Lightroom and Raw

[iamithinkiwill]

Helluur! This is my first post, but hopefully not my last. So what is the point of shooting in RAW? It really takes much longer to edit raw in lightroom then it would if I shot in JPG. Do professionals shoot in RAW? haha I'm a little flabbergasted thinking about it.

[Saralonde]

Careful! You may start another one of these threads. But check it out, there is some good info in there if you read it.

Most, but certainly not all, pros shoot in RAW or a combination of RAW and JPEG, but it really is a personal decision. I know shooting in RAW has saved my butt once or twice when I forgot to change a setting.

Quick answer: Shooting in RAW leaves you with more info on your image, rather like a digital negative. JPEG will have less, but sometimes that is not a problem.

[dcclark]

iamithinkiwill -- well, this is a can of worms! Let me give you some upsides and downsides of shooting in raw:

Upsides:
- You can think of raw files as a "digital negative", untouched by any processing. This makes it a bit easier to change things that weren't quite right, such as lightening/darkening, changing white balance, etc. You can't totally change the exposure, but it is a bit easier than doing the same thing with jpegs.
- Raw files have a slightly larger dynamic range, meaning the difference between the brightest and darkest parts of an image (which still have detail in them).
- Raw files are in general slightly more flexible.

Downsides:
- As you've noticed, they're HUGE and slow.
- You need special software or plugins to modify them.
- Takes more time, since you HAVE to tweak them to get them to look right.

I personally shoot raw only in the most extreme circumstances -- cases where (because I know my camera very well and can predict how it will react in many different situations) I know that my camera won't be able to capture the light without a little extra help. Or, situations where the lighting is very uncertain and I want the chance to totally change it afterwards.

However, I have never really found any big benefit from shooting raw -- just occasional uses when I have a specific reason.

There are those who will tell you to ALWAYS shoot in raw -- I say, meh, learn your camera first. Learn how the exposure triangle works, learn about white balance, depth of field, and everything else. Learn how your camera reacts in many different circumstances. Learn what YOU want in your photos. And if shooting raw does that, then shoot raw. Otherwise, keep shooting jpeg and focus on making good photos.

[fletch]

Originally Posted by dcclark

iamithinkiwill -- well, this is a can of worms! Let me give you some upsides and downsides of shooting in raw:

Upsides:
- You can think of raw files as a "digital negative", untouched by any processing. This makes it a bit easier to change things that weren't quite right, such as lightening/darkening, changing white balance, etc. You can't totally change the exposure, but it is a bit easier than doing the same thing with jpegs.
- Raw files have a slightly larger dynamic range, meaning the difference between the brightest and darkest parts of an image (which still have detail in them).
- Raw files are in general slightly more flexible.

Downsides:
- As you've noticed, they're HUGE and slow.
- You need special software or plugins to modify them.
- Takes more time, since you HAVE to tweak them to get them to look right.

I personally shoot raw only in the most extreme circumstances -- cases where (because I know my camera very well and can predict how it will react in many different situations) I know that my camera won't be able to capture the light without a little extra help. Or, situations where the lighting is very uncertain and I want the chance to totally change it afterwards.

However, I have never really found any big benefit from shooting raw -- just occasional uses when I have a specific reason.

There are those who will tell you to ALWAYS shoot in raw -- I say, meh, learn your camera first. Learn how the exposure triangle works, learn about white balance, depth of field, and everything else. Learn how your camera reacts in many different circumstances. Learn what YOU want in your photos. And if shooting raw does that, then shoot raw. Otherwise, keep shooting jpeg and focus on making good photos.

Why HUGE in caps but not, change the white balance?

There are pros and cons to both methods but the agruments is skewed in the favour of RAW if you use a program like lightroom which makes it really easy to process. I'm suprised that you are saying it takes ages to process unless your computer is not up to it as lightroom is designed to make shooting in RAW as easy as possible and most people have nothing but praise for it.

[dcclark]

Originally Posted by fletch

Why HUGE in caps but not, change the white balance?

There are pros and cons to both methods but the agruments is skewed in the favour of RAW if you use a program like lightroom which makes it really easy to process. I'm suprised that you are saying it takes ages to process unless your computer is not up to it as lightroom is designed to make shooting in RAW as easy as possible and most people have nothing but praise for it.

I do not have Lightroom, I do not have the money to purchase it, and I don't plan on obtaining it through any other means. I'm fairly sure that this is true for many of the people on these forums. That's a strange assumption to make.

I do use Gimp with the appropriate plugins to let me process raw files, but it's still quite slow. And yes, my computer is very slow -- all that money I don't have for Lightroom is being saved up to replace it within a year, with any luck.

In addition, "slow" also refers to the time needed to transfer the files from the camera -- about 4 to 5 times longer, which is really just annoying, perhaps not a deal-breaker.

So, please don't make assumptions like this -- clearly not everybody can use Lightroom!

[fletch]

Originally Posted by dcclark

ISo, please don't make assumptions like this -- clearly not everybody can use Lightroom!

I know you don't use lightroom and have a slow computer from the last RAW vs JPEG thread (or was it the one before!) However the OP does have lightroom and therefore I was asking them why it was an issue processing RAWs. I proably should have directed that comment more directly at the OP.

My point about the emphasis was that it was a bit biased towards the JPEG. I get why you shoot JPEG but you don't need to enflict your biases on the OP who might not have the same issues.

[dcclark]

Originally Posted by fletch

I know you don't use lightroom and have a slow computer from the last RAW vs JPEG thread (or was it the one before!) However the OP does have lightroom and therefore I was asking them why it was an issue processing RAWs. I proably should have directed that comment more directly at the OP.

My point about the emphasis was that it was a bit biased towards the JPEG. I get why you shoot JPEG but you don't need to enflict your biases on the OP who might not have the same issues.

Makes sense -- I missed the OP's comment about lightroom in particular.

Nonetheless, I still maintain that if you're still learning the basics: composition, lighting, colors, even shutter and aperture -- raw mode is really a red herring. It's like buying a giant 70-200 f/2.8 and assuming it will make good photos because it's big and heavy. You might as well shoot jpeg and learn how to make good photos first, then decide if you need raw later.

Edit (later): I should be sure to say that I'm not trying to force my views on the OP -- but I do have strong views with regards to raw and beginners. So, hopefully this doesn't come across TOO argumentative! After all, we're all learning -- and I do use raw when appropriate too.

[MattG]

The other factor worth considering in the RAW vs JPG is that if you don't like the results of the camera's RAW conversion method, then you can possibly find an alternative. I find the JPGs slightly too soft as output by my Pentax and choose to convert via either plug-in in Gimp or from Lightroom.

[fletch]

Originally Posted by dcclark

Makes sense -- I missed the OP's comment about lightroom in particular.

Nonetheless, I still maintain that if you're still learning the basics: composition, lighting, colors, even shutter and aperture -- raw mode is really a red herring. It's like buying a giant 70-200 f/2.8 and assuming it will make good photos because it's big and heavy.

Edit (later): I should be sure to say that I'm not trying to force my views on the OP -- but I do have strong views with regards to raw and beginners. So, hopefully this doesn't come across TOO argumentative! After all, we're all learning -- and I do use raw when appropriate too.

There is an alternative POV that says RAW is even better for beginners than it is for pros.

I find the fact that I don't need to consider white balanance and all of the other JPEG conversion aspects of my camera settings a massive release when shooting. It gives me more time to focus on the two key aspects of the photo, composition and exposure and then only worry about the rest later. Also if you are going to do any PP it could be said that for basic adjustments (saturation/contrast/brightness etc) either ACR (Photoshop raw conveter) or lightroom are the easiest tools to use. Yes you can edit JPEGs in them but why bother if you can get the other RAW benefits for 'free'.

(Obviosly this assumes that you have the computing power available, which you don't but a lot of people do.)

[AgBeard]

One approach I find that speeds up the workflow in Lightroom is to pick a representitive photo out of like ones on a shoot - processing that & then select that group in the gallery & sync the settings. There is a selection box to allow you to determine which settings you sync. You then have the option editing individual photos after this - if the sync is totally wrong you can go back to the imported original via history.
Having been brought up with the free run of my Dad's darkroom - I enjoy the processing element of creating a photograph via Lightroom.