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

[93formulalt1]

The only real reason that I haven't even experimented in RAW format is because I don't have any software to do any PP in after downloading my images. . . No Lightroom, no PS, nothing. I can't see myself spending that much for Photoshop anyways, that particular program costs more than I paid for my DSLR!

 

[Joves]

The only real reason that I haven't even experimented in RAW format is because I don't have any software to do any PP in after downloading my images. . . No Lightroom, no PS, nothing. I can't see myself spending that much for Photoshop anyways, that particular program costs more than I paid for my DSLR!

Didnt your camera come with any software to do it? Also there are some freebies out there but, I use CaptureNX or, CS to do mine.

 

[sabbath999]

The chief objection to jpg is that it is a lossy format. That is, each time you open it, edit it, and then save it, you lose a little more data. Considering I sometimes push an image through the mill a half-dozen or more times trying different things, that can leave the final result (if shot in .jpg) looking less than ideal.

Most JPG shooters who need to edit their stuff a lot save it as a TIF or PSD and work on it in that format, only finally finishing it as a JPG, avoiding the generational compression issues.

 

[reg]

I've never NOT used PSDs when doing heavy editing, regardless of original shooting format. To do otherwise would be silly, and not just for compression reasons.

 

[sabbath999]

It's hard enough learning how to frame, compose, and expose properly without sinking yourself with 40 technical slider terms and more often than not making goo out of the image.

99.99 percent of the problems that most shooters have will not be fixed by RAW... rather, they need to learn how to actually technically learn how to take pictures.

I am not disrespecting RAW... its just that, for most people, they have a ton of other things to fix in their photography that are a LOT more important than worrying about something like a file storage format.

Any DSLR owner can shoot RAW by flipping a switch on their camera... and blast away shooting horrible pictures in RAW all day long.

 

[RacePhoto]

lol... dude... if someone blowing out their subject by 4 stops they should forget about editing....put down the camera.... and slowly back away....

If it's a continuing problem maybe consider bracketing instead of raw.

Hey folks, I have a question. When you are done with processing that RAW photo, with all that extra data, what format do you save it as? Does your new processed JPG by magic, become something with qualities, and dynamic range, different from any other JPG. :meh:

No argument, you can do more correction and fine tuning on a RAW, before you save it. But calling anyone who shoots JPG not a photographer is an unnecessary insult. That's like saying people who shoot 800 speed film aren't photographers, (or some who say, people who shoot digital aren't photographers!) or people who shoot B&W aren't photographers.

Depending on your needs, time and how "perfect" the photo needs to be, plus what it's going to be used for, each of us can decided if we need to shoot JPG or Raw, or pick which to use in different situations. The subject dictates how it will be photographed.

Saying one or the other is better, without looking at the subject, lighting and other conditions, doesn't make any sense.

 

[reg]

Hey folks, I have a question. When you are done with processing that RAW photo, with all that extra data, what format do you save it as?

Generally, TIFF.

 

[manaheim]

Good fricken god.

If you shoot JPEG and that makes you happy, then fine.
If you shoot RAW and that makes you happy, then fine.

This really is not an emotional debate, it's a matter of weighing pros and cons.

JPEG:
- Pros: small, fast to work with, can go right to usable straight from the camera, no worries about whether PS can read it
- Cons: it's lossy compression, the camera basically is your photo lab and they print your image for you and effectively shred the negative. Whatever they didn't think you need is gone forever.

RAW:
- Pros: gives you a margin of error on exposure, allows you to shoot without worrying about white balance, you always have the "negative" if you need to go back and change things later
- Cons: It's fricken huge, slower to record, slower to get off the camera, confusing to work with if you don't know the ins and outs

That's basically it. Pick which one of those works out better for you. I have absolutely no issue with anyone who picks one, or the other, or alternates.

What I do have an issue with is JPEG people saying RAW people are being suckered/stupid/whatever, and with RAW people saying JPEG people are amateurs/not photographers/morons/etc.

I mean seriously.

EDIT: By the way, I -seriously- don't understand why some people are so gung-ho to pan raw just because they feel that they, personally, don't need it. It's like they are threatened by it or something. If you're that good, then damn... show me the way, brotha'. I absolutely want to learn... but in the meantime, why should you care if I use raw? Yah?

I hate this thread...

 

[reg]

JPEG:
- Pros: small, fast to work with, can go right to usable straight from the camera, no worries about whether PS can read it, gives you a margin of error on exposure, allows you to shoot without worrying about white balance

Fixed.

This is really a dumb thread. There is VERY VERY little that RAW can do that Jpg can't. If you need that, or simply want to be able to tweak with a slider as opposed to actual Photoshop work (a legitimate reason too) then use RAW.

But let the thread die already!

Oh...maybe just one more bump.

 

[Hawaii Five-O]

But I don't have the RAW format on my camera

 

[manaheim]

Fixed.

This is really a dumb thread. There is VERY VERY little that RAW can do that Jpg can't. If you need that, or simply want to be able to tweak with a slider as opposed to actual Photoshop work (a legitimate reason too) then use RAW.

But let the thread die already!

Oh...maybe just one more bump.

I respect you reg, but I totally disagree. There are huge and fundamental differences in the capabilities. Staggering.

I've been meaning to go out and shoot some things and then have a JPEG vs RAW fix-off. Haven't gotten around to it yet...

Serious question- have you used RAW much?

 

[reg]

I shoot RAW almost every time I go out.

I'm not gonna go dig it up but the most convincing thing I've ever seen was in another one of these RAW vs. jpg threads.

The challenge was to take a jpg of a box of Sour Patch Kids and correct the WB. Could it be done? Yes. Is it as convenient? Probably not. My point was that you can still do it.

BTW I'm sorry to say it but if you respect me, all other opinions fly out the window until further verification, at which time their broken and tattered pieces may be recovered like a clipped highlight.

:thumbup:

 

[93formulalt1]

Didnt your camera come with any software to do it? Also there are some freebies out there but, I use CaptureNX or, CS to do mine.

It came with a couple of programs, but the UI isn't very good, not very intuitive, and I just don't like them. I'd rather just use JPG format than start messing with RAW when I still have no clue what needs to be done to compose, frame, and capture a good picture in the first place, adding any PP work to that image is just going to cause me more confusion, I think.

 

[manaheim]

I shoot RAW almost every time I go out.

I'm not gonna go dig it up but the most convincing thing I've ever seen was in another one of these RAW vs. jpg threads.

The challenge was to take a jpg of a box of Sour Patch Kids and correct the WB. Could it be done? Yes. Is it as convenient? Probably not. My point was that you can still do it.

BTW I'm sorry to say it but if you respect me, all other opinions fly out the window until further verification, at which time their broken and tattered pieces may be recovered like a clipped highlight.

:thumbup:

I'm gonna go look for the sour patch kids thing...

 

[roadkill]

isohunt.com