Why Shoot in RAW???

[irispatch]

Simply put:
Think of RAW as the equilivent to a Film negative. You need to process it to produce the image that you want. How much processing is up to you but you have the option to correct, augment and change the results from a RAW file much the same was as you would from negative film.

JPEG is pretty much like a Polaroid Photograph, instant picture. Though with digital you do have a little lattitude to fix or change the image but not to the extent that you can with a RAW file

[Jim Bryant]

BINGO!

All jpeg does is save space for small, compressed files on either your computer HD or camera's CF card. At the price of 4,8, gig cards these days, doesn't it make sense to buy more than one and go for the quality of images instead of number of images on a card?

[fletch]

The point I don't get is when people say shoot JPEG is they often quote it is quicker and easier. I don't get it.

Easier? RAWs are way easier to edit properly that JPEGs if you use a decent RAW editor. As someone said you can have entirely the same workflow with RAW as you can with JPEG these days and hit "Save as" instead of "save". It's also much easier not to settle for default settings with RAW, instead of fidling arround with buttons on the back of your camera, having to remeber to check your settings after every shoot (and sometimes during) and spending hours editing if you get it wrong you just play with a few sliders in front of the computer. If you want the default settings then just press "save as" or convert as a batch. Operating systems even have RAW codecs now so you can view the thumbnails.

Faster? Its faster to shoot in RAW as you can forget about all of the pre shooting settings checks. Its faster to edit if you need to, if you don't you can convert in a batch. It may take a little processing time but no longer than applying basic edits to your JPEGs in the same way. My laptop can convert 4GB of RAW into JPEG in about 30 mins. Its a fairly basic spec as well so not light speed.

Try it. You will love it. Even your Ken.

As for "dropping the KR bomb" its not against the rules but has been known to cause controversy! I'd shy away from it.

[gavingoh]

Originally Posted by GoddyD

Hi

I am new to photography and I am loving it. I have head from a lot of people talking about shooting in RAW. so I switched to RAW instead of JPG. I cant see any benefits.

1) The files are too big so and it takes up a lot of space
2) I dont like the xmp files in my folders when I download the pics to my computer
3) Each company has specific RAW formats, meaning everytime I want to give my friends pictures I have taken of them straight from the camera I first have to download a olympus RAW file reader.
4) I can do the same things in photoshop and bridge to the RAW & JPG files.

I cant come up with any advantages. Please advice on how best I can take advantage of RAW files.

Thanx in advance.

I am new to photography as well. Ever since my mentor advise me to try shooting in RAW due to WB issues. I am now shooting in RAW and never looks back. You get more details while doing PP (post processing). Files size is big but it solved by getting the Sandisk Extreme III 16Gb CF card.

[rmcmahan0348]

With RAW (or DNG) you can always go back to the original unprocessed data at any time after you have made adjustments to your photos.

I tried to use some Kodak paper on my Epson printer--big mistake (package said it was compatible with Epson and it was half the price for twice the sheets). I re-adjusted the photos about five times and never got the prints to look right--always had a green cast in certain areas.

I went back to the Epson paper and the photo still didn't look right after several re-adjustments. By this time it even looked horrible on the screen (I was adjusting by paper output, not by the monitor because the output didn't match the monitor). So, I reset the RAW data to the way it came from the camera, made a couple of very slight adjustments (using the monitor like I should be able to) and the print was exactly the way I wanted it.

If I had used a JPG file, it would have been ruined because once you make a change and save/close the file your data is set. You can never go back.

[Danferno]

The newer photoshop editions come with an insanely advanced RAW editor. I used to spend ages on every (JPEG) image, trying to make it look the way I want it to.

Now I do nearly everything in RAW (did you know you can apply ND grad filters in the newer Adobe RAWs?). I went shooting last week: basketball + evening = Dark images even on ISO 400. In RAW I was able to brighten it up. In JPEG, it was hopeless.

I shoot RAW + JPEG (small, normal qual). The RAW file is roughly 10MB, the JPEG about 200kb. If I shoot purely RAW, I can make about 10 images more, so that's really not an issue.

Interesting to note is that Picasa (it's free) can show RAW images (even the .ORF of Olympus). It does a pretty bad job at it though, which is why, in normal light conditions, I use the JPEG to see if the photo is good or worthless.

[JudysJ]

Originally Posted by GoddyD

Hi

I am new to photography and I am loving it. I have head from a lot of people talking about shooting in RAW. so I switched to RAW instead of JPG. I cant see any benefits.

1) The files are too big so and it takes up a lot of space
2) I dont like the xmp files in my folders when I download the pics to my computer
3) Each company has specific RAW formats, meaning everytime I want to give my friends pictures I have taken of them straight from the camera I first have to download a olympus RAW file reader.
4) I can do the same things in photoshop and bridge to the RAW & JPG files.

I cant come up with any advantages. Please advice on how best I can take advantage of RAW files.

Thanx in advance.

EDIT: Oops -- my browser just decided to show all of the other posts. Leaving the post for others who, like me, are at the stage of reading one-syllable answers.

I'm definitely a rank amateur photographer even though I switched to a DSLR several years ago. Since my interest is much more in post production, I'm just beginning to experiment using the RAW format. My understanding is that RAW images straight from the camera allow much more flexibility when working in Lightroom and Photoshop. May not make a difference to very experienced photographers who can usually get what they want out of a shot but it can make a world of difference to someone like me.

[gavingoh]

JudysJ, I totally agreed with you. I started learning post processing with Lightroom combining with Photoshop, working on RAW sure makes a world of difference to me as well. Also, the batch sync helps reducing the processing time as shots taken at an sevent usually in the same exposure.

[erniehatt]

Originally Posted by fletch

RAWs are way easier to edit than JPEGs. Colour correction? Just use the WB slider. etc etc.

I would just use the RAWs from the get go.

Do you people know that in photoshop CS3 and 4 you can process jpegs in camera raw, and use all the same processes as Raw. I have experimented with this by taking both raw and jpeegs with the camera attached to the laptop, then processed them both in Raw converter and cannot see any distinct difference in the outcome, both are excellent pictures. Set the images for top quality jpegs and there is very little deteriation at all.
If you use save as and give the file a new name then it will not effect the original, I usually put A + sign behind the name just to let me know it is one I have processed. Never ever use Save.

[rmcmahan0348]

Originally Posted by erniehatt

Do you people know that in photoshop CS3 and 4 you can process jpegs in camera raw, and use all the same processes as Raw.

Yes you can. However once the camera has processed the photo to a JPG format, you have lost a lot of info from the RAW format. If your photo is close to correct, then you won't notice much difference. But, if the photo is, say, over or under exposed or the white balance was way off, you can still bring out a lot of data and maybe save a photo that would be unusable if it was converted to JPG straight out of the camera.