Shooting in RAW?

[Sef Hafez]

Hi,
I was reading a lot of ya'lls posts, and I noticed that everyone shoot's RAW. What's the benifit of doing this? I was shooting Small Superfine and was getting great shot's, and 780 or them to a card. So why lose 680 pictures for RAW?

[PeteQ]

In a word "Quality". RAW image files contain more data, typically 16 bits worth vs. JPG's 8 bit so somewhere along the line the camera decides that about half of all the captured data is not needed. That data is tossed, never to be regained. When you start doing color correction, etc. that loss will make a huge difference in image quality. There are also benefits like white balance changes and many others. There is a ton of info out there on this subject, but the bottom line is RAW is the highest quality way to cature an image. It will require some post-processing, but the results are worth it.

[engstrom]

I agree with Pete, but I do have a small correction - most sensors capture 12 bits of data per color channel per pixel instead of 16. Still, that's 4096 levels vs. the 256 (8 bits) you get with JPEGs. Keeping in mind that half of all available levels levels are used for just the highest 1 stop of levels you get a lot more shadow/highlight detail by shooting in RAW. Like Pete says you also get the advantage of correcting the white balance in post processing with RAW and you can do more processing without artifacts showing up (because the camera hasn't induced any artifacts in the picture by its JPEG processing). There's a member of another forum that has a great sig line: "Shoot RAW because memory is cheap but memories are priceless."

[brad]

I shoot RAW whenever the workflow allows it... (sometimes shooting sports or PJ or a photo booth, the conversion slows down the workflow too much). The biggest reasons are the ability to manipulate not just white balance, but I can also sometimes recover stops if it is underexposed.... the first time you save a picture that you had to have that would have been trash had you been shooting in JPG, you'll be sold on RAW for life. :)

[bullsparade]

Yes, by shooting in RAW you have WAY more flexibility in post processing and quality. You can adjust shadows, highlights, exposure, etc.... without washing the image out. It is the most professional way you could handle important shots. It is definately a file format you need to learn to use for important shots. Here is a thread from a while back that disuccsed it at length: http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum...ad.php?t=13146


If you are just walking around and shooting for fun or pleasure. High quality JPG's are fine.

[Hogleg 44]

If your most important pictures come out looking really great, all of the time, continue like you are.
If they sometimes could look better than your imaging software is capable of making them, then you should shoot raw. I shoot Raw only!

[anorcross]

Originally Posted by Sef Hafez

Hi,
I was reading a lot of ya'lls posts, and I noticed that everyone shoot's RAW. What's the benifit of doing this? I was shooting Small Superfine and was getting great shot's, and 780 or them to a card. So why lose 680 pictures for RAW?

I shoot RAW all the time, except for sports, when I want more shots on the card and a larger buffer. However, even if you only shoot JPEG, you should shoot large JPEG. You can always downsize a large file, but if you upsize a small file you can't put back details that aren't there in the first place. A small JPEG on the Rebel XT is, I think, about a 2 megapixel file. Isn't it a bit of a waste to buy an 8 MP camera and only shoot 2MP?

[AjP]

I don't shoot RAW all the time either.
Only shoot RAW for weddings (all the time)
Shoot RAW for sports only when light is bad and I can't get enough shutter speed.

advantages, you can do anything you want with RAW, WB, Exposure, Curves.....

[suzyjazz]

I shoot RAW all the time because of the flexibility it offers (all the reasons listed before). I am afraid I will end up taking a shot that really needed RAW, but I will forget to change the setting to it beforehand. It has become tiresome for some shots where it wasn't necessary, though, so I am thinking about chaging my process to JPG some of the time. If you have the software that allows a lot of automation for processing, it's probably easier.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Sef Hafez

Hi,
I was reading a lot of ya'lls posts, and I noticed that everyone shoot's RAW. What's the benifit of doing this? I was shooting Small Superfine and was getting great shot's, and 780 or them to a card. So why lose 680 pictures for RAW?

For quality and control, I want to produce the finest possible print and I can't do that with a JPEG out of the camera. Why would I want to throw away image information?

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

OK RAW is ALL the data that the sensor catches in a shot.
There are always advances in software to convert RAW files into JPG's so you can go back later, especially if you are doing scenic shots, and pull up your RAW data and use the new software to create the new JPG's.
As to having memory cards on hand the prices of those are dropping so much that it is just smart to have extra cards, you never know when you may just need that extra space to grab that last shot.

Think of it this way-RAW-the Original Monet or Picasso Painting hanging on the museum wall-JPG (large) The high dollar coffee table book with a picture of the art work, JPG (Medium) An Art Magazine with that picture in it, JPG (Small) Newspaper with the picture.

Yeah that Newspaper shot may be fine on a computer screen but when you try to print it out and then take that pic to the Museum and look at the original next to that picture you sure do see the difference!

Now What I do, which my camera allows, is to Shoot RAW-save RAW-and have the camera convert to the largest JPG-saves some processing time for quick viewing on the computer. Yeah it eats up space but If I start running tight on space I can always go back and deleate out the JPG files and open up that space on the cards.

[brad]

I like to think of the RAW files as the equivalent of unprocessed film..... film that you can take and develop multiple times and in multiple ways, each time chaning the "chemical" balance slightly to get a different result.

With that paradigm.. the JPG file out of your camera is simply a print.. you can do some limited things to it, but you are restricted to what was saved to the file when the camera "developed" it for you... kinda like a Polaroid.

[PeteQ]

John is absolutely correct about the capture of 12 bits at the camera, and then programs such as Photoshop convert that into 16 bit information for their use. That is why you hear folks talking about the importance of being able to use filters and work in a 16 bit workspace, which is a vast improvement in quality over an 8 bit workspace. That was my point about the 16 bit, you will see that in Photoshop refernces, not 12 bit. Sorry for any confusion there...

Here's one of many good articles on RAW. Luminous Landscape RAW

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by PeteQ

John is absolutely correct about the capture of 12 bits at the camera, and then programs such as Photoshop convert that into 16 bit information for their use. That is why you hear folks talking about the importance of being able to use filters and work in a 16 bit workspace, which is a vast improvement in quality over an 8 bit workspace. That was my point about the 16 bit, you will see that in Photoshop refernces, not 12 bit. Sorry for any confusion there...

Here's one of many good articles on RAW. Luminous Landscape RAW

Also as important as that is working with the larger color space of ProPhoto RGB when working with RAW at 16bits in ACR.

[Sef Hafez]

Alright, thanks a bunch. I have one more wuestion though. Today, I went and shot a few pics using the RAW setting in my camera. I took some easy shot's and made them a little underexposed, so I could mess with it on photostudio. Welllll.... I plugged my card into my computer, and it told me that there were no pics on the card. Then, I went to My computer and found my removable E drive, and copied the pictures to MY Pictures. Then when I went to go ad look at them, they would show me the picture.. only the file. So, I decided to go and open it in Photostudio and mess with it... and guess what, they didnt show up.

What am I doing wrong?

Thanks,
-Sef-