Use Raw?

[HoboSyke]

Adobe Photoshop CS2.

 

[fotogenik]

RawShooter's Essentials

 

[Simon]

Thanks guys,

Is RawShooter's the best or are their others that are better?

 

[Arch]

its the best free one...... the other better ones you have to pay for.... they're not too expensive tho

 

[Simon]

I've just been looking at C1, the LE version is very reasonable are there some others I may have missed?

 

[Arch]

Thats the one i'v heard recomended in several places, so if you wanna buy one i'd look into that........ i dont know of any others that are suppose to be better.

 

[Digital Matt]

You can liken this debate to film. Would you just shoot and drop off your film to a lab to be developed, or would you develop yourself, and work your darkroom magic on the picture?

Raw puts the development in your hands. You control the contrast and saturation, losslessly, and you have much greater control over the exposure. Nobody nails there exposure everytime, and even if you get a perfectly acceptable exposure, there's no telling when it might look better at a half stop under, or over, and you'll get the best result from a raw file for situations like that.

You can use other software than the one supplied with the camera too, (which I find a bit clunky)

C1 LE is a great one, which I highly recommend, and there is also Photoshop CS and CS2 with adobe bridge and the camera raw plugin, and lastly RawShooter Essentials (which is free).

 

[Simon]

Thanks Archangel,

never sot RAW before so I'm looking in to the advantages.

I'm getting the impression that shooting in RAW is really a personal preference.

 

[Simon]

I see your point Matt, a very valid argument.

I have tried the rawshooter essentials and wasnt too impressed with the limited control. I could however upgrade and have slighlty more control, but if I need to spend money to gain morre control then I'd want good software so I need to review my options

 

[Digital Matt]

Simon, I don't like RawShooter myself. I think you might enjoy C1, and if you were thinking of paying to upgrade RawShooter, you might put that money into C1 LE, which is only $99.

 

[964]

There is definitely a quality advantage in RAW, I have direct comparisons shooting RAW to CF and JPG to SD simultaneously. When I look at the full size view on CS2 I can see a difference. Also, RAW as already mentioned is not processed in the camera (unless you specify it) so my personal style is that I want the image to reflect what the lighting/conditions was that day as I can easily 'pimp' it up later on....if I really must! Personally, I convert all my RAW files to 8-bit TIF's immediately and do processing in CS2. The files are 23-24MB each but I burn them to DVD regularly so I don't use more than say 100GB on my PC.

My father though uses his 350D to take photos sort of 'journal style'. i.e. he knows what he was doing on a particular day just looking at his 'archives' He uses JPG so he can keep almost a year's worth on a PC before burning them onto one single DVD. I get around 200 shots or so on a DVD (single layer) so I burn more regualry but with the TIF format it allows me to go back at later stage and have as many options as possible for re-processing/publishing etc....nothing wrong with JPEGs just that I prefer RAW/TIF...

 

[Fate]

Im too lazy to shoot in RAW at the mo.... JPEG all the way at the moment.. thnk i'll start shooting RAW in the summer hols though

 

[Richard Daley]

Maybe I missed this in scanning the above responses, but the quality difference between raw and jpg's is going to be seen in large enlargements, not in 4x6's or something small. So, if you aren't intending to blow up images to more than 8 x 10, jpg's will usually give you the quality you want. For those of us who always want the option to blow up to large size prints for ourselves or clients, we really have to use raw files.

From beautiful Sedona,

Richard Daley

 

[Simon]

Thanks for the tip Matt.


I'm still undecided on the need for me to shoot raw at this early stage with my limited experience.


I see a number of down sides to shooting raw.


1. Larger file size would mean slower processing of the image in the camera?


2 The need for larger / more memory cards, or the loss of the number of shots your able to take


3 allocating RAW processing software with the added expense of paying for anything decent.


4 Time consumption in processing the RAW images


5 plenty of space needed on your PC to store them or having to regularly backup to disk


Advantages are:


1 Better quality pics, only at larger print size


2 Post processing of raw gives you more control over the image


Number 2 is what is pushing me to use raw, but the down sides I have listed, offer me personally more reasons to not shoot raw.


Please feel free to correct me if anything I have said is inaccurate.

 

[Digital Matt]

Advantages are:

1 Better quality pics only at larger print size

I don't think the advantage is only at a larger print size. I think the advantage of more control makes for a better image, period, any size, print or not. You have more possibilities with raw. If it's not your style to post process your images, then that is totally fine. Don't waste your time, money, and CF space. If you like to really imprint your own artistic vision using all the means you can, then I think you would shoot raw despite it's drawbacks. They are much the same "drawbacks" to developing your own.

If you are still developing your own style, and unsure, then I would shoot jpg and learn to use your camera and lenses, and get a feel for what you like to shoot, and how you want your shots to look. Then invest in raw software.