RAW question...Help!!!

[dcclark]

Originally Posted by inkista

... assuming only minor edits between saves. You do some massive color shifting or mondo amounts of cropping that completely rewrite the color table, and you may see it long before then....

I don't think that this follows. What is the reason behind your statement? Files are saved and recompressed each time you save, and in between they are typically stored in memory in an uncompressed format -- so that edits don't harm anything.

[inkista]

One edit (pushing the exposure about two stops). One save. JPEG source file. Lost a range of blue into white because of the edit--original version had a blue sky, but obviously most of those hues got dumped in the original compression, so I got halo artifacts. The problem is the extremity of the edit, and a good example of why you'd rather do this with RAW than JPEG.

[My Life is Pink]

I just started shooting RAW and will never turn back. My D3000 has the ability to edit my RAW photos in camera, which I love. I can change EV, White Balance and a few other things.

[teaking]

Sorry for the waffel below arrghhh wall of text!! just wanted to put my findings on this subject to hopefuly help people make an informed choice.

The advantage RAW gives is with editing especialy exposure due to the dynamic range it captures I believe its up to 14 bit these days so thats trillions of colours and a whole lot more in the brightness levels it captures. All of these extra things you dont see in the original image as your eyes only see around 10 million colours, and our eyes work logarithmically (did I spell it right?? haha) so if light is quadrupled we see it doubled so there has to be a certain difference between tones before we notice them.

Whats all this about you say lol well in a JPEG the 8bit 16 million colours and 255/6 brightness levels are more than enough to display a picture its still all been processed from the same RAW data and is the same picture you took but with out the extras just the bits your eyes can pick up and a few extras threw in.

In a RAW file the extras come into play when pushing exposures this stops banding of colours and allows more colours in the pallet and the ability to change white balance can.

If you need that flexibility use RAW its another tool in digital photography thats there for our benefit, but it isnt a magic format that makes pictures look better.

[gnardog]

raw also takes up a lot more memory

[WVCoalMiner]

I read after 7 "saves" A JPEG will show noticeable artifacts.

[Jill H]

This is exactly the topic I wanted to ask about - should I be shooting RAW and why? I want to expand my photography, and print to large size prints and canvas. To do this should I be shooting RAW? My camera takes 12mg pics in JPEG. I think the resolution is pretty good - but to print large size should I be shooting RAW? I don't want to do a lot of post image fiddling - but I want the blown up photos to look good - particularly as I am considering going down the path of trying to sell my work. Basically - should I be shooting RAW?

[teaking]

The resolution wont increase in RAW and if your not going to be doing a lot of Post Processing and your confident you can get the exposure correct when shooting then JPEG is the way to go RAW wont make your pictures look better it will enable you to post process them to look better which is a handy tool. But that is just my suggestion you could try both work flows and see which is better for you or as a other members do shoot JPEG+RAW if it turns out you never touch the RAW go back to JPEG.

[Doug Pardee]

Originally Posted by Jill H

I want to expand my photography, and print to large size prints and canvas. To do this should I be shooting RAW?

Probably.

I think the resolution is pretty good - but to print large size should I be shooting RAW?

It's not a resolution difference. Just about all (maybe all) current cameras provide the same resolution in Raw as in maximum resolution JPEG.

The differences are in the reduction in artifacts resulting from the post-processing, and in the nuances of the image such as coloration and shadow detail.

I don't want to do a lot of post image fiddling - but I want the blown up photos to look good - particularly as I am considering going down the path of trying to sell my work.

If you're going to sell large prints, you will be doing a lot of fiddling. Your competition will not be settling for anything less than the best possible result that they can produce. The market for large photographic prints is limited, and if you want to capture any of it you'll need to produce the very best prints that you can.

[Jill H]

This has been very interesting. Thanks for your comments. I have limited knowledge of Photoshop - and only have Photoshop Elements - can I process RAW images in Photoshop Elements, or will I need another program?