So do you all shoot in RAW?

[twomiracles]

I never have, but have been wanting to try it out. I do have CS3 so I should be able to process them and I'm not opposed to getting Lightroom (thank goodness for that educational discount :) ) if it is better for handling them. I must admit, I belong to the digital scrapbooking community and right now RAW, Lightroom and purchased Lightroom presets are all the rage. However, I must also admit that there's rarely a photo I've shot in .jpeg and not been able to pp in Photoshop and be happy with. So, is this just a case of peer pressure or is RAW seriously that much better? I'm just an amateur hobby photographer, FYI.

Here's one of my favorite shots lately that I did alot of pp work on. The frame is my own creation, for digital scrapbooking, but I'm mostly showing you guys the photo. I know the hat and shoulders of my DH are a bit blown out but that is truly from the sun, not from my processing. Well, heck, I'll show you before and after:





So, can anyone tell me if RAW/Lightroom, for my purposes, is that much better than shooting .jpgs and using Photoshop for pp?

Thanks!

[d2creative]

Unless I need to pop off a thousand images shooting in continuous mode, i always shoot in raw. I don't understand why people are afraid of shooting raw or think it's some big leap. It's just a different format (and bigger file) that gives you more control over color and exposure in pp. Making adjustments to the raw file during conversion gives MUCH better results than making adjustments to a jpg.

[twomiracles]

Fear of the unknown, maybe :D ? I guess I just need to try it. I noticed a spot last night, where some yellow wildflowers are in bloom, that looks like I could get some really nice shots. Maybe I'll sneak down there tonight and shoot some in RAW and see how it goes.

So, do you use Photoshop for pp?

[ChuckW]

Digital camera makers have developed their digital processors such that the Jpegs produced out of the camera are amazingly good. However, jpegs discard a lot of the data from the original capture. If you are post processing in PS you are much better off starting from the raw and saving as a psd or tiff and doing your editing in a format that does not discard data.

[johnastovall]

Raw and ProPhoto color space the only way to good for good color....

[d2creative]

Originally Posted by twomiracles

Fear of the unknown, maybe :D ? I guess I just need to try it. I noticed a spot last night, where some yellow wildflowers are in bloom, that looks like I could get some really nice shots. Maybe I'll sneak down there tonight and shoot some in RAW and see how it goes.

So, do you use Photoshop for pp?

Fear not!
I use Aperture to convert the raw file with minor tweaks then finish my pp in Photoshop.

[erisian pope]

Since I got my DSLR (2 weeks? 3 maybe?) I have shot only in RAW format. Prior to that I was using a point'n'shoot that shot JPG only. The difference in processing the two formats from a end-user perspective is almost unnoticeable. The difference in color quality and flexibility is amazing. I would definitely recommend shooting in RAW.

I use Canon's processing software (Digital Photo Professional aka DPP) and the features I see in it are all features I use in Photoshop, such as: Hue (adjusts the overall color tone), Brightness, Contrast, Color Saturation. There are two adjustment lines on a histogram window that are comparable to Levels in Photoshop, and then there are separate histograms for each color (Red, Green, Blue) like in Photoshop's Curves adjustment tool.

So, for me at least, I am using the exact same tools I would use in Photoshop - and the effects are just better.

My point is that it's not like starting over, it's not new stuff. And the benefit is well worth it!

[CaptainTom]

I started out shooting strictly in the raw, but I found that I had nowhere to put extra batteries or CF cards... What ? Oh !! shooting RAW, not IN THE RAW ?

NEVERMIND....

[Duffy Pratt]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Raw and ProPhoto color space the only way to good for good color....

If this were true, then it would follow that there is no good color anywhere on the web (which is closer to sRGB), nor can any good color be found in books or magazines (which are in even more limited CMYK print gamuts). Thus, many if not most people have never seen any good color. Either that, or its possible to get it for at least some pictures without using ProPhoto RGB. Another odd result is that there would have been no good color available until just a couple of years ago.

The fact of the matter is that most images have a color range that falls pretty easily into the narrower gamuts. There are some images where there are saturated colors that would take advantage of ProPhotos wider gamut. And these few images might provide a reason for working in ProPhoto. But its perfectly possible to get good color for the majority, if not the vast majority, of images by using a narrower color space.

On the original subject, the white balance flexibility of RAW alone makes it worthwhile over JPG or other pixel rendered formats. Basically, your camera is shooting in RAW anyway, and it has an algorithm to cook the RAW data into a .JPG. Which do you think will give better results: an algorithm that covers all pictures or your own judgment? If you think the algorithm might be the answer, then ask yourself how often you use auto levels or auto color in Photoshop. My guess is that the answer is almost never. But the camera is doing just the same thing when it makes a jpg from your RAW file.

Duffy

[CSebesta]

Originally Posted by Duffy Pratt

On the original subject, the white balance flexibility of RAW alone makes it worthwhile over JPG or other pixel rendered formats. Basically, your camera is shooting in RAW anyway, and it has an algorithm to cook the RAW data into a .JPG. Which do you think will give better results: an algorithm that covers all pictures or your own judgment? If you think the algorithm might be the answer, then ask yourself how often you use auto levels or auto color in Photoshop. My guess is that the answer is almost never. But the camera is doing just the same thing when it makes a jpg from your RAW file.

Duffy

I am an amateur as well, but shoot in Raw for the reasons Duffy mentions.

[CSebesta]

Also wanted to thank you for showing us the B&W above, really well done.

[TheObiJuan]

I normally shoot JPEG but whenever I have a paying gig I shoot RAW+JPEG just in case I blow highlights or what not.
I shot a concert last night for a local band and was luck that I shot in RAW; I was able to recover highlights.
It was tricky metering with stage lights getting in the way here and there.

[twomiracles]

Originally Posted by CSebesta

Also wanted to thank you for showing us the B&W above, really well done.

Thanks! I just loved the shot, but wanted to do something a little special to it and was happy with how it came out. Now, if I could just get a good sized print and frame it, I think it's worthy of hanging in the house.

Thanks for all the info on RAW. I think I'll give it a whirl and try processing in Photoshop. I may download the trial of Lightroom just to see how it works and if I like it any better, but I don't think I'll get in any hurry to buy it. I don't graduate until May and even after that, I'll be working at a school, so I should have that lovely discount for a good long time :) .

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Duffy Pratt

If this were true, then it would follow that there is no good color anywhere on the web (which is closer to sRGB), nor can any good color be found in books or magazines (which are in even more limited CMYK print gamuts). Thus, many if not most people have never seen any good color. Either that, or its possible to get it for at least some pictures without using ProPhoto RGB. Another odd result is that there would have been no good color available until just a couple of years ago.

The fact of the matter is that most images have a color range that falls pretty easily into the narrower gamuts. There are some images where there are saturated colors that would take advantage of ProPhotos wider gamut. And these few images might provide a reason for working in ProPhoto. But its perfectly possible to get good color for the majority, if not the vast majority, of images by using a narrower color space.

On the original subject, the white balance flexibility of RAW alone makes it worthwhile over JPG or other pixel rendered formats. Basically, your camera is shooting in RAW anyway, and it has an algorithm to cook the RAW data into a .JPG. Which do you think will give better results: an algorithm that covers all pictures or your own judgment? If you think the algorithm might be the answer, then ask yourself how often you use auto levels or auto color in Photoshop. My guess is that the answer is almost never. But the camera is doing just the same thing when it makes a jpg from your RAW file.

Duffy

You are correct there is not good color on the web so long as sRGB remains the order of the day. I work for prints not the web and we see printers today which are beyond sRGB and Adode in gamut.

ProPhoto provides head space when working with 16bit channels in the curves which you lose with smaller color spaces.

I never use Auto-Color or Auto-lever. I have read Dan Margolis and seen the Light.

[smoothassilk]

Hey Kathy, check this web site out for some tutorials on Raw work flow http://rawworkflow.com/