RAW - love it, hate it.

[n1as]

I just shot a HS band concert. We did sectional shots plus candids during the performance. Some of the stuff was done with a flash, much was available light. With all the switching back & forth, I got my fingers crossed on more than 1 occasion and shot with Tungesten white balance with the flash or had the ISO set to 1600 when I wanted 400 or over exposed in M mode.

During PP, I was able to recover over & underexposed pics to a degree that I'd not been able when shooting JPG. I was able to easily correct wrong color balannce. RAW really helped me rescue my backside from the jaws of disaster.

But BOY, did it take a long time. Each shot required custom WB, exposure adjustments in Canon's RAW Image Task. I spent more time PP 45 images than it took to photograph the event.

The extra PP is making me think I'd be better off to shoot in JPG and get it right in the camera (right exposure, right WB, right ISO). Easier said than done.

- Keith -

[LightUser]

That is one of the main reasons I stopped shooting raw. If you can get Cs3, you can process your jpegs in the raw editor, including correcting white balance and highlight recovery if you need to but jpegs do have some tight limitations. Raw does give you a little latitude for errors but CS3 gives jpeg shooters a +4 or -4 stop workable area.

[MattMoore]

Easier said than done.

Exactly.

[rfreschner]

The extra PP is making me think I'd be better off to shoot in JPG and get it right in the camera (right exposure, right WB, right ISO). Easier said than done.

Of course, if you were shooting RAW and had gotten it right in the camera then the processing wouldn't have taken any time at all. And, on the off chance that you hadn't gotten it right in the camera, RAW is there to bail you out.

[Maureen Souza]

Personally, I hate RAW for all the time it takes.

Personally, I love RAW for all the corrections I can make. ;)

[Dan-o]

So those shooting JPG do not pp there shots at all. I've never found that RAW is that big of a deal. I shot 150+ Santa shots for the school my wife works at. Open in Lightroom>adjust first photo>click synchronize>select all>export. I'm not telling everyone to shoot RAW as I don't care what you shoot, just do not see that it takes any more time.

[Peter Pawinski]

n1as - There is a learning curve to RAW, there is no doubt about that. At first, it will certainly be slower than JPG. However, once you figure things out, set default import settings, or learn how to use Sync or Copy and Paste settings effectively, it will be faster than JPG. I'm not exaggerating, but when I went from a JPG to a RAW workflow, I saved about 33%-50% time in post processing. At first, RAW took about 25% longer, but once I got all my settings down and comfortable with it, it's the easiest way to shoot for me. I now hate it when one of my associates shoots an assignment in JPEG because it usually means a lot more work from me on the post-processing end, especially when it comes to really f'ed up white balances.

If each shot required custom WB in RAW, it would have required custom WB in JPEG as well, and you would not have the same flexibility or fidelity in color recovery with JPEG as you do with RAW. With JPEG you literally lose colors if your white balance is off. With RAW, you do not.

[PhotosGuy]

A max jpg from my 20D is 2,754 KB. The exact same shot with the jpg extracted from RAW is 4,315 KB which is 1.57X larger.
Why throw those extra bits away? True, you might think you won't see the difference in a web image on your screen, but that's not true. Look at post 58 on page 2 in this thread:
Auto White Balance - works really well (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=234507)

Why I love RAW - '53 Ford Sunliner (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43761)

[Bill Boehme]

FWIW, when you shoot RAW, there is no in camera processing of white balance -- the RAW data is exactly the same for all WB settings. The only difference in WB settings has to do with a hexadecimal word that is set in the metadata that defines the WB to be applied by the post processing routine. That is one of the things that makes RAW so much more robust than JPG. With a RAW file, the WB can be changed simply by revising the in-camera value without any adverse impact on image quality. OTOH, when shooting JPG, the WB information is applied to the in-camera processing that creates the JPG image which means that valuable data that would have, otherwise, allowed for a clean change in WB is no longer all there. Don't be fooled into believing that just because ACR can process JPG files that the results will be as good as RAW. The only thing that it means is that the existing JPG file can be handled such that further changes are reversible back to the JPG that you started with, but you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

[tangcla]

I did a shoot for a dance comp. 5hr comp, rattled off about 1500 shots, all in RAW.

yes, it's a big timewaster, but it salvages a LOT of otherwise useless photos.

Depending on the program you use, you can also do batch processing, which would help your cause significantly.

[tim]

Of course, if you were shooting RAW and had gotten it right in the camera then the processing wouldn't have taken any time at all. And, on the off chance that you hadn't gotten it right in the camera, RAW is there to bail you out.

My thoughts exactly.

[n1as]

I'm thinking part of learning to love RAW may be Lightroom. I do see benefits to RAW and will definitely use it for any important shots or any that are risky and might need rescuing.

I suppose it's time to buy Lightroom to streamline the RAW processing.

- Keith -

[tangcla]

Apart from Lightroom, you could try software like Capture One.
I personally like Lightroom better though.

[S.E.V.]

Raw, A love hate relationship.:p

I personally love shooting raw, I use Lightroom or CS3 to process them. Or DPP and just batch process them to jpeg if i dont need to or want o mess with them. I guess RAW is not for everyone.

[lungdoc]

Unless the light was extremely variable the WB and some other settings can easily be batched and applied to all (and then readjusted for the exceptions) with programs like Lightroom or Bibble. I tend to apply a batch setting for WB, saturation, vibrance, sharpening and noise and then go back and fine tune each keeper.

[Glenn NK]

RAW is a time waster?:rolleyes:

I wonder what the boys in the darkroom used to complain about?;)

[PhotosGuy]

I wonder what the boys in the darkroom used to complain about? Fixer fumes!

[Bill Boehme]

I never need to do any post processing corrections becaue all of my pictures are perfect.



Ahem ... please excuse me while I go wash my mouth with soap.

[JasonW]

Using RAW shouldn't really take any more time than JPEG. You can always right an action in PS to process the RAW images to give JPEGs or TIFFs straight from the camera. Yes the computer has to work but you can just walk away and let it go....

Personally I shoot 100% RAW (as you might have guessed). I can edit the images in ACR if I want or just process then as is. The only downside I see with RAW is that it tends to make me a bit lazier when taking the shot than I used to be using film. That issue is my problem not the format (if that makes sense..)

[n1as]

RAW is a time waster?:rolleyes:

I wonder what the boys in the darkroom used to complain about?;)

Oh, don't you remember? Let's see ...


Dry / cracked hands from too much time in the chemicals.
Can't see when you go into the room, can't see when you come out.
Loading metal reels (I got really good at this!)
No food or snacking while you work.
Radio reception is terrible in here.
Waiting 5 minutes for film development is boooring but you have to stay engaged since you have to agitate every 30 seconds.
Little sister needs to go potty so you have to put your stuff away to let her in.- Keith -

[Glenn NK]

Oh, don't you remember? Let's see ...

Dry / cracked hands from too much time in the chemicals.
Can't see when you go into the room, can't see when you come out.
Loading metal reels (I got really good at this!)
No food or snacking while you work.
Radio reception is terrible in here.
Waiting 5 minutes for film development is boooring but you have to stay engaged since you have to agitate every 30 seconds.
Little sister needs to go potty so you have to put your stuff away to let her in.- Keith -

So RAW is looking not so bad now eh?;)

[queenbee288]

I have found I like raw and photoshopin genreal lot more since I got a faster computer.

[tangcla]

I have found I like raw and photoshopin genreal lot more since I got a faster computer.
HAHAHA that is so true!!

[islandboy]

The only additional time I see spent in RAW is the time spent converting the file. If any major processing (WB, exposure, etc.) needs to be done it can be done much faster in RAW than in Photoshop. IMO, the only time advantage a jpeg has is if the photo is absolutely perfect straight out of the camera and there are enough posts on here about the quality of a coverted RAW vs. a straight-out-of-the-camera jpeg that I won't go any further on that topic.

[rooeey]

In saying all this it seems many people prefer Lightroom to DPP for RAW
processing and conversion...

Why is this so ???

[rfreschner]

Why is this so ???

Ease of use and DNG support.

[figmented]

raw rocks.. i dont see what the big deal for WB is.. select the ones that look similar, adjust and sync.. big deal.

next question.

[davidcrebelxt]

In saying all this it seems many people prefer Lightroom to DPP for RAW
processing and conversion...

Why is this so ???

Jumping on the bandwagon? :eek:

There's more powerful, and plentiful tools in LR to be sure, and if highlight recovery is of interest to you, DPP simply can't handle it. But as for color (In my experience), LR for me shifts it all over the place until/if you can set a preset, whereas in DPP is one of the best I've seen.

That said I use LR, too. My advice is, if DPP works for you and you like its results stick with it. If you're tempted by the power of the dark side...er... Lightroom, give it a try.

[hassiman]

Is LightRoom any better than Adobe camera Raw for processing and adjusting RAW files? I know they both use ACR but are the adjustment tools different or better in LR?

[tangcla]

Is LightRoom any better than Adobe camera Raw for processing and adjusting RAW files? I know they both use ACR but are the adjustment tools different or better in LR?
You mean the one in Photoshop CS2/3? Yes, it has more control over aspects.

[hassiman]

Well actually... What I am used to now is opening my RAW files in Bridge which opens them in Adobe Camera Raw. If I open my RAW files in Lightroom as opposed to Bridge are my RAW adjustment controls much different?

[tangcla]

Well actually... What I am used to now is opening my RAW files in Bridge which opens them in Adobe Camera Raw. If I open my RAW files in Lightroom as opposed to Bridge are my RAW adjustment controls much different?
oh... that I do not know. I would assume that the RAW processor/converter is the same as the one in Photoshop though.

[sfaust]

If I nail the exposure right in camera, there is little different in how much time I take to post my images. To me its draw on time, but the converted RAW files deliver a better overall image quality.

If I don't, jpeg takes me longer because I don't have the flexibility I would with RAW. So I have to fiddle with the JPEG more to get it right.

In the end, RAW gives me a very distinct advantage in either case.

Its RAW all the way for me, and I haven't shot JPEG only in about 2 years, with about 40K images shot a year.

[rfreschner]

Well actually... What I am used to now is opening my RAW files in Bridge which opens them in Adobe Camera Raw. If I open my RAW files in Lightroom as opposed to Bridge are my RAW adjustment controls much different?

Minor differences - more in the presentation than the functionality.

[Bill Boehme]

Well actually... What I am used to now is opening my RAW files in Bridge which opens them in Adobe Camera Raw. If I open my RAW files in Lightroom as opposed to Bridge are my RAW adjustment controls much different?

The only difference is window dressing.