Why Shoot in RAW???

[RustySterling]

Originally Posted by Jim Bryant

Ken Rockwell is do-do! Get yourself up to speed with RAW images....it's the only way to go. Shooting jpeg is for lazy folks, who don't want to take the extra time to learn how to do it right the first time. I can't believe you guys are using auto levels. Use the sliders in levels rather than clicking on auto level. Better yet learn how to use curves..it's more precise.

I agree totally. When I first started shooting digital I did everything in jpeg. While I was learning that wasn't a bad thing to do. But since I've been shooting in RAW I really hate looking at those early images. There is so much more I could have done with them in RAW vs. jpeg. It's been RAW for the last several months and no turning back. I have so much more control over how my images look it is wonderful.

[dcclark]

Originally Posted by RustySterling

I agree totally. When I first started shooting digital I did everything in jpeg. While I was learning that wasn't a bad thing to do. But since I've been shooting in RAW I really hate looking at those early images. There is so much more I could have done with them in RAW vs. jpeg. It's been RAW for the last several months and no turning back. I have so much more control over how my images look it is wonderful.

This is a good point: shooting in jpeg is a lot better for beginners. It lets you experiment and immediately see the results, without having to worry about converting from raw, figuring out the fancy software, or any other distractions like that. I always recommend that people who are just beginning do everything they can to avoid technical distractions -- learn about composition, light, color, shapes and patterns -- and then you can worry about the raw vs. jpeg problem!

[vandergus]

Shooting jpeg is for lazy folks, who don't want to take the extra time to learn how to do it right the first time.

That's funny, cause I shoot RAW because I'm too lazy to get it right the first time.

This is a good point: shooting in jpeg is a lot better for beginners. It lets you experiment and immediately see the results, without having to worry about converting from raw, figuring out the fancy software, or any other distractions like that. I always recommend that people who are just beginning do everything they can to avoid technical distractions -- learn about composition, light, color, shapes and patterns -- and then you can worry about the raw vs. jpeg problem!

Yes!

[velvet4269]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

If you download the latest codecs from MS you can view the thumbnails of raw photos in windows explorer just like you would view jpegs. If you were to use Lightroom you would have all the exif data from the raw. If you don't want to spend the money you can still use the free program "Instant Jpeg from raw" and the extracted jpeg has all the exif data in it.

If I were porting straight off the camera, that'd be one thing, but I typically make adjustments to my photos: contrast, saturation, sharpness, exposure, which makes "instant JPEG from RAW" kinda pointless (unless I save a separate, edited RAW file, but that takes up even more space on the 'puter than RAW + JPG ) ... but thanks for the tip about the codecs from MS ... I'll look for those.

ETA: Okay, I found the codec, discovered I already have the most recent version from MS ... went to camera manufacturer's website, discovered their codes pretty much doesn't work with anything but Vista (I run XP). Dead end there. For yucks, I tried the 'Instant JPEG from RAW' and got a 750K file (max). :\ Convenient, yes ... but I don't know what I'd do with a 750K file ... to me (and this is purely my opinion), it seems like more work.

Just more fuel for me to eventually upgrade my computer to a Macbook Pro Okay, it's wishful thinking, but I figure if I'm going to dream, I may as well dream big

[velvet4269]

Originally Posted by fletch

Unless the camera in question is an Olympus. Olympus Master is the slowest program I have ever had the missfortune of having to use. Editing one RAW is painfull enough. Batch processing is so unbeliveably slow I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would use it.

There are open source alternatives available though.

Ding ding ding! Not to mention, I've noticed a significant decrease in file size when I save the JPG with Olympus Master ... ie, what should be a 5MB JPG ends up being 1 (um ... I don't think so). That said, I've only used the software that came with the camera once, so I may have missed a setting somewhere (it was soooooo slow, I vowed to never use it again).

[wulf]

I think it is much more constructive to look at it from the other end. Do you like the results someone gets? If so, you will want to learn from them and part of that may be experimenting with a similar workflow (including the choice of shooting mode).

Without looking at the results, all the arguing about RAW vs JPEG is blind tribalism.

Wulf

[FoG]

Originally Posted by wulf

I think it is much more constructive to look at it from the other end. Do you like the results someone gets? If so, you will want to learn from them and part of that may be experimenting with a similar workflow (including the choice of shooting mode).

Without looking at the results, all the arguing about RAW vs JPEG is blind tribalism.

Wulf

Kind of agree with that almost a snobbishness creeps in.. like P&S users can be scoffed at by some DSLR peeps but at the end of the day the original shot is where you start ...


@ OP what works for you maybe Jpeg go with that if you try RAW and like the flexibilty use that but one word EXPERIMENT learn the differences and see what the results are ... our opiniions are informative but NOTHING will be better than hands on experience of both

[Jim Bryant]

Originally Posted by wulf

I think it is much more constructive to look at it from the other end. Do you like the results someone gets? If so, you will want to learn from them and part of that may be experimenting with a similar workflow (including the choice of shooting mode).

Without looking at the results, all the arguing about RAW vs JPEG is blind tribalism.

Wulf

Wulf...you must be one of those lazy photographers, who don't like to take the time to learn a few extra steps in order to get the best quality out of your photos I bet you hit the auto color and auto level button as well

[wulf]

No, I'm one of those "lazy" geek types who likes to work smarter and quicker instead of harder and has found very limited benefits compared to much greater time costs in experiments with RAW processing. I shoot manually and most of my images are pretty well balanced to the colours I want to start with and just need a few subtle tweaks with levels and curves tools to get the results I want (looking at sharing on the web mainly for my own pleasure).

I'm not an auto-anything kind of guy

I don't dismiss RAW as being a completely useless idea but I haven't yet found any benefits for my purposes. I would be interested in seeing some people producing illustrated examples of their RAW workflow though.

Wulf

[Jim Bryant]

Originally Posted by wulf

No, I'm one of those "lazy" geek types who likes to work smarter and quicker instead of harder and has found very limited benefits compared to much greater time costs in experiments with RAW processing. I shoot manually and most of my images are pretty well balanced to the colours I want to start with and just need a few subtle tweaks with levels and curves tools to get the results I want (looking at sharing on the web mainly for my own pleasure).

I'm not an auto-anything kind of guy

I don't dismiss RAW as being a completely useless idea but I haven't yet found any benefits for my purposes. I would be interested in seeing some people producing illustrated examples of their RAW workflow though.

Wulf

]

hahahahahah! just trying to get ya Yes, there are benefits to both I suppose but haven't found any with jpegs. I used to shoot jpeg all the time, right up until photoshop and photomechanics started supporting Canon RAW images. Then when I realized that yes, there were some qualities to shooting RAW, I got Scott Kelby's CS2 book and off I went.
You do have to go into Bridge and for some with all those sliders is at bit too much. So each one to their own method of PP. All that really matters is taking technically good photos.