Shooting in RAW

[Rob]

thanks for the answers but it has brought up more questions... sorry lol

first i guess automatic was the wrong word, it would be more like forgiving. If it is more forgiving then why wouldnt the on camera processor make the optimum image from the data to begin with when it converts to jpg... ive seen one image in raw that was decent and the same exact in jpg that was beyond repair... same light and exposure and what not.... why would that be?

Ill have to admit what ****es me off about RAW the most is it take up so much space, my memory cards would cost more than the camera if all i used was raw.

We're here to answer your questions, so don't worry about that.

The onboard processor does make the "optimum" image in terms of the camera manufacturer's opinion. There's a tradeoff - JPG is a lossy (or compressed) file format. In exchange for saving you space, it loses you a certain percentage of quality. Also, the camera manufacturers look at the average pictures people take and optimise the sharpness and other routines to hopefully improve the overall balance of the shot.

RAW has no processing, it's just a digital representation of what the CCD saw. It's therefore going to be a smidgen better for those difficult images. Low lighting situations, very subtle colour and tone gradients may all benefit from shooting in RAW and manually importing into a program such as PS.

It's your choice whether you shoot less in RAW, or more in JPG. If you're click happy, then it's no contest: JPG wins. If, however, you have lots of time, patience and want prime results: RAW wins. If your camera has the ability to write both, then write both and compare a selection of shots and make the informed decision whether you wish to use RAW or JPG.

In defence of the youthful and new Fate, I suspect he was alluding to the extra noise and loss of detail which are more detectible between RAW and JPG with low-light shots, rather than giving you a blanket "RAW is better at colours". It's tricky to explain yourself on a forum - believe me I get misunderstood quite frequently.

Hope this has helped and if there are any other questions, don't hesitate to ask!

Rob

 

[Big Mike]

For some people, JPEG is just easier. RAW does require more work, no doubt. JPEG may look better initially, because the sharpening & what-nots...have been applied to the image by the camera. If you always like what the camera is doing...then maybe RAW is not for you.

RAW gives us greater control over the image...from start to finish. J-peg is like dropping your film off at the lab and letting the lab tech fine tune the color, WB, sharpness etc. RAW is more like developing and printing yourself in a dark room.

 

[orangetree]

most of my work is in the studio or on location doing senior portrait or student functions or weddings... I do take alot of shots, i guess im half click happy LOL... digital has done that to me.. but other than that... i guess i just have mixed ideas about raw still. Im going to experiment somemore with some clients and shoot in raw and go from there... It took me awhile to get used to digital.. I suppose everything has its learning curve and breakin period...

thanks for all the info...


and PS Im a huge Calvin and Hobbes fan LOL

 

[pursuer]

I only shoot Raw now because I feel I can do a better job at optimising an image then a realativly not so powerful microprocessor can. When shooting digital the image HAS to be converted from RAW, white balanced, sharpened etc.. You just have to decide if you want to take the time to do it yourself or let your camera do it for you. I have lots of time and lots of storage space so I choose to do it myself.

 

[Big Mike]

Calvin & Hobbes :thumbsup:

I'm a firm believer in RAW files...but I don't use them all the time. Like any job, it's best to use the right tool at the right time.

If I'm shooting landscape or artistic or important shots, then I'll use RAW.

But when I'm just shooting the family at X-mas time or friends at a New Year's party...then it's just JPEG all the way. I don't want to spend any extra time processing those types of shots. I can still get good (larger) prints from the JPEGs so if I decide to, I can do that. However, there is still the odd time that I messed up an exposure and had wished it was a RAW file so that would be more info for the recovery.

 

[markc]

that statement just would just make a hardcore realists photographer cringe.

Ya know what i mean?

Not so. Well maybe, but I would venture that they don't understand what a camera does then. There is no way to capture "what's really there". It's that whole "the observer affects the observed" thing. The film you choose (Sensia 100 vs. Portra 400 vs. T-Max 3200), the focal length, aperture and focus, where you stand... it all impacts the view that you present. And no camera or film or CCD sees things the way your eye does. Especially since to much interpretation goes on inside the brain.

RAW is like using a film with better exposure latitude. I don't think there's anything wrong with spending some time in the darkroom trying to pull as much detail out of the negative as possible, and using RAW is similar.

I just find it odd that people consider an altered view stored in a camera as more "real" than a view altered outside of it. The camera is just one of many stopping points during the interpretation process of an image. A lot happens even before the shutter button is pressed.

 

[Fate]

that statement just would just make a hardcore realists photographer cringe.

Ya know what i mean?

hehe good

 

[photobug]

This really is pretty simple. If jpegs work for you shoot jpegs. If they don't & you want to expand the horizons of your photos shoot RAW.

Like anything else, each has its place. Use the tool appropriate to the task.

 

[Jeff Canes]

RAW is awsome, i find it espeically great for low-light shots. They add a colourful punch to the scene you want to capture.

that statement just would just make a hardcore realists photographer cringe.

Ya know what i mean?

Not at all, it like using an ultra color film over a natural type

Fuji Velvia over Fuji Astia

 

[clarinetJWD]

Basically, I shoot manual because I think I know better than the camera. I shoot RAW because I think I know better than the camera. It lets me control every single aspect of the photo from start to finish...
The argument that RAW is cheating is like saying: I shoot with [insert ****ty film here] because using higher quality film is cheating.

 

[Jeff Canes]

IMO this RAW verse JPG debate is way over rate.

The main different between the two is JPG only records the image based on the camera set when you take the shot, RAW records the image over the full range of possible setting, basic RAW is a lot easier to fix your f-ups and that probably why most of use/I us it.