This is why you should shoot in RAW and not delete "bad" photos

[kimmie]

Originally Posted by manwez

I've done some shooting in RAW and have used Digital Photo Professional (canon program?) but am still trying to figure it all out. Guess its just taking time to sit down and learn it all and experiment.

That's all I shoot in now is Raw and I use the Canon Digital Photo Pro software as well. There is so much you can do with that software and there have been many photos I would have otherwise deleted w/o it.

Play play play and have lots of fun with that software!

[fletch]

The original image is taking "Expose to the right" a bit litterally isn't it!

[djotaku]

One important thing - with RAW you usually can't do the same thing the other way. What I mean is that if you shoot the file too dark, it will probably look like crap if you bump up the exposure too much. This is because cameras dedicate a lot more of the bits to the light end of the range than the dark end.

Second, I always hear people complain that with RAWs you have the extra step of fixing it and you like how the camera does it and blah blah blah. Here's what I do and I think it's a great workflow. (Also it answers the question above about keeping raws)

1. Transfer the RAW files to my computer
2. See which ones are immediately crap - completely out of focus, looked better on the little screen on the camera, etc and delete those
3. Convert to DNG. This makes them take up less space and work with more programs. Why would you ever delete the RAW/DNG files? If you were taking analog photos would you throw away the negatives? Plus HDD are cheap! You can get 1 TB for $100
4. Go over my photos, if I like how they look - why tweak the settings? In other words, the myth of RAW is that you need to be a pro at tweaking the settings. If you like how it looks out of the "box" just leave it be. Unless you're OCD and have to be 100% you have the best photo possible.
5. Convert to JPEG - sure this takes extra time, but I just go do other things - mow the lawn, take out the garbage, cook, clean, w/e depending on how many photos it is and how long it'll take

And actually for step 4 what I do is go through all the photos and rate them (in Lightroom - used to do it in Bridge before Lightroom) I only upload to flickr whatever makes it to 3 stars or higher (or 4 stars if I have to go through more rounds) And then, if you want, you only need to convert THOSE to JPEG. Why convert photos to JPEG if you dont' need it? You can always convert on demand if someone sees the RAW on your HDD and asks for it. On a modern machine shouldn't take more than a few minutes.

Finally, I shoot everything in RAW because you never know what you'll want to tweak. Maybe you dont' want to this week, but two weeks from now or a year from now - you'll wish it was RAW. Memory cards are cheap - just bought 4 GB for $60 ($30 after mail-in rebate) and on my 400D that gives me 382 photos in RAW. Total I have 13 GB and that's more than plenty for any trip I've been on.

[Silverflame]

Originally Posted by manwez

My camera has the option to shoot RAW + jpg so it takes one of each. Do you think that is a good idea or not a good idea, or indifferent? I've been trying to figure out the advantages to shooting in RAW and you might finally have me convinced! Great save!

When I first got my camera and saw this option, I used it for a while. The only time I found it useful was when I needed to print a shot straight off the camera (long story!) and the store's machine didn't read RAW files. Otherwise, my JPEGs were just accumulating the digital equivalent of dust
Once I realised I wasn't using my JPEGs and my hard drive started running out of room, I started sticking to RAW only, and haven't gone back since.

Bottom line, I think it's a good option to try out, just to see the difference between RAW and JPEG for yourself, and decide whether RAW is worth the effort for your purposes.

[Jonathan Slade]

Originally Posted by djotaku

One important thing - with RAW you usually can't do the same thing the other way. What I mean is that if you shoot the file too dark, it will probably look like crap if you bump up the exposure too much. This is because cameras dedicate a lot more of the bits to the light end of the range than the dark end.

Second, I always hear people complain that with RAWs you have the extra step of fixing it and you like how the camera does it and blah blah blah. Here's what I do and I think it's a great workflow. (Also it answers the question above about keeping raws)

1. Transfer the RAW files to my computer
2. See which ones are immediately crap - completely out of focus, looked better on the little screen on the camera, etc and delete those
3. Convert to DNG. This makes them take up less space and work with more programs. Why would you ever delete the RAW/DNG files? If you were taking analog photos would you throw away the negatives? Plus HDD are cheap! You can get 1 TB for $100
4. Go over my photos, if I like how they look - why tweak the settings? In other words, the myth of RAW is that you need to be a pro at tweaking the settings. If you like how it looks out of the "box" just leave it be. Unless you're OCD and have to be 100% you have the best photo possible.
5. Convert to JPEG - sure this takes extra time, but I just go do other things - mow the lawn, take out the garbage, cook, clean, w/e depending on how many photos it is and how long it'll take

And actually for step 4 what I do is go through all the photos and rate them (in Lightroom - used to do it in Bridge before Lightroom) I only upload to flickr whatever makes it to 3 stars or higher (or 4 stars if I have to go through more rounds) And then, if you want, you only need to convert THOSE to JPEG. Why convert photos to JPEG if you dont' need it? You can always convert on demand if someone sees the RAW on your HDD and asks for it. On a modern machine shouldn't take more than a few minutes.

Finally, I shoot everything in RAW because you never know what you'll want to tweak. Maybe you dont' want to this week, but two weeks from now or a year from now - you'll wish it was RAW. Memory cards are cheap - just bought 4 GB for $60 ($30 after mail-in rebate) and on my 400D that gives me 382 photos in RAW. Total I have 13 GB and that's more than plenty for any trip I've been on.

>
>
Thanks for sharing your workflow process.

[MelissaInTexas]

im still trying to figure that myself! Raw files come up here, but on MY COMPUTER files it does not. I still have to go through cs3 for the normal changes like hue and sat and so forth. So, I am wondering if my files are safe there or not, should i delete my card yet or not... what a GOOD and fairly easy program to upload your RAW?

Originally Posted by manwez

I've done some shooting in RAW and have used Digital Photo Professional (canon program?) but am still trying to figure it all out. Guess its just taking time to sit down and learn it all and experiment.

[sheldonc]

I'm pretty new to this but I now shoot everything RAW - I used to use the RAW + JPEG option but as my first stop is Iphoto I honestly couldn't see the difference between either image once that had done it's work (lets all remember that technically the RAW image is still a data conversion by software as I understand it). I then started using GIMP and realised that I could often improve an image just by playing with the white balance settings when I opened a RAW file with it. Although I play around with post processing I've found this bit of flexibility the most compelling reason for using RAW.

Thanks

[Niklas]

I shoot RAW+
Workflow:
First I delete all RAW and JPG files with uninteresting motives.
Then I delete RAW files of those motives ok for family and walk around shots where the JPG turned out ok.
Among the rest I tweak the RAW files of the best motive photos to turn out better than the from-camera-JPG.
After that I delete those from-camera-JPG's from which RAW files I got a better result.

I use 2 x 2GB + 1 x 16 GB SD flash and 1X 1TB HD.

Niklas