large extent how good you are at getting everything right at capture, against how much PP work you expect to do too

If in doubt - shoot raw

:)

DD
 
Using lightroom I don't see how RAW means any more effort than JPG, it's just greater detail traded off against storage space.
 
mid_gen said:
Using lightroom I don't see how RAW means any more effort than JPG, it's just greater detail traded off against storage space.
Click to expand...

Well for one thing not everyone has good PP software, so jpegs are great in that you can shoot & print more easily

DD
 
In answer to your original question, no it's not necessary, but it is better when you learn how to use it properly. Wayne
 
It shouldn't be daunting, as you don't have to do anything different. If you use anything like Lightroom or Aperture, then you can set up a standard process on import (or just use the default). Zero effort required and nothing different to working with JPEGs.

It just gives you the option to do more should you wish to.
 
raythefab said:
Thank you guys i will give it a go with one camera and jpgs with the other until i get the hang of it cheers:)
Click to expand...

Can you not set your camera to shoot RAW + jpeg then you'll have both.

I shoot RAW + a low resolution jpeg (but I could use a high res jpeg setting if I wanted) so I can have a quick look to see if I want to keep the RAW file.

Once I started with RAW there was no going back.
 
Hugely necessary IMHO. I switched around 6 months ago and I'd never shoot a Jpeg now.
 
Lasagne said:
The title of this thread should so have been :

'RAW - what is it good for ?'
Click to expand...
Ok go start one, but on a serious note im going to give Raw a fair chance and see how it goes thanks to everybody for the advice...Ray:thumbs:
 
RAW is a necessity to me; It's like the choice between shooting film and developing it yourself or sending it off to some automated machine that tries to do what it thinks works based on the film (and then summararily burns the negatives) in my mind.
 
HELPive just took some shots in Raw but cs2 tell me it cant open them its the wrong kind of document:)
also which Raw do i use +L OR +M 0r +S
 
Lasagne said:
The title of this thread should so have been :

'RAW - what is it good for ?'[/QUOTEa

Absolutly nothing.

say it again

lol.



I do shoot in jpeg.

would love to give raw a real bash but lightroom confuses me so much i removed the prog as it over road everything else and got on me pip.

what other prog could i use possibly free.
Click to expand...
 
jolsterj said:
Lasagne said:
The title of this thread should so have been :

'RAW - what is it good for ?'[/QUOTEa

Absolutly nothing.

say it again

lol.



I do shoot in jpeg.

would love to give raw a real bash but lightroom confuses me so much i removed the prog as it over road everything else and got on me pip.

what other prog could i use possibly free.
Click to expand...
Ive been using ACDSEE Pro if thats any use to you:)
Click to expand...
 
andy_fozzy said:
I was like you, up until a few months ago.
The thing that put me off was the time you have to spend editing. At least with JPEG you can just load them onto the PC, and away you go!

But once you see the difference in the two, there's no turning back.
You have more control over RAW's. An over (or under) exposed shot can be rescued very well in RAW. A JPEG isn't that easy, if not impossible to rescue.

There's also a way of editing a whole batch of RAW's using Adobe Bridge.
Which saves time doing each one individually.

I would never go back to JPEG now!
Click to expand...

same!
agree fully
 
raythefab said:
HELPive just took some shots in Raw but cs2 tell me it cant open them its the wrong kind of document:)
also which Raw do i use +L OR +M 0r +S
Click to expand...

Just shoot RAW. RAW+L creates the RAW file and a large JPEG. +M and +S are medium and small JPEGS.

WRT not being able to open it. You probably need to download a newer plug-in for ACR. Or possibly with a 40D you need CS3, I'm not sure.
 
DavePaliwoda said:
RAW is a necessity to me; It's like the choice between shooting film and developing it yourself or sending it off to some automated machine that tries to do what it thinks works based on the film (and then summararily burns the negatives) in my mind.
Click to expand...

Or one could say jpegs like shooting slide film where you needed the skill to nail it in the camera and raw is like shooting negative for the safety of the extra exposure latititude.

Just a raw shooter and old time film man playing devils advocate. ;)
 
Paul-S said:
Or one could say jpegs like shooting slide film where you needed the skill to nail it in the camera and raw is like shooting negative for the safety of the extra exposure latititude.

Just a raw shooter and old time film man playing devils advocate. ;)
Click to expand...
Just as a matter of interest Paul - I see that like me you're using Olympus gear - what software do you use please?
 
Very inspirational thread if I may say so.

I have never bothered with RAW simply because I am scared of it, scared of the unknown if you like.

I recently got myself CS4 and swore to have a go with RAW but never have.

Back in Dec I took a few shots in RAW at the WRC and after reading this thread decided to have a play around with them.

I see where you are all coming from......
 
Paul-S said:
Or one could say jpegs like shooting slide film where you needed the skill to nail it in the camera and raw is like shooting negative for the safety of the extra exposure latititude.

Just a raw shooter and old time film man playing devils advocate. ;)
Click to expand...

I was going to say that ;)
 
I honestly would be too nervous to shoot in jpeg, just in case there is that one shot that could be amazing with a few changes if it were shot in RAW!
 
Ok so ive decided to shoot in Raw, is there any other settings i need to tweak or do i just leave everything else alone ie picture standard etc etc etc
 
I shot a family gathering and my friend and her daughters were all wearing white. The original shot was blown and all the white became a mass. Luckily I shot RAW so I played with the exposure slider and it revealed all the details, shooing JPEG would have left me very red faced that day.

Since this day I only shoot RAW. :thumbs:
 
raythefab said:
Ok so ive decided to shoot in Raw, is there any other settings i need to tweak or do i just leave everything else alone ie picture standard etc etc etc
Click to expand...

The in camera settings will only affect the image you see on your LCD screen, not the image that you upload to the computer. For example, you could set the camera to B&W and you would see B&W images on the LCD screen but the images you upload will still be in colour and you would need to do the conversion yourself.
 
DiddyDave said:
I'd say - it depends

How useful is that !!! :lol:

In the studio environment there's no real benefit in shooting in raw over jpeg as there's no need for altering such as exposure or white balance (assuming it's set correctly in the first place!); but it does take up a huge amount of extra card & harddrive space

For everywhere else where there's less certainty, then raw can certainly be more useful for its latitude for adjustment

So, it depends on what you're trying to achieve and to a large extent how good you are at getting everything right at capture, against how much PP work you expect to do too

If in doubt - shoot raw

:)

DD
Click to expand...

Don't you worry about detail in the shadowed areas when shooting in a studio? I'm genuinely interested in how much of a consideration this would be as I have not yet done any studio work, but hope to when funds allow.:)
 
hmm, thought I'd give RAW a play as well, as seems to be all the rage - if i don't like it, what have I lost? Nothing.

Went out yesterday with Pentax K-m and shot loads of working pics in RAW - nothing special, just to have a play with, but CS3 won't open them. Tried using Adobe Bridge and File>Open With>photoshop CS3 - again didn't work.
 
Lynton said:
hmm, thought I'd give RAW a play as well, as seems to be all the rage - if i don't like it, what have I lost? Nothing.

Went out yesterday with Pentax K-m and shot loads of working pics in RAW - nothing special, just to have a play with, but CS3 won't open them. Tried using Adobe Bridge and File>Open With>photoshop CS3 - again didn't work.
Click to expand...


raythefab said:
HELPive just took some shots in Raw but cs2 tell me it cant open them its the wrong kind of document:)
Click to expand...

Jayst84 said:
WRT not being able to open it. You probably need to download a newer plug-in for ACR. Or possibly with a 40D you need CS3, I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

Not too up on the digi Pentaxs, but The K-m is a very new camera isn't it? If so, you may need new drivers, or possibly CS4.
 
raythefab said:
Ive been using ACDSEE Pro if thats any use to you:)
Click to expand...

Whilst ACDSee is great for viewing and somewhat organising images, i have never thought of their software as a great for photo editing. For RAW in my view, you would be much better by using a proper RAW conversion software that is designed for it (like Lightroom, Bibble, Aperture etc). If budget is a problem for this then use a free alternatives - one that comes immediately to mind is Rawtherapee - despite being in RC state it is very good for free software and can compete in quality of the conversion with the "big guns".
 
dalex_257 said:
Whilst ACDSee is great for viewing and somewhat organising images, i have never thought of their software as a great for photo editing. For RAW in my view, you would be much better by using a proper RAW conversion software that is designed for it (like Lightroom, Bibble, Aperture etc). If budget is a problem for this then use a free alternatives - one that comes immediately to mind is Rawtherapee - despite being in RC state it is very good for free software and can compete in quality of the conversion with the "big guns".
Click to expand...
Budget isnt a problem its brain power thats the problem, i will persevere for a while and see how it goes:)
 
Ok ive got another problem now:thinking:
why the hell arent things easier how do you get your photos into Rawtherepy:(
 
OK, with my problem, seems that CS3 needed some sort of patch / update in order to be able to process Pentax RAW - so went to adobes website and they have Camera RAW 5.3, which is compatible with CS4 but not CS3 - nothing there for CS3 whatsoever.

Grrrr.
 
You need Camera Raw 4.6, which is available here, and is compatible with CS3.

That's the Window$ version btw. Just do a search on the Adobe site for Camera Raw 4.6 if you want the Apple version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top