What are the pros and cons of shooting raw?

[Beccaboo]

I have never shot raw but am considering it. Will my photos turn out tons better?

[DocFrankenstein]

Cons are that it's a PITA and time to process. Also, you're not learning to get the image in the camera. And it takes 4 times more space to store.

Google the pros - there's about a billion tutorials.

[Gordeez]

Cons: Size.

Pros: Fix minimal mistakes, which in turn will let you save a good image, that
was off on the color balance.

[goldenllama]

I don't fully believe size to be a con. CF is pretty cheap now and getting a few 2gig cards won't break the bank. What is a big con, though, is your burst buffer. If you're shooting something high speed and need to take advantage of a rapid burst, RAW images will fill your buffer fast and slow you down.

If sustained high speed isn't necessary, though, the pros of RAW are huge. I don't know your reasoning for getting an SLR, but mine included gaining very fine control over my images. Why cripple a huge advantage by keeping images in JPG? Processing time is a *tad* longer, but once you get your workflow down, you hardly even notice. Don't think of RAW as a way to rescue poorly exposed images, but instead as a way to make your great shots even better.

[convergent]

Pros are that you can have a lot more recovery and control, and there is more information there to work with... such as a greater number of color bits.

Cons are that it can be harder to work with and requires more workflow to process. Those that shoot RAW usually have a good workflow that minimizes the time taken, but it does prevent you from just taking an image from the camera and doing something with it directly. The reality is that most JPEG shooters don't do that anyways. In my case, I do a lot of tournaments and events where we need to take images and produce proofs in a matter of a few minutes. Doing this with RAW would be kind of tough.

As was said, if you get things right in the camera, the need for RAW isn't quite as great... unless you are doing extreme things like very large prints, or other such stuff.

[DAMphyne]

The answer to your question is NO!
Don't fall into the trap that you will automatically become a better photographer because of the file type you use. Nor will simply buying a new lens, a new camera, a faster computer, a big tripod, ect.
The only thing that will make your photos turn out Tons better is practice.
Learn what your camera is doing, get good shooting habits, get your composition and metering down. Then your photos will begin to look like some of these outstanding examples we see on this forum.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Cons First:
More space required. (impacts CF card, hard rive, RAM, and archiving)
On slower camera could impact shooting/timings/buffer
Learning curve involved in getting good end results.
Proprietary file type that requires specific software to use (this is less of an issue everyday as AW files become the norm)

PROS:
RAW image is taken, File does not impose the cameras post processing choices.
All color info preserved. No color info "thrown out" by Camera.
No "lossy compression" of file
Higher dynamic range.
MUCH more processing leeway available using the entire image data than you get with the truncated jpeg files.
One masterd, a good RAW converter can streamline you post process while giveing better results.
Takes full advantage of all the image quality your gear and talent are capable of creating without compromise

[grego]

Negatives:
Space - both on computer and on cards
Speed - more so transfering files to computer
Required software to view and edit the files can get annoying

Pros:
Just about anything

[Curtis N]

Cons are that it's a PITA and time to process. Also, you're not learning to get the image in the camera.Fallacies perpetually propagated by the ill-informed.

If you're going to print the image straight from the camera, shoot JPEG. If you're going to post-process it at all, it's often easier to do with a RAW file and RAW convertion software. You can process entire groups of images, applying the same settings to each, without writing scripts or Photoshop actions.

Converting RAW files is one of the first things I learned to do, and remains one of the easiest.

And the very notion that shooting RAW somehow prevents me from learning to "get it right in the camera" is the most ridiculous thing I've read all day.

[liza]

And the very notion that shooting RAW somehow prevents me from learning to "get it right in the camera" is the most ridiculous thing I've read all day.

I've been reading this statement more and more on this forum with regard to any type of post processing and find it quite disturbing. Just because you complete the necessary steps in your processing workflow doesn't mean that you didn't get it right in the camera. The workflow with digital imaging is simply different than that of film SLR's or point and shoots.

[Tixeon]

A friend of mine put it differently. RAW is like processing your own film & making your own prints. JPG is like polaroid. Each has its advantages but "getting it right in the camera" & RAW together is hard to beat.

[DAMphyne]

A friend of mine put it differently. RAW is like processing your own film & making your own prints. JPG is like polaroid.
Why is it that this sounds like a slam?
Are you saying that JPEG photos have the quality of a polaroid picture.
I would more compare it to negative vs transparencies, both have their unique qualities and uses.
Each has its advantages but "getting it right in the camera" & RAW together is hard to beat.
This statement is probably true, getting it right in the camera is always better.
Why is it the RAW purist want to MAKE everyone see things their way.
The OP asked if shooting RAW would make his photos turn out Tons better.
You know that is simply NOT true. Why should we believe any of the hype if a simple question can't be answered truthfully?

[Tixeon]

Why is it that this sounds like a slam?

Why is it the RAW purist want to MAKE everyone see things their way.

Just quoting a comparison a friend of mine made. I didn't say I agreed with it. Maybe you're looking for a slam is why it sounds like one to you.

Why is it the JPG purist want to MAKE everyone see things their way?
Just chill out man......Peace.

[DAMphyne]

Peace to you too.
Do you figure that simply changing to RAW will make his pictures "Tons" better.
If that is so, I'll give up my polaroids.
Us JPEG purist, to my experience, don't go around saying that you can't get good pictures with RAW. We just get tired of the "Holier than Thou" attitude.
By the way, you are the one quoting your friend, you can't blame him/her for posting it here.
My take is, JPEG is like shooting Transparencies, RAW is like Negatives. Both have their uses and reasons to be.

[Tixeon]

Peace to you too.
Do you figure that simply changing to RAW will make his pictures "Tons" better.
If that is so, I'll give up my polaroids.
Us JPEG purist, to my experience, don't go around saying that you can't get good pictures with RAW. We just get tired of the "Holier than Thou" attitude.
By the way, you are the one quoting your friend, you can't blame him/her for posting it here.
My take is, JPEG is like shooting Transparencies, RAW is like Negatives. Both have their uses and reasons to be.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be reading something in my post that is just not there. The OP used the term "tons" not me. Nowhere did I say that JPG is inferior to RAW, what I did say is that (in my opinion) that RAW is hard to beat. I kinda knew when I posted my friends opinion that it would get you riled up. I just thought it was a different comparison - & didn't realize you were so touchy. Sorry for that one.:cry:

[DAMphyne]

There we were, having a fairly reasonable discussion pertaining to the OP's question.
One guy comes along and makes a thinly veiled reference to the quality of a legitimate file format, quickly denies the he makes the allusion after being asked about it.
I kinda knew when I posted my friends opinion that it would get you riled up.
And then he calls me touchy.
Geeze, if you didn't have anything to say,......
Oh well, on to the next battle.

[Mark_Cohran]

.....Oh well, on to the next battle.

And therein lies the problem. There are legitimate reasons for shooting both formats. I certainly wouldn't limit myself to one or the other. There should be no "battle" about it.

Mark

[Tixeon]

Thanks Mark; I agree 100%.

[In2Photos]

Peace to you too.
Do you figure that simply changing to RAW will make his pictures "Tons" better.
If that is so, I'll give up my polaroids.
Us JPEG purist, to my experience, don't go around saying that you can't get good pictures with RAW. We just get tired of the "Holier than Thou" attitude.
By the way, you are the one quoting your friend, you can't blame him/her for posting it here.
My take is, JPEG is like shooting Transparencies, RAW is like Negatives. Both have their uses and reasons to be.

I feel that shooting RAW will make your pictures tons better. While there certainly are very talented shooters that can produce stunning JPEG images I find that for ME RAW is the Only option. After shooting JPEG and not loving the results my camera was providing I found that RAW provided me with the lattitude that my style of shooting requires. I do, however, realize that for some RAW just doesn't fit. This is why arguments like RAW vs. JPEG and MAC vs. PC will always exist. Someone will ask the question which is better and both sides will argue their point, sometimes to the death it seems. If everyone simply said "Try it out for yourself and decide" there would be no argument.

And therein lies the problem. There are legitimate reasons for shooting both formats. I certainly wouldn't limit myself to one or the other. There should be no "battle" about it.

Mark

Excellent Mark. Although I limit myself to RAW.;)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Another con for shooting RAW... risk of sunburn and or bug bites on your tushy...

[Andy_T]

Why is it that this sounds like a slam?
Are you saying that JPEG photos have the quality of a polaroid picture.


What exactly do you know about the quality (or implied quality) of Polaroids?
Take a look at http://www.polaroid.com/company_info/collection.jsp, you might find it quite interesting.

Back to the main topic. An explanation that is quite illustrative comes from another thread:

I heard it explained once like this.

"With Jpeg, you have scrambled eggs. With RAW you have THE egg. With RAW you can make scrambled eggs, boiled eggs or what ever eggs you want, but with Jpeg, all you have is scrambled eggs."

I normally use RAW+small JPG, so I have a small jpg but preserve the possibility to archive my images in uncompressed (lossless) format and retain all possibilities (White balance, contrast, sharpening) in case an image should not have been captured exactly as I had intended it to come out.

If I just need proofs, I turn on BreezeBrowser on my PC and have proofs created in batch mode from the RAW images (complete with watermark, USM settings for the desired output format etc.) while I go have a nice cup of coffee.

It certainly is possible that I really learn less that way, as I don't often have to swear 'If only I had just .... '*@!$% ', but in that case rather just take the RAW image and adjust WB, push exposure or do whatever is needed in post-production. But *I* certainly get more keepers along the way.

Excellent Mark. Although I limit myself to RAW.;)
No you don't. You take a (small) JPG whenever you take a RAW image. Wouldn't see much in the display otherwise... :wink:


Best regards,
Andy

[DAMphyne]

Sheesh.....
Goes home with his tail between his legs.