Why shoot RAW

J

jamesrh

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7
Edit My Images
No
I understand that RAW quality is the best, and gives the best images, but is there another reason as to why I should shoot in RAW? I think I'm more likely to go with the higher quality L size rather than RAW.

I've tried searching but I wasn't really sure what to put in to find a discussion of when and why you'd use RAW mode.
 
Very,very basically.

RAW gives you more chance to edit shots in post processing,they hold more data to manipulate.

JPEGs are faster,but you need to nail them in the camera more.



People will probably advise one against the other, they both serve a purpose.If your just starting out, take JPEG fine until you are more confident with processing or want to experiment more.

JMHFO...................:thumbs:
 
RAW can/will save the day if needed in post processing. With a Jpeg what you see out of the camera is what you get,so you really need to make sure you get it right in camera...;)
 
fracster said:
People will probably advise one against the other, they both serve a purpose.If your just starting out, take JPEG fine until you are more confident with processing or want to experiment more.

JMHFO...................:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Personally, I would of said RAW is better for beginners as it enables them to save shots that if taken as JPEG would have been lost.

to OP:

However, you should never think "it doesn't matter, I can fix it later!". Ideally you would want to be getting it right in camera first time, cuts down on processing time and then allows you to use JPEGs :)
 
As already mentioned raw gives you more data to use when editing the picture. Obviously you can edit a JPEG but the quality can suffer.

Some people will say that you do not need to edit if you get all the settings in the camera correct but that ignores the fact that the camera settings are global, that is they affect the whole image, whereas editing on the computer allows you to do local changes - just enhance the sky for example.

Have a look here http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm
The raw articles are at the bottom right, they are a bit technical but there is a summary at the end of the last article.
 
How about shooting RAW+JPEG? That way you have the best of both worlds. If you get the JPEGS right you can delete the RAW. And if you get them wrong, or want to PP them a lot you can use the RAW.
 
If you use Canon DPP you can do a batch convert of the RAW files to give you JPEGS for speed, however having the RAW files will enable tweaking if you want/need to, best of both worlds, appart from a larger file size of course, but storage is relatively cheap these days.
 
RAW doesn't take that much longer than jpeg to process and the advantages far out weigh any disadvantages. It depends what you need to do to the files and what software you use. I processed 180 RAW files at the weekend in around 3 hours - how fast do you need?
 
RAW all the way. Remember though, unless you edit in your Camera's native software, or at least convert to a JPEG from it, you will loose ALL your in camera processing. If you like to creare custom values on your contrast, saturation and sharpness etc, Photoshop / Lightroom and other raw processing programs ignore those settings that your camera has used. Only with Canon DPP or Nik CaptureNX will you get your JPEG processing on your RAW files. Best of both worlds IMO.

I dunno if the same applies to other brands such as Sony, Pentax etc

G.
 
I`m not disagreeing with anything said about the values of shooting RAW.

But this is the talk basics section where people new to photography are hopefully asking questions. My view regarding jpegs ,is that maybe it is better to just go out and shoot until one understands the basics,many newcomers may not want to do much pp,as such jpegs give a quicker output. Once the basics are understood then yes,generally RAW.
 
Must get round to starting a beginners guide to raw :)

I've tried asking other people that know their stuff to do it but no volunteers yet......
 
The biggest advantage of shooting RAW over jpeg is you have complete control over white balance in post production. The next best thing is how much leeway you have in exposure manipulation before degrdation sets in.
 
There was another reason, to do with dynamic range, that I was reading with interest recently, but I'm afraid I'm at work and I can't remember the exact details at the moment. My feeble and stressed memory right now can only offer you a very basic explanation - basically if you shoot in RAW, and expose 'to the right' (that means you over expose slightly, about 1/3rd of a stop generally) you will record more detail and will still be able to recover some of the shadow detail, if shot in RAW. If you shoot in JPEG only you lose this extra information. It's all to do with how digital sensors work.
 
Another reason not highlighted so far is JPEG is what is known as a "Lossy" compression algorithm. Even at high quality settings, JPEG can cause artefacts to appear in areas of flat or very subtly graduated colour.

For some, this is an issue. For others, it is not.
 
awp said:
I processed 180 RAW files at the weekend in around 3 hours - how fast do you need?
Click to expand...

Sometimes, a damned sight faster than that........:D
 
If you shoot in RAW and use the manufacturers software converter camera settings to convert to Jpeg... you might as well have taken the shot in Jpeg in the first place. as they will give the same result.
Working from raw presupposes you want more than a standard jpeg can give you, and perhaps then save as a higher quality Tiff or PSD file. Even then it is hardly worth while unless you make the effort to get the best out of the Raw file.

Mostly there is far more in a file than jpeg can give you.
 
I always recommend best quality JPEG and RAW - that way you have the shot available instantly if you have nailed the JPEG and the RAW available if it needs some post production work. OK, it takes up more space but memory cards are one of the cheaper aspects of photography as long as you stay away from the very largest and newest cards on the market.

The worst mistake I ever made in digital photography was listening to Ken Rockwell and shooting everything in JPEG only (made worse by using his colours up to max settings) - trying to recover a friend's wedding photos from those JPEGS cost me far more work than a bit of raw conversion would have done!
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
If you shoot in RAW and use the manufacturers software converter camera settings to convert to Jpeg... you might as well have taken the shot in Jpeg in the first place. as they will give the same result.
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true. DPP will still give you better control of the JPEG output than the camera's in-built JPEG engine.

For me personally, using RAW is analogous to negatives from my film shooting days. The RAW being the negative and the JPEG the developed print. I would have never considered throwing away a negative after making a print. Similarly I've shot RAW since day one with my first DSLR and can go back and play with images in whatever way I choose with no loss of quality.

I do agree though that shooting RAW can sometimes make you a bit lazy and complacent about getting the shot as good as possible first time.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
If you shoot in RAW and use the manufacturers software converter camera settings to convert to Jpeg... you might as well have taken the shot in Jpeg in the first place.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but that's wholly false. It may produce a JPEG which looks identical to shooting JPEGS only, but it also allows you to process your in-camera processed image even further (much further). To me, it allows you to get it right in camera as much as possible, but leaves the door for editing open.

G.
 
I shot jpg only for the first 8 months with my d40, smaller file sizes which in the early days worked best for me because 98% of shots went in the recycle bin anyway. When i felt that i was starting to get somewhere and with advice from here finally made the move to RAW and i have never looked back.

Yeah you want to get it right in the camera as best as possible but still being new to this and now having a RAW file i found i could produce some great results. Having something as simple as the ability to chose from 4 stops under/over from one file is great, i found with jpg i took lots of the same shot at different exposures and sometime still got it wrong whereas now i can pick the perfect foreground/sky exposure and blend them if need be, also being able to adjust WB so simply can again make or break the shot.

The thing for me as a beginer that defo stands out is saving the editted raw file as PSD(photoshop) and not loosing quality, open it make adjustments then save additional file as jpg when done. I used to make the error of opening and re-saving the jpg over and over again which resulted in all the quality dissappearing.

Mike
 
As you are using Canon, unless you use 3rd party software such as Photoshop, it is easier to adjust white balace in PP if you are working from raw.

This can be useful when the auto WB in the camera gets fooled by background colours (e.g. a sandy floor at a showjumping arena or some artificial lights). In this case, with DPP you can either use a preset temperature (cloudy, tungsten, etc) or dial in a temperature (6500K) to correct the image.

If you are in JPEG, you have to guess with the dropper or the colour wheel and assume that your monitor is approximately correct.

Conversion to JPEG from raw is easy - and if you happen to use a Canon printer then you don't even have to bother as the printer add-in software understands raw format.
 
awp said:
I was being very picky! :)
My work rate for press pictures can be even faster! :)
Click to expand...

Tell me about it, I sometimes have to do a thousand in an hour or so...........:bang:
 
EdinburghGary said:
Sorry, but that's wholly false. It may produce a JPEG which looks identical to shooting JPEGS only, but it also allows you to process your in-camera processed image even further (much further). To me, it allows you to get it right in camera as much as possible, but leaves the door for editing open.

G.
Click to expand...

I don't think you read what I said, I said ...
(---and use the manufacturers software converter camera settings to convert to Jpeg) Of course if you change them, you can get far better results....

That is why I always shoot Raw.
 
There are many reasons why shooting raw is best , but for an inexperienced person the most important one, must be the ability to adjust the white balance. If nothing else, this alone is a good reason to shoot Raw. regards colin.
 
To all: many thanks for the replies.
I admit, that I'm not very keen, at this stage, in doing a lot of post photography work, but I can see that the more information you save the easier it is to do that work.

I'll probably have a play with RAW and jpeg settings when my lens turns up.

I was interested in this line from Mr Mike:
Mr Mike said:
Having something as simple as the ability to chose from 4 stops under/over from one file is great
Mike
Click to expand...

What does that mean? Does the RAW image capture different ISO settings or something?
 
It means you have latitude! You can recover from exposure errors - and WB errors and lots more! :)
 
coljun said:
There are many reasons why shooting raw is best , but for an inexperienced person the most important one, must be the ability to adjust the white balance. If nothing else, this alone is a good reason to shoot Raw. regards colin.
Click to expand...

There are also many reasons why jpeg is best, in the right situation. Ease of use, speed of processing, encouraging good exposure control are the three which come to mind immediately.

I don't advocate one over the other, they both have their place, depending on what you're doing. That's why the manufacturers give you the option, even on their top end cameras :shrug:
 
The question was why shoot RAW. A better question might have been 'why shoot JPG when RAW is available?' JPG is a compromise - you give the camera control over everything and it's only of benefit if you need to produce a high volume of images in a short time scale (or you're lazy or hate PP :) ).

The exposing to the right (stop sniggering at the back) is valid and I do it quite often. But you can only get away with it in RAW because you can recover highlights. Try it with JPG and you've blown it. The point demonstrated there is that the camera/sensor can't always give you what you need without the PP if your scene has a wide range of dynamics.
 
jamesrh said:
To all: many thanks for the replies.
I admit, that I'm not very keen, at this stage, in doing a lot of post photography work, but I can see that the more information you save the easier it is to do that work.

I'll probably have a play with RAW and jpeg settings when my lens turns up.

I was interested in this line from Mr Mike:


What does that mean? Does the RAW image capture different ISO settings or something?
Click to expand...

When you open a RAW in PS there is an exposure slider that defaults to 0 (as you shot it) but can also slide left to under expose by upto 4 stops or to the right to over expose by upto 4 stops. The RAW file contains all this information which is why the file is so large. Great for us begineers who havent quite mastered it on camera so without having to take lots of shot just to be sure the RAW captures it all for you.
 
Biggest benefit for me is the fact that the PP can take place outside the camera on a big colour calibrated monitor with +-exposure options as well.

It is still well worth while getting it as right as possible in the camera though.
 
I'm no doubt repeating several things that have already been said on here, but in my (beginner's) opinion, if you have the storage space and 'value' the shots you are taking then select the RAW + JPEG option. JPEG for instant gratification, RAW for when you have time to play or want to adjust things later!

However, if i'm just taking 'snaps' which i'm only likely to use on Flickr or Facebook or something like that, i select JPEG fine as i can click away all day without worrying about space on my memory card and knowing i'm not likely to want to do much PP...

I have a Sony A200 and find i get some pretty good shots either way!
 
Shooting Jpegs presupposes there is such a thing as one correct exposure.
Any experienced photographer knows that is not true.
There is only one correct exposure to get the particular result you may want,... but that is a different story.
 
jamesrh said:
I understand that RAW quality is the best, and gives the best images, but is there another reason as to why I should shoot in RAW? I think I'm more likely to go with the higher quality L size rather than RAW.
Click to expand...
I think this is the right decision, especially if you are just starting out and have a half decent camera. Enjoy taking pics and looking at/sharing them rather than having to process them. Shooting jpegs means you can share them straight away.

I shoot most of my stuff in jpeg and I don't remember ever regretting not using RAW on any of it. I think it's down to what and with what you are shooting and how much you want to do afterwards.

That said, it's always worth trying new stuff! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top