RAW: Why do i need to shoot raw?

[rateeg]

im using jpeg all the time.
for fashion photography, do i need to shoot raw and why?

 

[MTVision]

You don't need to do anything. When you shoot in raw you can fix exposure, WB, etc in post. You have more control with raw.

 

[analog.universe]

If you shoot jpg, you're essentially leaving all the processing decisions to the camera. Sometimes that's fine, but often you want a result different from what the camera considers to be ideal. A RAW file contains either 12 or 14 bits per pixel of brightness information. In order to shrink that down to 8 bits for jpg, you have to throw away about 98% of the information you've captured, and you therefore have a lot of choices regarding which data will be useful to you. As a result, you have much more editing headroom, meaning you're able to modify the image (sharpening, noise reduction, color adjustments, exposure adjustments, etc..) without running out of data. If you shoot jpg, the camera cuts the data down for you, and then there's not all that much you can do with the image afterwards.

 

[tirediron]

^^ That. Put simply, .jpg is a compressed, lossy format. That is: it's only using some of the information that the camera's sensor can provide, and each time you open, edit and save a .jpg file, you lose some data/quality. A RAW file uses all of the information available, and gives you far more latitude for exposure and WB control. I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to shoot RAW.

 

[Rosshole]

Shoot in both RAW and Jpg, edit the raws and compare the results... jpg's are nice for quick looks/facebook/proofs, but RAW's always turn out better (IMO).

 

[analog.universe]

I shot both together for a little while, but I pretty much never ended up wanting the jpg, and also really missed my burst performance.

 

[rateeg]

thanks guys for the tips.
will try raw this weekend for a photoshoot.

 

[Rosshole]

thanks guys for the tips.
will try raw this weekend for a photoshoot.

Also, depending on what you are durrently using, you may need specialized software to edit the RAW file format...

 

[tirediron]

Shoot "RAW+JPG", even if it's only small/basic .jpg; your computer will render the .jpg files MUCH more quickly than it will the RAW files, and allow you to more easily bin the garbage.

 

[analog.universe]

Shoot "RAW+JPG", even if it's only small/basic .jpg; your computer will render the .jpg files MUCH more quickly than it will the RAW files, and allow you to more easily bin the garbage.

I do think this depends on the viewer program that you're using. I use geeqie on linux, and it uses the JPG embedded in the RAW to display RAW files. It renders a few hundred thumbnails from a shoot faster than I can scroll to the bottom of the folder, and the full screen previews are just as fast as looking at JPGS. My RAW converter on the other hand, does take 4 or 5 seconds to load a single image, and even longer to save one.

 

[Big Mike]

Why Raw -- Part I

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I shot RAW and then ate RAW at Key West, even though my D7000 image sensor was broken and I knew warranty man would get it when I arrived back on the main Island of FL heh!

 

[bennielou]

Ditto Big Mike

 

[nickzou]

Two words: Noise reduction!

 

[480sparky68 67]

Jpeg =

Raw =

Which would you rather work from? Make prints, enlargements, etc.?