RAW: Why do i need to shoot raw?

[KmH]

Two words: Noise reduction!

Wrong 2 words.

The right 2 words are - Bit Depth

Tutorials – The RAW File Format

 

[robb01]

Here is an example of why to shoot raw:

Link to original article

 

[GeorgieGirl]

I'd love to see a thread started that allows those of us who have converted to raw the opportunity to 'show-off' our jpegs that we rescued as best as we could in PP so we could have a better photo.


Even for the simplest reason, if you are going to take the time to PP, one may as well shoot in raw. The programs allow for auto adjustments until one really gets better at working with this aspect of photo development. It's a rare photo that's better in jpeg than raw.

 

[KmH]

Here is an example of why to shoot raw:

Link to original article

Raw is not about post process editing to 'rescue' a photo that was made using poor photographic technique.

 

[KmH]

... It's a rare photo that's better in jpeg than raw.

Raw image data files aren't photos, until the data file is converted in a Raw converter.

A Raw file that has been converted cannot be displayed online, nor can it be printed, until it is converted yet again to one of several other file types, like JPEG, TIFF, PNG, etc.

 

[Overread36]

Also with the massive amount of underexposure in that photo whilst the lower areas appear much brighter after editing they will likely have lost a lot of detail to noise (even in RAW shooting). So whilst it looks good on the computer at that size its fullsized version (and thus its versatility of use) is going to look noticeably affected.

RAW gives you bit more of an edge over JPEG with regard to over and under exposure, but its only a small buffer zone and not something you want to rely upon using if you can avoid it.

 

[nickzou]

Here is an example of why to shoot raw:

Link to original article

Raw is not about post process editing to 'rescue' a photo that was made using poor photographic technique.

Why not? This is how this particular photographer uses RAW to his/her advantage. Why is that improper use?

 

[robb01]

My example also shows how RAW captures all the data from the shot though. You can do so much more w/ a raw file than a .jpg, saving a photo because it wasn't captured correctly is certainly an ideal way to utilize the raw format.

 

[Overread36]

Raw is not about post process editing to 'rescue' a photo that was made using poor photographic technique.

Why not? This is how this particular photographer uses RAW to his/her advantage. Why is that improper use?

It's not so much a case of "correct" or "incorrect" use, but a case that its not good to teach someone that RAW is some kind of magical save mode that will let them expose poorly and simply correct in editing without cost. As I said above, restoring from underexposure is going to give you noise and detail loss in those restored areas - heck chances are viewed up close that restored photo will have a lot of red noise as well as regular nose. Websizes hide a lot of imperfections and can make some editing methods appear far more effective than they actually are outside of the net.

My example also shows how RAW captures all the data from the shot though. You can do so much more w/ a raw file than a .jpg, saving a photo because it wasn't captured correctly is certainly an ideal way to utilize the raw format.

I know what you mean, but your wording is giving a false meaning. RAW doesn't capture all the data from a scene, but presents all the data that the camera sensor was able to collect from the scene. This is a subtle difference and means that if you totally under or overexpose - even on a RAW - you will get pure black *underexpose* or pure white *overexpose* with no details to restore to.
Now RAW has the edge over jepgs and when you review on the camera LCD a little under or over exposure is your leeway (because the LCD shows a JPEG always, this is embedded into the RAW itself and is used for the camera histogram as well). But its a leeway only.