Raw is it necessary

Graham00 said:
I would urge you to read this - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
it's like the Bible between raw v jpeg, it's made me stick to jpeg because the benefits for me give me no reason the shoot raw.
Click to expand...
Hear Hear ive tried it i dont like it its jpg for me from now:thumbs:
Quote KenRockwell
I never shoot raw. Why would I? Raw is a waste of time and space, and doesn't look any better than JPG even when you can open the files.
 
Ken Rockwell quote ' Raw is very popular for people shooting landscapes with digital cameras, which is not what digital cameras are for.' :eek: :lol:

Looks like I'll have to get a 4x5" film camera like Ken uses
for landscapes then. :bonk:

He comes out with some funny stuff. :lol:
 
I think there's a lot of confusion here!

The reasons for shooting raw include:

1. Not having to decide the white balance

2. Not having to set a colour space

3. Not having to set sharpness/contrast/saturation etc

when you take the picture.

Now, when you want to view a raw image on you computer, you need to use a raw converter, of which there are quite a few. Some of these converters also perform file management for you.

Raw data is (oversimplified) straight for the sensor, and it is not a standard, but is basically unique to each camera.

Photoshop includes a plug-in called Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), that can decode some of these formats. At some point, Adobe decide that they need to release a new version of Photoshop, and they will stop upgrading ACR for the old version. When this happens, any new cameras that come out will not be decodable by the old version, and you will have to upgrade.

Lightroom has ACR built-in, so when ACR is upgraded, a new sub-version of Lightroom is released. When Lightroom went from 1.x to 2.x, new cameras could not be decoded by Lightroom 1.x.

Aperture (which I use) is similar to Lightroom, except Apple are much slower at releasing updates for new cameras.

Now, all these converters allow the items stated above (and many more) to be adjusted on the computer in much more subtle and controllable ways, and they can be undone. Lightroom and Aperture (at least) allow any and all changes to be undone, and indeed never need to create a JPEG.

If you record JPEGs on your camera, the camera is the raw converter. The settings cannot be undone, and the tweaks that you might make in Photoshop cannot recover data that the camera's JPEG engine has thrown away.

If you're happy with the JPEGs your camera produces, that's fine, and ignore anyone that tells you different.

If you have the time and the inclination (and the cash) to use a raw converter, you can produce better results than your camera. But that's not for everybody. You can always this by taking some raw pictures and (say) downloading the free trial of Lightroom and importing them into it. (There is a wealth of Lightroom info on the web.) Play with controls and see what you think. JPEGs can be exported from the finished results if you need them.

Rich
 
Shooting RAW does not necessarily have to cost any extra money. You may get a RAW conversion program with your camera, but if not Rawtherapee is free :), and is on the verge of being upgraded to a new version. Not as user friendly as Adobe Camera Raw, but then it's not at least £50-£70 outlay for the latest Photoshop Elements (to get the latest ACR) or indeed the hundreds of £'s Adobe would like you to spend to get the latest Photoshop CS or Lightroom.

Picasa 3 (again free :)) can let you view and edit most RAW files too, though you get no extra edit options for editing.
 
redhed17 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes 4.6 is the latest version for CS3, there won't be any more updates for that version.
It's Adobes policy to stop support once a newer version is launched, if your cameras launched after that version of ACR chances are unless it's using the same RAW as a previous model you'll need CS4, or need to use the free DNG converter (from adobe) to first convert your raw to dng, which CS3 can open. Wayne
 
I personally shoot in RAW when im taking my nice arty-farty photos, etc, but for things where i'm firing off a lot of shots with a high turnaround, and quick upload needed, JPeg it is.
 
I was in the same situation recently, trying to work out if i should shoot in RAW or not.

I took some pictures in RAW + JPEG and then looked on the PC. Between the two there was not much difference on these pictures, but i felt i didnt captured the correct colour.

I played with the RAW file and changed the White Balance (something i could have done on the camera i know but i didn't think) and managed to rescue the picture.

See the results here

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=1511895#post1511895
 
swanseamale47 said:
Yes 4.6 is the latest version for CS3, there won't be any more updates for that version.
It's Adobes policy to stop support once a newer version is launched, if your cameras launched after that version of ACR chances are unless it's using the same RAW as a previous model you'll need CS4, or need to use the free DNG converter (from adobe) to first convert your raw to dng, which CS3 can open. Wayne
Click to expand...

Imho you shouldn't have to upgrade the main software to use ACR with newer cameras.

There was a major upgrade to ACR from CS2 to CS3 which gave more controls to convert the image. That was worth the upgrade.

Having the option to convert your RAW files to DNG just to continue to use ACR isn't right either. DNG is a format people are unwilling to embrace, and to try and force people into using it by being the only way to continue to use the whatever version of ACR they have with there new camera.


Luckily my version of ACR works with my camera, and I won't be changing my camera any time soon. I pity those who have ACR and have bought a new camera and they can't open the files out of it. :bonk:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top