shoot in raw ?

L

lazaroonie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
179
Name
Patrick
Edit My Images
Yes
i am coming to the conclusion that i should be shooting in raw, simply for the reason that the image files capture more information. i think it is better to have too much information than not enough.

does that make sense ?
 
depends if you have the time and patience to process the images...

for me it's half the fun of photography in getting the best out of your RAW files...for others they don't want to spend hours in front of a PC.

just being able to adjust the exposure and white balance after the shot is worth it...
 
Shoot RAW and never look back. It's like having a negative instead of a polaroid.
 
dont know about the cannon but the nikon can shoot raw and also make a small one in jpeg
 
lazaroonie said:
i am coming to the conclusion that i should be shooting in raw, simply for the reason that the image files capture more information. i think it is better to have too much information than not enough.

does that make sense ?
Click to expand...

Yes. But you have to discard a lot of that information sooner or later for final output as a JPEG. The question is, do you discard it before the picture is taken, by careful selection of the in-camera settings, or do you it after by post processing the Raw files? The former is instant, easy and automatic, and the latter takes time, some skill, and is a largely manual operation.

Depends how confident you are. If all you do in post processing is replicate the in camera settings and batch process the whole lot, then you might as well let the camera do it for you and output a JPEG. The end result is the same. But a lot of people tweak the exposure and colour balance, at the very least, in post processing and there is more room for manoevre with Raw files.

For general stuff, I shoot JPEGs. If it's more important, or I'm not absolutely sure, I shoot JPEG and Raw. Best of both worlds, and the only penalty is Raw files use a lot of memory. But memory is very cheap now.
 
daugirdas said:
JPEGs are useless unless you are printing 6x4 for your family album.

If you have a paying job (except maybe sports), or submit stock then RAW is the only way to go.
Click to expand...

Possibly a little over exagerated, modern jpgs are pretty good, though still no match in latitude for raw files, but for even larger prints straight off the camera, most modern bodies can deliver an acceptable image. I just prefer the extra scope and raw data that a raw file gives, especially for stuff like the indoors sports where lousy lighting can leave you with more processing than you might like afterwards.
 
HoppyUK said:
Why?



Why?
Click to expand...

Simple - if you need to make any adjustments (exposure, WB, shadows/highlights, sharpness, CA, vignetting correction) without degrading quality then only RAW leaves the headroom. The chances are high that at least something will need tweaking unless you use a perfect lens (doesn't exist) and you perfectly expose (possible but not easy).

Agencies require interpolation to 16MP or more at something like 52MB uncompressed size. You can't do that with JPEG unless you use 1ds3, 5D2, a900 or d3x.
 
daugirdas said:
Simple - if you need to make any adjustments (exposure, WB, shadows/highlights, sharpness, CA, vignetting correction) without degrading quality then only RAW leaves the headroom. The chances are high that at least something will need tweaking unless you use a perfect lens (doesn't exist) and you perfectly expose (possible but not easy).
Click to expand...

If you select your in-camera preset parameters carefully, and set white balance and exposure accurately (as you must when shooting Raw also) then there should be no need to make further adjustments. And how much headroom do you need? You can do quite a lot to JPEGs in post.

It could be argued that Raw is for incompetants and paranoids, or just the ultra-cautious. Not that I'm arguing that, only joking ;) but it's a serious point. Happy with my JPEGs, except when I'm paranoid etc :D

Agencies require interpolation to 16MP or more at something like 52MB uncompressed size. You can't do that with JPEG unless you use 1ds3, 5D2, a900 or d3x.
Click to expand...

Hmm. How many people shoot for agencies? I don't, and the OP makes no reference to it.
 
I shoot both Raw and small jpg.

The RAW file for me is my digital negative and always has the scope to pull out that little bit extra if required. By adjusting the raw image with +2, 0, -2 exposures I can if required create a HDR image. In reality though, I just use the jpg for posting on the net and use the RAW image for the more important work.

Why, because I can, an empty 8GB memory card can hold a minimum of 285 RAW images on my 5DMk2 but if I add a small JPG to each image it drops to 272, so i lose 13 images for the convenience of having both a RAW file and a JPG. When the card is full, I swap it for another.

It's another marmite issue though as what suits one will not suit another.
 
Is doesn't have to be one or the other, you can shoot both. :shrug: ;)

That said, some cameras have limitations on the quality of Jpeg that can be taken at the same time as a the RAW file.

Memory is cheap though, and cameras virtually just as fast recording either file type unless you're in machine gun mode. ;) :lol:

People say that there is 'a lot' of PP work with a RAW file, but is it a lot of work really? Yes you can print a Jpeg as soon as it is in the computer, or even from the camera if camera and printer are Pictbridge compatible. (not sure many people actually do that, though I'm sure someone will say the do it all the time ;) :lol:) If you open the RAW file in whatever editor you choose, if it doesn't need any work, the you just save as a Jpeg and print. :shrug: Most images need some editing though, whatever file type the image was recorded as, even if it is just a sharpen, which most Digital files benefit from. If you do as little as sharpen, you may doing the same amount of work as the RAW shooter.

For those who get perfectly exposed pictures with accurate colours 'all' the time, and have no need to PP, then Jpeg may be the best way to go. ;) I freely admit, I'm not that consistent with my camera. So it is RAW all the time for me. :)

I've also made some big changes to RAW files which just couldn't be done with a Jpeg. Changes to the recorded WB, exposue, contrast and sharpness, which although some changes could be made to the same Jpeg image, they would cause severe degradation to a final result. I've found details and colours in shadows, that are just not there in the Jpeg. I've brought detail back to blown highlights in a RAW file that are gone for good in the Jpeg.

Those that have chosen to shoot only Jpeg will probably not change their mind, and as long as they're happy with their images, good for you. Those who are asking the question, try taking both and see if you prefer one or the other, but again there is no reason why you can't carry on shooting both.

Read people's opinions of course, you may learn something, but at least try all the options your camera gives you for yourself. ;)
 
kennysarmy said:
depends if you have the time and patience to process the images...

for me it's half the fun of photography in getting the best out of your RAW files...for others they don't want to spend hours in front of a PC.

just being able to adjust the exposure and white balance after the shot is worth it...
Click to expand...

i already spend hours in front of the pc :lol:

my somewhat straightline logical thinking is that if I shoot in raw and from this raw image i could (not that I might want to) get the same jpeg image from it in PP, but i might also capture more information, then shooting in raw makes more sense.
 
i guess it is like storing music files on your computer - some people will like the convenience of compressed mp3, others will like having the full lossless format stored.
 
I would always shoot raw if you can. As others have said it's like having a negative. Even if you do nothing with it now you can store on an external hard drive and it will be there if you want to blow it up in size or convert to black and white etc.

Scott:)
 
Its definately horse fopr courses, when most people first pick up a digial camera, they already know what a jpg is and that they can see them on their computer, so thats what they go with, especially if its compacts, most of which only shoot jpg anyway.

As an example, I always shoot RAW, but a few weeks ago at a karate tournament, I was getting low on cards and wanted to do some fast fps for some fighting shots, so for once changed to lrg jpg. Now bearing in mind the light was ugly to begin with, and I had spent some time faffing around with WB, I hoped the results would be acceptable. They were, to an extent, but when I came to proces them, there just wasn't the data there to really get the most out of them. Luckily they were only for my own benefit so not a problem.

On the otherhand, I think it was DD that posted about shooting in jpg when doing the white background portrait stuff a few weeks ago - the data loos/compression caused by the in-camera processing on that large area of white leaving much less processing required on it afterwards. Can't recall if he tried it successfully, though I can see a logic in that.
 
HoppyUK said:
Yes. But you have to discard a lot of that information sooner or later for final output as a JPEG. The question is, do you discard it before the picture is taken, by careful selection of the in-camera settings, or do you it after by post processing the Raw files? The former is instant, easy and automatic, and the latter takes time, some skill, and is a largely manual operation.
Click to expand...

Not quite true.:D

I normally shoot RAW because I can then save as a TIFF. TIFF files are uncompressed so lose no information. From the 1DsII I get those magical 50MB files so don't need any work at all to maintain that level of quality demanded by stock agencies for good reason. It's got all the detail you will ever need. The album supplier that I use recommend 24Mb files for the album for optimum quality so, for me, RAW is the only way to go.

Having said that I recently spent a day with my mentor who made me put the camera on JPEG so I had absolutely no latitude on exposure at all. I was actually quite pleased with the results and use some of the shots for my own marketing material.

So the truth is that it depends very much on your output what file format is best FOR YOU. :)
 
daugirdas said:
Agencies require interpolation to 16MP or more at something like 52MB uncompressed size. You can't do that with JPEG unless you use 1ds3, 5D2, a900 or d3x.
Click to expand...

are you sure? - just out of interest I've just done a jpeg to tiff from a d80 to a 57.4 mb file size without any issues and without having to do anything special.

Hugh
 
I agree RAW has it's uses and for landscapes etc I really can see the benefit... however if you get it right in camera in the first place, especially with some of the modern camera's then the results can be excellent and you don't have to do any more than a slight level tweek / sharpen in PP

I'm not saying don't shoot RAW as it has it's benefits, but don't listen to every word your told by the church of the blessed Raw brigade... You don't HAVE to have a computer or do post processing to get good images, and far too many people rely on the computer to fix their mistakes...

I'm no expert and some of my images leave a lot to be desired, but I just feel that for a beginner relying on RAW to fix your mistakes is a bad start... the other downside is if you shoot raw then you HAVE to post process the image for it to look good, JPEG still allows you to make some minor tweaks if needed and will still produce excellent prints regardless of what people on here say...
 
daugirdas said:
JPEGs are useless unless you are printing 6x4 for your family album.
.
Click to expand...

what a bizarre and totally incorrect statement

I manage to run a successful wedding photography business by shooting 80% in jpegs including producing large (eg 3ft x 2ft) prints
 
keirik said:
what a bizarre and totally incorrect statement

I manage to run a successful wedding photography business by shooting 80% in jpegs including producing large (eg 3ft x 2ft) prints
Click to expand...

There you go, and I'm sure this isn't the only wedding photographer... in fact my wedding photographer (3rd May 09) shot all his in JPEG and he is a very well respected and talented bloke and we are over the moon with the photo's.. infact other than the couple of black and white shots there has been no post processing done and they are still brilliant...

Sitting in front of a computer for hours touching up can be good in some cases but it's not essential for every shot and at times can ruin them
 
I've only recently purchased a DSLR and started with Jpegs but I found myself needing to do editing that was 'difficult' to do on Jpegs (due to my inexperience) so switched to RAW. I now rarely need to do any editing as I've learnt to use the camera properly but still record in RAW as it gives me the option to do more later on if I want to.

All of my 'good' photos usually just end up as a desktop background and I usually end up cropping them so I do that at the same time as converting from RAW to Jpeg - it's no extra work really for me and I get the benefit of more options...

That's my situation however, may not be suitable for others...

Trev
 
trvo said:
All of my 'good' photos usually just end up as a desktop background and I usually end up cropping them so I do that at the same time as converting from RAW to Jpeg - it's no extra work really for me and I get the benefit of more options...

That's my situation however, may not be suitable for others...

Trev
Click to expand...

Editing 2000 raw photos from a wedding would double (at least) my editing time.
I use RAW in really dark and difficult situations (usually churches where you can't use flash), but other than that it provides nothing extra I need so just work with large jpegs
 
keirik said:
Editing 2000 raw photos from a wedding would double (at least) my editing time.
I use RAW in really dark and difficult situations (usually churches where you can't use flash), but other than that it provides nothing extra I need so just work with large jpegs
Click to expand...

That's fair enough, I usually come back with 200-300 photos, browse through them with Picasa which understands my camera's RAW format and edit the good ones so it's no big deal for me.

If it's impacting your work and you can get away with Jpegs then why not stick with Jpegs. For me it's a hobby and I shoot in RAW as it makes no difference to _me_ except giving me the option of extra control.

Trev
 
JPEGs are really pretty good. I experimented shooting raw and JPEG together a few weeks ago and found that about 3 out of every 4 shots I was happy with the JPEG. The raw files are a lot more useful inside churches as keirik mentions where the lighting is awkward.

I shoot JPEG when I can on my Fuji S5 mainly because the raw files for that are huge. On my D90 I'll shoot raw all the time for work, and JPEG when it doesn't matter so much.
 
trvo said:
That's fair enough, I usually come back with 200-300 photos, browse through them with Picasa which understands my camera's RAW format and edit the good ones so it's no big deal for me.

If it's impacting your work and you can get away with Jpegs then why not stick with Jpegs. For me it's a hobby and I shoot in RAW as it makes no difference to _me_ except giving me the option of extra control.

Trev
Click to expand...

exactly, horses for courses!

I hate religious zealots whatever they're religious about - well not exactly hate, but get a bit tired with!

At a wedding I also exposure bracket when I'm outside so that removes one less variable, all I have to decide is which of the 3 exposures I like, which is a lot quicker than opening a raw and messing with the exposure settings
 
keirik said:
exactly, horses for courses!

I hate religious zealots whatever they're religious about - well not exactly hate, but get a bit tired with!

At a wedding I also exposure bracket when I'm outside so that removes one less variable, all I have to decide is which of the 3 exposures I like, which is a lot quicker than opening a raw and messing with the exposure settings
Click to expand...

On my camera that means shooting 3 images back to back of the same scene... is this the same on all camera's? as that is one benefit of RAW for me as I can't guarantee what I'm shooting will be there for another 2 shots
 
Personally, I love RAW. In tight shooting conditions, it will give you more headroom in post-processing if your settings at shoot time were a bit off. It's not without it's downsides, though.

It can take forever to go through your photos and get them processed. If most/all of them were taken in the same conditions and you want to apply the same WB/exposure/etc settings to all of them, you can do that in one easy batch process. If, like myself, you're rather more fastidious than you probably should be, it can get frustrating as you obsess over every little setting to get the best possible result!

RAW will also consume your hard drives like you wouldn't believe. I can take 8-10 gigs of photos at an event and these will all sit on my HDD forever unless they're out of focus by a country mile, or unusable for any other such reason.

I know a couple of pro photographers who shoot JPEG because of the time involved in post-processing RAW files and they barely ever complain about their results.

If you don't find yourself really wanting to shoot RAW for the extra flexibility it gives you, I'd carry on with JPEG.

George.
 
if I feel the need, and have the space, I shoot in RAW< then do a batch conversion. any leeway I need later on I can use.

if I'm shooting 1000 photos for an event (sports stuff) then the most exposures I get of the fighters moving and hitting is most important than the absolute quality of the image for me. the processing time isn't important but the speed at which I can capture is.

for weddings i would personally hit the critical group shots with RAW to balance out any shadows and blow outs, and the portrait B&G shots.

I'm I'm feeling Creative, I shoot RAW + JPG and put on a B&W filter to the processing. Therefore I can see the outcome and judge what I'd like to obtain from the viewscreen but have the full colour image in RAW for tinkering and desaturising later on.

Just the viewpoint of a happy snapper...
 
Do what works for you and ignore any 'popular consensus'.



Btw I shoot in raw and recommend it ;) lol
 
Purely in the interests of clarity, because I think there may be some misunderstandings here...

A Raw file is not a 'digital negative'. If you want to make that comparison with film, it is the digital latent image, before the film is developed. From this it is therefore clear that the Raw file must be processed in some way before you can use it, and that form is, ultimately, a JPEG for final ouput to print, screen, whatever.

In terms of quality, it makes no difference whether the JPEG is produced by the camera, or manually in post processing. That holds true, except where the post processing involves substantial reworking of the image in ways that the camera's basic functions do not cover.

You can still make adjustments to JPEGs in post processing, to all aspects of the image. Perhaps more than people think, and with little or no affect on quality. For some things (eg like correcting converging verticals) it makes no difference whether the file is JPEG or Raw, but if you've really messed up on exposure, and we all do that now and again, there is much more scope in the Raw data.

With JPEGs, if you are happy with the pre-sets that you have chosen in the camera, and are reasonably confident of white balance and exposure, the JPEGs deilvered by the camera will be idenical to the JPEGs produced manually in post processing. The difference with JPEGs is that you have to make up you mind before the picture is taken ;)

Even when you shoot only in Raw, the image you see on the camera's LCD is actually a tiny JPEG tagged to the Raw data, and processed according to the camera pre-sets.

Hope this helps ;)
 
I would recommend shooting in raw when you can. I went somewhere where flash was not allowed, and the place was V dark. The picture below, I believe, could not have been pulled out had jpg been used:

total.jpg
 
coldpenguin said:
I would recommend shooting in raw when you can. I went somewhere where flash was not allowed, and the place was V dark. The picture below, I believe, could not have been pulled out had jpg been used:

total.jpg
Click to expand...

Your correct, I think, that this would have been hard in JPEG. However, if you had exposed the shot correctly in camera you could have got this without any PP.

Please don't take that as a digg mind you as everyone will have shots like this, I know I have loads, but my point is simply that RAW wasn't the only answer, however did save your bacon on this one
 
coldpenguin said:
I would recommend shooting in raw when you can. I went somewhere where flash was not allowed, and the place was V dark. The picture below, I believe, could not have been pulled out had jpg been used:

total.jpg
Click to expand...

That's a brilliant example of what you can do with Raw, but if we could see the lightened image full size, it would be very noisy. Raw is not a get out of jail free card.
 
I only shoot RAW, have been doing now since not long after I got my cam 4or so months ago. - Have NEVER switched camera back to JPEG, since

The quality is so much better IMO and the colours, too.
I don' take anything 'important' or professional but I love the end results after a quick tweak :shrug:
 
I shoot Jpeg a) because I am lazy when it comes to PP, my filing and editing is really poor, as I don't have an efficient system, I take the pics, load them onto the PC, look at them, and thats it, the editing is a "I will do it at some point" kinda approach, I will get there one day.

And b), I shoot military aviation, there are a few occasions I am shooting a few in a burst, RAW files tend to fill the buffer a lot sooner due to their size, and I am not good enough with a camera to be able to look, and shoot once, so I go for the machine gun effect, counting on getting something out of that burst.
 
Creed said:
However, if you had exposed the shot correctly in camera you could have got this without any PP.
...
Please don't take that as a digg mind you as everyone will have shots like this
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the room was dark even to my eyes, it was a choice between non-blurred (bird was fidgeting), dark, or no-shot. Certainly I do not take it as a digg, I knew at the time I would be lucky for anything.


This shot, could be used as a snap I reckon possibly at 8x6. On my screen, 'Fit to Window' (slightly smaller than 50% view), you can't really see the red pixel wash which my camera suffers from. I suspect that if it were run through noise ninja or the like (not that I have ever used it), then it could be more than usable.
RAW is certainly not a get-out-of-jail card, but if you have the option to use it, then there is that larger chance that should a shot not be exposed correctly, then it can be rescued.

This is an 800px wide crop (well 797) shrunk to 400px
smalleye.JPG


Personally, I would rather risk a shot being grainy than blurred.
 
Not sure why people seem to think it takes a long time to process a raw file compared to a jpeg. It's only a case of adjusting a few sliders, exactly the same as if you made some tweaks to a jpeg, why should it take considerably longer in the raw converter?

As for getting it right in camera, well that's not exactly the case is it? It's a case of hoping that the camera get's it right as, even with the presets you give it, the jpeg will be the camera's interpretation of what the image should look like. Personally I'm happier with what I can produce in the raw converter than with the jpeg produced by the camera.
 
fabs said:
Not sure why people seem to think it takes a long time to process a raw file compared to a jpeg. It's only a case of adjusting a few sliders, exactly the same as if you made some tweaks to a jpeg, why should it take considerably longer in the raw converter?
Click to expand...

But if you've got a decent JPEG, there's no need to go anywhere near any post processing at all - it's straight to output. That's where the time saving is.

As for getting it right in camera, well that's not exactly the case is it? It's a case of hoping that the camera get's it right as, even with the presets you give it, the jpeg will be the camera's interpretation of what the image should look like. Personally I'm happier with what I can produce in the raw converter than with the jpeg produced by the camera.
Click to expand...

:thinking: The camera doesn't do any interpretation, it only does eactly what you tell it with the pre-set parameters in Picture Styles with adjustments for sharpness, contrast, saturation and colour tone. With that lot, you have hundreds of different processing permutations. If you use auto white balance, the camera will take a guess at that, just as it will with fully auto exposure control, but you can set both of these manually if you know what you're doing and don't trust the camera. And it's sometimes best that you do, regardless of Raw or JPEG - you cannot afford to be too far out with either.

If all you ever do in post processing is basic tweaking of Picture Styles, then if you know what you want before the picture is taken the camera will do it all for you, and the result will be identical in every respect. There is no improvement in quality just by doing it manually in post; there is only a benefit if you change things in post that the camera is not programmed to do.

Sorry if you know this, it's just not clear from you post ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top