Shooting Raw as a Matter of Fact

[Don Simon]

Not every camera shoots DNG, only Leicas do at this time.

Not true I'm afraid... there is at least one other system with a dSLR that lets you choose between proprietary RAR or DNG... let's just say Benjikan quite likes them, now go on and take a guess

If you find Jpeg best for your workflow, if it fits your shooting style and you're entirely happy with the results, great. Personally I'm sticking with RAW for a number of reasons. It's nothing to do with being unhappy with how my camera processes Jpegs. It produces some very nice Jpegs, but I don't see why I should limit myself. With different processing or even using different software I have so much more control and flexibility with RAW. I'm not saying it's inherently better suited to professional purposes than Jpeg, but for me it is a much better format and I don't expect to suddenly find myself with a bunch of unreadable files any time soon.

P.s. you seem really certain film is dead... you should go tell Mr. Villa who just joined the forum

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I can fit ~180 RAW files on a 1GB memory card off of my D70s. :shock:

 

[Alex_B]

I can fit ~180 RAW files on a 1GB memory card off of my D70s. :shock:

wohaa... so my camera produces raw files 4 times that large ....

 

[Sw1tchFX]

a 12MP body making uncompressed RAW's should. there's been only one time where you could actually notice the compression of the RAW's off my D70, but I was photoshopping it into oblivion. It didn't even remotely look like the original image and I ended up trashing it anyway.

 

[Garbz]

I shoot in RAW for all the tweaking advantages it provides, and they are numerous. However I do not like it as a storage format. RAW files are very camera specific. Who knows if in 10-20 years from now you will still be able to open them. Who knows if your current software will run on computers of the future. It's an extreme example.

The other problem is size. I like RAW, I really do, but for me it is an interim format which I load off my camera and play with (if needed), or just batch process to JPEG for archiving if not. I have only ever once gone back and edited a photo that I was happy with and only because the subject of the photo wanted something very irritating removed which both she and I only noticed months after :S

 

[jimiismydaddy]

RAW is so much better in everything except time. It is such a pain to have to work with 200 raw images. Takes like 10 seconds to load each one, have to see if it is worthy, and then repeat. With JPEG I can just run them through filmstrip in a folder and pick the ones I want.

 

[benjikan]

Here is an interesting article from "Luminous Landscape" you may wish to read.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml

 

[darich]

I can fit ~180 RAW files on a 1GB memory card off of my D70s. :shock:

I shoot RAW and small jpg on my 5D and only get about 55 shots per 1gb card!!

 

[RacePhoto]

Why even argue about it? Ben stated a suggestion, and I can see debating the merits of the suggestion A BIT, but, as always when this subject is brought up, it is evolving into a religious war complete with dogma, superstition, and misdirection. JPG vs. Raw. Mac vs. PC. Cannon vs. Nikon. Who CARES if the other guy agrees with you or not?

And my cat can beat your dog! (at some things)

In some cases, time is more important than shooting in Raw. If I take 2000 pictures at an event and I'd like to look at them before the next decade, I'd prefer JPG.

If I was shooting a product photo, I'd shoot in Raw.

I have a tendency to dump photos from the cards, onto a laptop, throughout the day and for sure, each evening. I often back up to CDs or DVDs, using the original files, minus the obvious duds and mistakes. Then I back up the edited files.

There is no answer that's absolute, because it varies, depending on the individual circumstances and requirements.

Raw may make for better control, but for some of us, shooting JPGs is just as good and giving up a little control is necessary.

Why hasn't anyone brought up shooting both at the same time?

 

[darich]

see my post above
:mrgreen:

 

[Arch]

Sorry, that's just a stupid statement.

Lets keep this civilized and not get into name calling shall we..... tone it down.



There have been lots of threads about Raw Vs Jpeg.... i prefer to shoot RAW at all times... others have no problems shooting Jpeg... yes, the technical differences should be discussed as its useful to newbies... but in the end, many of us have our working methods and are comfortable with them.

What i would say tho, if you are someone who hasnt tried using RAW, then do so as soon as possible.... it can save you when things dont go to plan, and has much more editing potential. The worst thing would be is if someone sticks with Jpeg because they think Raw is too difficult to manage or something.... that would be shame....
One of my wedding photog friends felt this way.... she thought it would be too difficult and take too much time to use RAW... but now she uses it and will not go back to Jpeg. We live and learn.

 

[Garbz]

I don't understand the whole argument of taking longer. There have been days where I shot my memory card full and made sure that every photo I took was a keeper and nearly all a not-editer (not a real word). In cases like that I plug my memory card in open Lightroom (downloading program of choice), and go grab a coffee. When I get back everything is on the computer so it's blazingly fast and I can then just set a default setting for all the photos and batch convert them to JPEG. Takes less than 2-3 minutes to setup if you know your software well.

I do suppose it is an issue if you need to transfer files to a computer on location via an old USB interface and don't have a second memory card to use while you wait...

 

[benjikan]

I don't understand the whole argument of taking longer. There have been days where I shot my memory card full and made sure that every photo I took was a keeper and nearly all a not-editer (not a real word). In cases like that I plug my memory card in open Lightroom (downloading program of choice), and go grab a coffee. When I get back everything is on the computer so it's blazingly fast and I can then just set a default setting for all the photos and batch convert them to JPEG. Takes less than 2-3 minutes to setup if you know your software well.

I do suppose it is an issue if you need to transfer files to a computer on location via an old USB interface and don't have a second memory card to use while you wait...

I would prefer to spend a bit of time in post prod and know that my original file is at the maximum capacity when extracting information from it...

 

[RacePhoto]

see my post above
:mrgreen:

I was writing at 4 am wasn't I? :thumbup:

When I was taking about time, I didn't mean downloading, backing up or moving files, it was about the benefits of editing each picture from RAW and saving it as a new "possibly better" jpg.

I've taken pictures, walked into the press room, at the event, and the editor said, give me a shot of {name} for the website. I open a few, pick the one I like best, crop it and reduce to web size, and hand it to him on a USB drive. It's on the website in minutes from taking the photo.

Now someone needs to explain to me, how batch converting RAW to JPG with software is better than letting the camera do it when it takes the picture. What am I missing?

As for the big question. All I'm trying to get at is it depends and there isn't one answer like always shoot RAW for everything. For what I do 90% of the time, I'd gain little or nothing from shooting RAW. BUT for what some other people do, they would only want to shoot JPGs at their family picnic.

There's no right or wrong answer. It Depends.

 

[THORHAMMER]

I used to shoot jpg + raw and then just pull out the jpgs that were good enough to use, but that was in the archaic days of bridge and PS only.

Lightroom seems to process both types of files just as quickly and without as many constrictions. I will just shoot raw and then keep the raws in the client directorys in a sub folder with the finished jpegs at various sizes in the main folders....

about raw being proprietary, I would just batch a DNG, and a JPG copy out of all your raws, and archive this onto DVD. No matter what happens you should be set, if adobe kills dng, then most likely we will all be in huge trouble anyways !!!!