Raw

[cshontz]

I just tried RAW for the very first time. Very powerful, but quite frankly, it gave me a headache. To what extent do you guys use RAW? Lets say you're on an adventure or shooting an event and you take a few hundred pictures. Do you really go back and edit RAW for every one?

I can definitely see the use if I'm trying to get a very specific shot. But if I'm shooting a large quantity of journalistic style photos for the web, it seems like it'd add a great deal of tedium.

I didn't try anything fancy. I went onto the back porch and took a JPG, and then took a RAW. Its overcast, so I knew it'd be dull and under-exposed. I absolutely butchered the RAW file, but all in the name of science - to see what could be done.

 

[articulate]

Jeez, man, if we were a matter of miles apart I'd say we need to go have a cup of coffee together and hash some of this out.

I'm working with RAW for the first time too. What I've learned is that, for web production/display, RAW is largely overkill. Unless you're a picky artiste. That's my impression after using it for a week or two.



We'll see what some other dudes have to say about it.

 

[bigreen505]

Raw gives you flexibility in your images and using them however you want as well as the ability to re-process them in the future when better converters are available.

 

[goodtimes]

I look at raw like car insurance. Most of the time, it is useless. but that ONE time you need it, you REALLY need it!

FWIW, I don't do anything with the great majority of my pictures. Maybe 10%, probably less. Of that 10%, maybe half of them get tweaked in lightroom or p'shop. So it really doesn't cost me much time....so it is worth the [minimal] extra effort to shoot and store in raw....to me at least.

 

[Ursidae69]

It's not that bad to get used too.

 

[cshontz]

This past weekend I went out for two hours, took 300 pictures (really 100 w/ AEB), and when I came home I sat down in a chair for another two hours and filtered out the duds. 70 pictures remained, most of which were mediocre, and maybe 10 were good. Then I spent another two hours tagging them and uploading them to Flickr.

So you can see why I'm a little concerned by what RAW management adds to my workflow - although it does offers a viable alternative to AEB.

I currently use Picasa, and just looked at the Lightroom tour on the web. That looks like it'd certainly be more efficient than swapping between Photoshop and Picasa, so I might give that a try.

 

[Ursidae69]

Have you considered shooting raw plus jpeg combined? Just carry more memory.

 

[pathfinderdriver]

I tend to agree. If you are doing web work it is much easier to just shoot in jpg, however if you want to print or just want to make sure you get "the shot" then shoot in RAW. You have more options on how much you can fix/adjust a pictures.

 

[Lost Canadian]

I've been using RAW most of the time lately, but I do shoot jpg if it's just normal fun shots. I was back and forth for awhile between RAW and jpg but what I learned, at least in my case, is a lot of the time a good number of shots I take will be taken in series, under the same conditions. For situations like that I found batch processing to make things a ton easier. I just apply the correct settings to one picture in the series and batch process the rest with the same adjustments. There maybe a few that need tweeking but most of the time it works out.

Getting things right using RAW takes some time and practice though, but the results are worth it when it's right. I'm still learning as well.

 

[cshontz]

To play devil's advocate, why not just adjust the JPG? I haven't tested, but do the two formats modify differently, or is RAW preferred simply because its not lossy out of the camera?

 

[DaktariEd]

When I shoot with my DSLR, I always shoot in RAW/jpeg mode.

The RAW files include more color and exposure data and allow me to pull out a very large tiff file to print from.

When I did side by side comparisons of 8.5x11 prints, the RAW/tiff won every time compared to jpegs.

If the final product is going to be web-based or perhaps small prints, the jpeg is fine.

But my framed photos are always printed from RAW/tiff...

Just my 2 centavos...

 

[Lost Canadian]

To play devil's advocate, why not just adjust the JPG? I haven't tested, but do the two formats modify differently, or is RAW preferred simply because its not lossy out of the camera?

Here's a good read I was pointed to a while back.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

 

[Photog]

When you edit a JPEG, the pixels are modified. Once it is saved, there is no going back. When you edit a RAW file, it justs adds instructions to the existing file. You can go back any time and make adjustments. JPEG is an 8bit color file, RAW is a 12 to 16 bit color file. Adding 1 bit doubles the data available for modifications (e.g. A 14 bit file has 64 times more color shades and data to work with). A 16 bit file has 256 times more colors/shades.

With a RAW file, you canbring detail out of the shadows, and tone down the highlights. With a JPEG, there just isn't enough data to do this type of work.

This was mentioned earlier - To simplify your work flow, you can do work in batches. If all your files need more saturation, contrast and exposure; fix the first one, and apply the adjustment to all the rest. It is all done in a couople clicks. Then if you need 10 of them for the internet, highlight them and batch process them into properly sized jpegs using "Prepare for Web" or "Batch Process", in Photoshop.

The end product is almost always a JPEG, but your RAW file is like a high quality negative.

Start shooting RAW abd never look back.

I still shoot in RAW/JPEG mode; but I almost always end up throwing out the JPEGs, since I can always recreate them as a batch job.

When I shoot for a client, I shoot in RAW/JPEG. We can use the JPEGs for a quick review of the work, and image selection. Then I use the RAW file as the basis of the end product that gets printed and delivered.

Cheers :wavey:

 

[Photog]

Here's a good read I was pointed to a while back.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

That is an excellent link, and great info.
I have always enjoyed their work and information.
Thanks

 

[cawddsasf]

When you edit a JPEG, the pixels are modified. Once it is saved, there is no going back.

The end product is almost always a JPEG, but your RAW file is like a high quality negative.

Ditto. JPEG's get modified, and actually decrease quality every time they are saved. (From what I've read)

I shoot 100% raw for work and for fun. And when I edit other stuff our photographers shoot, the RAW files have saved their butts a few times when something was off, like distance from an off camera flash and a dancing couple at a reception. RAW contains sooooo much more information that you can pull back the highlights and bring up the shadows.

Does it cost you more in terms of space? You betcha. I carry 10gb of Secure Digital cards and we just purchased a 1 terrabyte back up drive. But it's worth it!