Raw or not?

C

cam1986

Suspended / Banned
Messages
815
Name
Anthony
Edit My Images
No
Seen lots of talk on Raw.

How many of you shoot in Raw, or Jpeg or both.

I am new to all this so have it on Jpeg. Got a ton to learn!
 
I do not think there is a right or wrong to this but for me personally i shoot raw. As I am still on that long styeep learning curve it gives me a chance in PP to correct any mistakes i might have made.

spike
 
Another vote for RAW + small jpeg. RAW will give you more flexibility.
 
Most definitely Raw, there are times like when shooting fast moving sports and other such jpg may be better, but I usually just stick to Raw
 
If you have full control of your lighting, exposure and white balance - sometimes jpegs alone are fine - but in mixed lighting or to give you a workable margin of error RAW will give you much more flexibility.

Try manipulating a couple of RAW images in your software and prepare to have your eyes opened at the options available and what level of detail is recorded
 
I used jpeg only when I started out with my DSLR, I then changed to used both.
 
Yep RAW + JPEG, since reading various posts and starting to shoot in RAW I do not know why I did not start earlier. You get may options in LR3 to correct the picture especially WB.
 
RAW fro me too- I like to have the ability to correct some mistakes - and lets be honest- we all make them

Les :thumbs:
 
Thing is, its all very well using RAW as long as one can fix the mistakes. I haven't a clue how to manipulate shots. Its another part of the learning process i guess.

Any good programs to use to convert RAW that don't cost the earth.
 
cam1986 said:
Thing is, its all very well using RAW as long as one can fix the mistakes. I haven't a clue how to manipulate shots. Its another part of the learning process i guess.

Any good programs to use to convert RAW that don't cost the earth.
Click to expand...

Shooting RAW isn't just about fixing mistakes (although it is very good for that :D) but it's also allows you to bring out the best in a photo. For example, I just processed a landscape shot from China that was taken on a very hazy day and I was able to remove most of the haze and give the pic a bit of "pop" by improving the richness of the colours (and a bunch of other things). I could only do this because it was RAW.

Basically, photos these days benefit from just as much "developing" as they used to, except now it's done on computers and not in dark rooms. I use Adobe Lightroom 3 for this, which is very quick and easy once you've got the hang of it. You'll see it recommended by quite a few folk round here, but only you can decide if you think it costs the earth or not.
 
cam1986 said:
Thing is, its all very well using RAW as long as one can fix the mistakes. I haven't a clue how to manipulate shots. Its another part of the learning process i guess.

Any good programs to use to convert RAW that don't cost the earth.
Click to expand...

+1 with that mate. At the mo I would have no idea how to manipulate a RAW image. I've looked at the various software programmes which all look like nuclear physics to sort out. If there was an absolute idiot, dumb ass proof software programme I might go for it.

Paul
 
Lightroom looks great but still complicated at the mo. Can one try a demo of it?
 
cam1986 said:
Lightroom looks great but still complicated at the mo.
Click to expand...

I agree, but it's actually not too complicated. I bet if you'd never used Microsoft Excel to add some numbers before, then that would look complicated too? Sure, there's a learning curve, and lightroom does much more than just edit photos, but there's a massive number of help/guides/tutorials/videos/forums that can get you up to speed if you give it a bit of time.

At a basic level, lightroom is quick and easy because most of the main things you'd want to do to a photo are all on sliders. You simply grab and move them with your mouse and you see the effect instantly on the image. All the heavy lifting is done for you. For example, say you think "hey, my photo looks a bit dull" then you grab the Vibrance slider and play around with it to see if it improves things. Chances are it will, but if you don't like the effect, just move the slider back again. What's actually happening behind the scenes is that lightroom is performing a whole bunch to complex calculations to identify which colours might need boosting, then boosting them. But you don't need to know that, and you probably don't want to know that. All you need to do is move the sliders around until your photo looks better. It's about as simple photo editing as you can get really. With a bit of practice you can make most pictures look better in less then 30 seconds just be moving some sliders. That's why I like it.
 
Xenon54 said:
I agree, but it's actually not too complicated. I bet if you'd never used Microsoft Excel to add some numbers before, then that would look complicated too? Sure, there's a learning curve, and lightroom does much more than just edit photos, but there's a massive number of help/guides/tutorials/videos/forums that can get you up to speed if you give it a bit of time.

At a basic level, lightroom is quick and easy because most of the main things you'd want to do to a photo are all on sliders. You simply grab and move them with your mouse and you see the effect instantly on the image. All the heavy lifting is done for you. For example, say you think "hey, my photo looks a bit dull" then you grab the Vibrance slider and play around with it to see if it improves things. Chances are it will, but if you don't like the effect, just move the slider back again. What's actually happening behind the scenes is that lightroom is performing a whole bunch to complex calculations to identify which colours might need boosting, then boosting them. But you don't need to know that, and you probably don't want to know that. All you need to do is move the sliders around until your photo looks better. It's about as simple photo editing as you can get really. With a bit of practice you can make most pictures look better in less then 30 seconds just be moving some sliders. That's why I like it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Makes me want to really give it a go now. :thumbs:
 
I always shoot RAW+JPEG Fine.

When I get onto my laptop and start looking at them, I see which ones are good and work on the RAW files. When I've done all the work I want on the decent ones, I delete the unedited RAW (keep the edited ones). Then, I just keep hold of all the jpegs, crap and good.

Works for me.
 
RAW + JPEG for me, although I rarely ever ‘use’ the RAW, sometimes when it’s a quick snap and things go a little wrong the extra latitude available in a RAW is nice.

The only real difference in my opinion is that with JPEG you decide what the image should look like before you take it, in RAW you can do it afterwards.

I can’t tell the difference between a ‘finished’ RAW or JPEG either on screen or in print though to be honest.
 
Thats the same for me as i can't see a big difference when i have looked at RAW/Jpeg. But i am no expert.
 
Just as you don't edit every Jpeg that comes out of your camera, you won't edit every RAW file that comes out of the camera either. If you do need to do some editing you have more control over the final image with a RAW file.

If you use the manufacturers own RAW software then the RAW file appears as it would have been processed as a Jpeg in the camera, with any picture styles or in camera settings applied, so no need to shoot RAW + Jpeg. Any third party RAW file processor such as Adobe Camera Raw will give an approximation of of what the camera would have done with the Jpeg file. It is up to you whether you want the safety net of RAW + Jpeg.

When I started shooting in RAW only, I set my picture style to Neutral, (so as to get a more accurate Histogram) and mostly ignore what the LCD screen image looks like colour wise, unless trying to choose the correct White Balance in a difficult situation. Why choose the WB if I'm shooting RAW you may ask? Well if you get it right in camera, as with all the other settings, there is less to change later. :D RAW shouldn't be an excuse for being lazy with WB or exposure. ;)
 
BarryG said:
Then, I just keep hold of all the jpegs, crap and good.
Click to expand...

I would keep all the RAW files, as that would give you more flexibility at a later date, a better noise reduction algorithm for example, or you just get better at editing RAW files.

BarryG said:
Works for me.
Click to expand...

But as you say, whatever works for you. ;)
 
Plus, keeping all the RAW files means a lot of storage space?
 
The Canon software is pretty good, I actually like the results from it better than Lightroom. Although I'm sure by tweaking things here and there the result would be identical.

The one thing to bear in mind is that the Canon software speaks exactly the same language as the Canon RAW file, Adobe software just uses an educated guess. Whether that actually makes a difference or not is completely subjective of course.
 
cam1986 said:
So my Canon software is not worth using for RAW?
Click to expand...

No, using the Canon software would be a reason not to shoot RAW + Jpeg, as it shows the RAW file as the Jpeg would have looked, but then you can edit the RAW file as you would wish, should the image need it.

I got a Canon S95 the other week, and have been playing about with the RAW files in the Canon DPP software. On some of the images I was able to apply as much noise reduction as needed rather than the set amount that would have been applied to the Jpeg in camera.

The theory is that the manufacturers own software should be the best for processing the RAW file, as they know the most about how the image was recorded and how to process it best. That may be the case, but programs like Camera Raw normally have more adjustment options, and get improved more often. Some people swear by DPP though, which is why I'm giving it a go.
 
irelanst said:
Assuming you can still open them :naughty::D
Click to expand...

Ah yes, that old one. I'm not aware of any RAW format which has become unreadable. Yet. ;) Doesn't mean it couldn't happen, but I find it very unlikely, despite what Adobe and their DNG RAW format may say. ;)
 
cam1986 said:
Plus, keeping all the RAW files means a lot of storage space?
Click to expand...

Memory should be the last consideration imho. Memory is getting cheaper all the time, so there is no reason to sacrifice images for space, unless you feel the images don't warrant it, it which case you only keep what you're sure is wanted.

You would never, if you had any sense throw your negatives away in the film days, and yes they took up less physical space that the prints, but your negatives were the option to get a brand new print, and the RAW file is the same. That is one of the reason people call RAW files the digital negative.

Memory is so cheap that there should be no reason not to back up your images to an external HD (or two). Data is not safe until it is in two, preferably more, places. ;)
 
There's no reason not to shoot in raw.
The processing is no different to shooting jpegs.Why pay umpteen amounts of pounds for the latest 15,18,21 mp cameras to then have the camera throw away half the information the sensor captures the minute you tell it to save the file as a jpeg??
Every time you then save the file again as a jpeg you throw more informatrion away.

Programs such as Lightroom have the same settings built in as the Canon/Nikon cameras(jpeg lansdcape/portrait/standard,neutral etc).Just import your raws,select them all and process using Canon portrait etc-simple as that.You then have the same jpegs that the camera would have generated but you also have the raw files in case you want to visit an individual file to give it a bit more attention.
Unless you are someone who might need to wire photos as they happen there's no point in shooting jpeg and raw at the same time either.

Gary
 
I always shoot in RAW too, and always have done. If I need jpegs, say, to send 150 holiday pics to a friend, then I use Lightroom to batch export to jpeg, which only takes a couple of clicks of my mouse and only a small amount of time to process. No point in generating the jpegs in camera as well.
 
vulcan2912 said:
The processing is no different to shooting jpegs
Click to expand...

Unless you don't actually have to do anything to the JPEG.

vulcan2912 said:
then have the camera throw away half the information the sensor captures the minute you tell it to save the file as a jpeg??
.
Click to expand...

It doesn't necesarily throw away any useful information, just because the file is smaller doesn't necessarily mean it contains less information.

vulcan2912 said:
Every time you then save the file again as a jpeg you throw more informatrion away.
Click to expand...

Does anyone actually do that though? I wouldn't edit a JPEG directly, I would import it into photoshop as a smart object or import it then save as a PSD.

vulcan2912 said:
You then have the same jpegs that the camera would have generated but you also have the raw files in case you want to visit an individual file to give it a bit more attention.
Click to expand...

So why not let the camera generate the JPEG as well with no extra effort on your part.
 
Last edited:
redhed17 said:
I would keep all the RAW files, as that would give you more flexibility at a later date, a better noise reduction algorithm for example, or you just get better at editing RAW files.



But as you say, whatever works for you. ;)
Click to expand...

No point. I make the decision there and then if they have potential. I have kept RAW files that I think I could do something with later, but I'm not going to keep ones of my family pulling funny faces - not even RAW editing can sort that out :P
 
irelanst said:
Unless you don't actually have to do anything to the JPEG.

Agreed but how often does that happen.



It doesn't necesarily throw away any useful information, just because the file is smaller doesn't necessarily mean it contains less information.

Agree to disagree on that one.


Does anyone actually do that though? I wouldn't edit a JPEG directly, I would import it into photoshop as a smart object or import it then save as a PSD.

How many places accept psd's onto the internet or even print houses?Show me a web service that allows me to store and show off psd's,link them to forums etc and i'm there like a shot.


So why not let the camera generate the JPEG as well with no extra effort on your part.
Click to expand...
Why bother wasting space on your cards when there's no need to.Fills the buffer up quicker and slows down shooting on some models.
 
Last edited:
cam1986 said:
Lightroom looks great but still complicated at the mo. Can one try a demo of it?
Click to expand...

Try the free 28 day demo. As other posters have said, Lightroom is much easier to use than say Photoshop Elements. At least, I find it is - much more intuitive.

Lightroom is different to other packages in many ways. From the user's point of view, it has all the power of Photoshop (it is an Adobe Photoshop product) or at least all the bits photographers need, rather than graphic designers which is where Photoshop evolved from. It's just presented differently, with a far more logical user interface for photographers, and 90% of the job is done with a few simple sliders that are immensely powerful under the bonnet.

To get the most from Lightroom, a book is probably a good idea. Scott Kelby, or I also like the official Adobe Classroom in a Book. I'm sure Martin Evening's Lightroom book is fine too. All about £20 on Amazon.

BTW, Lightroom is pretty good at tweaking JPEGs too ;)

On the Raw vs JPEG thing, I just posted this on another thread.

"...Many professionals only shoot JPEG, because if you get things right in-camera, the output is indistinguishable from a post-processed Raw, and you can still tweak the JPEG quite a lot if needs be.

All images start out as Raw, even in phone-cams, and can't be viewed without processing. Even if you shoot only Raw, the image you see on the camera's LCD is a small JPEG, and all images are finally output and viewed as JPEGs (well, 99.9% of them).

The key difference is that when you choose JPEG, the post processing parameters are decided before you take the picture and applied immediately in-camera (eg sharpness, contrast, saturation, white balance, noise reduction etc etc) as opposed to being decided and applied afterwards with specialist software on the PC. The result is a dramtically smaller file, which is ready to view and is much faster/easier to manage.

The main reduction in the file size is from the mathematical compression, not the 'loss' of data as such - the pixels are still there. For example, if you have an area of uniform tone such as a clear sky, if that occupies 2m pixels it might be written as 01010101 two million times - a massive string of data half a mile long. That can be reduced to a formula 01x2m, and that cluster of pixels in the image still looks exactly the same. You get the idea.

After the JPEG process, some data is discarded, but only because it's not needed (depending on the JPEG level selected). The difficulty comes if you then want to further modify the JPEG, and find that some aspects of the compressed clusters are locked together - you can change the cluster to make it darker or lighter or more blue, but only as a group. Fortunately, most clusters are only a dozen or so pixels on average, if you've selected JPEG Fine, but of course you can't modify anything that's been discarded. However, you can still do a lot more to a JPEG than some folks think - it's not completely set in stone, far from it, but obviously there's less scope.

Bottom line these days is to shoot both Raw and JPEG, and get the best of both worlds (if you have sotware). It used to be a big decision because memory was expensive and cards were very small, but it's cheap as chips today, eg 8gb for £20 whereas only a few years ago 1gb would cost £100 or more."

HTH :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top