Why Raw

B

Bowsa

Suspended / Banned
Messages
119
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I really dont understand the whole shooting in RAW thing. Why do it, what are the benifits, can you print them easily.....WHY????

cheers
 
After reading Jeff's thread and understand more about RAW files, its worth asking this question

"Why have a DSLR if your not going to shoot RAW"
 
stupar said:
After reading Jeff's thread and understand more about RAW files, its worth asking this question

"Why have a DSLR if your not going to shoot RAW"
Click to expand...

Interchangeable lenses
Speed - press the button and get the pic right away - no shutter lag to speak of
Good performance in poor light


Some non DSLR's can shoot RAW.
I had a Lumix that did, but the shutter lag was a pain in the khyber. I took many pics of half a moving subject :lol:
 
For me personally, shooting jpg on a DSLR would be analogous to having a Film SLR with a polaroid back on.

I feel the opportunity to have control of the 'developing' of the RAW file myself is half the fun of digital photography. Much as the darkroom was with film photography.
 
ChrisJ_SLH said:
For me personally, shooting jpg on a DSLR would be analogous to having a Film SLR with a polaroid back on.

I feel the opportunity to have control of the 'developing' of the RAW file myself is half the fun of digital photography. Much as the darkroom was with film photography.
Click to expand...



I'm going to guess plenty of people with Film SLRs didn't have their own darkroom or one they could use though, and just sent them off..



Anyhoo, the benefits are more control over the final image, more chance of saving an image (ie the camera may blow highlights that can be recovered/saved with software for example), downside is time needed to PP, size on card (they're often over double the size of the JPG).
 
It has been said that RAW is for people who cant shoot good pictures... gives you more control to save them..

Before you string me up... I use RAW on the odd occasion when something is setup and mega important that I darnt rely on ..me :)
 
When we shot film we always had the original negatives to go back to and get re prints from so we always had a back up of the original shot.

I treat RAW files as digital negatives.
On my PC I have a RAW file folder with dated sub folders containing every RAW I have ever shot.

If I want a re print of an image for any reason I can go back to the original and know that I have the unaltered data from the original shot to work with, not something that I liked the look of at the time of processing.
 
littlemonster said:
I'm going to guess plenty of people with Film SLRs didn't have their own darkroom or one they could use though, and just sent them off..
Click to expand...

You're more than right there and for me this is where my original interest in SLR photography waned, once I didn't have access to a darkroom anymore and I started using third party developing. (I never had the time at university of the room or the money when I left). I eventually drifted into compacts, first film, then digital, up until I got my first DSLR (a 350D).

littlemonster said:
Anyhoo, the benefits are more control over the final image, more chance of saving an image (ie the camera may blow highlights that can be recovered/saved with software for example), downside is time needed to PP, size on card (they're often over double the size of the JPG).
Click to expand...

You can still just apply the default setting in DPP/Lightroom or whatever you use and get a jpg that is better than the camera will generate. This gives you the opportunity to come back an re-visit the image at a later date too.

The size on card/disk issue is a very valid point, the RAW images from my 5Dmk2 can be quite horrifying (>>40MB) in some circumstances.
 
iancandler said:
....I treat RAW files as digital negatives.
On my PC I have a RAW file folder with dated sub folders containing every RAW I have ever shot.

If I want a re print of an image for any reason I can go back to the original and know that I have the unaltered data from the original shot to work with, not something that I liked the look of at the time of processing.
Click to expand...

Exactly, RAW converters improve too. The new release of lightroom with its improved RAW engine and noise reduction (and lens correction) has enabled me to go back and revisit older shots and make them even better than was previously possible.

With a jpg, all the information that enables you to do that has been thrown away already.
 
KIPAX said:
It has been said that RAW is for people who cant shoot good pictures... gives you more control to save them..
Click to expand...

I wouldn't agree with that necessarily. To me RAW is a way to capture a good image and still retain the maximum information to realise the full potential of that photograph. I might want to process the same image in two different ways with different dynamics so working from RAW is the only sensible way to do it. That doesn't mean they are not good pictures to begin with but if you shoot only JPG, by the time you've done your PP or artwork you might make a good picture into a bad one!
 
Scenario for you. I do a lot of shooting and hunting photography over the winter, I will easily shoot 1000+ on a big shoot day,people want to see the action and will buy prints on the day. At the end of the shoot I have approx one hour to process them and get them ready for viewing whilst the guns/beaters and dogmen are eating and getting tipsy (sales are at a peak about this time), do you think I have the time to process 1000+ RAW files?

No I don`t, so I shoot hi Res JPEG. Don`t dismiss things out of hand, most things have a purpose.....:thumbs:
 
AndyB said:
I wouldn't agree with that necessarily. To me RAW is a way to capture a good
Click to expand...

having not quoted the next line i will repeat.. I do use RAW on the odd occasion.. so dont take my coment too seriously otherwise I am saying I take bad pictures:) My point was that its not all black and white... I dont use raw 99% of the time but it has its use and I will use when needed :)
 
Our own version of a RAW explanation is here.

It also includes some examples of why you might want to use it.

Shame the OP doesn't appear to have been back to the thread yet to keep the help on the right track.
As to the when to use it question, the answer is down to your choice. I use it exclusively as the processing stage is very simple for the majority of images. Whilst simple it still takes a little time. Those with commercial time pressures may see things differently and need instant finished pictures and camera produced jpegs may be good enough to sell immediately.
 
One of the things I really like about shooting RAW is that you can alter the white balance in post, without worrying about it in camera. If you are shooting JPEG, you must get the white balance right from the outset, as it is almost impossible to change it afterwards without giving the image a milky look.

I also enjoy post processing my pictures, adding just that little bit of magic (perhaps warming the picture up) which finishes them just nicely.
 
ChrisJ_SLH said:
For me personally, shooting jpg on a DSLR would be analogous to having a Film SLR with a polaroid back on.

I feel the opportunity to have control of the 'developing' of the RAW file myself is half the fun of digital photography. Much as the darkroom was with film photography.
Click to expand...

I never really enjoyed darkroom work that much - its only real appeal was the magic of the print appearing through the dim, red gloom.


iancandler said:
When we shot film we always had the original negatives to go back to and get re prints from so we always had a back up of the original shot.

I treat RAW files as digital negatives.
On my PC I have a RAW file folder with dated sub folders containing every RAW I have ever shot.

If I want a re print of an image for any reason I can go back to the original and know that I have the unaltered data from the original shot to work with, not something that I liked the look of at the time of processing.
Click to expand...

What about those of use who used transparency film rather than print? To me, a JPEG is more like a tranny with raw files allowing far more leeway for less accuracy in exposure etc - adding a safety net, if you like.

Both formats have their place, in the same way that B&W, colour print and slide film all have theirs.
 
Nod said:
I never really enjoyed darkroom work that much - its only real appeal was the magic of the print appearing through the dim, red gloom.




What about those of use who used transparency film rather than print? To me, a JPEG is more like a tranny with raw files allowing far more leeway for less accuracy in exposure etc - adding a safety net, if you like.

Both formats have their place, in the same way that B&W, colour print and slide film all have theirs.
Click to expand...


A transparency still has to be developed, and of course prints can be taken from them and at the exposure stage corrections can be made.
I just like that RAW lets me feel like I am still doing my own processing, I can push or pull the RAW to gain the same effect as I would have in processing and with current noise reduction software I can even do I guess the equivalent of hypering the film (make it more sensitive without too much grain) ie I can shoot at ISO 3200 then edit the noise out to a degree.

I guess I view my RAW processor and photoshop as more of a digital version of my old dark room than anything else.
 
I think of it in a simple way (it helps my small brain), a jpg is just a raw that has been processed by the camera. The camera is good at processing them. I am better. Sometimes.
 
stupar said:
After reading Jeff's thread and understand more about RAW files, its worth asking this question

"Why have a DSLR if your not going to shoot RAW"
Click to expand...

Life is too short plus how many hard-drives can you fit in your computer?


.............and PLEASE do not think that your jpg can't be processed or altered in Lightroom etc. !
 
KIPAX said:
It has been said that RAW is for people who cant shoot good pictures... gives you more control to save them..
Click to expand...

This is a common misconception...
If you have sufficiently contrasty scene (say DR of 7 stops) then shooting RAW needs to get pretty close to perfect to allow any usable postprocessing. If you have far off WB in this case for example, it will be impossible to get the WB back correctly without colour shifts and lost information (either highlights or shadows) in at least one of the channels.

My point here being, shooting RAW is not a substitute for getting it right in camera (exposure, WB, filters).
 
KIPAX said:
It has been said that RAW is for people who cant shoot good pictures... gives you more control to save them..
Click to expand...

That's like saying that good quality film is for those who are too incompetent to get good results from cheap film.
 
Old Timer said:
That's like saying that good quality film is for those who are too incompetent to get good results from cheap film.
Click to expand...

Nope.. RAW doesnt give a better picture than JPG so nothing like that at all.. Shot correctly there is no difference between a raw and a jpg picture
 
If you want to use film camera analogies here is how I see it:

Jpeg is like taking your film to boots dropping it off for a one hour service. it is quick, it doesn't need a massive amount of time to work on them an you get a good image.

RAW is like going into the darkroom and hand printing the pic dodging and burning your way through the pic to get the best possible result.

Raw allows for more fine tweaking of an image not just more chance to rescue it.

A lot of people who need the image in and out such as events etc. will use jpeg for speed over most other things.

Those who can take their time of the final process are able to take advantage of the extra details that can be drawn out from a raw.

Why do all Pros who have the time to be able to PP their work use RAW?
 
KIPAX said:
Nope.. RAW doesnt give a better picture than JPG so nothing like that at all.. Shot correctly there is no difference between a raw and a jpg picture
Click to expand...

I think you need to define "correctly", because in my own testing using a scene of extreme dynamic range, including sunlit and shady areas, to bring the shadow regions up to more aesthetically pleasing levels I find the raw file clearly has the edge. Colour and detail are both preserved far better in the raw file. By comparison the JPEG equivalent is dull and mushy.

At the other end of the scale you can expose brighter when shooting raw because the camera won't be applying a tone curve or WB correction and thus risk pushing highlights in one or more channels into clipping. The double bonus there is less noise, more shadow detail and smoother tonal gradients as well. You get the opportunity to craft your own vision for the image instead of being constrained by the limitations of some preset processing in the camera, which might do an OK job with the midtones, but offers limited flexibility at the far ends of the dynamic range.
 
tdodd said:
I think you need to define "correctly",.
Click to expand...

I think you need to understand the spirit of the post .... If I go out to shoot a plant pot on a loverly day and I get the exposure bob-on then to all intents and purposes its the same picture.

If you do a poll today and ask why poeple use RAW then a massive amount of people will respond thats its to save the picture.. or just in case they get it wrong or if they need to set wb or many other reasons.... not many will say because it gives a better pic than jpg when shot correctly right exposure/wb everyhting shot correctly.. Some maybe yourself might.. but the vast majority you know quite well why :)
 
in the last month or so i started shooting RAW and im askign myself why i never found it before

just give you the option to edit alot better than you would if you shot in jpeg
 
Danny133 said:
in the last month or so i started shooting RAW and im askign myself why i never found it before

just give you the option to edit alot better than you would if you shot in jpeg
Click to expand...

exactly.. its not a betetr picture but it gives you more control to make it a better picture :)
 
KIPAX said:
exactly.. its not a betetr picture but it gives you more control to make it a better picture :)
Click to expand...

Raw isn't even a picture. It's data. You get to make the picture later. That's why it's so powerful.

Shooting to JPEG is like giving the wife £100 and telling her to go and buy you something nice for your camera, leaving it up to her to choose. Oh, and no refunds. You'd better like what she gets.

Shooting to raw is likely having the £100 to go and spend as you see fit. Actually it's probably more like having £200 and still getting to choose. Then you get an unlimited returns policy too.
 
Last edited:
Here we go again, just shoot what the b*****y hell you like, raw, jpg or both.
It's your kit - you choose. There's no right or wrong. I've only been on this forum a short while and the raw jpg debate has been done to death.
I shoot raw because I actually like PP my images, I have time to do so.
If I thought I needed to shoot in cam jpg I would, they can still be processed, just not to the same extent. I have had images shot as raw that 'could not' have been processed the same had they been jpg. I want to be in charge of the processing, but that's just me. Don't just follow the crowd, do what YOU want to do, just ignore anyone who tells you to do it differently - what do they know anyway?
If you want everything done for you, go jpg (in cam jpg CAN be very good)
if you want more control over your images (and have time) shoot raw.
If you want to sit on the fence, shoot both.
As Ret butler said ' quite frankly my dear, I don't give a damn'
 
Howi said:
Here we go again, just shoot what the b*****y hell you like, raw, jpg or both.
Click to expand...

Thanks.. I already do.. I am guessing most in here already do..

Howi said:
It's your kit - you choose. There's no right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Nobody is suggesting there is a right or wrong and nobody is telling anyone what to shoot in (apart from you).. its an adult (or was) discusion about raw and jpg


Howi said:
I've only been on this forum a short while and the raw jpg debate has been done to death.
Click to expand...

As has every other subject.. should we close the place down?

Howi said:
I shoot raw because I actually like PP my images, I have time to do so.
Click to expand...

thats better.. now your joining in :) :)


Howi said:
just ignore anyone who tells you to do it differently - what do they know anyway?
Click to expand...

Good advice.. I just cant seem to find anyone saying that.. ?

Howi said:
.
As Ret butler said ' quite frankly my dear, I don't give a damn'
Click to expand...

Your post would seem to suggest otherwise.. but thanks for the moan.. just what the thread needed :)
 
Howi said:
Here we go again, just shoot what the b*****y hell you like, raw, jpg or both.
It's your kit - you choose. There's no right or wrong. I've only been on this forum a short while and the raw jpg debate has been done to death.
I shoot raw because I actually like PP my images, I have time to do so.
If I thought I needed to shoot in cam jpg I would, they can still be processed, just not to the same extent. I have had images shot as raw that 'could not' have been processed the same had they been jpg. I want to be in charge of the processing, but that's just me. Don't just follow the crowd, do what YOU want to do, just ignore anyone who tells you to do it differently - what do they know anyway?
If you want everything done for you, go jpg (in cam jpg CAN be very good)
if you want more control over your images (and have time) shoot raw.
If you want to sit on the fence, shoot both.
As Ret butler said ' quite frankly my dear, I don't give a damn'
Click to expand...

Absolutely right.

I would also add that if the dynamic range is so great you are using RAW to try and recover highlights that may burn out then it's time to learn about HDR.

And if you look here:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=293905

You'll see pics take in JPEG which I'm quite sure many people on here would be quite happy with.

.
 
Last edited:
Howi said:
Here we go again, just shoot what the b*****y hell you like, raw, jpg or both.
It's your kit - you choose. There's no right or wrong. I've only been on this forum a short while and the raw jpg debate has been done to death.
I shoot raw because I actually like PP my images, I have time to do so.
If I thought I needed to shoot in cam jpg I would, they can still be processed, just not to the same extent. I have had images shot as raw that 'could not' have been processed the same had they been jpg. I want to be in charge of the processing, but that's just me. Don't just follow the crowd, do what YOU want to do, just ignore anyone who tells you to do it differently - what do they know anyway?
If you want everything done for you, go jpg (in cam jpg CAN be very good)
if you want more control over your images (and have time) shoot raw.
If you want to sit on the fence, shoot both.
As Ret butler said ' quite frankly my dear, I don't give a damn'
Click to expand...

Rhett Butler also said "I'm very drunk and I intend on getting still drunker before this evening's over". And I think he mentioned raw was better but I just might be wrong on that. ;)
 
Question was asked in the basics section.. i would presume by somone who has no idea...

Seems a bit unfair for people to be jumping in moaning about the question being asked and then making comments like these...its TALK BASICS!

just my opinion of course :)
 
petersmart said:
Absolutely right.

I would also add that if the dynamic range is so great you are using RAW to try and recover highlights that may burn out then it's time to learn about HDR.

.
Click to expand...
You want to try HDR for shots at a wedding? Have fun with that, with your JPEG file(s).
 
tdodd said:
You want to try HDR for shots at a wedding? Have fun with that, with your JPEG file(s).
Click to expand...

Well you could also use Oloneo (which those pics were processed with) which helps to extend the dynamic range.

Obviously there are many instances when you cannot use HDR and if you're a pro tog then things are MUCH different - in that case you need all the help you can get which, after all, is the reason most pro togs also have pro equipment.

But there are many cases when even Raw cannot accomodate all the dynamic range.

.
 
Isn't it often the case you only step upto/sideways to RAW when you have a better grasp of photography and processing in general.

Usually when you have then mastered RAW and its benefits, compared to JPEG and its benefits you can then make the call according to the conditions you are shooting in.

If you are just starting out, shoot BOTH. Then you can go back to a RAW file if you ever choose too.

How long does it take to create a RAW file....how long to delete a RAW file - the press of a button.
 
ChrisJ_SLH said:
For me personally, shooting jpg on a DSLR would be analogous to having a Film SLR with a polaroid back on.....
Click to expand...

That's made me chuckle after a long day at work :)
 
petersmart said:
Well you could also use Oloneo (which those pics were processed with) which helps to extend the dynamic range.

Obviously there are many instances when you cannot use HDR and if you're a pro tog then things are MUCH different - in that case you need all the help you can get which, after all, is the reason most pro togs also have pro equipment.

But there are many cases when even Raw cannot accomodate all the dynamic range.

.
Click to expand...

But if you are going to start mucking about with HDR, or pulling and pushing your files around with software like Oloneo or anything else, then why wouldn't you choose to have the raw files to work with? Surely, at least for the purposes of this thread, the benefit of shooting to JPEG is to have files ready to go straight from camera to print. As soon as you start tweaking and fiddling haven't you suddenly given up the advantage of immediacy that JPEG gave you, and instead simply made your job potentially a bit (or possibly a lot) more difficult?

Of course there are things like buffer capacity to consider, card capacity (not a strong argument, I feel) and file transfer and handling speed, but if you know you will be editing your files after shooting perhaps the question should not be "Why shoot raw?" but rather "Why shoot JPEG?". You can always create a JPEG from a raw. You can never do the reverse. And with software like DPP for Canon shooters, or Lightroom for just about anyone, you can always squirt out cooked JPEGS from the raw sausage machine without the need for hands on fiddling. Certainly there's no reason why the resulting files should be any worse than JPEGs straight from camera. Yes, OK, sometimes things are so time critical that you simply can't wait, but for us amateurs, or those with more time to sit back and ponder their creations, is that a problem? I'm thinking not.

As for raw being for more experienced or advanced photographers, I switched to shooting raw within the first fortnight of DSLR ownership. I was terrified at first, especially as I was on holiday with the camera and feared I'd end up with nothing. Well that was poppycock. Raw is a piece of cake. At the time, back in 2006, I simply shoved the files through DPP and Boom! out popped the JPEGs. I had freedom to fiddle about and my files weren't baked in with things like sharpening and wotnot already applied. What a nice surprise to find I could even change picture styles after shooting. When I shot raw with the monochrome picture style, boy did I get a surprise when I found the file still had full colour in it. And to then find that I could apply different B&W filters after the shoot too. Super! Nowadays I use Lightroom, but handling raw files is absolutely no harder than handling JPEGs. Apart from the generously proportioned files I really don't see a downside to raw, at least for my purposes. There's plenty of upside though. Plenty. For those under time pressure to get a finished product out the door the priorities might be different.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top