RAW -- is it really worth the hassle

thebaz

I don't shoot RAW, but am considering the move from jpeg to RAW , as you know i shoot a lot of stuff, just wondering is the extra effort really worthwhile.
As it is i think i spend too much time on the PC, so reasons also why there is no need to go RAW ,also appreciated .
Cheers folks.

Paulw

Firstly, what extra effort? Using raw takes little extra time on the PC. Using raw also gives you so much more scope, with the information you have captured through your camera.

I would only shoot jpg when I need extra speed from the camera, or I need the image to be used right away.

Carrigman

Yes

Muineach

I always shoot RAW, by the way for sport and action keep an eye on your memory card. I was at the Zoo and filled the new cards I had gotten then reverted back to the 1gb that came with the camera, it could only shoot 4-6 shots in a row while with the newer ones it managed about 10-12 all in RAW. Same conditions as well, so if you find the RAW processing is slow a good memory card can speed things up (in camera).

Shiny

You should treat RAW as if it was a negative from
a film camera.
It is your high quality copy that will never change
no matter what.

Even if you were just to convert the raw's to jpg straight
away and keep the raws in a separate folder.

Then in 10 years time when we have 100Megapixal+ cameras
you will look back and think "thank fuuck I shot those in RAW".
At least you will be able to extract the highest quality possible
from a photo if you ever wanted to sell it, blow up a portion of
it etc.....

I only work with RAW now.
I convert to Tiff's to edit/save them.
I only convert to jpg for the web or when size is an issue somewhere.

Hope this helps.

bradnailer

I used to shoot RAW all the time but after being arrested twice and the weather getting colder I've decided to go back to wearing clothes:D

templeathea

I don't disagree that RAW is better quality but my poor laptop just can't cope with editing RAW files so I mostly shoot jpeg (at least until I get a new pc). The D80 gives me a RAW+jpeg option so I sometimes use that if memory isn't an issue

thebaz

Paulw wrote: »

Firstly, what extra effort? Using raw takes little extra time on the PC. Using raw also gives you so much more scope, with the information you have captured through your camera.

i guess i delete 60% of what i shoot immediatly after viewing on computer , if i use raw , i'll have to convert all the duds etc ... maybe it will improve the quality of what i shoot --

also can you view raw images on cameras lcd , so you can check what has been shot?

melekalikimaka

yeah raw slaughters my pc big time,cant cope with it,new un in the pipeworktil then, jpeg+ raw or just jpeg depend on what its for

Fenster

Raw shooting isn't all that advised in really hot climes, either. You'd be surprised what can burn!

On a more serious note, I'm 50/50. For the likes of my infrared I shoot exclusively in raw, but if I'm shooting any of the kids, I'll go jpeg as chimping is really the only good way to get them.

Muineach

thebaz wrote: »

i guess i delete 60% of what i shoot immediatly after viewing on computer , if i use raw , i'll have to convert all the duds etc ... maybe it will improve the quality of what i shoot --

also can you view raw images on cameras lcd , so you can check what has been shot?

on my Canon 350D you can view the raw on the camera, I tend to use adobe bridge and photoshop, bridge can cycle through the raw images without doing any conversion (maybe it happens in background ? but can cycle through them all and delete if you want to).

CraggyIslander

thebaz wrote: »

i guess i delete 60% of what i shoot immediatly after viewing on computer , if i use raw , i'll have to convert all the duds etc ... maybe it will improve the quality of what i shoot --

also can you view raw images on cameras lcd , so you can check what has been shot?

Raw's can be viewed in adobe bridge, lightroom, capture one, etc. There's no need to convert them first... dont like em.... zap 'em :-) Only difference is that those programs are memory hogs, so need a better spec pc than for viewing jpegs in acdsee, etc.

If the camera shoots in raw it will still display it in the lcd..... no different from jpegs

thebaz

Muineach wrote: »

on my Canon 350D you can view the raw on the camera, I tend to use adobe bridge and photoshop, bridge can cycle through the raw images without doing any conversion (maybe it happens in background ? but can cycle through them all and delete if you want to).

cheers Muineach , sure i'll experiment at the weekend with it and see how i get along -- hopefully i don't spend too much extra time on computer

thebaz

Fred C. Dobbs wrote: »

Raw's can be viewed in adobe bridge, lightroom, capture one, etc. There's no need to convert them first... dont like em.... zap 'em :-) Only difference is that those programs are memory hogs, so need a better spec pc than for viewing jpegs in acdsee, etc.

If the camera shoots in raw it will still display it in the lcd..... no different from jpegs

i don't have lighroom , but have ps cs3 , can they be viewed quick eneough on it , before converting ?

Paulw

You can view the thumbnail in Adobe Bridge and Photoshop CS3. No problems.

Most RAW files have a jpg view imaged embedded in it, so many programs can view the image. Your camera LCD can certainly show the photo taken.

You then only need to do any further processing with those you want to edit.

Try and see, you won't regret it.

CraggyIslander

cs3, comes with adobe bridge if i remember correctly...... that will give you thumbnails of pics in a dir and if you select one, a bigger preview will show..... attached is screenshot.

There is also a free beta available of Capture One Pro V4 which for me is pretty much eliminating the need for PS completely.

oshead

Post processing RAW pics has helped me understand better what it takes to shoot better photos. Granted... there is a bit of a learning curve at first. But if you persevere you might find something good from it.

Dave

thebaz

Paulw wrote: »

You can view the thumbnail in Adobe Bridge and Photoshop CS3. No problems.

Most RAW files have a jpg view imaged embedded in it, so many programs can view the image. Your camera LCD can certainly show the photo taken.

You then only need to do any further processing with those you want to edit.

Try and see, you won't regret it.

cheers Paul, i'll give it a blast at the weekend --

For what its worth the way i work , is read images using picasa , delete the rubbish , then do a few quick edits with picasa (crop , straighten etc) , if i still like them , do my main edits using ps . I re-check them in picasa , as i think they look better in picasa than ps , if happy keep them and copy to flickr.

Can picasa read raw ?

oshead

It reads Canon CR2 files... So i guess so...

nilhg

thebaz wrote: »

cheers Paul, i'll give it a blast at the weekend --

For what its worth the way i work , is read images using picasa , delete the rubbish , then do a few quick edits with picasa (crop , straighten etc) , if i still like them , do my main edits using ps . I re-check them in picasa , as i think they look better in picasa than ps , if happy keep them and copy to flickr.

Can picasa read raw ?

Yes Picasa can read RAW.

I use Lightroom to do basically do the same thing you do with picasa, the difference is you can do so much more with LR and LR can do so much more for you, automatically behind the scenes, if your PC is up to it I would suggest downloading the month's trial version and some of the free presets available and see how you get on.

thebaz

nilhg wrote: »

Yes Picasa can read RAW.

I use Lightroom to do basically do the same thing you do with picasa, the difference is you can do so much more with LR and LR can do so much more for you, automatically behind the scenes, if your PC is up to it I would suggest downloading the month's trial version and some of the free presets available and see how you get on.

cheers nilhg , i have a half decent 1GB machine , dual core processor

nilhg

thebaz wrote: »

cheers nilhg , i have a half decent 1GB machine , dual core processor

Give it a shot so, come on here when you are set up, theres sure to be plenty of tips going about.

Culann

I always shoot RAW now, that way you have the greatest degree of flexibility with processing. I've always regretted going back to JPEG 'to save space' on my card. You don't have to convert everything you shoot. I use Picasa (FREE) as a viewer and for testing crops - it is fast.

sineadw

Hey Baz. If you have a gig memory you'll be fine. Mine is only half and it copes grand. I honestly would never go back to jpeg now. RAW gives so much more freedom and scope for development, and I didn't really feel any great learning curve in the change-over. As has been said you can view in RAW (even windows picture and fax viewer has a dinky download that allows it..) and you view and dump in exactly the same way you do in jpeg. I would spend an absolute maximum of maybe 10 extra minutes working with a RAW file, but thats the extreme end, and I've only ever done that with something I really *really* wanted to salvage but would have been totally binnable in Jpg.

So yes - for your image quality and print sake - RAW, fine, large. The very very best your camera will give.

Hugh_C

I'm like totally RAW, roish?

Almost completely use RAW since entering into the world of dSLR. Store all the RAW files on cheap external drive with DVD backups. Loads more lattitude when retrieving over or underexposed pictures, and a huge variety of stuff which can be done in (say) LightRoom or PS. I know the same stuff can be done with JPEG but the colour content suffers (in my opinion).

Why throw away some information (JPEG is lossy) whereas RAW keeps it all?

Hugh

deRanged

I was at a Photo Soc talk in college tonight, given by a pro wedding and portraiture photographer. Someone asked if he shot raw at all. He said he uses all jpg for the weddings, and hasn't notice a problem. (the main reason was for speed I think, he takes up to a thousand shots during the day)

Personally I think that you might as well grab the RAW while you're at it. You don't have to use it but if you don't capture it in the first place you never can.

daedalus2097

Mac OS X can preview and manipulate RAW as it if were any other image Which means it's zero extra effort... Nice

I tend to shoot RAW when I'm doing anything serious, but just taking quick snaps I'll tend to just use jpg. Generally though I'd say to use RAW as much as you can, like others have said, if you don't capture it then you never will...

rymus

Mmmmmmm rawwwwwww....

Used to be a 50/50 person.. now 96/4. Same as daedalus above. RAW when doing anything serious or paid work, jpeg if I'm on holidays and card space becomes an issue. Pitfalls of RAW is that I now need loads of storage space to hold all the bloody files.

Hugh_C

rymus wrote: »

Pitfalls of RAW is that I now need loads of storage space to hold all the bloody files.

Drives are cheap. Just bought half a terabyte for €100ex VAT. That's a lorra lorra files, as our Cilla would say.

Spyral

I dont think raw is.. that siad I've not used it due to the fact that its probably too easy to manipulate. I think its better to take a decent pic in jpeg and work from there.

Calina

I'd like to comment if I may.

Firstly, both XP and Vista have RAW viewers. I know for XP I had to download it from the MS site. It's useful if you want to swish through and get rid of the duds.

Secondly, although this is not a software argument, I use ACDSee Pro and Adobe Photoshop Elements to do the RAW conversions. I cannot complain about them. LR was a horror to use in my experience, very clunky and slow. Would not touch it again. Strongly recommend ACDSee instead.

Regarding RAW or jpeg - I tend towards jpeg for speed and capacity issues; bearing in mind continuous shooting speed and memory for the camera (asopposed to the computer), this is the choice I make. But then I have been known to take up to 1500 photographs a day during a competition. I'd venture to say that realistically speaking, you're probably in the ballpark to get away with RAW comparatively. Ultimately I hated processing the RAW files on the last computer (but then the jpegs took all day as well) but it's okay now.

For what you shoot I think RAW might be worth the little extra effort involved in conversion. That's a load of effort for 1000 photographs by the way Paul, trust me.

That's just my view.

Paulw

Calina wrote: »

For what you shoot I think RAW might be worth the little extra effort involved in conversion. That's a load of effort for 1000 photographs by the way Paul, trust me.

But, would you process all 1000 images? Surely you'll only end up processing a fraction of those rather than all?

Yes, raw does take a little bit extra, but you have so much more detail there, in case you need it later. If someone comes back and says they want an A2/A3 of the image, you can go back to the raw, reprocess and produce the high quality. With the jpg, you are a bit more limited in what you can do. Raw has more detail, and can be adjusted more for things like exposure, light etc.

But Calina, I know what you mean when you talk about the speed in camera for taking the shot. That's where you can capture more frames with jpg than raw. Much handier for sport photography.

Calina

Paulw wrote: »

But, would you process all 1000 images?

I could process and sort up to 800 of them and that's still a lot.

The issue of RAW versus jpg is not straight forward. There is no one simple right answer other than "it depends".

nilhg

There's 2 things being mixed up here a bit I think.

A: To shoot RAW or not, the benefits of RAW are there to be seen I think,

and


B: Software/Workflow, some programs require an extra processing step when using RAW (ie, PS/ACR) but many don't. Lightroom and Picasa, for example, have exactly the same workflow whether the file is JPEG or RAW and both use a non destructive type of editing, edit details are stored in a database or sidecar file.

pete4130

RAW all the way apart from snaps. Even my 4.5 year old 512MB 2.4Ghz desktop can cope with RAW. From my D200 files are only >16MB. Adobe Bridge is a killer of RAM on ANY computer and this being the only way I can view my RAW images it still doesnt slow e down toomuch once Bridge opens up. One of the biggest advantages with RAW is not worrying what WB you shoot in, if you forget to change it, fix it in Bridge/PS. Alot more detail held in RAW. a bit more time consuming but coming from a relatively large 35mm BW background I appreciate the value of having a "negative" to work with to get the most from my images.

rymus

hughchal wrote: »

Drives are cheap. Just bought half a terabyte for €100ex VAT. That's a lorra lorra files, as our Cilla would say.

Ah well what I meant was storage as in redundant system. In work I constantly see horror stories from people that trust all their important data to a single drive.. 500gb for 100 quid is suspiciously cheap... Any dents on the drive from when it fell off the back of the truck?

thebaz

rymus wrote: »

Ah well what I meant was storage as in redundant system. In work I constantly see horror stories from people that trust all their important data to a single drive.. 500gb for 100 quid is suspiciously cheap... Any dents on the drive from when it fell off the back of the truck?

the cost of large external hard disks seams really cheap these days , even in PC World -- i'll experiment a bit with RAW at the weekend , as i thought , there appears to be pro and cons to taking the step forward -- but no harm experimenting with it for awhile.
B

rymus

yeah but the cost of having one of them stop working mysteriously when it's got 1TB of your photos on it is alot higher

Hugh_C

rymus wrote: »

Ah well what I meant was storage as in redundant system. In work I constantly see horror stories from people that trust all their important data to a single drive.. 500gb for 100 quid is suspiciously cheap... Any dents on the drive from when it fell off the back of the truck?

It's from komplett and as I said earlier, the files exists on DVD and another drive too. Drives are becomming an almost disposbale commodity I think.

rymus

hughchal wrote: »

Drives are becomming an almost disposbale commodity I think.

seems that way.. Two 500 gb sata2 internal drives can be had for under 200 euro.. a nice addition to the raid array

jlang

Saw a 1Tb external drive in Peats in Blanch for close to E200 the other day.

Back on RAW - I recently started taking RAW exclusively. I used to do JPEG and occasionally go for RAW+JPEG when I thought I'd need it but a few purchases made the RAW experience much handier - another 4Gb card (as one really wasn't enough to prevent needing to switch to JPEG for space reasons), an external HD, and a new laptop that flies through conversion. All were considerably cheaper than they would have been before.