Author Topic: whats the point of shooting RAW?  (Read 11239 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

allan L

  • Guest
whats the point of shooting RAW?
« on: October 20, 2005, 04:54:52 AM »
i'm not sure i fully understand exactly what a RAW file is and why it is so much better than shooting extra fine jpegs.  i understand that there are certain things that you can have more control over with RAW files, for example you can change the white balance and exposure compensation.  what else is there?  i always shoot x-fine jpegs and don't really have anything to complain about.  is the main differences only visible when you print thie pictures?  i still haven't actually gotten around to printing any of my photos.  is there a difference in the size of prints i can make?  i guess basically my question is why is it worth the time it takes to convert all the images? (which can be quite a lot when you come home with a couple of gigs worth of photos!)

Offline Clive

  • Past Moderator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 11976
  • Gender: Male
    • My galleries
whats the point of shooting RAW?
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2005, 05:46:01 AM »
allan

I am the last guy to be commenting...but I will anyway. Obviously someone with RAW knowledge and REAL experience will offer you sage advice about RAW.

I've taken 5,600 images with my 7D in two months and taken about 23 RAW images. The rest are etxra fine jpeg. So far I am pleased with the standard adjustments I am able to make with jpegs. I am sure you have taken some great shots that will be great printed as jpegs.

The RAW is the "digital negative" and all of the original image data is stored as it was taken versus in-camera adjustments that will happen with jpegs and therefore RAW offers more adjustment possibilities. I think.

BTW...as far as I know, you don't print RAW files ... they need converting to jpegs or TIFFs.

Cheers!

Clive
Galleries
============================================
Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted, counts. Albert Einstein

Ronin

  • Guest
whats the point of shooting RAW?
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2005, 08:57:22 AM »
A JPG is a compressed image, that means info has been taken away to make the image smaller. In a Raw you have all the info and no compression so when it comes to the digital work flow you have more info to work with. It is easier to correct WB and EV in a RAW than a JPG as the info needed for the adjustments are accessible. A RAW and be compared with a negative or a slide as it is the original data from the shot without and processing from the camera.

Offline fenijs

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
whats the point of shooting RAW?
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2005, 02:27:31 PM »
I shoot RAW + JPEG. I haven't gotten around to really dive into deep post processing yet, but when I finally master it I want to be able to go back to my images and maybe get that little extra out of it.

Storage space isn't really an issue, Ii have 2 fast 1GB cards and a slow backup 1GB card so I can shoot 160 shots full speed before having to "slow" down on my slower card for another 80 shots. If I didn't find time to off load the images to my image tank before I shoot those 240 shots something is horribly wrong or I should get bigger/more cards ;).

So I'm short I shoot RAW+ because I see no reason not to.
Dynax 7D - AF 17-35 F/2.8-4 (D) - AF 35-70 F/4 - AF 70-210 F/4.5-5.6 - AF 50 F/1.7 - 3600HS (D)
Sigma 170-500 F/5-6.3 APO

Ronin

  • Guest
whats the point of shooting RAW?
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2005, 05:00:55 PM »
Quote from: fenijs
If I didn't find time to off load the images to my image tank before I shoot those 240 shots something is horribly wrong or I should get bigger/more cards ;).



LOL I shot over 400 images in 3 hours last week all raw+jpg
Burn the jpg to cd and give them to the client as a proof I keep the raw

dcap

  • Guest
whats the point of shooting RAW?
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2005, 09:45:52 PM »
I used to shoot just the largest jpg possible.  Then I had an image showing jpg "artifacts" jaggies.  It was an area of a photo with a gradual change in tone from (I can't remember) light blue to dark blue.  No matter how hard I tried playing in photoshop I couldn't get rid of it.  And the shot was unusable becuase of this.

That day I switched to RAW.  I capture raw and the small jpg, use the small jpg for quickly scanning through my shots.  The real work is done on the RAW converted to TIF (using DiMAGE Viewer).  And I've never had the problem since.

I get the impression there is a deeper/richer pallet of colours on the RAW/TIF file when compared to the JPG.

I'm 100% RAW (and 100% JPG, but I don't USE the jpgs as final image, they are just thumbnails to me!)

I hope this helps.

Offline AScot

  • Administrator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • ******
  • Posts: 6042
  • Gender: Male
whats the point of shooting RAW?
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2005, 12:59:15 AM »
I shoot Raw + jpg, as does dcap, and for the same reasons. Most of my jpgs get deleted, and the Raw is kept as my 'negative'. I load the Raw into PSCS camera raw, modify it to my liking then I edit it in 16 bit. After I am satisfied, I convert it to 8 bit jpg for printing or web use.

I can appreciate that a pro, who has a large number of files to process, would opt for jpg. If he gets it right in the camera, he has much less post processing to carry out. Using Raw exclusively, does take more time and is not conducive to an efficient work flow.

Raw does have a deeper pallet of colours, it is 16 bit (12bit on the 7D I believe) whereas jpg is strictly 8 bit. This is one of the reasons I use it as it provides for much greater editing control.

Raw does not use any camera processing or settings such as white balance, contrast, saturation or sharpness. Nor is it compressed like a jpg. You get exactly what the sensor captured. The only processing in camera, is through the analogue to digital converter.
Sony A7, A850, A77, A700 || Sony>> 70-300G, 28-75 f2.8 SAM, 16-80CZ, 50 f1.4, FE 28-70 OSS, FE 24-70CZ f4 OSS, LA-EA4 || Minolta>> 300 f4 G HS, 200 f2.8 G HS, 100 f2.8 (D) Macro, 50 f1.7, 28 f2.8, 28-135 f4-4.5, 70-210 f4, 500 f8 Reflex, TC x 1.4 HS, TC x 2 HS. || Sigma 21-35 f3.5-4.2. || Tamron SP 24-135.

Ronin

  • Guest
whats the point of shooting RAW?
« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2005, 10:02:19 AM »
I try to do as little post production as possible as I don’t have the time or knowledge of Photoshop to do it all.

Offline fenijs

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
whats the point of shooting RAW?
« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2005, 10:18:25 AM »
Quote from: Ronin
Quote from: fenijs
If I didn't find time to off load the images to my image tank before I shoot those 240 shots something is horribly wrong or I should get bigger/more cards ;).



LOL I shot over 400 images in 3 hours last week all raw+jpg
Burn the jpg to cd and give them to the client as a proof I keep the raw


I ment for my shooting style ofcourse :)
Dynax 7D - AF 17-35 F/2.8-4 (D) - AF 35-70 F/4 - AF 70-210 F/4.5-5.6 - AF 50 F/1.7 - 3600HS (D)
Sigma 170-500 F/5-6.3 APO

Offline Akshay Jamwal

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 639
whats the point of shooting RAW?
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2005, 06:03:55 PM »
Here's a great article about the whys & whats of RAW and what the advantages are:

http://ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm
Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.  ~Ansel Adams

Offline winjeel

  • Past Moderator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Gender: Male
  • Gelight
    • japanesephotos
    • JapanesePhotos
    • JapanesePhotos.Asia
whats the point of shooting RAW?
« Reply #10 on: December 26, 2005, 01:52:09 AM »
Quote from: dcap
I used to shoot just the largest jpg possible.  Then I had an image showing jpg "artifacts" jaggies.  It was an area of a photo with a gradual change in tone from (I can't remember) light blue to dark blue.  No matter how hard I tried playing in photoshop I couldn't get rid of it.  And the shot was unusable becuase of this.

That day I switched to RAW.  I capture raw and the small jpg, use the small jpg for quickly scanning through my shots.  The real work is done on the RAW converted to TIF (using DiMAGE Viewer).  And I've never had the problem since...

...I hope this helps.


It does help. Thanks very muchly.   :D  I have wondered (when trawling through the brochures) what the point is. I knew tiffs were better than jpegs, but never understood why the industry hasn't changed, and why cameras don't use them.
JapanesePhotos.Asia; Some basic photographic how to's.
Sony the200, Minolta 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 70-300mm Gregarious, 100mm 2.8 macro.

Offline kkart

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 47
    • kkartphoto
    • Capturing The Images of Colorado Using the Mind of Minolta
Re: whats the point of shooting RAW?
« Reply #11 on: February 15, 2006, 12:09:47 PM »
Well I started with RAW until I read this: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,9085851

Sony a550, Minolta 5D, Minolta s414, Minolta Maxxum 7000, Minolta X370
"Capturing the beauty that is Colorado"

Offline rhett121

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
  • Gender: Male
Re: whats the point of shooting RAW?
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2006, 01:31:56 PM »
I only shoot RAW. I originally started shooting RAW+JPEG but never used the JPEGs so I figured I was just wasting space. I also like the extra flexibility of shooting RAW. Programs like Adobe Bridge and iViewMedia Pro will let me preview directories of RAW files (as will the Macintosh finder) so there was no need to shoot a JPEG.


 Maybe there isn't that much of a difference between most of the "in-camera" JPEGs and RAW conversions done in Photoshop but it would only take ONE ruined photo to make me regret not having the original RAW file to work from.

I admit, I haven't shot very many JPEGs so I don't have much to really compare, but it reminds me of shooting a Polaroid proof and then your final shot on Slide film. I'd rather have the original slide to print from, there's just more information in there.

p.s. Since it seems like I'm always emailing photo's around, I have considered starting shooting RAW plus "small jpeg" just to avoid having to convert all my TIFF FILES into smaller JPEGs before I email them (I save as 16bit TIFF after RAW conversion in Photoshop). So maybe it's not a bad idea after all.
- I've always thought a good lashing with a buggy whip would benefit you immensely

Offline arthedains

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 231
    • Creative Obscurity
Re: whats the point of shooting RAW?
« Reply #13 on: February 15, 2006, 03:55:12 PM »
It is the same here. From day one I've shot only in RAW. The advantages for me in shooting RAW far outweigh the inconveniences of working with it. In camera Jpegs might look good but their very creation leads to the loss of a great deal of information. I'm not comfortable with letting the camera decide about so many things.

-Anil

Keeping the Eye in Minolta
Dynax 9|Dynax 7D|50|85G|100M|17-35G|28-70G|70-200G|300G|1.4xII

Offline geoset

  • Enthusiast
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: whats the point of shooting RAW?
« Reply #14 on: February 15, 2006, 10:11:23 PM »
I would reiterate AScot's point about Bit depth. The 8 bit infomation in jpegs just won't support serious editing in Photoshop. For this you need the 16 bits of RAW files. Of course if you are not interested in producing large, quality prints this is not a factor, but for me it is the main reason for using RAW.
George Setterfield