shooting in RAW.

Messages
121
Name
lee
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All.
well after a couple of months of thinking about getting lightroom iv recently purchased it,
so im now thinking the next step is to start shooting in RAW as apposed to jpeg,
having never shot in RAW before im just wondering peoples thoughts on it,
i know its supposed to be better for editing photos and i have done some research on it,
but i guess im just looking for advise,thoughts and tips from real photographers on here.
my normal thing would be to shoot jpegs and my editing would just be a little colour correction, and maybe a crop.on my ipad or nasty effort my laptop offers in windows 10:(
many thanks for any help,answers or replys,

lee
 
Once learned and used properly you won’t go back to j.peg . Take your time and beware of u.tube videos that are out of date and often refer to functions that have now been replaced .. LR these days simplifies things to auto but you still have manual control..
 
I don`t know what you want people to say, the pros and cons of each is done to death online already.

It is far better than jpeg if editing photos.

If you get your exposure right in all your pics and only need a touch of color correction then maybe its not worthwhile but you should try it anyway.
 
Personally I use RAW for initial editing even if it is only tweaking contrast and sharpness a little as RAW gives you all the data for each pixel rather than Jpeg which is a compressed form. I then save as a TIFF or Jpeg when I'm happy. If I then mess up I still have the original RAW file to go back too. This is just my personal preference.
 
Last edited:
I shoot raw and find it just the same as shooting jpeg - except there's more room to work with when recovering highlight or shadow detail.

There doesn't have to be much, or any, more work involved in fiddling with a raw file than with a jpeg.

But whatever you do do to a file in LR is a) undo-able, and b) doesn't degrade the jpeg output.
 
I've rather enjoyed doing minor tweaks since first getting a camera with RAW a Canon 300D at least 15 years ago.
The only thing is you practically always need to do something with any keepers whereas most JPGs will be more or less there out of camera. In theory.
A common situation is blown out white skies in JPG which you can't get any detail back but with RAW you can
 
To day shooting raw gives all the advantages of shooting Jpegs, with all the flexibility of raw immediately to hand.
Most raw processors read and apply all the camera settings saved in the raw file, and incorporate them in the initial preview that comes up when you open the file.
So that the starting point that opens is identical to that of the camera Jpeg. ( or can apply any presets that you care to set up)
At that point it can be exported or saved as a JPEG,. Just as it is.
or worked on to produce exactly what you want, using all the data captured in the raw file by the camera.
It is the best of all worlds.

At that point you can choose to save the raw file + the changes made up to that point as a side car file. or
Export and save a jpeg
Export and save as a Tiff (or any other file type.)

What you keep is down to you , I mostly keep every thing as tiffs and not the jpeg or raw files (works for me)
But that is neither the best nor the recommended way, as keeping the raw file lets you make further changes at any time,
or export any file type again at a moments notice.

How and where you store and file and back up your images is down to you.
But keeping them in one place and not moving them again, preserves the links with Lightroom, and makes finding them again both quick and easy.
It hardly matters if you file them in date order or in files named by event etc.
Light room can find them equally easily however you do it.
Using Key words is the most vital aspect of DAM (Digital Asset Management.) Though it will always let you find a file by the date it was created.
 
Last edited:
One advantage of shooting raw is that as the technology evolves you can revisit pictures and process them with newer software for better effect. With every change to newer raw processing software I've gotten better results and that just wouldn't have been possible if all I had was the jpeg.

Another advantage is that I don't have to worry about the order in which I apply changes to the picture and I'd have to if working just with a jpeg.

One of the biggest advantages for me is that I don't have to worry about WB and getting it right in camera often just isn't an option if the moment passes whilst you're fiddling with camera settings.

All in all raw is IMO the way to go.
 
Last edited:
Moving from jpegs, one thing you might notice is that the default raw conversions look a bit different to what you are used to. Every raw converter behaves a bit differently, because they have different camera profiles (Adobe creates theirs from scratch) and different algorithms for things like noise reduction, and because third party converters generally ignore in-camera colour settings like Nikon's picture controls. Some people choose to shoot raw + jpeg so they can always fall back on the jpeg if necessary, or don't always want to spend time fine-tuning the image. Another approach is to have the manufacturer's own raw converter in your toolbox, which will generally give you something that closely matches an in-camera jpeg if you ever need that. For your Nikon, that's the current version of Capture NX-D: https://nikonimglib.com/ncnxd/
 
For me, there are often times where there is no real benefit to recording raw files (low light/high ISO); other than avoiding heavy handed automatic processing by the camera... so I will record jpegs with the picture controls set to minimums.

I suggest starting by recording raw+jpeg so that you can use the jpeg as a reference... it usually takes a while to get to where you can quickly/easily duplicate that result. Once you do have the basic settings/edits that you usually use (camera profile, sharpening, etc) you can save them as the default settings in LR and new images will open with them already applied.

Alternatively, you could use Capture NX-D which will open a raw file with the camera picture control settings applied so it looks like a jpeg the camera would output. FWIW, Capture NX-D can frequently do a better job processing a Nikon raw file than LR does... but it's a much more cumbersome program to use and I don't usually find the difference worth the time/effort.
 
The advantages of shooting RAW over jpeg will likely result in far more keepers and better final results. Even if you only do minor tweaking in Lightroom you will see the advantages. It is important to learn how to use it as some adjustments can result in crazy looking effects unless that is what you are looking for.
I would only ever use jpeg now if I thought the buffer on my camera couldn’t cope with a lot of multiple bursts in RAW.
 
thanks guys, that's just the kind of feedback i was after, different views from different people, yes there's info out there and i have read a lot about it but for me you cant beat real
views from real people, ill shoot jpeg and raw from now on and see how things go,
as ever, thanks for everyone's help and input :)

Lee
 
my normal thing would be to shoot jpegs and my editing would just be a little colour correction, and maybe a crop.on my ipad

If thats what you do then shooting in RAW will get you the same results just twice as much work :) Have you seen one of your own raw pics?

Sorry to go against the flow ..juts not a big fan of RAW.. I can see its uses and not totally against it.. but for bog standard photogrpahy and minimal edits i don't see the point at all :)
 
If thats what you do then shooting in RAW will get you the same results just twice as much work :) Have you seen one of your own raw pics?

Sorry to go against the flow ..juts not a big fan of RAW.. I can see its uses and not totally against it.. but for bog standard photogrpahy and minimal edits i don't see the point at all :)

One theory is that your pc and the software on it are better and more powerful tools than the jpeg engine in your camera. Also the jpeg output is what Canon/Nikon/whoever think you should get (noise reduction, sharpening, colours and everything else) whereas some may have different ideas.
 
spanner in the works:D

Here's an idea.

If your camera allows you to shoot raw+jpeg do it and compare the results. If not take raws and jpegs as close together as possible and see if raws after processing are better and worth the effort. If you think raws are better and worth the hassle or that jpegs are adequate or you decide you can't be bothered with the additional hassle of raws then you're got your answer.
 
I know people who hate shooting in raw saying it just gives you more and more work. Actually, there is a previous poster with an opinion of that kind, so you see, tastes differ. :)

Are you for real? Where has anyone said they hate shooting raw because its more work ?
 
If thats what you do then shooting in RAW will get you the same results just twice as much work :) Have you seen one of your own raw pics?

Sorry to go against the flow ..juts not a big fan of RAW.. I can see its uses and not totally against it.. but for bog standard photogrpahy and minimal edits i don't see the point at all :)
I agree. I hardly ever use RAW. I have used RAW where the light is low so high ISO is required. Other wise it is just jpg's.

I have to wonder if people are using their camera properly if they need to use RAW to get a good photograph.

Also I have never looked at a photo and said that was taken in RAW. I just cannot tell.
 
I have to wonder if people are using their camera properly if they need to use RAW to get a good photograph.

Not sure if this was meant to be deliberately provocative, but go on, I’ll humour you[emoji3]

As a black and white photographer, the raw file is a starting point for me. My post processing is akin to darkroom processing whereby I’ll make multiple local adjustments to contrast that often require a lot of highlight / shadow recovery that for the most part isn’t possible with a JPEG file - your experience may differ. Shooting in-camera monochrome JPEG just doesn’t allow me to get the image I have in mind (a ‘good photograph’) as it’s relying on whatever generic algorithm is programmed in, rather than my personal choices to get the final result.

JPEG and raw both have their place. For sports photographers like Kipax, raw is for the most part unnecessary, and I agree that for minimal edits raw isn’t really necessary but it depends whether you regard making the exposure in the camera as the starting point or the end point for the image.
 
I agree. I hardly ever use RAW. I have used RAW where the light is low so high ISO is required. Other wise it is just jpg's.

I have to wonder if people are using their camera properly if they need to use RAW to get a good photograph.

Also I have never looked at a photo and said that was taken in RAW. I just cannot tell.

I think you've missed a biggie. They use it to get a better photograph.

I suppose it's like buying a suit. You can buy an off the peg jpeg one from T.J. Hughes and that's it. Job done. It's a suite and you've got it. Or you can buy a made to measure raw one which fits you and your requirements much better. Some people will never be able to tell the suits apart (they both have trousers and a jacket) so the T.J.Hughes jpeg is the perfect answer for those people and they should be happy with their purchase.
 
suggest starting by recording raw+jpeg so that you can use the jpeg as a reference... it usually takes a while to get to where you can quickly/easily duplicate that result. Once you do have the basic settings/edits that you usually use (camera profile, sharpening, etc) you can save them as the default settings in LR and new images will open with them already applied.


If I was starting again that's the advice I would follow.

Another thing I have learned very recently and would have saved me a hell of a lot of processing time is to choose a camera profile right from the start. In current versions of LR it is quite near the top of the develop panel (apparently) . Now that I understand how camera profiles work it becomes clear that a raw file is not the be-all and end-all. You can actually choose how your "raw file" looks before you start processing it. By default it will probably be Adobe Standard which with my Olympus kit gives a very drab starting point. I have now switched to Camera Natural which gives a much better starting point. Again, with curremnt versions of LR you have a much wider choice of Profiles and they are much easier to find.
 
I used to use lens profiles / presets but they can possibly/arguably remove some character so I now mostly use presets including just basic sharpening and noise reduction and start from there.
 
We all have our preferred way to work. For me, the image captured by the camera is always the starting point, and processing is required to release the potential.
 
I love an image when it comes out of the camera and doesn't require any editing, usually when the dynamic range is small. (I have no idea what I am talking about, that's why I don't give out advice)
 
We all have our preferred way to work. For me, the image captured by the camera is always the starting point, and processing is required to release the potential.

My view as well, there are 3 images - the 1st one you 'the artist' visualise, the 2nd the one the camera takes, and the 3rd the post processed one, I try and make the 3rd look like the 1st - for me the camera is just a transport layer!
 
Just to add another angle in there. Post processing RAW images is also part of the fun for me personally.

That's great. Photography is supposed to be fun! :)

FWIW, raw isn't an acronym like JPEG. A lot of people do capitalise it, but there's no need to.
 
Last edited:
I use RAW partly as an insurance against the unlikely possibility that I may make a mistake in camera settings as remote as that might be. As most of my photography is street or of a recording nature I'm often not given long to compose or fix settings before a shot and RAW has over the past 20 years got me out of trouble on a 'couple' of occasions. I also amazingly actually enjoy post processing and playing about with results much more so than I ever did in the darkroom which was a pain. An hour or so with Lightroom (other processors are available) and my music on shuffle I find very therapeutic.
I'm also slowly scanning in 70+ years of old family photos and negatives and find what little skills I've learnt in processing very handy with these.
 
With my first DSLR in 2005, I was looking forward to Raw and initially captured Raw plus JPEG. I was amazed how much improvement I could add with Raw processing and after a couple of months stopped capturing the JPEGS as I never used any of them. I have never captured anything but Raw since (even with my Lumix Bridge Camera). In ideal circumstances with low dynamic range but good lighting, it may be that a JPEG will be fine (assuming that the automated camera processing is also beneficial). However, the chances of this happening is fairly remote particularly if you tackle challenging subjects and lighting. I like Mr Persceptives 3 images although I would not always try to make to final image look like what I thought I saw but what I want it to be.

There are circumstances where JPEG's can be vital. I am sure many professional news or sports photographers may have to communicate images immediately and no time for editing etc. My photography is only for enjoyment so I am happy to spend some additional post processing time to get what I want. I enjoy both capturing images and post processing. Of course you need reasonable motivation to make the effort. I enter competitions so, if I do not make the effort, I will have little chance of success.

Dave
 
10 years ago I went on a workshop and was given the basics in editing in RAW, I have never looked back. If you do move to using RAW, I found that I quickly developed my own basic workflow for editing which then gets tweaked for each individual image though that does depend on the genre.
As a result of trying to get the image as good as possible in camera, most landscape images take very little time to edit.
 
If you strictly adhere to the Lightroom philosophy and don't touch your photos outside of Lightroom, there's no difference between RAW and JPEG in in terms of the amount of work involved.

Import from the memory card with automatic execution of a user setting and you're basically done, by just a view mouse clicks! Don't use the file manager of the operating system, for anything, but LR instead, except for the exported JPEG files.

JPEGs are not created by default, only for uploading somewhere on the internet or for printouts and I delete the JPEGs afterwards.

Viewing and showing the photos in Lightroom is mostly done with the slide show module. There is no reason to keep the JPEG version on disk, except for export.
 
Back
Top