IS 'RAW' WORTH THE TROUBLE?

[colliewalker1]

I am not convinced that shooting in 'Raw Mode'is worth the trouble - for amateurs like me: I aim mainly to produce holiday and 'family album' type photos - normally in size 7"x5" using 'L/Fine' mode. However, despite these modest levels of use I do like to achieve the best possible results (although not to the extent of using 'Raw') and I wonder whether if I did I would see the difference!

I am using the Canon 300D with the 'kit lens'and am awaiting the arrival of a Powershot G6, bought on Ebay UK for £160 - around $288 I believe : my thinking here is that its worth having a bargain like this in order to have a pocketable camera for exploiting unexpected photo opportunities.

Comments will be appreciated - and I am open to being persuaded to change my ways !

[Belmondo]

There's no need to convince you one way or the other. You will decide on your own as time goes by. If the extra steps necessary in using RAW don't appear to be of value to you, chances are you should continue shooting in JPEG.

Photography is all about expectations, and if the photos you are taking now meet those expectations, there's no reason to change. Most of the people who fiddle with RAW are not satisfied with the images coming straight out of the camera, and are looking for that extra little bit of improvement that can be achieved through post processing which is usually made easier by shooting RAW.

[rfreschner]

I'm fairly new to RAW and still trying to find my way. But, I have already seen the benefits with being able to make changes to white balance and exposure from the RAW image. I have found that you need to find a good workflow if you want to make it worthwhile. "Camera Raw" by Bruce Fraser is a good book to read on the subject.

Of course, if you're satisfied with your images in jpeg, there's no reason to switch.

[Jesper]

If you never want to print your photos larger than 7 by 5 inches, you don't even need a 6 or 7 megapixel camera - 3 megapixels is more than enough for printing at that size. So you could save some memory card space by setting your camera to 'Medium/Fine' instead of 'Large/Fine'.

There have been numerous RAW vs. JPEG debates on the forums and in other places on the Internet. RAW has some clear advantages: better dynamic range, easier to correct white balance and other parameters, no lossy compression like JPEG. Ofcourse there are also disadvantages: you have to spend more time behind the computer to post process them.

Nobody needs to persuaded to use either RAW or JPEG. You just do what works best for you.

[alfa1six4]

. Ofcourse there are also disadvantages: you have to spend more time behind the computer to post process them.

Nobody needs to persuaded to use either RAW or JPEG. You just do what works best for you.


Yes, do what works best for you. In my case I've discovered using RAW has shortened my time spending post processing. If I can get a shot looking pretty good in ACR, all I need to do in PS is some minor tweaking; levels, contrast, and an edge sharpening action.

[scottbergerphoto]

I make alot of mistakes when taking pictures. I've got so many thoughts running through my head about composition, getting run over by a car, lighting, the police, exposure, you name it. I love Raw. Maybe someday when I can do this in my sleep, I'll shoot jpeg.

[Fills]

Bottom line for me is yes. And it's not trouble. Use RAW enough and you'll find you save time with batch processing. You'll save quality from editing jpeg and the best part is years later you can re-visit the RAW photo's and you'll be more experienced and can use a fresh 'negative' to work on.

[embdaw]

I thought using RAW was going to be a pain at first due to compatability issues, but once I got used to using PS to process them, I'll never turn back. But I agree with pretty much most of the other comments concerning the fact that it is all up to your preference.

[thomasrhee]

It's a personal decision whether you want to or even have the time to spend post processing your images. There's pro's and con's to shooting in RAW vs JPEG. I shoot both RAW and JPEG depending on the situation. However, more often than not these days, I find myself shooting JPEG for most handheld shots unless I know the photo may be printed larger than A4. If I go thru the hassle of carrying and using a tripod, I'll use RAW. Due to a heavy work schedule and trying to have a life outside of work, I'd rather spend more time shooting or doing other activities than sitting at home post processing images.

In your case, if you're shooting 5"x7" "family snapshots", I personally don't see any advantages of shooting in RAW.

Here's another person's opinion on the matter: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

He's very opinionated, but then again, most people who are passionate about what they do are. However, he's a Nikon user sooooo... :p

Also, in regards to having a P&S, I personally think it's a necessity for an avid photographer to always carry at least a small P&S (preferably with manual controls) at all times. I don't carry my 20D with me everyday everywhere I go. It's just not feasable due to weight and size. However, I always throw a P&S inside my bag to be ready to take a photo at any time.

tyr

[tim]

If you're taking holiday snaps in good lighting, sure, shoot JPG. If you're doing something more demanding, for example low light or strange color light, RAW will come into it's own. I use RAW most of the time.

[nosquare2003]

Previously, I shot JPEG because memory was expensive at that time. But when the price of memory cards drop, I shoot RAW only.

The major benefit for RAW is that I can get additional dynamic range.

Rescuing photos from "wrong" exposure for RAW is much easier than JPEG. Certainly, not every photo needs an adjustment. But I just leave the computer working. As such, I don't think that shooting RAW is any kind of "trouble".

[colliewalker1]

Thank you very much everybody for your responses.

The obvious enthusiasm of yyou all for shooting in Raw has prompted me to really look into the subject and try it out for myself - making comparisons between edited raw and edited JPEG.

[dougsturgess]

I am not convinced that shooting in 'Raw Mode'is worth the trouble - for amateurs like me: I aim mainly to produce holiday and 'family album' type photos - normally in size 7"x5" using 'L/Fine' mode. However, despite these modest levels of use I do like to achieve the best possible results (although not to the extent of using 'Raw') and I wonder whether if I did I would see the difference!

I am using the Canon 300D with the 'kit lens'and am awaiting the arrival of a Powershot G6, bought on Ebay UK for £160 - around $288 I believe : my thinking here is that its worth having a bargain like this in order to have a pocketable camera for exploiting unexpected photo opportunities.

Comments will be appreciated - and I am open to being persuaded to change my ways !

Definitely YES. RAW allows you at any time to white balance to get rid of tungsten light, etc. for indoor or night shots. I shoot underwater in RAW and that's the only way to go. If you're shooting just snapshots, do jpeg. If there's any chance your event is something special, shoot RAW just in case. You can always just convert straight to jpeg if you want to . Check out the underwater shots taken in RAW at www.pbase.com/dougsturgess Also, check out the night pictures in the Rome gallery of my Italy pictures. Without being able to manually white balance after the fact, your pictures will be yellowed if taken under tungsten light.

[Barb42]

I use RAW when the light is questionable and JPEG when I have a lot of shots and the environment is good. Raw is also very nice for formal shots - better choice to ensure a good image. People are so vain about portraits.

[rfreschner]

Also, check out the night pictures in the Rome gallery of my Italy pictures.

I see you took some forbidden pictures of David while you were in Florence also. :) Boy, I wish I had my 20D instead of my N..... P&S when I was there!!

[Redbird_xo]

Didn't quite go through all the replies...in case someone has already said this, pardon me for my laziness.

Why don't you try (if you haven't already) shooting in RAW for a while and see for yourself?

I started to shoot RAW about 3 months ago after shooting thousands of JPEGs. An analogy to changing from shooting JPEG to RAW: Changing from shooting digital PnS to DSLR. It's no turning back (to me that is).