why shoot raw?

[rizla]

I have noticed that the majority of posters on this forum shoot in raw mode, then Convert the image using suitable software.
My questions are,
1. why shoot raw
2. I have fileveiwer is this software o.k.
3. As i'm new to digital photography would you recomed shooting in raw or normal.

camera used 300d
running windows xp

regards
rizla

[jimsloy]

Do a thread search for this subject..it's been hit about 1000 times by 1000 different people. You'll find your answers....

[Belmondo]

As a general rule, RAW is preferred because there's no loss of data due to image compression. If you shoot pictures in JPEG, some data loss will occur --- how else can you compress a 6mb file to 2 mb? JPEG will also occasionally add ‘artifacts’ to your image that will show up in enlargements.

When you convert the RAW file to TIFF, it actually ends up being around 18mb, but it's another lossless format that you can work with in Photoshop, or any of the other image editing programs.

In a nutshell, you have a purer facsimile of your original image to work with. It’s also easier to correct color, white balance, sharpness, and exposure values while the picture is still in RAW format using programs like Capture One.

This is one of those areas that really appeals to professionals and ‘serious’ hobbyists. In truth, JPEG is perfectly adequate for the vast majority of casual users. Shooting in RAW ads a lot of extra steps between pushing the shutter button and admiring a finished print. For most, it proabably isn't necessary.

[RichardtheSane]

There are good points and bad points to RAW shooting.
Well, not exactly good and bad, more various points that are good and bad depending on how much involvment you want in creating your images.

RAW shooters nearly always spend time working on their images (I still call it developing!) after the capture. This can be anything from crop and resize, through to adjusting the colour balance and also the curves to get a better image. A good RAW utility allows you to change the white balance after shooting, and also do exposure compensation if you need it.

With JPEG you have an image that is still good quality, but the output doesn't have the quality of RAW converted to TIF.

At the end of the day it all boils down to how much control you want over the final image. If you want the maximum control possible, shoot raw.

I think what I am trying to say is only you can answer the question about shooting RAW, hopefully what I have posted and other in the forum will help you make the decision which is best for you.

[Buster]

My main point in shooting RAW is that I can recover shadows or highlights if I got it wrong. There is about 1-2 extra stops, which I can recover without adding noise to the image. It's especially important when you don't have time to make another shot (weddings, events, etc.).
And of course you have all the details some of which could be those nasty JPEG artifacts instead :)

[Motorsports Photo]

I guess the only reason to shoot RAW is if you screw up badly (see some examples in the WOT no CF card thread!) you can recover and get some good images. Personally I think it takes too much time to deal with. I get great pics using large jpg and they are ready to go for those demanding customers who cant wait until I fiddle around with the images in RAW! The jpg's also take up less space. Just make sure that your "workflow" doesnt over-write your original file. (but that should apply to RAW too)

-Pete

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Here's my take:

http://www.pixelpixel.org/helpinfo/35_rawor.htm

Regards,

[AJSJones]

As usual, Roger's discussion is thorough - as far as it goes; by that, I mean to go further, one has to make some personal decisions on how worthwhile the benefits are. Up to now, I've shot raw+lg/fine and only processed raw when I was dissatisfied with the jpg - usually exposure screw-ups, or for images I want to print large.
However, now I have a brand-spanking new computer(2x2G5), I will be processing the raws more - a batch process of 15 crws in 50 seconds or about 3 sec apiece, takes away one of the hurdles, namely processing time for the conversion. I suspect as computer power rises, the proportion of users going the raw route will go up. The difference in time/effort in post-processing a lg/fine jpg and that for its raw "negative" will shrink to the point that the question could turn around to "Why not shoot raw?".
It seems like the ("new and improved") ACR 2 in PS CR will allow "listing" of individual parameters for subsequent batching of a bunch of crws. The focus will be even more on "workflow" issues and less coffee will be consumed during conversions ;-)


Andy