Shooting Raw???????

[dicklaxt]

I am not very familiar with this and what little I have read I don't understand so if some one would be so kind could you explain it in simplfied terms and plain old country English....

1.What does it do for me above and beyond a jpeg image?

2.Do I as a non professional but a person who likes nice photos need it?

3.If the answer is yes to the above, what and how do I learn about it,,,just setting the camera to a RAW Format is not an acceptable answer,I must understand it to be comfortable with it.If its just bells and whistles for the weekender but a true advantage please say so.I'm green as grass.

Thanks guys and gals and I thank you also for your patience and understanding.

dick

[number six]

1 - A raw image has more data in it than a jpeg from the camera, and you can do more post-processing to a raw than a jpeg. If you want to do heavy PP you're going to get a better result from the raw image, as a rule.

2 - Nope, you don't. If you expose carefully and pay attention to white balance you can get first-rate jpeg images. I shoot jpeg about 75% of the time, switching to raw under difficult conditions such as strange lighting, very high contrast or very flat light where I'll want to crank the color saturation way up.

3 - Raw is actually pretty easy to get into - take some shots, load them into Canon's DPP (it came with your camera) and play with the color balance, exposure and picture styles options.

Raw is a useful option, but it's not a religion. Except to lots of POTN members. :lol:

-js

[Nukey]

RAW essentially gives you more flexibility when editing your photos later on your computer. If you don't do any post-processing, there is no reason to shoot in RAW.

Here's a little article that may clear things up for you:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

Cheers!

[Maddog12]

I shoot Raw+Jpeg.

RAW is like my little insurance policy while shooting. If I get "the" shot and for some reason the lighting changed or the flash didn't fire...9 out of 10 times I can salvage the photo.

I would change your settings to RAW+JPEG and give RAW a try. You'll still have a jpeg using this setting.

I am getting more and more use to RAW because I love the flexibility it gives me in post processing.

[Razeus]

I shoot only RAW when on my XSi. Shooting RAW and JPEG simutaneously is a waste of time. RAW is having the full resolution image and the JPEG is just a sample. Kind of like having a fully dynamic audio master recording of your favorite album in all its glorious uncompressed fidelity (a RAW file) vs a ridicously compressed music file like an MP3 (the JPEG).

[WaltA]

I shoot only RAW when on my XSi. Shooting RAW and JPEG simutaneously is a waste of time. RAW is having the full resolution image and the JPEG is just a sample. Kind of like having a fully dynamic audio master recording of your favorite album in all its glorious uncompressed fidelity (a RAW file) vs a ridicously compressed music file like an MP3 (the JPEG).

I've heard some claim that they shoot RAW and JPEG if they need to transmit a picture quickly for meeting a deadline or to send a "sample" to a client. And then they have to RAW to process and use for real.

So I wouldn't be too quick to say its a waste of time - but you do need lots of storage space if you take lots of pictures

[dicklaxt]

Okay thanks,I'll give it a try.No I don't shoot alot but do like to play with PP.

dick

[tzalman]

2.Do I as a non professional but a person who likes nice photos need it?
It depends on your standards, goals and, most of all, your personality. For us anal types who always want the maximum, yes. If "close enough is good enough" is more your style, then no.

[krb]

2.Do I as a non professional but a person who likes nice photos need it?Your options for correcting white balance are much better if you have the raw data. That reason alone is enough to convince a non-pro like me that RAW is worth it.

[Razeus]

I've heard some claim that they shoot RAW and JPEG if they need to transmit a picture quickly for meeting a deadline or to send a "sample" to a client. And then they have to RAW to process and use for real.

So I wouldn't be too quick to say its a waste of time - but you do need lots of storage space if you take lots of pictures

making a jpeg out of RAW takes 5 seconds. At least in LR2.

[dicklaxt]

Okay going with RAW + jpeg whats the recommended setting on a 40D for a weekend shooter limited number of shots? There are only 20 options available and I don't have a clue.

dick

[dicklaxt]

Bumping to the top.

I really do need some help on this setting,where would you set it,see my previous comment.

thanks dick

[kandyredcoi]

another question to add:

does RAW images have better IQ than JPEG images...straight out of the camera?
???

[Markitos]

does RAW images have better IQ than JPEG images...straight out of the camera?
???

They have more information, but not necessarily more quality, SOOC, because you have applied no sharpening, contrast, saturation, or WB adjustments to the RAW file.

In fact, a lot of people are quite dismayed with what's coming off their camera when first shooting RAW, since they look so flat compared to JPEGs... but that's the whole idea--YOU get to make the decisions about how that stuff should be applied, rather than the camera... and with a RAW file, you can change your mind.

JPEGs are great, too, and many pros shoot JPEG exclusively because they have deadlines to make and shoots to do rather than sit at their computer and process images.

I used to shoot a mixture of both with my Nikons, but since switching to Canon have gone to RAW most of the time, since I find Canon's White Balance settings to be unreliable, and I don't want to shoot a white/gray card everywhere I go.

[egordon99]

First off, your camera ONLY shoots RAW. When you select JPG, the camera takes the RAW data and pipes it into it's on-board JPG processor to generate the JPG "image" to save to the card.

When you shoot RAW, the RAW "data" goes directly to the card and is not an image.

To generate an image, you use a RAW processor (software on your PC) which turns the data into a viewable image, much like the camera's JPG processor. The difference is that YOU have complete control over the image generation process. You can change the white balance, adjust the contrast/brightness/black point/etc....

So you can leave these decisions up to the camera's little processor (and hope it makes the right decisions since they are irreversible), or save the decisions for later where YOU have complete control over it.

[egordon99]

Just do RAW....DPP can easily either (1)Extract the small JP preview from the RAW file or (2)Generate a full resolution JPG in about 1 second

The ONLY reason to shoot RAW+JPG is if you need to send someone a JPG right away and you do not have access to a computer with RAW conversion software.

If you insist on having a JPG available right away, shoot RAW+ a small JPG.

Okay going with RAW + jpeg whats the recommended setting on a 40D for a weekend shooter limited number of shots? There are only 20 options available and I don't have a clue.

dick

[egordon99]

See my first post in this thread...The question is really invalid in that RAW is really just a file straight out of the camera and needs to be processed (rendered/de-mosaiced) before it can be viewed.

RAW gives you much more POTENTIAL for a better image, but alot of that depends on your post-processing/workflow skills and the RAW converter that you use.

If you compare a SOOC JPG with a RAW file processed in DPP using the "As-shot settings" and converted to an 8-bit JPG, you'll find they are probably more or less the exact same image.

another question to add:

does RAW images have better IQ than JPEG images...straight out of the camera?
???

[Nukey]

Okay going with RAW + jpeg whats the recommended setting on a 40D for a weekend shooter limited number of shots? There are only 20 options available and I don't have a clue.

dick

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this. Do you mean you'll need to take a limited number of shots, or that you only have a limited amount of memory and don't want to run out for a weekend trip?

Personally, I don't think there's any need for you to be shooting RAW and JPEG. It's going to take up about 15.9MB per exposure if you do. If you do want to keep the JPEG files and play around with the RAW files for your first try, then go to the menu, and under "Quality" (the first option) set it to RAW + L. The L mode you want will have a quarter circle beside it (smooth edge). As noted, this will take up about 15.9MB of space per exposure.

If you have enough memory and want to experiment, feel free to use that setting. If you have limited memory, just go with RAW, and if you really don't have enough memory, go with JPEG (L with smooth quarter circle).

Your RAW files will take up about 12.4MB vs a 3.5MB JPEG.

Cheers!

[WaltA]

Maybe I'm over-simplifying things but ....

weekend shooter+limited # of shots = JPEG High Resolution and adjusting in-camera processing with picture styles

I don't see anything in the OP's posts that says they want to spend any time at a computer doing Post-Processing.

[hollis_f]

I don't see anything in the OP's posts that says they want to spend any time at a computer doing Post-Processing.

Except for this....

No I don't shoot alot but do like to play with PP.

dick

[WaltA]

Except for this....

Aha missed that one.

[AB8ND]

Dick,

My first question and forgive me I'm not trying to me a smart...... Are your pictures important to you? If they are, then don't you want to get the absolute most out your camera and lens? Years ago a friend of my wife asked why our photos looked better than hers, the wife told her it was because we send our film to a good lab not a Quicky Mart for processing. I like to think this is the difference between shooting RAW and jpeg, jpeg might be good enough, but RAW is so much better.

1. A RAW file is uncompressed data, jpeg is compressed data so no matter how good it looses data.
2. No you don't need to be a professional,you should just want to go First Class all the way.
3. Basically it is a matter of setting your camera to RAW, but you do want to pay with Canon's DPP or Photoshop (CS or Elements ) Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). Find what works best for you in processing the files.
If you use Elements I recommend the book Photoshop Elements (version number) Maximum Overdrive by Mark Galar it has some great post processing comcepts and advise.

Jack

[dugcross]

Another thing to consider too is if you make a wrong decision out in the field as in not having the right white balance set, wrong exposure, etc, with a RAW file this can be easily corrected on the most part with PP but with a JPEG file you're going to be more restricted on how much you can correct because your camera has already "developed" the JPEG file according to your settings at the time.

[yogestee]

It depends on your standards, goals and, most of all, your personality. For us anal types who always want the maximum, yes. If "close enough is good enough" is more your style, then no.

I rarely shoot RAW and I'm hardly in the "close enough is good enough" catagory..

[tzalman]

I rarely shoot RAW and I'm hardly in the "close enough is good enough" catagory..
You certainly aren't, but nobody would ever mistake you for a newbie.

[chauncey]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=684360