Is RAW really worth it?

[BiikeMike]

I find that when I shoot RAW, Its nice to have the extra features on one or two photos, but that it just takes longer and is more of a hassle because then I have to transpose them all into JPGs to do anything with them.

When shooting a few hundred photos at a time, RAW sure takes up a lot of room. then getting them on the computer and going through them takes longer as well. I know about the advantages, but is there really THAT much more you can do to a RAW photo than a compressed JPG?

and while on the subject, I shoot with a 10D (6MP) and when I import a raw photo into CS2, there is an option to make it upto 16MP or somthing. what exactly is it doing? just duplicating pixles? can you really print a larger photo this way?

thanks all!

[Bob_A]

If for nothing else I continue to shoot RAW so that I can easily correct white balance before converting to jpeg. Because of this one "feature" shooting RAW sames me a ton of time over shooting jpeg ... for me anyway.

[tim]

Read the book "real world cs2 raw" and decide for yourself. For anyone who likes to correct white ballance, exposure, or anything else later, then batch convert to JPG, yes. If you shoot JPG you have to open each image individually to fix it, which takes ten times longer.

The 16MP option is interpolating, don't bother with it unless you have a good reason. You can't gain back quality lost through lack of resolution.

[sugarzebra]

I find the benefits of shooting RAW far surpass the small amount of extra time that may be spent in post processing.

[tzalman]

That's a question only you can answer and only for yourself. There are all kinds of photographers, from vacation snapshooter to weddings pro to the master of the large format landscape. And there are many levels of PP expertise. Speaking only for myself, grab shots of my grandchildren in the backyard will be done on jpg, viewed once or twice, reduced for e-mails, and filed away. The photo for which I drive two hours, hike for another hour, wait for the perfect light and know will be printed large and exhibited, you can bet your butt will be in Raw and the PP might take as much time as the shooting.
Elie

[kevin_c]

IMO, In one word - YES

[[702] NO$EY]

You tell me...

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/Krnbrdmnnix/IMG_1931unedit.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/Krnbrdmnnix/IMG_1931rs.jpg

And yeah yeah I know, sensor dust.

[BiikeMike]

if I may ask, what did you do to that picture that you could not have done to a jpeg?

[Hermeto]

...it just takes longer and is more of a hassle...

That ‘hassle’ is actually how you learn to make YOUR photo exactly the way YOU like, the way YOU think is the best!

[Pete]

I've always shot in RAW in the highest setting. I just like the idea of being able to get the best possible results out of the camera. Sure, I try and take the best exposure that I can; I don't assume that RAW can make up for my shortfallings.

To my mind, jpg is output, RAW is the input. Making adjustments to jpg doesn't even enter my head any more.

[RandyMN]

RAW gives so much extra control for correctling or enhancing the original photograph that the only reason I would not shoot with it is just plain laziness as I don't want to work after the shot. Sort of a drive up window for taking photographs and much the same as snapping the photo as compared to creating it. Now spend all your time at shutter to get the absolutely perfect exposure, perfect color balance and perfect sharpness, then maybe you can skip the RAW conversion, if you don't mind losing detail right from the start due to compression.

I learned to appreciate RAW the first time I used it and have never gone back. It's actually good for correcting mistakes too! Not that any of us would ever make a photographic mistake. We all get perfect shots every single time, correct?

[SuzyView]

I never shot RAW until joining the forum. Can't believe I resisted so long. JPEG's are fine, but RAW is a whole different world. My PP time has gone down considerably. Go for it!

[Blue Deuce]

Hey [702] No$ey, even if you shoot raw you still have to clean that sensor of yours.:D

[carpenter]

I had to shoot a wedding outdoors a couple weekends ago. I had two cameras. One was set in jpeg the other I used RAW. Being able to control the exposure more effectively and the w/b was just a world of difference from the jpeg pics.

[jfrancho]

Most of what you can do in a raw converter can be done to a jpg with very little difference in image quality. The fact of the matter is that it really is that much more intuitive to do it in raw conversion once you know how. The book recommended above will help. In some cases, it may even save time to go through the raw workflow. It does for me, especially if I am undecided on what direction a picture will go. Get an excellent exposure, and have at it in a raw converter.

[BiikeMike]

Thanks for all the info, Guess I have a ton of research to do!

[pakololo]

when you take the picture of your life and you realize that your limited on what you can do with it. Your gonna say "Darn! i should of shot raw"

[jfrancho]

I disagree that jpg is limiting. You are limited by your editing skills. Raw format is just easier. What if you are at the end of your 6 frame buffer when the shot of your life arrives?

[chesscheckmate]

well, I will probably be the only one in favor of jpeg :rolleyes:...

I do not have time to PP
I do not have a huge memory
the pictures I take in RAW are as bad as JPEG :D
I never print pictures
I only keep them and some times share them on web

Of course I am a complete noob so for now JPEG is the best :lol:

RAW might be cool but not always the best, it really depends what you want to do with the pictures

[Permagrin]

The reason I switched to raw (for part of the time) was because of high contrast scenes (like a waterfall in shade, with sunlight on the water)...I couldn't stop the highlights from being blown out...someone suggested shooting in raw, metering on the highlights and fixing the exposure in PP...something you can't do to the extreme in jpeg. When I saw the difference....how much I was able to adjust without killing the photo, well, I've never shot in jpeg again. So to me, it's totally worth it. But I do a lot of forest shooting, where there are extremes in lighting...

[jfrancho]

You can control this for jpeg by reducing the in-camera contrast and metering off highlights, but yes, it's easier to do in a raw converter.

[Permagrin]

You can control this for jpeg by reducing the in-camera contrast and metering off highlights, but yes, it's easier to do in a raw converter.

I tried...but like I said the contrast is so extreme in most places I shoot, that in metering off the highlights it makes the rest way too dark to adjust in jpeg w/o distortion. And I shoot in canon's "neutral" parameter thinking this will not have high contrast...am I wrong about that? I can adjust the contrast manually, even more if I need to.

[jfrancho]

There is nothing magical raw format that would allow the camera to capture more dynamic range. If there is too much DR, image blending, hdr, burn and dodge with a 50% overlay are all relevent techniques. I'm not suggesting that everyone go back to jpg for their work. It especially doesn't make any sense for landscapes, but if you can't get it in jpg, then your results working with raw could probably be better.

[narlus]

i like RAW for concert shooting, so i can play w/ exposure and shadows much easier, and the white balance is very easy to adjust too. for 'everyday' shots, i default to jpg.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I disagree that jpg is limiting. You are limited by your editing skills. Raw format is just easier. What if you are at the end of your 6 frame buffer when the shot of your life arrives?


Of course it's limiting, (to how much is a matter of opinion), but the limit is real and irrefutable. Before the jpeg ever leaves the camera you have tossed out much of the color info by forcing a conversion to 8bit from the 12 bits in the RAW.
RAW does not make your camera magically have more dynamic range, but it does make your image files have more dynamic range for the same reasons. jpeg's truncation of the color channels imposes more limits on the dynamic range, again before you have a chance to ever see the image file. The data that is lost in camera via jpeg/8bit conversion is lost irretrievably

[Jonny]

90% of the time i shoot Jpeg now as i am forcing myself to get it right first time.

I only shoot Raw when i am working on something really important and even then i shoot with jpegs alongside.

[vwyob]

best thing since the negative. Yes.

[jfrancho]

CDS, what you are saying is true, and I cannot argue mathmatical fact, but I am speaking fram a practical standpoint. You do lose some data in jpg mode. You lose even more data when you go to print. The monitor cannot display that depth either. So you'll never see the difference anyway.

But that doesn't stop us from printing or sharing on the web. Any data that is lost initially, is gained during editing if a conversion from 8 bits per channel to 16 bits per channel is made. After the edit is made, that value gets remapped in the video driver and displayed. The main thing to remember is that changes be made in either 16 bit mode or a raw converter.

From personal experience with product shots and landscapes, there is no perceptable difference between a jpg > 16 bpc psd > 8bpc print workflow and a raw > 16 bpc psd > 8 bpc print workflow. The image quality difference is only supported by the math, not the output. I haven't tried this with portraits.

The advantage to working with the availability 16 bpc files is in the smoothness of the edits - not the actual color. Color space is colorspace. Bit depth doesn't change that.

Don't get me wrong, I shoot in raw 99.99% of the time, and I am a huge proponent of the format, and I am a firm beleiver in workflow by the numbers. I just think many of the our reasons for shooting raw aren't valid in a real world comparison. I don't see the difference.

The other thing I hate is calling a raw file a "digital negative." Raw is whole lot more than a neg, and I can do a whole lot more with a raw file than a neg. I think of a neg as a finished 16 bpc tiff file waiting to be cropped and resized for print or web.

White balance, color correction, luminance and black point adjustment, and the ability to be able to go back and do it a hundred different ways is the advantage that raw offers. The disadvantages are reduced burst rates when shooting, tremendous storage space when converted at 48 bits, time to process to output images, and steep learning curves for the beginner. Perhaps another disadvantage is never learning how to make a good exposure in camera only to fix it later. Maybe that's an advantage, later when you finally figure it out.

Maybe I'm just dumb.

[tim]

jfrancho, I believe you're incorrect and CDS is correct. RAW gives you much more shadow detail, which is impossible to recovered as the JPG throws it out.You get more latitude on the highlights too.

Try this: go take a shot using RAW+JPG, one with high dynamic range, exposed for the highlights. Open both in CS2, in 16 bit mode. Go into shadows/highlights, and fiddle until you get the best image you can. You'll find you can see more from the RAW. You've effectively compressed the dynamic range with data from the shadows.

[Mike R]

I switched to RAW for all shots, It is a lifesaver when I mess up,:) which fortunetly is happening less and less , But the ability to adjust WB is great.

[jfrancho]

jfrancho, I believe you're incorrect and CDS is correct. RAW gives you much more shadow detail, which is impossible to recovered as the JPG throws it out.You get more latitude on the highlights too.

Try this: go take a shot using RAW+JPG, one with high dynamic range, exposed for the highlights. Open both in CS2, in 16 bit mode. Go into shadows/highlights, and fiddle until you get the best image you can. You'll find you can see more from the RAW. You've effectively compressed the dynamic range with data from the shadows.I didn't completely disagree with CDS. I thought I was clear when I said I've compared the prints. In order to get the most out of the shadows you'll have to reduce the contrast in camera dramatically. No S/H is necessary.

[tim]

I think we're mostly agreeing, just differing in details. An unprocessed image taken JPG and RAW will look the same when printed. My point was that using RAW you retain more data, so that in post processing you can bring up the shadows and effectively increase the dynamic range. I don't think that alters the contrast drastically.

I'm not sure i've explained that well still.

[jfrancho]

I don't really think I explained it well either. I get what your saying. My main point was that in the final print, the difference is so near to nil, the "quality" argument doesn't hold water. HOWEVER - the ability to be able to make up your mind after clicking the shutter in regards to contrast, highlights, WB, color cast, etc. IS A HUGE ADVANTAGE.