Raw or not?

vulcan2912 said:
Agreed but how often does that happen.
Click to expand...

Indoor under controlled conditions, quite a lot actually.

vulcan2912 said:
Agree to disagree on that one.
Click to expand...

Try this, take an image with your lens cap on, which is bigger RAW or JPEG? does the RAW contain any more information? A contrived example I grant you, but I can think of lots of examples where there are blocks of colour in images which JPEG will handle more memory efficiently than RAW.

vulcan2912 said:
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
Click to expand...

The shop round the corner from me will print from PSD files :thumbs:

You can't print, or host RAW either. My point was that you never need to repeatedly save a JPEG enough for any degradation in quality to be visible.

vulcan2912 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Possibly in some situations, but for ultimate burst speed then surely you would shoot just JPEG?
 
Nice replies guys. Thanks. I will download a trial of Lightroom and give that a go. I will probably be asking loads of questions though!
 
vulcan2912 said:
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.
Gary
Click to expand...

The LightRoom landscape/portrait/standard,neutral etc presets are approximations, and not the same as would have been produced by the camera set to Jpeg with the same preset picture style. It may be quite accurate for one manufacturer, or indeed a certain manufacturers camera, but it may look nothing like what the landscape style would look like in another manufacturer/camera combination. It is close enough for most people though, at least as point to start editing from. ;)

There are presets which people have produced to be more accurate representations of some camera picture styles. I have found D300 and D700 Neutral, Portrait, Landscape, Standard and Vivid presets for example. There'll probably be versions about for other cameras on the net somewhere. :shrug: :)

HoppyUK said:
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.
Click to expand...

It has the power of Adobe Bridge and Camera Raw, not Photoshop itself. LightRoom and Camera Raw, for the most part make global changes to the image, Photoshop can make global changes, and changes to selected parts of an image. Photoshop also has the power/versatility of layers, which without third party plugins, LightRoom does not.
 
cam1986 said:
Photoshop is also very very expensive!
Click to expand...

Photoshop Elements 9 is not as expensive and does the majority of what CS5 can do. ;) Elements includes a cut down version of Adobe Camera Raw too.

LightRoom is a bit more expensive, though not as versatile.

And as you say, Photoshop CS5 is :eek: scary money, but does probably everything you would want to do. Given the ability as well as the software. :lol:


There are other alternatives for processing RAW files, and general image editing than just Adobe products, some of them free. There is a helpful sticky at the top of this very Forum. ;)
 
redhed17 said:
<snip>

It has the power of Adobe Bridge and Camera Raw, not Photoshop itself. LightRoom and Camera Raw, for the most part make global changes to the image, Photoshop can make global changes, and changes to selected parts of an image. Photoshop also has the power/versatility of layers, which without third party plugins, LightRoom does not.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to imply that Lightroom is 'Photoshop' under another name. I meant that it is from the Photoshop family and it takes whatever it needs from Adobe's suit of Photoshop products.

The big advanatge is it does the things that photographers want with a much simpler and intuitive interface. And beneath those sliders, it does multiple and complex tasks simultaneously without the need for any great user knowledge or skill, in a fraction of the time.

Sure there are things that it doesn't do, and layers is the obvious one, but if you want layers (I've never used them) then either Lightroom is not the programme to get, or you can access them through an Elements plug-in.

That's the way it's designed to work - it does all the basics, and more, extremely well and easily, linked to a library and filing system. And in that sense it's the most complete photographer's package. Then you pick and choose supplementary software products as plug-ins. For example, I use Portrait Professional and Photomatix which are both better than anything Photoshop has to offer.

Put it this way, I got my best results ever within minutes of loading the free Lightroom trial, and now I know exactly what those sliders do (I bought a book :D) and just how powerful and sophisticated they are, the quality I'm getting with just a few tweaks is frankly amazing.
 
But given the chance, would you buy lightroom or elements if you could only choose one. Photoshop could only be bought with a mortgage for me!!
 
If I could only afford Elements or LightRoom, after seeing what Elements can do here (when it was broadcast live ;)) I would have Elements. :)

A lot of people love LightRoom though, but as I said it's for global changes, if you need control over parts of an image, or selections, then you need something more. And Layers take not destructive editing to another level.

Download the demo's and see which you find the most useful. :shrug:
 
I will download them. In the process of sorting PC out at the moment so will do as soon as.
 
cam1986 said:
But given the chance, would you buy lightroom or elements if you could only choose one. Photoshop could only be bought with a mortgage for me!!
Click to expand...

Lightroom, no question. Never go back to just Elements now.

I got mine from Amazon for £120, full copy. It's a US import, which means that apparently I won't get support from Adobe UK, not that I've ever used support, but you get all free upgrades etc - I'm using v3.4.1.
 
For free, do it in Canon DPP and GIMP.

The basic RAW editing I do in DPP and any layer work, blending, masks GIMP handles.

If you can afford to splash the cash, no doubt Adobe as market leader is pretty much the default solution.
 
I will try the Canon DPP before i start spending money
 
cam1986 said:
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!
Click to expand...

I have no use for RAW, 99.9% of the times. My image files size is within 1Meg of that of a RAW image, and I prefer to get the image right in the camera, it takes time to process images.
 
DeonV said:
I have no use for RAW, 99.9% of the times. My image files size is within 1Meg of that of a RAW image, and I prefer to get the image right in the camera, it takes time to process images.
Click to expand...

But, one has to know what one is doing to be able to do that. I am a novice so i know i will be taking 99% carp shots. Using RAW might be a good way for me to do some post production to make them better. I would also still be trying to get the shots right from word go though
 
DeonV said:
I have no use for RAW, 99.9% of the times. My image files size is within 1Meg of that of a RAW image, and I prefer to get the image right in the camera, it takes time to process images.
Click to expand...

If that is what works for you, you do that then. ;) :lol:


Just because the file size is similar between a Jpeg and RAW file doesn't mean that there has been no compression. You also lose the benefit of any slight exposure alterations and highlight recovery, and fine tuning the WB in the best way. Also if there was ever a need for a Tiff file, converting from a Jpeg is a waste of time. :shrug:


Know the options, and then choose the way that's right for you. :shrug:


Whatever works though. :D
 
I don't like the idea of having the camera take RAW and Jpegs. So many files i am sure it would drive me round the bend!
 
Last edited:
I normally shoot just RAW files, but while I was on holiday last week I had a new Canon S95 which I hadn't taken any pics with, so I set the camera to RAW and Jpeg just to see what the differences are. :shrug: It takes a few second to order the files by type and highlight and delete what you want to get rid of.

There was no need for me to shoot Jpegs apart from curiosity. :shrug: It takes less than a minute batch convert RAW to Jpegs should I want/need to.

Some people have separate folders for RAW and Jpegs. Depends on how organised you are. I have a folder for each day/event/location. I can quickly sort any files by time, date or type.
 
Last edited:
Thanks guys, so if I understand all this its basically "try it and if it works for you then do it". Going to give Lightroom a try since it seems to be the more user friendly for a novice.
 
cam1986 said:
Picasa3 supports RAW files. Is that any good?
Click to expand...

Picasa3 is good for basic editing, and it will read RAW files, but you get the same basic control you have with it of Jpegs with RAWs, and non of the benefits. :shrug: I'm not sure if it converts the RAW file or works on the basic embedded Jpeg within the RAW file. :shrug:
 
i shoot in JPEG they are my negatives

i edit and then "save as"keeping the original so i can go back to my negative if i want to edit it a different way or think i can improve it.

photoshop guided is my main choice and i can work quite quick.

to me its about getting it right in the camera from the start.
if i make a small mistake i often find i can incorporate it in the feel of the photo.

as i did in the darkroom i prefer to do the minimum editing,though i never batch.
every JPEG is examined and worked on individualy and cropped to best suit the composition and what i want in the photo [so no fixed sizes].

then again i am seeing the image from the very start and know what i want.

i dont like hdr,over smooth or over processed.
real for me please :)
 
straycat said:
i shoot in JPEG they are my negatives

i edit and then "save as"keeping the original so i can go back to my negative if i want to edit it a different way or think i can improve it.

photoshop guided is my main choice and i can work quite quick.

to me its about getting it right in the camera from the start.
if i make a small mistake i often find i can incorporate it in the feel of the photo.

as i did in the darkroom i prefer to do the minimum editing,though i never batch.
every JPEG is examined and worked on individualy and cropped to best suit the composition and what i want in the photo [so no fixed sizes].

then again i am seeing the image from the very start and know what i want.

i dont like hdr,over smooth or over processed.
real for me please :)
Click to expand...

The main benefit of JPEG, apart from the small file size, is that it's good to go straight out of the camera - no computer work at all.

But if you're going to post process anyway, then working from a JPEG just compromises what you can do. Makes no sense really.
 
HoppyUK said:
The main benefit of JPEG, apart from the small file size, is that it's good to go straight out of the camera - no computer work at all.

But if you're going to post process anyway, then working from a JPEG just compromises what you can do. Makes no sense really.
Click to expand...

how does it compromise what i can do?

i dont need to alter white balance i get it right

my exposures are 99% correct and not to far of to alter in jpeg

contrast,sharpening,cropping all available in JPEG

i dont do hdr or photo tricks

i personally dont need raw,nor do most newspapers or magazines
 
straycat said:
how does it compromise what i can do?

i dont need to alter white balance i get it right

my exposures are 99% correct and not to far of to alter in jpeg

contrast,sharpening,cropping all available in JPEG

i dont do hdr or photo tricks

i personally dont need raw,nor do most newspapers or magazines
Click to expand...

Whatever works for you SC ;) But if your JPEGs are good, there's no need to use a computer or have Photoshop at all - that's the main point of them, they're finished and ready for output.

Sure, if you only need to make slight adjustments now and then you can do that to a JPEG, but there is a lot more extensive control available on the Raw and the only 'cost' is a bit of memory space which is so cheap these days.

BTW, a JPEG is not a digital negative. If you want to be strictly acurate about it, the analogy with film is that the unprocessed Raw is in fact a digital latent image, the moment you view it through a Raw processor it becomes like a digital negative, and a JPEG is more akin to a slide film image.
 
straycat said:
how does it compromise what i can do?

i dont need to alter white balance i get it right

my exposures are 99% correct and not to far of to alter in jpeg

contrast,sharpening,cropping all available in JPEG

i dont do hdr or photo tricks

i personally dont need raw,nor do most newspapers or magazines
Click to expand...

may we see some of these 99% correct images then :shrug:

Les ;)
 
Roll of 36 film you want to get it right in the camera

Or what's your options?

I always processed the film the same way

Then I would use vc paper and the same chemicals

I carry that on with digital in the way I approach it.


If your using a top end camera why would your exposures be way out?
 
If you sent film to 10 labs you'd get 10 different shots back and I suppose there is a reason why people who did their own devoloping spent so much time talking about the make up of the soup they developed their films in and then there was all that dodge and burn and painting out marks and cropping and all the other magical stuff folk did.

To say that 35mm film shooting was simple and that the shot you took is the shot you ended up with and had to be 100% right in camera is a rewite of history and I can't see how digital is any different.

Plus there's the fact that few people shooting film would throw their negatives away and of course DSLR's react differently to film but IMVHO it's change for the better and it's resulted in easier control and better control over the final result.

PS. Almost forgot... all those different types of film too giving all those different looks.
 
Last edited:
Id11 and michrofen is all I used

All my chemicals and paper where ilford I dodged and burned I never spotted I hated it so i made sure the neg was clean.

It is easier now I see no point to making it complicated,if I hadn't said I was jpeg no one would of known :)


Each to their own, the I shoot raw t shirts make me laugh as much as the my cameras gripped or nifty fifty nonsense speak.
Still that's just me. :)
 
I just shot 24 informal test jpeg shots with a new to me 28-105 loaded on the I pad all are usable as is, if totally boring and uninspired.
 
straycat said:
Id11 and michrofen is all I used

All my chemicals and paper where ilford I dodged and burned I never spotted I hated it so i made sure the neg was clean.

It is easier now I see no point to making it complicated,if I hadn't said I was jpeg no one would of known :)


Each to their own, the I shoot raw t shirts make me laugh as much as the my cameras gripped or nifty fifty nonsense speak.
Still that's just me. :)
Click to expand...

OK. You don't like raw, grips or certain 50mm lenses; and no-one would have known that you shoot JPEGs unless you'd told them. So what?
 
Dodging and Burning wasn't 'straight out of the camera'. :shrug: ;)

Now slide film, that was as pure as you could get, straight out of the camera and more susceptible to exposure inaccuracies I think. ;)
 
If you have a computer with editing software and you're comfortable with using it, then there's no good reason not to shoot RAW, in my opinion.

I shoot RAW only myself. It's a fantastic format and gives you the scope to develop your files digitally.
 
straycat said:
how does it compromise what i can do?

i dont need to alter white balance i get it right

my exposures are 99% correct and not to far of to alter in jpeg

contrast,sharpening,cropping all available in JPEG

i dont do hdr or photo tricks

i personally dont need raw,nor do most newspapers or magazines
Click to expand...

That's great that you manage to get your exposures perfect in-camera, but it still doesn't hurt to shoot RAW as a failsafe. I guess in the end it comes down to your goals with your photos. For me, my photography isn't necessarily about reproducing reality 100% accurately, it's more of a creative expression (sorry, I know that sounds a bit flakey but I can't think of a better description), so I like to have a lot of control over everything in post. RAW allows far more headroom for creativity after the fact. It is also uncompressed, unlike JPG.
 
Interesting article on the subject posted in LL this month - link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top