Is RAW really worth it?

[Patrick_L]

It really depends on your personal circumstances. Since I'm a wedding photographer, I do all my portraits in RAW , but candids in jpeg, since they are not as critical, and I underexpose a third of a stop so as to not to blow out highlights when shooting jpeg ( raw has more DR ). If you are shooting for contests, art, or professional, RAW is advised. If you are not, and you don't mind the extra download time and disk space usage, why not? If you are just doing snaps of friends at parties, I wouldn't see the point. Your call.

 

[JohnTrav]

Raw is def worth it IMO when it comes to editing. There is more you can do with the raw file.

I just shoot raw+jpeg. It's the best way I think. Only down side is how much more space it takes up on your cards

 

[Awiserbud]

Once you start shooting in RAW, you automatically become a professional photographer, it's true, some bloke who wears an "i shoot raw" t-shirt told me.

 

[STIC]

...

 

[Ysarex84 78]

For professional sessions, I would recommend shooting in RAW because you can control the image. Plus, the resolution is a lot higher for printing. If you try to blow up a regular jpeg, it may look pixelated. When I do every day casual shots for the web, fb, or blogs, I just use the regular jpeg setting because RAW takes up a lot of space.

Professional = RAW
Casual/Every day use = jpeg

Good luck!

No, the resolution for printing is identical between a camera's raw file and that same camera's JPEG file. If the JPEG compression is heavy then artifacts and banding can show in printing, but that's an adjustable setting.

Joe

 

[480sparky39 38]

For professional sessions, I would recommend shooting in RAW because you can control the image. Plus, the resolution is a lot higher for printing. If you try to blow up a regular jpeg, it may look pixelated. When I do every day casual shots for the web, fb, or blogs, I just use the regular jpeg setting because RAW takes up a lot of space.

Professional = RAW
Casual/Every day use = jpeg

Good luck!

Who can make prints from a raw file?

 

[coastalconn]

I wish I had shot raw from the beginning. I made the switch in late spring I think, I still wish I could go back and fix some of the jpegs.. As far as storage space, that is silly, a 1 TB external hard drive is under $100 bucks now. Here's a post I started awhile ago... http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-beginners-forum/302724-why-you-should-shoot-raw.html Like others said if you are just taking snapshots or have no interest in improving your images Jpeg is fine for many applications...

 

[STIC]

...

 

[Helen B]

If you are capable of setting your camera up to get theses parameters as you require you don't need the raw file.

You forgot to add "... and you do not require the best image quality, least noise, greatest colour gamut and greatest dynamic range your camera is capable of."

 

[snowbear114 46]

. . . but Ken Rockwell doesn't shoot raw, so JPEG must be the way to go.

 

[Helen B]

I didn't know Ken Rockwell took pictures. I thought he was just a comedian.

 

[dewey]

No love for the sports guys eh? Of course shoot RAW for weddings, portraits, landscape, etc... but I always shoot JPG for sports. It speeds everything up including a quick edit and send in the parking lot after the game.

Hello cake? Yeah meet eating it too.

O'Doyle rules!

 

[pixmedic]

No love for the sports guys eh? Of course shoot RAW for weddings, portraits, landscape, etc... but I always shoot JPG for sports. It speeds everything up including a quick edit and send in the parking lot after the game.

Hello cake? Yeah meet eating it too.

O'Doyle rules!

Is shooting jpeg common practice for sports photography? I dont shoot any sports, and the last time i shot jpeg was to check the shutter count. Aparantly, with Opanda iexif, you only get shutter count when you shoot in jpeg, and not when you convert from raw.

 

[dewey]

I'm sure some RAW sports guys will come out of the woodwork and eat me... but yes I would say it's common. If we're talking basketball, or maybe soccer at night the lighting conditions typically don't change. They suck for the duration of the event, but they suck in a predictable mannor.

I've shot RAW at games to compare, but when I go back and look at the newspaper, or magazine or even online there is no difference. The files are bigger, and editing at halftime to transmit or after the game the file size is a stinger. Talking with others in the field I've never met a serious sports photog who shoots RAW, although I'm sure there are many.

Maybe I just need a cute photo editor intern to work for me and handle the editing.

 

[Derrel]

I cooked some chicken last night. I started with raw chicken. The chicken turned out great!!!! So, yeah, raw is the best way to start. And, with plenty of butter.