Why Shoot in RAW???

[kurtwall]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

I'd say on my D60 it's faster to shoot in JPEG because the smaller file is faster to write from buffer to SD card than RAW.

[Jim Bryant]

get bigger and faster cards as they are cheap now.

Originally Posted by kurtwall

I'd say on my D60 it's faster to shoot in JPEG because the smaller file is faster to write from buffer to SD card than RAW.

[JerBear]

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.


Thanx in advance.

For those that do not understand the difference between Raw and Jpg, they will never see the "benefits". You need to learn what Raw is. It is the way the camera captures the image. By selecting jpg output, you are just instructing the camera to do the conversion in the camera for you. Rather than you doing post processing.

A long time ago, when film was the standard, the same type of foolish thinking was applied by those that did not understand the value of keeping the negatives.

"Why should I keep the negative? I have the print."

Photography is more than picking up a camera and shooting, you need to learn the basics as well.

Good shooting

JM

[kurtwall]

Originally Posted by Jim Bryant

get bigger and faster cards as they are cheap now.

Yup. I already shoot RAW. Once I understood that more information was available in RAW, and already knowing what JPEG is and how it works, the decision was a no-brainer for me. And, of course, all the cool kids shoot RAW.

[Jim Bryant]

hahahahaha, true.....so true! Guess that's why I have four five drawer file cabinets full of filed negatives and slides, not to mention over 1600 DVD & CD's.

[erniehatt]

Originally Posted by rmcmahan0348

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.

Sorry but I have to disagree, If the detail is there to recover you can do it in jpeg as well as in Raw, if it is not then it is lost regardless. I have also tried taking the same images at hi ISO to see what the effect on noise is, and again they are the same.

[JerBear]

Originally Posted by Jim Bryant

hahahahaha, true.....so true! Guess that's why I have four five drawer file cabinets full of filed negatives and slides, not to mention over 1600 DVD & CD's.

I too have a ton of negs and slides. Wonder what the heck is going to happen to them when I pass?

JM

[fletch]

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 I'm fully aware you can use Camera RAW to edit JPEGs. Its not just CS3/4 either, you can use Elements 6/7 or Lightroom as well. I even use it for editing JPEGs from my P&S (as it doesn't have RAW) as its such a good tool. However it is no quicker to use the JPEG than the RAW so you would have to be crazy to use a JPEG if you could have had a RAW.

Originally Posted by erniehatt

Sorry but I have to disagree, If the detail is there to recover you can do it in jpeg as well as in Raw, if it is not then it is lost regardless. I have also tried taking the same images at hi ISO to see what the effect on noise is, and again they are the same.

That is simply not factually correct. JPEGs are 8 bit RAWs are either 12 bit or 14 bit. This means there is more information in the RAW than the JPEG and therefore possible that something is lost in JPEG but not RAW. You will get more noise when adjusting exposure/brightness in JPEG than RAW because your editing program will need to guess more as it has less data to work with, this is especially true when increasing brightness of shadows.

[Chip]

"My method is better than your method."

"No, it isn't."

"Yes, it is."

"No, it isn't."


What matters more: the process or the result?

[fletch]

Originally Posted by Chip

What matters more: the process or the result?

Only by understanding the process can you maximise your results.

If someone can demonstrate a full understanding of what a RAW file is, how to use it and the unpsides and downsides and then chooses to shoot JPEG I will say "Well done, JPEG is right for you". However I have yet to see that in this thread.

With todays software technology RAW should be the default (on a DSLR) and people should only shoot JPEG if they need to. However the default appears to be the other way round for most people.