Raw..or not

Boon

Boon

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,619
Edit My Images
Yes
hi guys
no doubt you have done this before, but i would like to know 'How many ' photographers on here use RAW, and why they prefer it above jpg.
With jpg, i understand you need not tweek all the photos, but in RAW you will have to tweek every photo you take because of their raw state, unless you tell me differently.
Stevannie
 
I shoot Raw pretty much exclusively

Processing is very easy with the latest software tools, many of them offer batch processing options which make it almost automatic once you get your workflow sorted.

The advantages are a possible higher success rate, as you have +/-2 stop leaway with raw files, meaning hat you can correct minor exposure problems plus all the processing is done at RAW level which maintains the highest possible file quality.

The last advantage is that you can process the same file differently to get correct exposures for say the highlights and also again for the shadows. You then have two files that you can combine to get a perfect exposure for those difficult scenes.
 
morning steve,
i have seen this 'work flow' in several places, but i am unsure what it actually means, so any help would be appreciated.
stevannie
 
'Workflow' describes a routine for dealing with your shots which you normally use and will vary from one person to another. A workflow might be....

RAW > Tiff > Jpeg with some adjustments carried out at the RAW stage, others at the TIFF stage. RAW is something you really need to jump in and start doing to get a basic understanding, when things will become much clearer.

Not everyone is an advocate of RAW processing, Ken Rockwell is one of it's better known adversaries. The nub of his argument is that if you can nail the correct exposure every time, which he seems to think pros should be able to do, then a jpeg does the job without all the processing time and hassle. Lots of pros would give him a big argument. ;)

You can see arguments from both viewpoints here...

http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/How_to/o_RAW_workflow/_RAW_workflow.html

I often shoot jpegs but there are undeniable advantages in shooting RAW just for exposure latitude alone. If you're going to habitually shoot RAW and a lot of images, then you really need to be geared up to deal with it - large disk drives and the facility to back up to CD or DVD.
 
Shoot RAW exclusively for all work and personal photos.
Like using film, you have a degree of control over the images that you do not have shooting JPEG or TIFF. You can more easily correct any colour imbalances, bring out shadow detail, suppress highlight detail (if you wanted to).
Try to think of taking the photo as only the first step in achieving the finished product. Good post-production is as important as capturing the image in the first place.
 
i look at it this way:suspect1:

when you used film camera's you had a choice, you could develope the negs yourself or send em to Boots ( or anywhere else ) to be processed,

you had no creative control over the ones you sent away , just like a Jpg in some respect:(

however the ones you did in your own dark-room were fully under your control from the raw image , you could dodge/burn crop etc etc to get the results YOU wanted , this could be compared to RAW or NEF images in a DSLR

i have a Nikon D70 ( i know its an old camera now , lol :Ponders: ) and i have the choice of several different settings with regard to this , but i have chosen to take every image in NEF/Jpg , in reality i get two pictures for one shot, the one is compressed into Jpg and the other is left alone , if i like the image i have the choice of going to the NEF one and trying to improve on it ,

all digital images whatever their format can easily be manipulated, however the Jpg version has already lost some quality by the camera's software compressing it to start with, so i feel its a case of start with the best quality you can, and when i can fit at least 75 NEF and Jpg's on a 512 card , i have no problem with space

hope this helps

MyPix
 
Just imagine if you could take the scene itself back to your computer room and tinker with it until you get the shot right.


Well you can't :p

That's how I view RAW, as giving me back some control, and being able to take some of that scene home with me. Be it shadow or highlight detail, or some colour balance.

Now all I need to do is figure out the software which will allow me to cover all angles, focus, and DOF in Post Production and I got it all covered :D
 
Use RAW 100%.......gives me a lot more flexibility in end shot.
 
RAW all the time, I even installed the undutchables hack in my 300d so I could have the choice of RAW in all modes.
 
Feel like I'm sticking my head up to get shot at here :D

I shoot RAW sometimes..... most times I shoot jpg. If I see something difficult to expose I switch to RAW. Most times I know the jpg is going to come out as good as I need it to.

I can't defend what I do from a technical viewpoint but from practical experience I get what I want without all the tweaking in between. I am partially red-green colour blind so I don't change white balance with confidence. Exposure changes are just not needed with most pictures and small amounts can be applied to the jpgs.

I can do the Rawshooter / Photoshop thing but I have to force myself to get on with it. It is not a part of the process I enjoy. Maybe that will change as I have more time to fill.. maybe.
 
this debate is similar to the autofocus debate when the first camera's apeared with the feature

purists said it was cheating, but for folks like me who need glasses it took away the worry of if the shot was correctly focused and in those days wasting film,

well Jpg's give you that point and shoot capability , if you want to post process, then you have the choice with RAW or NEF files,

but if you dont want to get that involved, stick with the Jpg's, at the end of the day, its just a tool, use it as you see fit

MyPix
 
RobertP said:
Feel like I'm sticking my head up to get shot at here :D
.
Click to expand...
Shove over a bit :p

I use jpeg a lot, especially for sports stuff. I'll use RAW when I know I'm going to be doing a lot of processing.
 
I always shoot RAW+Basic JPEG. The basic jpegs allow me to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and if I need a processed version very quickly, then I can use that. I like the RAW ot proces proerly, and it does not lose any of the information like JPEG. TIFF files are unworkable in practice in the camera, due to their file size. I also like the flexibiltiy of RAW< and the fact that it is a 'digital negative'.

:)
 
Adobe Bridge with CS2 has made RAW processing a lot easier/quicker.
Doesn't RAW also allow for faster times between shots (eg. more shots per sec) ? . Just notcied it when comparing RAW against Fine JPEG for burst shooting
 
DJW said:
Adobe Bridge with CS2 has made RAW processing a lot easier/quicker.
Doesn't RAW also allow for faster times between shots (eg. more shots per sec) ? . Just notcied it when comparing RAW against Fine JPEG for burst shooting
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the camera processing times, in creating the actual file (before writing), but shoot in RAW, and you'll get less FPS than with JPEG.
 
Luckily I have a 4GB microdrive ;).....although get nowhere near filling it !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top