To Raw or not to Raw

opus

opus

Messages
51
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
Hi guy's,

You may have guessed by the title but could do with some advise. I have been taking photos for about a year now and have just upgraded to a 550D and i love it so far :clap: and want to get into this in a bigger way but am not to sure if i should start shooting in Raw?

I have been looking into it and a large amount of people seem to be using Raw but i have no clue as to the benefits so any advise would be great.

:help:

Thanks.
 
Well, for a start, a Raw file is basically that, a picture without any processing by the camera, allowing you the photographer to have more control if required, in post processing.
I used to save all my pictures as jpeg, but, now I have a DSLr, I always use RAW now.
Although, try and spend as much time perfecting your pictures regardless of file format, then, when that is mastered, move onto using RAW files.
 
Last edited:
kry10 said:
Well, for a start, a Raw file is basically that, a picture without any processing by the camera, allowing you the photographer to have more control if required, in post processing.
I used to save all my pictures as jpeg, but, now I have a DSLr, I always use RAW now.
Although, try and spend as much time perfecting your pictures regardless of file format, then, when that is mastered, move onto using RAW files.
Click to expand...

As Kry10 says get it right in camera if you can. I almost always shoot Raw files as it gives me more opportunity to "rescue" an image in post production.
 
Hello, I had this dilema a while back and decided to shoot in both RAW and JPEG. I find that this works for me as sometimes you have got everything right in camera and all you need to do is tweek the JPEG a iccle bit, but then there are times when you can bring out more detail in an image by editing the RAW.

It gives you more choice IMO, I also find it helpful to compare my RAW with the JPEG when learning to edit my images :D
 
The only time you would really shoot jpg over raw is sports when you are shooting lots of pictures and don't get time to delete as you go.

Think of a RAW file as the file you would use to edit major corrections / creative stuff.

I always shoot RAW + jpg.
 
I think it best to start with taking 'manual' control of the processing that would normally be done in-camera (when saving jpeg instead of raw). The most basic of work-flows would start with white-balance (but most software defaults to the white-balance level set in-camera - so it might not need a great deal of adjustment), 'exposure adjustment' (but of course you cannot change the actual exposure), contrast, colour-saturation and sharpening. A couple of things to consider adding to those processes: cropping and cloning (e.g. taking out sensor-dust spots or a fly in the wrong place). Finally, save as jpeg (some folk do a sharpening after saving as jpeg).

The advantage of working with raw is that instead of using in-camera presets set before you take the picture which are written (permanently) to the jpeg, you can choose the settings after you take the picture (on a big screen) - and you can try different settings until you get what you are happy with - you can compare and contrast, suck it and see.

IMHO, the best way to approach raw is not to see it as a way of rescuing a picture (although it is easier to do that with raw than it is with jpeg) but as a way of presenting a good picture at its best.
 
I have asked the same question many times myself, online and in Clubs, all anyone can say say is "You can change the White balance" I don't know why I would want to change the White balance, either the Camera sets it properly, or I set it for the effect I'm looking for. As for all other adjustments, you can do everything in Jpeg that you can do in Raw.

If you always shoot in Raw you will need high capacity storage cards, and shoot slowly to allow time for the Camera to write to them, Fast expensive cards might speed that up. You will also need a lot of extra storage drives attached to your computer to store them. People talk a lot about the greater quality of a Raw file, but you can't see any difference on screen between a Raw & Jpeg, and you can't print out a Raw file, you have to convert to Jpeg losing all that "Extra" quality they say it has. But if you want to follow the Sheep, don't let me detain you.
 
I second that "Rankbadyin", bah, bahh! :)

Try it by all means, you can always change back to shooting jpgs. But for me, life is just too short.
 
Rankbadyin said:
I have asked the same question many times myself, online and in Clubs, all anyone can say say is "You can change the White balance" I don't know why I would want to change the White balance, either the Camera sets it properly, or I set it for the effect I'm looking for. As for all other adjustments, you can do everything in Jpeg that you can do in Raw.

If you always shoot in Raw you will need high capacity storage cards, and shoot slowly to allow time for the Camera to write to them, Fast expensive cards might speed that up. You will also need a lot of extra storage drives attached to your computer to store them. People talk a lot about the greater quality of a Raw file, but you can't see any difference on screen between a Raw & Jpeg, and you can't print out a Raw file, you have to convert to Jpeg losing all that "Extra" quality they say it has. But if you want to follow the Sheep, don't let me detain you.
Click to expand...

There's just so much wrong here - I think I'll keep quiet, sit back with the popcorn, and let somebody else progress this.
 
Rankbadyin said:
...I don't know why I would want to change the White balance, either the Camera sets it properly, or I set it for the effect I'm looking for. As for all other adjustments, you can do everything in Jpeg that you can do in Raw...
Click to expand...

White balance is all about the colour of the light (aka light temperature). Cameras have /use presets that are an approximation of some light conditions - they can only set it precisely if you create a custom white-balance by taking a photo and 'telling' it what white is. Most photographers would not use white balance as an 'effect' - they use it to ensure that what is supposed to be white is white - because white looks different in sunlight middle of day to sunlight at sunset to tungsten light etc.

A jpeg produced by the camera has already had adjustments applied to it in the camera - the original data lost forever - you will never be able to adjust it out of camera the same as a raw because of that - can you restore the colour to a black and white jpeg from the camera? No you can't.

Rankbadyin said:
If you always shoot in Raw you will need high capacity storage cards, and shoot slowly to allow time for the Camera to write to them, Fast expensive cards might speed that up. You will also need a lot of extra storage drives attached to your computer to store them.
Click to expand...
The capacity/storage is available - for most people it's not a problem. If you need to shoot slowly to allow time for your camera to write raw files, then maybe you should consider a 30fps movie camera instead of a still camera. There might be some isolated situations where it is required to shoot jpeg only to maximise burst rate - most folk ain't going to be hindered by it.

Rankbadyin said:
People talk a lot about the greater quality of a Raw file, but you can't see any difference on screen between a Raw & Jpeg, and you can't print out a Raw file, you have to convert to Jpeg losing all that "Extra" quality they say it has. But if you want to follow the Sheep, don't let me detain you.
Click to expand...

IMHO, people who talk about the greater quality of raw over jpeg don't really understand what they're talking about. Raw files are not image files - they are sensor data files that need to be processed and converted into image files - usually jpegs (in or out of camera). You cannot display (as an image) a raw file on screen nor can you print one.

Jpeg is a 'lossy' format - it compresses the data and loses data in the proceeds - hence a loss in potential IQ. By starting with high quality data, you can select a compression rate that will not show any noticeable deterioration in IQ. You can convert a raw file to a lossless image file format if it bothers you that much.

This is nothing to do with sheep mentality but all to do with being equipped with the facts and understanding them.
 
The main reason for shooting camera RAW is for color. Hopefully you already have the camera settings such as f-stop and camera speed all set correctly. You can usually get that correct by metering in the camera or checking the histogram.

However it's very difficult to be 100% sure you have the correct white balance until you get them on the big screen. I can remember shooting an entire airshow in jpg and when I was done, the shots were all blue. I could't tell by the preview because it was too bright outside and I didn't realize until I got home how bad they were.

Also, in your post processing, it is possible that you see a small amount of color cast to an image. If you want to remove it, camera raw works better.
 
James Said "As for all other adjustments, you can do everything in Jpeg that you can do in Raw"

Wrong I'm afraid. One of the things that digital cameras are still not as good at as film, is in dynamic range. If you have a scene with dark shadows and bright highlights digital cameras will often struggle, you often have to take the shot or miss the shot. With raw software such as lightroom and CS6 the ability to recover highlights or to boost shadows is far, far superior to jpegs. Once you start using raw software you will quickly realise how easy it is to use. A lot of the time it's just sliders. At a guess i would say around 90% of professional who have been working in the business for more than 3 years shoot raw. i know around 20 pros and i can only think of one that shoots jpegs. If you are new there is even more reason to shoot raw as you will not always get it right in camera.
 
Rankbadyin said:
I have asked the same question many times myself, online and in Clubs, all anyone can say say is "You can change the White balance" I don't know why I would want to change the White balance, either the Camera sets it properly, or I set it for the effect I'm looking for. As for all other adjustments, you can do everything in Jpeg that you can do in Raw.

If you always shoot in Raw you will need high capacity storage cards, and shoot slowly to allow time for the Camera to write to them, Fast expensive cards might speed that up. You will also need a lot of extra storage drives attached to your computer to store them. People talk a lot about the greater quality of a Raw file, but you can't see any difference on screen between a Raw & Jpeg, and you can't print out a Raw file, you have to convert to Jpeg losing all that "Extra" quality they say it has. But if you want to follow the Sheep, don't let me detain you.
Click to expand...

Really???

White balance is all?

What about exposure changes, more detail recovery from shadows and highlights, the ability to create multiple exposures without losing quality, faster workflow???
 
weybourne said:
White balance is all about the colour of the light (aka light temperature). Cameras have /use presets that are an approximation of some light conditions - they can only set it precisely if you create a custom white-balance by taking a photo and 'telling' it what white is. Most photographers would not use white balance as an 'effect' - they use it to ensure that what is supposed to be white is white - because white looks different in sunlight middle of day to sunlight at sunset to tungsten light etc.

A jpeg produced by the camera has already had adjustments applied to it in the camera - the original data lost forever - you will never be able to adjust it out of camera the same as a raw because of that - can you restore the colour to a black and white jpeg from the camera? No you can't.


The capacity/storage is available - for most people it's not a problem. If you need to shoot slowly to allow time for your camera to write raw files, then maybe you should consider a 30fps movie camera instead of a still camera. There might be some isolated situations where it is required to shoot jpeg only to maximise burst rate - most folk ain't going to be hindered by it.



IMHO, people who talk about the greater quality of raw over jpeg don't really understand what they're talking about. Raw files are not image files - they are sensor data files that need to be processed and converted into image files - usually jpegs (in or out of camera). You cannot display (as an image) a raw file on screen nor can you print one.

Jpeg is a 'lossy' format - it compresses the data and loses data in the proceeds - hence a loss in potential IQ. By starting with high quality data, you can select a compression rate that will not show any noticeable deterioration in IQ. You can convert a raw file to a lossless image file format if it bothers you that much.

This is nothing to do with sheep mentality but all to do with being equipped with the facts and understanding them.
Click to expand...

Photographers need to get over it, look at the quality of pictures in any Newspaper or Mag or any kind of publication. an iPhone would do never mind a Raw File, if you do it for your own satisfaction then carry on, but no one else cares.
 
Rankbadyin said:
Photographers need to get over it, look at the quality of pictures in any Newspaper or Mag or any kind of publication. an iPhone would do never mind a Raw File, if you do it for your own satisfaction then carry on, but no one else cares.
Click to expand...
Yeah I guess an iPhone would be great for a wedding :LOL:
 
Phil Young said:
Really???

White balance is all?

What about exposure changes, more detail recovery from shadows and highlights, the ability to create multiple exposures without losing quality, faster workflow???
Click to expand...

Try and get those things right when you take the picture, Photoshop can do all those things and more f you have the time.
 
Dark Knight said:
Yeah I guess an iPhone would be great for a wedding :LOL:
Click to expand...

Everyone and his uncle has a camera now, they do weddings for nothing.
I have been to wedding where they put an Instamitic on the table for everyone
so they could take their own pictures.
 
Last edited:
Rankbadyin said:
Try and get those things right when you take the picture, Photoshop can do all those things and more f you have the time.
Click to expand...

Firstly, it's not always the case to "get it right in camera" as here is an example. Just one more meter up and it would have been totally different - but I couldn't plan this shot, you literally have to snap away with a bit of hit and hope.

Secondly, if you believe you can do everything in photoshop, please show us how and after your attempt I'm sure you would agree "this would have been so much more easier and better quality, if only I had the RAW file..."

Jpg:
P6140038_copy.jpg


Edited RAW:
P6140037_copysxc.JPG
 
RAW = digital negative, you "develop it later using software and save the raw as you would keep your negatives when shooting film.
It allows you to go back and re work an image from scratch at any time.

JPG = Digital polaroid, if you get it right in camera you have your shot, if you don't then its much harder to rescue and its compressed format means you don't get such good results re working it at a later date.
 
iancandler said:
RAW = digital negative, you "develop it later using software and save the raw as you would keep your negatives when shooting film.
It allows you to go back and re work an image from scratch at any time.

JPG = Digital polaroid, if you get it right in camera you have your shot, if you don't then its much harder to rescue and its compressed format means you don't get such good results re working it at a later date.
Click to expand...

To me a picture is only a picture, if it looks good I keep it, if not it gets binned, I neither have the space to keep failures, or the time to twiddle with them, as one poster said earlier "Life is too short"
 
Rankbadyin said:
To me a picture is only a picture, if it looks good I keep it, if not it gets binned, I neither have the space to keep failures, or the time to twiddle with them, as one poster said earlier "Life is too short"
Click to expand...

That's fine for you but that doesn't offer any advice about using Raw or JPEG. You clearly don't understand the advantages to using Raw and don't wish to spend any time on Raw files. Both great for you but again missing the question of the OP.
 
Rankbadyin said:
To me a picture is only a picture, if it looks good I keep it, if not it gets binned, I neither have the space to keep failures, or the time to twiddle with them, as one poster said earlier "Life is too short"
Click to expand...

come on James, either you're not familiar with RAW files and benefits of how they work or you prefer to just get out there and shoot JPEG, let the camera do the processing and 'let's see what we end up with?' Either way is fine and each to their own - but the OP was asking what the benefits of shooting RAW are - you basically told him it's a waste of time :shrug: and not to follow the sheep :thinking:
 
leftcurl said:
come on James, either you're not familiar with RAW files and benefits of how they work or you prefer to just get out there and shoot JPEG, let the camera do the processing and 'let's see what we end up with?' Either way is fine and each to their own - but the OP was asking what the benefits of shooting RAW are - you basically told him it's a waste of time :shrug: and not to follow the sheep :thinking:
Click to expand...

What you say is right, I did try Raw like everyone else but found no benefit. Slow buffering between Camera and Card, very large files that can't be seen or printed, having to revert to the Jpeg you try to avoid to start with, Photoshop and Camera capable of doing anything you might wish.

Others have tried to put forward the reasons why you should use Raw Files and trot out all the same opinions they have read somewhere, none of which is a real benefit.

And you are also correct in saying I just like to get out there and shoot jpeg. My feeling is Photographers today get too caught up in the technicalities, too caught up in chasing the next big and better thing, whether it be Cameras or Lenses, Tripods, Lighting etc. they get locked into the thought that they will never be a good photographer until they have all that most expensive equipment. I would say if you have all that spare time to sit in front of your 30 inch screen peeping at all the supposed imperfect pixels, try using some of that to look back at Photographers who never had a 10th of your stuff, who went out and produced superlative photographs with nothing more than a 35mm Camera and a few rolls of Film, and follow their example, and I don't mean go buy a Film Camera.
 
Both sides are right for me. If I'm setting out to get a particular shot,or set of shots I'll shoot raw every time.

When I head down to Devon with the family in a couple of weeks, I know that I'll come back with hundreds of shots and (if I'm lucky) only have time to straighten,crop or delete. Jpeg all the way then!
 
fair dinkum. You've explored the avenue and found it's not for you and you've decided on the route you want to take to enjoy photography (y)

for the OP, he's not even tried shooting RAW and wants to know the pros/cons of it... so from me, i'd say give it a go. Use the RAW software that came with the camera and have a look at tweeking the temperature / fill light / blacks / exposure to see how it affects your image.. it gives you full control over the final output into JPEG/TIFF format. After that you can then use processing software to enhance the image further if required (eg. levels, adjustment layers, B&W conversion etc..)

I always shoot RAW for stuff that i know i'd like to work on later, to me, that's still part of taking the photo. I then switch to JPEG for shots of the kids, holidays etc.. Give it a go (y)
 
I personally don't believe we should be saying "back in the olden days people didn't have that"...we don't live in those times and should use whatever tools at our disposal to create the best images possible.

If RAW files help that then that's great!
 
Rankbadyin said:
try using some of that to look back at Photographers who never had a 10th of your stuff, who went out and produced superlative photographs with nothing more than a 35mm Camera and a few rolls of Film, and follow their example, and I don't mean go buy a Film Camera.
Click to expand...


you don't really believe that a high level of post processing is a new thing, and that all those superlative film shots had nothing done to them at all? Do you?. Dodging/burning/masking etc were all darkroom techniques long before anyone had thought of photoshop
 
Rankbadyin said:
What you say is right, I did try Raw like everyone else but found no benefit. Slow buffering between Camera and Card,

Others have tried to put forward the reasons why you should use Raw Files and trot out all the same opinions they have read somewhere, none of which is a real benefit.
Click to expand...

Speed is down to camera and card. My SLR writes pretty much instantly, my compact takes about 8 seconds.

I do not trot out opinions I have read somewhere, I am speaking from experience. Take a photo in Raw + JPEG and then edit both (recover a few highlights, bring out some shadow, sharpen etc,.) and see if you can spot the difference. It can make enough difference to make the whole photo better so why wouldn't you want to do that?

And no it doesn't take loads of time. I am making the same adjustments, using exactly the same software as I would with Raw or JPEG.

You seem to be very anti Raw for some reason, did a load of Raw files bully you when you were a child :)
 
The pro's and cons of raw files have been covered. In terms of whether to use it or not, as a rule of thumb, I tend to use raw when there is a chance I will want to do further editing of the image in post processing, for example I'll be using the picture in competition, or for printing, or for image libraries. For holiday snaps and days out with the family, then i'll shoot jpeg, as the final end use is either going to be facebook, or 6x4 prints.

I also shoot low res jpegs for ebay pictures, no point spending ages faffing round resizing and such like for things like that.
 
Rankbadyin said:
What you say is right, I did try Raw like everyone else but found no benefit. Slow buffering between Camera and Card, very large files that can't be seen or printed, having to revert to the Jpeg you try to avoid to start with, Photoshop and Camera capable of doing anything you might wish.

Others have tried to put forward the reasons why you should use Raw Files and trot out all the same opinions they have read somewhere, none of which is a real benefit.

And you are also correct in saying I just like to get out there and shoot jpeg. My feeling is Photographers today get too caught up in the technicalities, too caught up in chasing the next big and better thing, whether it be Cameras or Lenses, Tripods, Lighting etc. they get locked into the thought that they will never be a good photographer until they have all that most expensive equipment. I would say if you have all that spare time to sit in front of your 30 inch screen peeping at all the supposed imperfect pixels, try using some of that to look back at Photographers who never had a 10th of your stuff, who went out and produced superlative photographs with nothing more than a 35mm Camera and a few rolls of Film, and follow their example, and I don't mean go buy a Film Camera.
Click to expand...

Well your naivety is to be applauded. You don't want to learn, and believe your way is the only way.

But I have to point out how wrong you are about 'the old days'. Most of those 'great photographs' were taken on carefully chosen equipment and film stock. And most of those great photographers were either great darkroom technicians, or they employed someone who was.

But many hobbyists believed 'wrongly' that their pictures were SOOC because Boots did their colour management and tweaked their exposures.

I have friends who can't taste the difference between a ready meal and proper food, does that make the entire haute cuisine concept rubbish too?

Like others here, I understand what your standards mean and what drives you, please don't try to pretend that just because something is 'good enough' for you then that's all that should matter to anyone.
 
Phil V said:
Well your naivety is to be applauded. You don't want to learn, and believe your way is the only way.

But I have to point out how wrong you are about 'the old days'. Most of those 'great photographs' were taken on carefully chosen equipment and film stock. And most of those great photographers were either great darkroom technicians, or they employed someone who was.

But many hobbyists believed 'wrongly' that their pictures were SOOC because Boots did their colour management and tweaked their exposures.

I have friends who can't taste the difference between a ready meal and proper food, does that make the entire haute cuisine concept rubbish too?

Like others here, I understand what your standards mean and what drives you, please don't try to pretend that just because something is 'good enough' for you then that's all that should matter to anyone.
Click to expand...

Very well put.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top