Shooting RAW, thoughts?

[bratkinson]

One of the unexpected surprises I got when I first tried RAW a couple of months ago was the computer slowdown caused by the larger files at 21-22 meg each vs hi-res JPG from my 60D at 15-18meg each. I used to have a fast computer...5 years ago. I still haven't upgraded to a newer dual or quad processor computer or Windows 7.

I now have to figure out where I can come up with a couple grand to upgrade my computer and a TON of software that will no longer work under Windows 7 but did in XP. Every time I have upgraded my computer, I've had to blow $300-$2000 upgrading software that no longer works in the new machine. Or...I may just keep the old one and use the new one for photo processing only. I already have two on a KVM, so why not make it a threesome? Problem is, I'm still paying off a recent bout with "L" disease...it keeps going and going...

 

[banderson]

Once I started shooting in RAW I never looked back. Be prepared though. even if you have enough CF space, you'll be storing them somewhere after the fact too Ive got an insane amount of photos on my computer's HD.

I'm generally not a 'spray and pray' type of photographer, but when i'm shooting motorsports, I can get a lot since I do shoot them moving with a short burst, but even then, I still try to delete the crappy photos that I know i'll never use for this very reason. Why have a ton of photos wasting space on your HDs if you're never going to use them?

I know, I know. There are quite a few that I could delete- I'm just so busy all the time lol I work, eat, sleep, shoot, PP, Classes- Repeat in not particular order.

 

[KmH]

Yeah.. I will be investing in one soon. Ive got about 300 GB of photos on my 500 GB HD.

300 GB.

That's actually not a lot of photos, but it's a start.

Assumming 12 MP, 12-bit Raw files, each Raw file winds up being about 15 MB. That's 66 or so photos to the GB. So 300 GB worth is roughly 20,000 photos. A working pro will shoot 20,000 photos every 4 months or so.

 

[adichiru]

Many people have been right here: shoot RAW to be able to get the best quality.
However, I have not seen anyone commenting about the in-camera JPEG images. Of course, the camera takes a photo, in RAW and if setup this way it will create a JPEG out of it according to some rules.
This in-camera auto post-processing however can be very well done (I know Nikon and they do have put into place some amazing algorithm that provides wonderful jpeg many times).
I always shoot RAW + JPEG (high or medium quality) as sometimes I want to take a look at that jpeg files created by the camera.

I have tried several times to mimic the jpeg made by the camera with the manually processed RAW file and always failed.
Of course what camera does to get you the JPEG image is most of the times not what you want so RAW is better but still the processing done by the camera can be very good.

The nest part part is: should I keep the RAW format the way the camera delivered (proprietary like NEF or CRW etc.) or convert it to some other format, like DNG?
I have studied this for a while and I chose to go with DNG. The reasons:
- even if Nikon, Canon and other camera manufacturers offers the appropriate codec free for their proprietary RAW formats it would be much better and safe to have your files in an open source format
- even if DNG is Adobe's format it is open source and it is already adopted a lot by any photo related software, much more than the proprietary formats (when you a codec as intermediary)
- Adobe's history related to Photoshop and Lightroom shows that the company is quite stable in this field - they basically have no real strong competition (gimp and aperture are not even comparable in my opinion)
- I expect a hardware producer (like Nikon or Canon) to went out of business easier than a software producer - the know how and the infrastructure you need for hardware production is much more difficult to move, reproduce etc. than the one needed for software production - you can see this in the problems Nikon had with the factories in Japan and Thailand lately.... because of this it should be much more likely to still be able to use the DNG files in 30 years than the NEF, CRW etc. files
- DNG, contrary to what many so called specialists think, looses no information; converting from NEF to DNG does not cripple the file or the data in any way
- if I have Lightroom or Photoshop on my machine I don't need nikon's or canon's codec to see the raw files (or the codec from other producers)
- I am expecting Adobe's products to be always fully compatible with DNG as it is a format develop by them than to be 100% compatible with NEF or CRW future versions or some other proprietary format

 

[banderson]

Yeah.. I will be investing in one soon. Ive got about 300 GB of photos on my 500 GB HD.

300 GB.

That's actually not a lot of photos, but it's a start.

Assumming 12 MP, 12-bit Raw files, each Raw file winds up being about 15 MB. That's 66 or so photos to the GB. So 300 GB worth is roughly 20,000 photos. A working pro will shoot 20,000 photos every 4 months or so.

I've definitely shot more than that, but that is the amount of photos I have stored currently. lol I really do need to clean up my computer though lol

 

[slackercruster]

Tried RAW. Maybe good for a devotee with lots of time. I went back to JPEG.

 

[greybeard]

I love to play with my photographs with PS so RAW is the way for me. It really depends on how much PP you want to do.

 

[Alex_B]

there is alway processing, either you do it, or you let the camera do it. this has nothing to do with fixing problems but stretching the limits of what is possible and of your processing freedom.

 

[jaomul]

Just before i bought my first DSLR I read an article (one sided in retrospect) that there was no point in investing in a camera that could shoot raw and not use it. Something like the saying of buying an expensive sports car and using cheap tyres. I took this as gospel and started using raw from my very first photo. I cant say for sure whether this was right or wrong but up until lately it was raw and large jpeg, then raw and medium jpeg. Thing is I never use the jpegs because be it right or wrong I always prefer the way the image looks after I have processed it from the raw file.
If you can make good shots straight from the camera with jpeg settings more power to you and by all means go the easier route, many great photographers do. Admittedly I like the processing but sometimes would like no processing. If I could get the same results with jpeg I would use it but it doesn't work that way for me

 

[480sparky]

Tried RAW. Maybe good for a devotee with lots of time. I went back to JPEG.

I prefer to think of it as, "Maybe good for a devotee who wants their images to come out the way they want them to, not some software engineer at the factory in a foreign country things they should look."