Shooting in RAW all the time?

CarlukeDave

CarlukeDave

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,048
Edit My Images
Yes
I was reading in a magazine last week about shooting in RAW, it suggested that it isn't always necessary to shoot in this format.

Whilst I agree it isn't essential, I can't think of any reason not too shoot in RAW (unless space on a CF was an issue). I've been shooting in this format for a number of months now and not once have I switched back to Jpeg.
 
I shoot both at the same time, dont know why as i only use the Raw:cuckoo:
 
I shoot raw on my canon and jpg on my panny I Print from raw too using canons dpp program ;)
 
isnt easier to edit raw files than it is with jpegs?
 
I have only just started using RAW for all pictures, don't ask me why as I don't know, but it was handy at the Autosport show when I could come home and adjust the W/B and make the pictures a lot better.
 
i havnt made the switch to raw yet but im sure i wont switch back once i finially do, i think i just need to use my camera a little bit more and get out with my camera...but havnt had the chance yet
 
I shoot RAW all the time now (With 10 gigs worth of CF and a 4 gig pro duo, don't really have a space issue). It's just so much better being able to decide on processing rather than let the camera do it.

I use Elements, so I can use the organiser to view the images full screen before deciding which ones to process.
 
isnt easier to edit raw files than it is with jpegs?
Click to expand...
Saying that with Raw i only sharpen and tweak white balance a little.
jpg loses a lot of the info where as Raw keeps the highlights.
 
The only time I ever shoot RAW is when making HDR's otherwise imo its a waste of space on your cf/sd card. Ken Rockwell also has some interesting points on this, you may want to take a read of this http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

People seem to think that shooting in RAW allows you to adjust your images beyond that of a JPEG, and that it opens up RAW only controls in your software, I find this to be incorrect, if you look hard enough in photoshop, or simply use adobe lightroom or apple aperture, all of these controls (WB, Exposure etc) are available for JPEG's just as they are for RAW images. Yes you can push the exposure of a RAW image further than that of a JPEG but personally I would only do this if A - I wasnt confident enough with a camera to expose my shots properly or B - I was too lazy to bother taking the shot correctly and wanted to worry about it in PP work.
 
oreo5000 said:
The only time I ever shoot RAW is when making HDR's otherwise imo its a waste of space on your cf/sd card. Ken Rockwell also has some interesting points on this, you may want to take a read of this http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

People seem to think that shooting in RAW allows you to adjust your images beyond that of a jpeg and opens up RAW only controls in your software, I find this to be incorrect, if you look hard enough in photoshop, or simply use adobe lightroom or apple aperture, all of these controls (WB, Exposure etc) are available for JPEG's just as they are for RAW images. Yes you can push the exposure of a RAW image further than that of a JPEG but personally I would only do this if A - I wasnt confident enough with a camera to expose my shots properly or B - I was too lazy to bother taking the shot correctly and wanted to worry about it in PP work.
Click to expand...

But it's a lot easier to make those adjustments in a RAW converter, IMHO. Also I don't think adjusting the exposure in post is anything to do with laziness. The camera will adjust the exposure for you if you shoot in jpeg anyway and as light is always changing, it's not always possible to get the perfect exposure without some post processing.
 
The only time I ever shoot RAW is when making HDR's otherwise imo its a waste of space on your cf/sd card
Click to expand...
Yes you can push the exposure of a RAW image further than that of a JPEG but personally I would only do this if A - I wasnt confident enough with a camera to expose my shots properly or B - I was too lazy to bother taking the shot correctly and wanted to worry about it in PP work.
Click to expand...

In my opinion the second quote answers the first one
 
Joe T said:
I shoot both, only because reviewing the JPEGs is much easier when deciding which shots to process properly.
Click to expand...

Same for me, just shot a full wedding that way, had the wrong white balance set for a few of the shots but with RAW its no problem.
 
fabs said:
But it's a lot easier to make those adjustments in a RAW converter, IMHO. Also I don't think adjusting the exposure in post is anything to do with laziness. The camera will adjust the exposure for you if you shoot in jpeg anyway and as light is always changing, it's not always possible to get the perfect exposure without some post processing.
Click to expand...
Well personally I dont find any RAW convertor any easier or faster than say Adobe Lightroom.

But you are in control of the exposure, not the format you are taking images in, and you can tweak this just as easily afterwards if its a jpeg as opposed to raw.

If you read what i actually put you would see that I have nothing against adjusting exposure in pp, just that I think its lazy to totally underexpose and not worry about it as you know you can pull it back again because its raw.
 
Wile E. coyote said:
Same for me, just shot a full wedding that way, had the wrong white balance set for a few of the shots but with RAW its no problem.
Click to expand...

But this is my point, why do you feel you can only adjust WB of Raw images and not jpegs?
 
oreo5000 said:
Well personally I dont find any RAW convertor any easier or faster than say Adobe Lightroom.

But you are in control of the exposure, not the format you are taking images in, and you can tweak this just as easily afterwards if its a jpeg as opposed to raw.

If you read what i actually put you would see that I have nothing against adjusting exposure in pp, just that I think its lazy to totally underexpose and not worry about it as you know you can pull it back again because its raw.
Click to expand...

Appreciate what you are saying, and if you find Lightroom easier then that's fine. I happen to find ACR much easier than processing jpegs but that is my personal preference.

I did read what you actually put and you seemed to imply that adjusting the exposure in a RAW file was unnecessary as you should get the exposure right when you took the should. I was just giving my opinion in response to that.
 
I am new to all this and found it helpful shooting in RAW when inside at the Autosport show and could adjust the WB in Nikon Capture, I was not aware that I could adjust the WB on a Jpeg image in CS2 ??

Where abouts as I would like to try this with some older pictures that I have taken, thanks.
 
Oreo are you saying that if you shoot a Raw and jpg same exposure and include these elemets, ie. sunny day, blue sky, white clouds, grass trees etc. you'll get the same results??
 
fabs said:
Appreciate what you are saying, and if you find Lightroom easier then that's fine. I happen to find ACR much easier than processing jpegs but that is my personal preference.

I did read what you actually put and you seemed to imply that adjusting the exposure in a RAW file was unnecessary as you should get the exposure right when you took the should. I was just giving my opinion in response to that.
Click to expand...

No, sorry, I merely stated that you could push RAW images' exposures further.. and if you needed to push them that much further than a JPEG then I would say it was too underexposed and you should work on getting your exposure closer to what you want in camera first.
 
dcash29 said:
Oreo are you saying that if you shoot a Raw and jpg same exposure and include these elemets, ie. sunny day, blue sky, white clouds, grass trees etc. you'll get the same results??
Click to expand...
No, where have you read that? and would you mind stating what your previous comment made?

The answer to your question above is no, I do understand how RAW and JPEG's work, Im merely commenting on the use of PP work with both formats.
 
oreo5000 said:
No, sorry, I merely stated that you could push RAW images' exposures further.. and if you needed to push them that much further than a JPEG then I would say it was too underexposed and you should work on getting your exposure closer to what you want in camera first.
Click to expand...

Right, understand what you are saying now, but this still doesn't make RAW a waste. With jpegs, the camera does a certain amount of processing for you. Personally I prefer to have control of this myself. You may be able to do all the same processing to a jpeg, but you may also have to undo some of the camera's work as well.
 
Joe T said:
If you need the pictures processed very quickly, JPEG can be useful.
Click to expand...

If you use Nikon and basic quality jpegs are enough, then you can extract them from your NEFs without processing them (hint: dcraw or Preview Extractor) :)

You want what the camera's engine cooked - grab the jpeg. You don't - process the NEF.
 
Sorry but i do the same PP on either format sharpen and tweak colour if needed
 
p3ryg said:
I am new to all this and found it helpful shooting in RAW when inside at the Autosport show and could adjust the WB in Nikon Capture, I was not aware that I could adjust the WB on a Jpeg image in CS2 ??

Where abouts as I would like to try this with some older pictures that I have taken, thanks.
Click to expand...
p3ryg, in PS I beleive you can use levels and select individual colours and use the sliders to adjust, alternative you can use plugins to provide you with a slider to adjust wb. See here http://www.lonestardigital.com/white_balance_solutions.htm
 
at the end of the day its personal preference.. however as RAW is not a digital image but a data file then it has ALL the information of the image, a jpg wont have the same detail in the shadow area etc ,
You cannot change white balance in a jpg, yes u can adjust the colour cast to make it look different but that is not the same as adjusting the white balance. and as it is an image file it is the image you are adusting, and therefore compromising the original image, the RAW adustment is on the data NOT the image.
 
dcash29 said:
In my opinion the second quote answers the first one
Click to expand...

dcash29, your pp comment is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Also would you still care to explain the above?
 
fabs said:
Right, understand what you are saying now, but this still doesn't make RAW a waste. With jpegs, the camera does a certain amount of processing for you. Personally I prefer to have control of this myself. You may be able to do all the same processing to a jpeg, but you may also have to undo some of the camera's work as well.
Click to expand...

If your camera is set up correctly I dont see why you would have to undo any of the cameras work but if this is your personal preference then thats fair enough, I am merely trying to give a response to the first post in this thread where CarlukeDave said he couldnt think of any reason not to shoot in RAW.. maybe now I have given him one.
 
Fionab said:
at the end of the day its personal preference.. however as RAW is not a digital image but a data file then it has ALL the information of the image, a jpg wont have the same detail in the shadow area etc ,
You cannot change white balance in a jpg, yes u can adjust the colour cast to make it look different but that is not the same as adjusting the white balance. and as it is an image file it is the image you are adusting, and therefore compromising the original image, the RAW adustment is on the data NOT the image.
Click to expand...

:agree: You've put into words exactly what I was thinking!
 
Fionab said:
at the end of the day its personal preference.. however as RAW is not a digital image but a data file then it has ALL the information of the image, a jpg wont have the same detail in the shadow area etc ,
You cannot change white balance in a jpg, yes u can adjust the colour cast to make it look different but that is not the same as adjusting the white balance. and as it is an image file it is the image you are adusting, and therefore compromising the original image, the RAW adustment is on the data NOT the image.
Click to expand...
Regardless of what is happening technically, if you took a RAW image and a JPEG and adjusted their white balances to match, I would challenge you to show me a visible difference.
 
i got an 8 gig card a 1 gig card and a 256 card i found in my old flat left by the previous owner how many raw pics is that roughly
 
Oreo, my comment was saying that in my opinion HDR is a lazy way. Anyone can take pictures at a stop here and there and make something out of nothing although not from exposing correctly but with a computer. Plus earlier you said Raw was a waste of space other than use with Hdr.. thats your opinion. But a Raw files contain 12-16 bit information where a jpg holds 8 bits if i'm correct.
By the way my 'irrelevant PP comment' as you say stated that we dont all underexpose so that the image can be brought back from the dead with PP.

At the end of the day Jpg, Raw and Hdr has their place its whatever one wishes to work with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top