Why shoot in RAW mode?

[serissolutions]

I checked all over the web and my cam documentation.
I have learned that RAW mode is a tiny bit better than a high res JPG but the file size is significantly larger.

So why use RAW format?

-S

[kawter2]

this is an excelent document re: Camera RAW

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf

[Jesper]

Hmmm.... you know, the RAW vs. JPEG subject has been discussed so many times before, if you do a search you will find endless discussions about it.

I don't agree that RAW is just "a tiny bit better" than JPEG. If you learn how to get the most out of your RAW images, you'll discover that it gives you a lot more flexibility and possibilities than JPEG mode.

Have a look at this: Understanding Raw Files (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml)

[the7ferret]

RAW = Allows adjustment for every aspect of the shot, also the most minute detail is saved vs destroyed when using jpeg compression.
Jpeg = Pretty much stuck as shot. Cant change exposure, WB, and less detail (although not much)

I shoot raw to allow me to play with the shot.

[PhotosGuy]

Think of RAW as a negative film & Jpg as a transparency, & maybe that will help. Note that I said "Think of..." before someone yells at me for it! ;-)

Here's one reason why 99.999% of what I shoot now is in RAW:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43761&highlight=sunliner

[rdenney]

RAW = Allows adjustment for every aspect of the shot, also the most minute detail is saved vs destroyed when using jpeg compression.
Jpeg = Pretty much stuck as shot. Cant change exposure, WB, and less detail (although not much)

I shoot raw to allow me to play with the shot.

Add that RAW preserves the full 12 bits of data recorded by the sensor, while JPEG only preserves 8 bits of data. That makes a huge difference if you want to make big moves in the tonality of the image without posterization.

It ain't about detail and resolution, but about tonality. It may take a bit of practice to see the difference, but with that practice, I found that JPEGs presented a wall around the possible final print that was much closer to the image as shot, while RAW allowed far greater manipulation.

Rick "who works with RAW and does everything in 16-bit color" Denney

[DaveG]

I checked all over the web and my cam documentation.
I have learned that RAW mode is a tiny bit better than a high res JPG but the file size is significantly larger.

So why use RAW format?

-S

Last week I shot an assignment for a magazine and I had the colour balance selected to Tungsten. Unfortunately the shot took place outside in the middle of the afternoon, so everything was a nice bright blue. It also didn't matter since I shot RAW and the colour balance that shows up when I open a RAW file is merely a start point. I chose "Daylight" under my Photoshop Camera RAW settings and the colour was instantly corrected, just as if I had selected Daylight in my camera. Try THAT with a jpeg!

You also get better highlight protection with RAW files, especially in what looks like blown out hightlights. It seems that Exposure, Shadows and Brightness controls in Camera RAW give me much better results than working with Levels, Color Balance, and Brightness/Contrast in PS.

As you'll read in other places RAW preserves the original file information so you can always go back to that. With jpegs the "unneeded" information - like the daylight balance in the first shot I described - is discarded and you'll work like the dickens to get it back.

I also find that working with RAW in PS Camera RAW to be much quicker than working with jpegs in the regular side of PS. The Camera RAW command of "Previous Conversion" takes the changes you made in the previous shot and applies them to the next one. I find that I'll shoot five or six shots in a row that are similar and this lets me imprint the "fix" on each of them and still allows me to tweak each one as I see fit. Although you could build an Action in PS it would hardly be worth while for a few shots.

On my Canon, RAW shots are proprietary .cr2 files. Subsequently I can't over write them. As soon as I try I have to make them into .tif or .psd or .jpg or whatever but the original. cr2 file is preserved. I can't do stupid things like inadvertantly resize them, only to discover that my 24 meg wedding shots are now 500K files - and the originals are no more!

In any case after it's all done jpegs are just as good as RAW, as long as the jpeg's are perfect, and that's not likely.

[UncleDoug]

Think of RAW as a negative film & Jpg as a transparency, & maybe that will help. Note that I said "Think of..." before someone yells at me for it! ;-)

Here's one reason why 99.999% of what I shoot now is in RAW:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43761&highlight=sunliner

You're right on!

But from a film-to-drum-scanning perspective....

I consider a RAW file to be the equivalent of a positive transparency and a JPEG the equivalent of a type-R print. Equating RAW with a transparency because you get much more accurate color out of a positive transparency - you can create a profile for positive film but not for negatives.....( Neg and positive can hold the same resolution, provided they are based on similar grain size.)
The JPEG a print because you are limited as to whay you can do with it, and it will never give you as good of a result as with a RAW file. (you can scan a print but the scan from the chrome will always be better.)

If you have a RAW file, you have "IT", bare bones, basically a drum scan of your prized image if it were a chrome.
If you have a JPEG you have a con-pro-sumer scan. It will work but pale in comparison "under the loupe".

[Medic1]

Look at RAW as a way to make your images better, but don't see it as a fix-all that means you don't have to be as diligent when taking your pictures. A recent article in "Outdoor Photographer" said it best....."RAW is a good way to make good images great"

Jpeg is a good format for when you hit all your settings dead on right from the camera...shooting in RAW+Jpeg will save you some time when you get these shots (no post processing, or limited PP)

[PhotosGuy]

I consider a RAW file to be the equivalent of a positive transparency and a JPEG the equivalent of a type-R print. I get what you're saying Doug. It's a pretty cruel comparison though. Nothing in the photographic world looks as bad as an R-print when compared to the original! ;-) At least a jpeg can look good!

[UncleDoug]

I get what you're saying Doug. It's a pretty cruel comparison though. Nothing in the photographic world looks as bad as an R-print when compared to the original! ;-) At least a jpeg can look good!

You are right about the R-print....
But I find it hard to give a fair comparrison that won't "go over the line" for some people.
In my business I do everything possible to steer people away from JPEG files. Inadvertantly the JPEG gets saved as a JPEG again and quality goes to heck in a hand bag.
This may be a bit anal, but printing images big, as we do, is the great "lady of justice". When you go big, all the nastiness of an image is revealed for all the world to see - nothing is hidden. And printing, side-by-side the files from RAW+JPEG, RAW on the right JPEG on the left, shows that the JPEG is of lesser quality, all be it slight, than the RAW.

How about this angle.
JPEG is a lossy compression method.
Would you want the image "quality"(subjective) of your slides to be reduced by 5% of what it could have been everytime you pressed the shutter release on your traditional SLR?