Why I will shoot RAW from now on

[colorblind]

I bought a D60 in the spring and I´m really happy; my regular camera is getting dusty. I´ve almost never shot in RAW format though.

Yesterday I came saw piece of architecture ( http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=554978 ) that I didn´t think I could shoot with a digital camera. A faint gradient from medium gray to medium-darkish gray. ;-)

This is the first time I shot RAW. The qualitiy difference to the JPEG-version (which I did too) is incredible. The JPEG version would have required a lot of postprocessing, the RAW version required nothing more than rotating and cropping.

I did a 40x30cm print and it still looks perfectly sharp and the gradients are smooth. => RAW rocks. I´m off to sell my chemical camera.

[steve_usa_2000]

I will be sure to try Raw now. Keep sharing it really helps us new guys try new stuff. Is image storage an issue with the larger format preference?

[defordphoto]

The only time I don't shoot RAW is if I'm just shooting useless snaps, or some stuff for work that doesn't require anything fancy or super-large prints. And that's rare.

And RAW storage can become an issue only by the limitation of your CF cards and outside storage. HD's are cheaper than they ever have been and portable HD's are also fairly cheap.

I have 240gigs on my main machine and archive off to CD from time to time. When I'm out in the field I have a 30gig X Drive that I dump off my CF's to if I'm shooting that many and then weed them out when I get home.

And...it's not that RAW storage that gets ya. Its the extracted TIFFs that'll burn your HD space faster than anything.

But, the flexibility you get when shooting RAW far outweighs the storage limitations, IMHO.

[redbutt]

Since they are getting cheap now, go get yourself a 1 GB Microdrive. They are great. I have one of those and a 340MB one as well. Granted, my D30 file sizes are smaller than your D60, but still, I can get 256 RAW images on the 1GB drive. If you do a little QA of images while you are in the field, it's really hard to run out of space.

Also, for home storage of the TIFF files...hard drive are getting dirt cheap. Go get yourself a few 120GB drives and some FireWire enclosures ($60-100 a piece). You then have created 120GB portable hard drives!

[steve_usa_2000]

Thanks for the feedback. I just picked up a Media reader today. I hope this helps with the download time.

Is the conversion an issue or do you convert as needed? I do like the convenience of the JPG files. I guess I will need to try the Dual media Jpg/Raw shooting. Is it any slower to do this?

Anyway it’s really getting exciting shooting with this new camera of mine.

[SteveCliff]

steve_usa_2000 wrote:
I guess I will need to try the Dual media Jpg/Raw shooting. Is it any slower to do this?


As far as I know, the D60 doesn't do combined writing of both JPG/RAW in the way you are thinking. The new Canon 1DS does, but costs a few pence/cents more for the camera ;-)

If you shoot in RAW though, there is an embedded JPG 'hidden' away inside that some software packages use for thumbnail views etc. You can extract this if you want, but I *think* it's only about 1024x768 which is not really good enough for printing decent size prints.

[defordphoto]

Actually, when shooting RAW each photo comes with it's own individual thumbnail file. There is a JPEG that is easily extracted from each RAW file that's 2048x1360 (Medium format?) which is about 2/3's the size of a full size file. Quite useable for detailed picture viewing and for the web, but no, not for printing in most cases.

As for the card reader, unless you got a USB 2.0 or firewire, it won't really be faster than hooking up the camera. If it's USB 1.0, I'd suggest taking it back if you can and get an upgrade, even if you have to install a PCI card to do it. I upgraded to firewire and love it!

Also, you're not using the standard Canon software are you? If you are I HIGHLY suggest upgrading that to BreezeBrowser. The Canon software isn't very good.

[colorblind]

I guess the advantages of RAW are:

* more than 8 Bit precision. This comes handy if you are shooting a low-contrast picture, especially if you plan to artificially enhance the contrast later on.

* You can change your mind about the white balancing later on.

* no JPEG artifacts

* no in-camera sharpening and noise reduction. The in-camera software has only fractions of a second for these tasks, so we can assume they cut a few corners.

Of course shooting RAW only makes sense if you plan to use the extra information. (If you are taking low-res pictures for ebay, JPEG is fine)

Also I guess if you shoot at >= 400 ISO there is so much noise that the extra bits in the RAW file are garbage anyway. Have not tried it yet though.



About a dedicated card-reader: While a USB1 card reader is only slightly faster than hooking the camera, it´s much easier to use and the camera plug just doesn´t look too solid.

[digijim]

if you look closely at your images... in Photoshop... realy up close and personal, you can see some artifacting. The faster you shoot the more you'll see. compare an eyelid in a jpeg shot compared to a raw file. There is definate banding in both, even in shots at 100 asa, you'd have to be printing large posters to see it, but it is there. Not as bad as film grain or lack of good detail.

[Webster]

One thing we lose when shooting RAW is the almost-always ability to shoot. It did not take me long to get spoiled by the speed with which the D60's 8 shot buffer became available after it was filled. Take 8 shots in continuous, pause a couple of beats, take 8 more, repeat forever.

Usually, when we really want the extra quality of RAW we'll be taking the time to carefully set up our shots, and so the writing-to-card delay doesn't matter. But too often we want to be able to rapidly take a great many highest quality shots - breakers on the beach, birds in flight for example.

*SIGH* Ya just can't get away from dealing with trade-offs.

[gudac]

Not to get off subject here, but I recently purchased a DVD Burner for about $250. I put it in my Power Mac G4 and use it to archive my files from my D30. On the Macintosh I use the program Disk Copy to make a Disk Image that is 4.7 Gig in size. I copy all the files from my Memory Cards and or MicroDrive to the image. When the image gets close to being full I burn 2 DVD's of the image. Put one away and use one for day to day use of the files. I always have my original files this way that aren't modified and I know that I can always go back and get a photo that I haven't changed to start over with for whatever reason. You can do the same with a CD burner.

AS for RAW, I am learning and finding that it offers more but is it really needed. A friend that is professional photographer for a local newspaper uses Nikon Digitals and uses .jpg all the time. I think he does most of his work in photoshop. It may just be a matter of preference.

Happy New Year!

Joe Gudac
gudac@mac.com

[kenemm]

I just purchased myu D60 a few weeks ago, and I'm amazed at the quality. I haven't--as yet--tried shooting in RAW format. Now you guys have me curious, I will definitely have to check it out. By the way I've found lot of great information on this site since I joined today. I'm enjoying reading everone's comments! Ken

[digijim]

gudac wrote:

AS for RAW, I am learning and finding that it offers more but is it really needed. A friend that is professional photographer for a local newspaper uses Nikon Digitals and uses .jpg all the
time. I think he does most of his work in photoshop. It may just be a matter of preference.


Joe,
Great idea re the dvd burner... think I'll get one too!

As for your friend in the newspaper bus. - Newspaper print does not need high res for reproduction. They have for ever been in need of speed.
When they print - on the high side at 100 line screen - all they really need is 200 dpi and can get by with 72 dpi when the original image is so large.
Reproducing images in print you need twice the dpi as the number for line screen. ie 300 dpi will produce good results at 150 line screen - even 175 ls which most good
magazines print at.
The D60 provides, in RAW, a converted jpg image that is 42.667" x 28.444" @ 72 dpi. Now that is on the high end and when you create jpg files with the D60 the image is nearly as large again on the high end. Down the scale images get smaller, but they're still huge when you only need 120 dpi to reproduce at 65 ls as most newspapers. Some papers
are now up to 85 ls which only calls for 170 dpi.

[Webster]

The D60 produces an image consisting of 2048x3072 pixels, whether in RAW or in one of the Large modes. Resolution is not a reason to use RAW rather than JPEG. The sixteen bit color would not be a benefit if your target were a newspaper, or even a newsmagazine. If you're going for a coffee table book, it would probably make a difference. Any decrease in noise, however, may well be noticable, even in a newspaper.

[EA6B]

I shoot mostly stock and some client work. All I've ever shot is raw, even for family and pet photos, only raw.

E