Is RAW really worth it?

[thetrue]

I'm on my way to shoot a location I've been after for months. Super low light, I'm going to be shooting at iso 100, f/1.8 and 10-14 second shutter. Until now I've only ever shot in jpg, so I'm wondering if its really worth the extra large file size to shoot in RAW? Anyone have a legitimate argument as to why I should use RAW rather than jpg? Chances are I'll use both and look at the difference in LR4 when I get home, but if I can save a significant amount of space and have a similar result, what's actually the point of raw?

I hereby apologize in advance for any and all feuds this may cause, since I'm confident there are proponents for either side.

UPDATE (should have done this weeks ago): I'm shooting primarily RAW and love it.

 

[jaomul]

Can't imagine any fueds. There is already a raw jpeg fueds on in the digital discussions form. Raw is worth it if you need a bit of adjustment later such as exposure and wb and noise reducing and sharpening. If you are capable of setting your camera up to get theses parameters as you require you don't need the raw file.

 

[bratkinson]

I switched to shooting RAW back in January. As memory cards are dirt cheap, I shoot RAW + large JPG. That way, I get a choice of what I want to use. On my 60D, RAW + Large JPG gets about 450 pix per 16gb card. So space is not an issue, to me.

For shoots that are for my own enjoyment, I find the JPG is quite sufficient. I'm not looking to do any fancy editing, etc. I'm more interested in improving my skills, seeing things differently, etc.

But for the stuff that others are going to see, then I use RAW. I download both to my computer, then use Windows Picture Viewer to make my 'first pass' cuts before absolutely any editing. I simply delete the JPG and the RAW together. That knocks off about 25% of the shots as too light/dark/duplicative/oops! and whatever else I don't want to bother with. Then I import the RAWs into Lightroom and go from there.

Why RAW? Simply put, there's more image information to work with. JPGs, by their very nature, takes shortcuts, most notably the loss of color depth (eg, how many differing shades of red are shown, for example). There's far more to 'work with' using RAW, and therefore, a larger 'range' of what you want to do with each picture. Once I started working with RAW, I immediately found the need to get my white balance accurate, too. THAT made a big difference in my finished shots! Shooting a grey card/Expo disk/Color Checker and setting WB in post based on that greatly simplified my color correcting efforts.

Bottom line...memory cards are cheap, hard drive space is even cheaper. Having both to work with gives me more choices of how to 'finish it'. Once I'm done with my processing, I only keep the 'final cut' of JPGs. I have very little need or liklihood of having to go back and 're-process' my work.

 

[thetrue]

Thank you both for simplifying this for me. I got close to my spot only to find road crews with those sun-bright lights all over the place. DAMNIT!

I'm going to experiment with RAW tomorrow and see what I can come up with, although I have no grey card or anything, I'll just play with WB in post to what catches my eye, not necessarily what is correct.

Thanks again!

 

[480sparky]

Raw isn't the end-of-all-means for everyone. For an occasional shooter just wanting to take 'snapshots', or if you simply don't have the time to edit, JPEGs are just fine. But if you're serious about getting the maximum out of your images, raw is the way to go.

 

[AlexanderB]

Gosh. The only thing I'm sure from the previous thread on the topic is that discussing such things on the forums is not worth it. It is easy to try both and decide later.

 

[Helen B]

It's definitely worth trying both, but remember that the exposure that gives the best results for a JPEG will probably not be the one that gives the best results for raw (sic).

 

[Vautrin]

Think of it like making a sandwich.

JPEG serves you a delicious sandwich. But its on a plate and comes from a kitchen at your local cafe

RAW is like being allowed to go back into the kitchen. Maybe you want some extra pickles so you grab some or double the meat, and take your sandwich apart and put it together again

You might find jpeg delicious.... but raw is more flexible. And if the kitchen forgets the mustard, its nice to be able to add it

 

[ghache]

 

[manaheim]

Real men also search the forums before posting a thread asking about RAW for the 87,000th time.

But yes, RAW is worth it.

 

[deeky]

Here's the way I explain it - Think back to film. Shooting in jpeg is basically like shooting Polaroids. Most processeing is done in camera for you. Little work, but quick automatic result. RAW is like shooting film, then taking it home and processing it in your own darkroom. It is more work, knowledge, and skill to get a good result, but you have much more control over the end results.

 

[PhotoWrangler]

IChances are I'll use both and look at the difference in LR4 when I get home...

If you're going to shoot both anyway, why bother starting an argument on the forum?

 

[unpopular]

The way I see it from a b/w background: the unprocessed raw file is like unprocessed exposed film, the processed TIF file is like the processed negative, the working file (photoline, gimp, photoshop, etc) is like the darkroom print.

This is meant in the allegorical sense, not entirely technically accurate. But there are similarities when you approach digital photography from a film POV.

The unprocessed raw does not contain an "image", but rather information about an image. A film's latent image is similar to this in that we cannot understand the chemical changes in a film's emulsion in terms of being an "image". We can appreciate it in terms of "chemistry" but it's not an "image". Likewise, we can appreciate a raw file in terms of "binary data", but it's not an image unless it is developed.

The raw file serves to record as much information about the scene as possible. It is unlikely you'll gain a significant improvement aside from perhaps some sharpness and noise handling by "developing" a raw file using the same settings as you had in the camera using the manufacturers' software. IMO, I don't know if there is a real significant advantage to RAW if you don't take an exposure method that maximizes signal to noise either - aside from correcting mistakes or oversights you missed in camera, or if there are features in your raw processor that you don't have in camera.

But I don't think that "fixing mistakes" is a wise way to look at the advantages for raw. Adam's didn't propose the Zone System to "fix blown hilights", rather it is a way to gather the most information about the scene and render it into a useable negative without clipping the hilights. Sure, there are always ways to recover dense, plugged up hilights but the results are always going to be inferior - and often in similar or allegories ways to under-exposed shadows in digital: big blotchy grains.

So I see raw in a similar way. An 8-bit jpeg simply does not contain the data necessary to translate my exposure to that "useable negative" without significantly damaging it. Translations have already been applied in such a way that require I *undo* them if I apply this technique.

But what's the point of approaching it this way? Quite often the "middle of the road" 'proper' exposure is simply not suitable enough to retain maximum shadow detail, and what shadow detail exists is pretty noisy by comparison to the rest of the image. Whites may "appear" properly exposed, but only because of gamma correction, and in reality you still have several stops' latitude before clipping. By viewing exposure not as something to "nail" but rather as something more technically objective, to maximize the amount of light, overall quality should theoretically improve as the amount of noise relative to actual signal about the scene increases. So when I approach digital exposure, I am looking to maximizing hilight exposure while maintaining detail, knowing I can compensate for shadows in raw development. I then make more local adjustments in Photoline.

 

[runnah]

Think of it like making a sandwich.

JPEG serves you a delicious sandwich. But its on a plate and comes from a kitchen at your local cafe

RAW is like being allowed to go back into the kitchen. Maybe you want some extra pickles so you grab some or double the meat, and take your sandwich apart and put it together again

You might find jpeg delicious.... but raw is more flexible. And if the kitchen forgets the mustard, its nice to be able to add it

I know what I am having for lunch.

 

[unpopular]

^^ meaty, pickley sandwich with extra mustard?