shooting raw

[patrickt]

that's what digital cameras do. I think all current DSLR cameras give you the option of using the camera to convert the raw files, based on some limited preferences you make, or export the raw files to be converted in another program.

If the camera's processing capabilities meet your needs, then by all means you should use it. If you do, however, don't whine that the auto white balance doesn't deliver results that you like or the exposure isn't always spot on to your tastes, or the contrast isn't what you'd prefer. You have chosen to accept what you get.

If you google "raw vs. JPEG" you will get links to sites that give you much more comprehensive, and in some cases, technical, reasons for using one or another.

If you want to have more control over the results you will export the raw files and process them. For some people they get much better results. I know some people who get worse results but it's what they want, apparently.

Every DLSR, I believe, comes with software to process your raw files and convert to another format. Start using that one to get an idea of what it's all about. Make notes on what the software doesn't do that you'd like to do or doesn't do as well as you'd like and then you can consider a different program for processing raw files.

There is no perfect in-camera processing and there is no perfect raw processing software program. You'll find one that suits you better than others. Most offer a thirty day, or so, trial period so you can learn something about how the program works.

Personally, I export my raw files. My raw software does a pretty good job of saving highlights that are too high and shadows that are too dark. It does a good job of adjusting white balance and/or color temperature. I almost always zing up the contrast a little but not always. Oh, and I frequently need to adjust the horizon a bit. When I in a hurry I get a little careless.

 

[Jon, The Elder]

I had it explained to me pretty well. RAW is good if you are shooting in low light or questionable conditions were you might need to adjust exposure and white balance later on. Also, if you are someone who has to take thousands of shots, RAW seems to get a little inefficient and therefore you'd want to shoot in jpeg. I think it also has much to do with how confident you are behind your camera. Since I'm a newb, I'm going to start shooting in RAW so I have the freedom of adjustment after I take the photo's as I've already had to trash a lot of would-be good photographs.

A very good explanation and a very good choice on your part. You will end up with first-hand-knowledge for your type of shooting. I wish more would take the time and effort.

 

[pictureyourphoto]

I am still learning alot, but one thing I have learned is shoot in raw if you want to edit. I went on a photography workshop in the smokys, now I use raw format. I have a canon, just upgraded to a 30D, Love it, havent had a lot of time to use it lately. Canon comes with a raw converter as mentioned, but I also like Adobe Lightroom. This is a new program that I have tried a couple of times. The adjusting of white Balance is extremely easy in that program compared to photoshop.Which works great also, but I like lightroom better.
If possible shoot in raw and jpeg, if not then go for raw.
Lifes worth living if you live it right.

 

[D40]

Here is a question. If you shoot a portrait shoot in RAW do you have to convert to JPEG to have them printed or burned on a CD?? Is there a need to convert them to JPEG?? I am new to using RAW so do not know anything

 

[Richard]

Well you don't have to convert I guess if the file never leaves your computer. But if you want to post it on the internet or send the picture to a printing service then you will need to convert the raw to a more common file like jpg or tiff.