🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/3LqnCuJ 🎁

Encouragement to shoot raw

Hi yes I edit using camera raw then save as a tiff file so that I can go back and edit more if I want to
So at the end of a day I have
3 copies of raw original file
2 copies of original jpg file
one of each is in a folder called darkroom where I edit
then once edited
3 copies of the edited tiff file
and before anyone asks yes I do use up a lot of storage space
 
Hi yes I edit using camera raw then save as a tiff file so that I can go back and edit more if I want to
So at the end of a day I have
3 copies of raw original file
2 copies of original jpg file
one of each is in a folder called darkroom where I edit
then once edited
3 copies of the edited tiff file
and before anyone asks yes I do use up a lot of storage space
Your workflow is very similar to mine. I shoot Raw and do my 1st edit in Nikon DX studio where I adjust the picture control which is usually either STANDARD or VIVID and do my initial crop. Then I export as a 14 bit tif to a .tif folder in my exports main folder. The next step is to import it into Luminar Neo were I usually use the INHANCE feature and sometimes I use the sky replacement tool. Then another .tif export to PS where I adjust levels, spot sharpen the main subject, sometimes blur the background, and add a frame and then export a full .jpg and a small .jpg and then delete all the .tif files. A lot of steps and time consuming but, I don't really have anything better to do these days and may only process 10% of my shots and delete the rest.

 
and before anyone asks yes I do use up a lot of storage space
Yikes!!!!!!!!!! I've spent the last two days, doing file maintenance. Last count LR is managing somewhere around 25k of my images scattered over 2 drives for 12 TB of storage, and another 10TB backup. Multiply my files by 3 I never would get caught up.:uncomfortableness:
 
Last edited:
I do a end of year hdd housekeeping...... if an image does not bring a memory or a emotional response it’s gone
 
I shoot everything raw because I like the options it gives me in post processing. However, if I was shooting professionally I would shoot in jpeg and raw and only use the raw image if the jpeg needed too much processing.
I shoot as an amateur in both Raw + Jpeg. I don't print but make slide shows and it's easier to use the jpeg with maybe some slight editing unless it really has some capture issues. Than I can get more info out of the Raw. But 95% of the time the jpeg is fine. Faster to process and put the slide show together.
 
I do a end of year hdd housekeeping...... if an image does not bring a memory or a emotional response it’s gone
I do something similar. I keep only 1 yrs. folder on my main desktop HD and I then purge the duds from the previous yr and store them on a 5 tb hd. and delete them from my main computer. I have folders dating back to 2004 when I was shooting a D5100 and all jpeg.
 
There is no right or wrong reason for using Raw. It is the needs and opinions of the user that dictates which to use.

The majority of my photos are shared with friends and family and occasionally posted on the web by email. Hence most of my shots are JPG. Not only are they JPG, but to email them I usually reduce them to 1 meg or less in file size.

For photos that I really want to capture details or manipulate for contests etc. I will shoot in RAW. Canon made my camera, they also made a RAW converter program available. But even then, some contests will limit the size of your submission.

As to the "as shot" vs. "as post processed." the argument is mostly philosophical. I put it in the same category as "How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Since, I lam a fan of old photos, image quality is far less important than the subject matter.
 
As to the "as shot" vs. "as post processed." the argument is mostly philosophical
I have no problem with the SOOC crowd, nor of anyone who doesn't post process, to each their own, but your statement above is factually incorrect. A raw image post processed by someone knowledgeable will always be better than the JPEG created by the camera.
 
I have no problem with the SOOC crowd, nor of anyone who doesn't post process, to each their own, but your statement above is factually incorrect. A raw image post processed by someone knowledgeable will always be better than the JPEG created by the camera.
Well maybe different! better is an opinion.
 
I have no problem with the SOOC crowd, nor of anyone who doesn't post process, to each their own, but your statement above is factually incorrect. A raw image post processed by someone knowledgeable will always be better than the JPEG created by the camera.
If you are recording an event or disaster, a little sharpening or noise reduction here and there doesn't hurt. If you are creating an image then the sky is the limit. If it looks good it IS good.
 
Well maybe different! better is an opinion.


The decision to save RAW or JPEG is and "Opinion". Whether the IQ of a finished image will be better if processed post is a "fact". Apparently you don't understand that in camera all images start out with the same data at the sensor, when you save as JPEG you're actually saving a "processed" image. The difference is you're letting the camera software "edit it" for you. Camera manufacturers are middle of the road guys, they're more concerned with getting an image then the ending quality of same.

If go with SOOC JPEGS you're giving up significant color data (an 8 bit JPEG contains 16.8 million colors vs RAW of up to 68.7 billion), and lose around 5 stops of dynamic range on a SOOC JPEG vs RAW. A SOOC JPEG is not only destructive processing vs nondestructive RAW post processing, the JPEG compression deletes significant file information, and contributes to artifacts in the image. Then there's the advantage of more adjustment available in RAW vs JPEG, and the ability to convert to other formats.

f you are recording an event or disaster, a little sharpening or noise reduction here and there doesn't hurt. If you are creating an image then the sky is the limit. If it looks good it IS good.
The SOOC debate is a tired argument which is useless to argue. I don't care if anyone post processes, does SOOC, or chips out an image on stone tablets. It's their choice, if they're happy with the IQ great, however I do believe that regardless of choice/opinion we shouldn't make misleading/false statements like the one I took exception to (As to the "as shot" vs. "as post processed." the argument is mostly philosophical), and the one above. Let's make rational decisions based on fact.
 
Yikes!!!!!!!!!! I've spent the last two days, doing file maintenance. Last count LR is managing somewhere around 25k of my images scattered over 2 drives for 12 TB of storage, and another 10TB backup. Multiply my files by 3 I never would get caught up.:uncomfortableness:
My primary job is in video production. Stills are my artistic hobby. I've shot film (8mm, 16mm, 35mm) over the years and then Video (Standard Def), Early HD (720p), Full HD (1920x1080), UHD (3840x2160) and although my current camera only does up to DCI 4K (4096x2160) I handle and work with files shot in 6K and 8K. Each "double" in resolution means 4-times the file size for each frame and if you shoot long things... (concerts, performances, etc...) or a lot of material for short things (even commercials shoot hours of material) then the storage becomes astronomical. There is not yet a "true" raw format in video, meaning a format the records all data from the sensor uncompressed in real time, as it's just not possible, but there is close and the files a ginormous.

A friend said, what the hardware giveth the software taketh away. Meaning, as soon as we could edit SD video in real time, we had to jump to HD, and when the hardware made that workable, we had to be shooting 4K, and now that my system can almost handle that smoothly, we're moving to 8K.

Same with digital still cameras. Yeah, there's raw, but how much resolution, how many pixels, is enough?

Point of this.... Yes, storage.... but all my issues with saving my still photography RAW files pale to a drop in lake superior, compared to video files, shooting the equivalent of 24, or 30, or 60 still images every second for hours, compressed or uncompressed.

So I share your storage feelings and empathize beyond words.

Sorry, didn't mean to turn this into a show of who's got the bigger hard disk. :-O
 
There is no doubt that Raw offers greater detail and versatility to the image.

I will be sure to remember that if I am ever called to shoot a crime scene. If and when I need Raw it is only a button push or two away.

In truth the only time I have used RAW was to see what it offered. It offers a lot of manipulations that I do not consider important enough to the convey the message I want my image to tell. Yes, a well-manicured photo can be a thing of beauty and a joy to behold, as well as a testament to the photo-artist's skills.

Personally, I prefer to apply my skills to the "taking" side of the process. My pass time is shooting a 4x5 film format 1909 view camera. I control the shutter and aperture settings, focus the image with a loop under the dark cloth, zoom-in by moving the tripod closer etc. The success or failure of the image is my fault, not the result of some engineering guru's algorithm at camera company.

I do like my DSLR when I want to take photos, it is fast, easy and has an almost unlimited number of retakes. I have even put it through it's manual paces, with moon lit night scenes and telescope adapters.

Fortunately, photography is a big tent, I find almost all digital images, even black and white, need some auto-correcting. But if you really enjoy post processing your image. Raw should give you all the versatility you need. If you prefer SOOC, you will also have a lot of company.
 
There is no doubt that Raw offers greater detail and versatility to the image.

I will be sure to remember that if I am ever called to shoot a crime scene. If and when I need Raw it is only a button push or two away.

In truth the only time I have used RAW was to see what it offered. It offers a lot of manipulations that I do not consider important enough to the convey the message I want my image to tell. Yes, a well-manicured photo can be a thing of beauty and a joy to behold, as well as a testament to the photo-artist's skills.

Personally, I prefer to apply my skills to the "taking" side of the process. My pass time is shooting a 4x5 film format 1909 view camera. I control the shutter and aperture settings, focus the image with a loop under the dark cloth, zoom-in by moving the tripod closer etc. The success or failure of the image is my fault, not the result of some engineering guru's algorithm at camera company.

I do like my DSLR when I want to take photos, it is fast, easy and has an almost unlimited number of retakes. I have even put it through it's manual paces, with moon lit night scenes and telescope adapters.

Fortunately, photography is a big tent, I find almost all digital images, even black and white, need some auto-correcting. But if you really enjoy post processing your image. Raw should give you all the versatility you need. If you prefer SOOC, you will also have a lot of company.
Excellent post
 

Most reactions

Back
Top