"Why You Should be Shooting RAW" - Story on wired.com

[goodoneian]

Sounds like someone lives in a world where everyone has all the time in the world to post process every picture... that or they are trying to sell you some photoshop software. Not to mention my pp skills are lacking. I wonder if those hackers can hack me a copy of some pro photoshop software:er:

i've never payed for photoshop haha

 

[goodoneian]

i've found that shooting raw+ jpeg basic works out well for me even though it eats memory card space.

i also never liked shooting raw untill i started using nikon capture nx, because the raw images look significantly better to me then they ever did in adobe camera raw. that's just me though, because i'm sure people like ACR better than capture nx because it's somewhat simpler to use imo

PS: also as stated before, i agree with that jpegs are good for just snapshots of stuff, but raw really works for taking thought out and composed photographs

 

[audiobomber]

I have always felt that anyone who says "always" about things like this tends to be missing some nuance. There is a time and place for each of these options.

:thumbup: I completely agree.

 

[asfixiate]

I primarily shoot in RAW due to my budget not allowing over 1,000 dollar lenses at the moment. Everything I shoot I sharpen and add saturation Less noise is created when I have more to work with. I'm generally not lightening or darkening as I expose properly and refer to histogram while shooting.

If I'm at the dog park and this one dog is there I switch to jpg in order to shoot sequences of it doing its flip. The owner holds a stick throws it up in air and dog does backflip, catches stick, and lands on feet. JPG allows 14 frames continuous where RAW allows 3.

For me I generally do the same things to my photographs and I have relatively decent computer to handle it so time is not a problem.

Every reason I shoot RAW is because I've tried and failed other ways and RAW works the best for me.

 

[LWW]

Hmmm... well, here's my $00.02 worth; your opinion may vary.

If you're taking a photograph then shoot RAW. If you're taking a picture shoot .jpg or .tif. What's the difference? [As I define it] a photograph is something that you compose, take time over and for which you have a specific end result.

A picture is simply something that you snapped on the spur of the moment, family at a picnic, that sort of thing.

Crosby mentioned software; there's NO excuse for not using RAW files because you can't afford the latest software. There are freeware applications. Pixmatic's "RAWShooter Essentials" is a very good freeware RAW handler, and the GIMP (www.gimp.org) is an outstanding freeware photoshop-style application.

Bottom line: If you intend to do any serious post-processing, shoot RAW.

BRAVO!

LWW

 

[ovjamaica]

This debate has raged on long enough, but I thought I'd add my two cents to it. I'm a videographer with a great interest in photography. I recently purchased a Rebel XT and started to take photography more seriously. I think that both RAW and jpeg formats have their place, but the ability to shoot in RAW is just incredible. Do you guys realize how awesome it is to even have this available? In the video world, if you want raw sensor data you either have to do some serious hardware hacking of the camera (like these guys: http://www.reel-stream.com/andromeda.php ) or have a very, VERY expensive setup, like a Thompson Viper (http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/products/cameras/viper/).

It just amazes me that there is such a huge debate about this. It's not hard to see that RAW is a format that allows you more editing possibilities. Jpg still has its place though, and I'm not dismissing it. I just think that most photographers have NO idea how lucky they are to have RAW capture capabilities out of even the cheapest DSLR.

 

[asfixiate]

Thanks for your input ovjamaica...It will probably make this thread go another page or two but thanks...lol

 

[manaheim]

Thanks for your input ovjamaica...It will probably make this thread go another page or two but thanks...lol

:lmao:

Hey, one more for the RAW boosters.
Oh crap, I said someone needs to kill me if I post on this again.
Well, I'll go update my life insurance.

 

[asfixiate]

lol

RAW rules JPG drools.

 

[ovjamaica]

Thanks for your input ovjamaica...It will probably make this thread go another page or two but thanks...lol

You're most welcome. I realize this is an endless debate. Which is just fine. I just wanted to point out that we're extremely lucky to even have the option. So, with that said, please continue with the RAW vs JPEG debate.

 

[asfixiate]

Since you're a videographer what should I be looking for when it comes to less than 500 dollar camcorders? The only video I can currently do is on my 5mp kodak easyshare. The canon powershot s5IS takes good videos but I want longer videos.

If you want to take this private you can message me.

 

[nicfargo]

I shoot both....

-In camera I only shoot RAW
-I import the RAW files using ViewNX
-I immediately convert them to high quality JPEG
-At the end of each month I burn the RAW's to disc for safe keeping and delete them from the drive

If you then edit those "High Quality JPEGs" I would suggest converting them to TIF instead. I edit all my RAW files (after first going through Lightroom) in TIF. Then if I'm putting them online I convert them to JPEG. I never edit JPEG because it is Lossy.

 

[asfixiate]

+1 Nicfargo

 

[ovjamaica]

Since you're a videographer what should I be looking for when it comes to less than 500 dollar camcorders? The only video I can currently do is on my 5mp kodak easyshare. The canon powershot s5IS takes good videos but I want longer videos.

If you want to take this private you can message me.

I'd be more than happy to talk about it. I tried to message you but apparently I'm too new to do that and you're options don't allow me to email you. You can email me or if you have Messenger you can IM me. My id is [email protected].

 

[asfixiate]

just messaged you. click my name and chose send private message.