- Messages
- 233
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- No
Shoot Raw. 100%. always.
Shooting RAW??
- Thread starter friesianfan69
- Start date
- Messages
- 233
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- No
If you would have been happy taking snappy pics on a snappy camera then dropping them into Boots to get developed then fine shoot jpeg, but if you are a photographer shoot raw.
Lightroom is so called be it's the equivalent of a darkroom, working on pictures once they've left the camera stage is not a new digital idea, if you were half decent in a darkroom (B&W or Colour) you could make huge changes to your pics as you now can in lightroom/capture1 etc. Raw gives you control & backup, it's your hardcopy just like film, Raw files can be used as evidence in court, jpegs can't. You will need to show your original raws in lots of photog competitions too - too prove you shot the picture.
S
Lightroom is so called be it's the equivalent of a darkroom, working on pictures once they've left the camera stage is not a new digital idea, if you were half decent in a darkroom (B&W or Colour) you could make huge changes to your pics as you now can in lightroom/capture1 etc. Raw gives you control & backup, it's your hardcopy just like film, Raw files can be used as evidence in court, jpegs can't. You will need to show your original raws in lots of photog competitions too - too prove you shot the picture.
S
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Before digital, most enthusiasts shot slide film, for which there is zero opportunity to change the result after you press the button.
Those that used colour neg, wedding photographers for example, never did any darkroom work. It was all done by machine, with about 5% opportunity to change a bit of colour and density with a reprint.
You had to get it right first time in-camera. I don't know how we got by.
Hardly anyone had a colour darkroom. It's an expensive, slow and extremely boring process, with little more opportunity to change anything more than a machine. Absolutely nothing like black & white.
dod
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 16,680
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
except when you don't need to.
dod
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 16,680
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
when you're shooting sports and don't want the buffer to fill, when you're in absolute control of the exposure, when you're short on memory cards etc etc
Nikon, Canon et al don't just give you the choice of jpeg for the good of their health. There are occasions when it's just as valid to shoot jpeg as it is raw. I pick what's appropriate at the time :shrug:
Nikon, Canon et al don't just give you the choice of jpeg for the good of their health. There are occasions when it's just as valid to shoot jpeg as it is raw. I pick what's appropriate at the time :shrug:
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
When you haven't got the time, or the inclination, or the skill, or the software, or a computer that's up to crunching big files (ie mine).
And when there's no point because you've got it right first time in the camera
dod
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 16,680
- Name
- Ebenezer McScrooge III
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And when you've got it right first time in the camera
FFS don't say that, think of all the time you could be wasting
odd jim
Flimsiest Lambresta
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
dod said:
But on the same token, you will always have a little more creative freedom taking all that into consideration.
I shoot lots of sports in raw at full burst rate and I've yet to have an issue with the buffer. A lot is indoors so raw can be a god send, especially with DPPs clever noise reduction in raw.
No matter what I'm shooting I always prefer to have ultimate creative control, though on the same token I appreciate the need sometimes to switch to jpeg, though I always prefer to output my own files from raw!
- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Pretentious claptrap at its best.
- Messages
- 13,155
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Forbiddenbiker
The Enforcer
- Messages
- 11,048
- Name
- Adam
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Really?
Crumbs!
ok - at least 1,000 times faster!
I processed 80 images in under 30 minutes today - how does that compare?
EDIT: they were all RAW!
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I seem to recall this sort of discussion many years ago, but then it was slide v negative. Anyone who thought you could do little in a dark room with a colour negative, didn't ever work in a dark room with a colour negative! Most of photoshop is a modern slant on old darkroom techniques.
The same thing applies now as did then, though it's horses for courses.
If you like raw, use it, if you don't use jpeg.
But just like slide/film, both have disadvantages, and advantages.
Jpegs, if you keep saving your original will loose more and more information, because its a compression based format. Raw, looses nothing.
jpegs are instant, raw needs work to convert.
Raw users can without any doubt adjust a photo to emphasis, for example, shadow area, while you can up to a point in jpeg, it doesn't give such a good result. Yes, perhaps you should correctly expose in the first place, but it doesn't always work out that way.
To go back to the negative analogy, Ansel Adams's pictures were fairly naff, until a master printer got hold of them.
The same thing applies now as did then, though it's horses for courses.
If you like raw, use it, if you don't use jpeg.
But just like slide/film, both have disadvantages, and advantages.
Jpegs, if you keep saving your original will loose more and more information, because its a compression based format. Raw, looses nothing.
jpegs are instant, raw needs work to convert.
Raw users can without any doubt adjust a photo to emphasis, for example, shadow area, while you can up to a point in jpeg, it doesn't give such a good result. Yes, perhaps you should correctly expose in the first place, but it doesn't always work out that way.
To go back to the negative analogy, Ansel Adams's pictures were fairly naff, until a master printer got hold of them.
