Qtn for those shooting RAW...

[kram]

Do you shoot RAW + Jpg or just plan RAW.

If with a Jpg, what size do you choose? Specific qtn is what is the purpose of this jpg and does that explain your choice of jpg size?

[weemannie]

I shot RAW+Small Jpg. Two reasons for this; firstly I can view them on my Epson P2000 and zoom in to check sharpness etc., and secondly, its easier when I'm using Windows Explorer as I can view the Jpg thumbnails to identify the shots. :)

[arunchs]

I presume you mean to ask what is the use of shooting RAW+jpeg? I was using this mode for sometime when I did not know much of post processing and I wanted to compare in-camera jpegs with raw files that I process. Once I managed to build a confidence that RAW pictures I process are usually better than in-camera processed jpgs, I stopped shooting RAW+jpeg and switched to RAW only.

I think DRebel does not let you choose jpeg size when you shoot RAW+jpeg. You always record at highest resolution.

[Clinical]

I use the same exact setup for the same reasons. Viewing and organising without having to convert first. But recently i found out that MS had made an update to Explorer. Its called Microsoft RAW Image Thumbnailer and Wiever for Windows XP, sort of like Adobe Bridge but directly in Explorer. Seems to work just fine and its free. Here´s the link:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=D48E808E-B10D-4CE4-A141-5866FD4A3286&displaylang=en

[EOSAddict]

Following on from Clinical, there is also DPmagic which has a freeware explorer shell extension that allows you to see CRW thumbnails and there is a thread on here somewhere that takes you to another site that has a crw_thumbnailler.dll file you can install in your windows directory.

As I have the 300D and hence .CRW format (ie embedded JPEG) I am currently using RAW only. If I upgrade to the 350 I would probably go back to RAW_small JPEG for the same reason as weemannie - to zoom and get histogram on P2000.

[tim]

RAW only, because of space - I only have 6GB of CF ;) I find I tweak something in just about every image I take, be it contrast, saturation, exposure, shadows, etc, sometimes on CS2 auto, but usually tweaked. Because of that having a JPG would be redundant. I shoot JPG for things I don't consider important, or don't want to spend time processing.

There's a few problems with that microsoft software around locking of files, TIFFs mainly I think. I use a free thingy someone here linked too.

[DaveG]

Do you shoot RAW + Jpg or just plan RAW.

If with a Jpg, what size do you choose? Specific qtn is what is the purpose of this jpg and does that explain your choice of jpg size?

I never shoot anything but a RAW. I don't see any point. My workflow is to process everything in PS CS2 and to do all of the white balance stuff there. Why would I want to work with a potentially flawed jpeg? So I don't see how I would use a jpeg that would come along with the same RAW shot. All it would do - from my perspective - is to take up space on the CF card.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I shoot just RAW unless I will be needing to offload small jpegs on site. (where I will not have the software available to process or extract)

All Canon DSLR RAW images have a half size embedded jpeg in them allready. BreezeBrowser can extract these small files (approx 1MB - 1.5MB)

With this jpeg allready availble.. why waste more space on another one?

[EOSAddict]

All Canon DSLR RAW images have a half size embedded jpeg in them allready. BreezeBrowser can extract these small files (approx 1MB - 1.5MB)

CDS, Is that still true for CR2 files and CRW with no JPEG (ie like you can get with a hacked 300D)?

The Canon FVU version that comes with the 300D can also extract the embedded JPEG.

[CyberDyneSystems]

All I'm shooting now use CR2 so it must be true!!! :)

Yes.. it's true.. but I don't know if FVU will do it really... it just seems to be BreezeBrowser.

[WepWaWep]

RAW only. I'm a Mac user and off load the pics to the hard-drive as a file transfer then fire up CS, go through them and trash the bad ones.

[NJPhotoGuy]

I shoot only RAW, mostly to take advantage of the most space I can out of my memory cards. I can preview the RAW in my LCD panel to make sure that I got the shot or if I want to go back at the end of the day and delete any duplicate images or ones that I just don't want to keep.

When I upload them to my PC, I almost always process the images for white balance, sharpness, and sometimes contrast so it obviously makes more sense to do that with the RAW than a JPEG file if you can. If I need to immediately view all the unedited images on my PC, rather than convert them all to JPEG, I can view the RAW directly in Irfanview, a freeware graphic viewer that has a very small footprint and takes up very little HD space to install.

I suppose if I needed to transmit a JPEG image immediately, I'd shoot in both RAW and JPEG, but so far I've never had a need to do that, so I'd rather get as many shots as possible on the CF cards I do have (3.5 GB total).

Tom

[kram]

Thanx for the different inputs. I find that my processed RAW always looks better than the jpgs off camera. And with the Drebel, I cannot turn off the jpg but can keep it small.

For those new comers to the DSLR world who have not yet tried RAW, my 20c (2 cents 10 times??) - do it right away and play around in post processing. It is not complicated (I initially thought so) and makes a world of difference.

[schmoelzel]

I have been using PhotoMechanic as of late to browse my shots and when I view a RAW (TIF) file from my 1D, it takes much longer to load than the accompanying Jpeg; hence which is why I shoot RAW + small Jpeg. I still get over 150 shots per 1GB card this way and thats ok by me!! But as Pekka always states.......SHOOT RAW!!!!

[Todd Jacobsen]

The ability to tweak RAW can and does make for lazy photographers. Getting the right exposure the first time, reduces, if not eliminates RAW processing correction.

RAW allows you to correct your mistakes, not PREVENT them.

RAW+JPEG will clearly show how the shooter screwed up. It's not always the "photographers" fault, but 90% of it is. If you got the capture spot on, you'll note little to no difference between the RAW/jpeg.

The benefit of having your own darkroom, is the ability to process your film in non-standard ways - in order to get out of the film what you failed to get at capture. This is the same benefit RAW provides to the digital user.

I personally don't get the capture correct every time. I learn every time I view the jpeg and attempt to PREVENT my need to process RAW. I'll always shoot RAW+jpeg with the HOPE, that someday, I can go by the jpeg and only keep the RAW for archive purposes.

[rgravel]

If I upgrade to the 350 I would probably go back to RAW_small JPEG

Hi EOSAddict,

The XT won't let you choose RAW + jpg small like the 20D can. Its only option is RAW + jpg large.

Not long ago I would have liked to have the ability to choose RAW + jpg small, but now with the ability to view RAW files in explorer, I don't realy need it anymore.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The ability to tweak RAW can and does make for lazy photographers. Getting the right exposure the first time, reduces, if not eliminates RAW processing correction.


I completely disagree with this assessment.

Assuming that ones photos should be perfect straight from the camera with none of our own input in processing is the same as assuming that we should trust all our film to the local fotopatio for development.

The best processing has allways required a dark room,. Digital has not changed this, It has in fact emphasized this by creating a darkroom that is easily accesible to all.

That is all that has changed.. the specialized tools of the darkroom have become commonplace enough for the non pro to be able to afford, bitht eh equipment and the time to do there own processing.

This does not even take into account the quality differences.
Jpeg is fine,. but it will never contain all the color info that my camera's images have in them,. nor all the detail.

Somones been listening to Ken Rockwell too much.

[blue_max]

RAW only. I'm a Mac user and off load the pics to the hard-drive as a file transfer then fire up CS, go through them and trash the bad ones.

I am on a mac and find that when I put my cf card in my reader (makes life much easier), it boots up iPhoto (the latest version works with raw) and imports the pics straight into it. You can then view them (and do quick slide show) and then go through them. It makes for a very swift workflow. You can drag and drop them into Photoshop also.

Graham

[Loaded]

raw only i use a 4gb micro and raw already suck up enough mem

[AjP]

raw only, have 10" laptop with me just in case I run out of memory.

[KennyG]

The ability to tweak RAW can and does make for lazy photographers.

I, and a lot of other photographers that only use RAW will take exception to that remark and I would suggest you rethink your attitude.

The reason I use only RAW has nothing at all to do with correcting mistakes or being lazy. My shots are pretty much 100% for 100% of the time. I use RAW as I have yet to see any in-camera JPG's that I am happy with, simple as that.

[chtgrubbs]

RAW only. I have a software app that lets me see RAW files in Windows Explorer and I use Picasa for downloading and organising.

[eosnob]

Naked RAW :o

[jfrancho]

The ability to tweak RAW can and does make for lazy photographers. Getting the right exposure the first time, reduces, if not eliminates RAW processing correction.

RAW allows you to correct your mistakes, not PREVENT them.

RAW+JPEG will clearly show how the shooter screwed up. It's not always the "photographers" fault, but 90% of it is. If you got the capture spot on, you'll note little to no difference between the RAW/jpeg.

The benefit of having your own darkroom, is the ability to process your film in non-standard ways - in order to get out of the film what you failed to get at capture. This is the same benefit RAW provides to the digital user.

I personally don't get the capture correct every time. I learn every time I view the jpeg and attempt to PREVENT my need to process RAW. I'll always shoot RAW+jpeg with the HOPE, that someday, I can go by the jpeg and only keep the RAW for archive purposes.I really don't think you know what you are talking about. I pay even more attention to the exposure when shooting raw. There is a very small window, much like slide film, that you can capture the full dynamic range. The adjustments made when processing the raw file are to maximize detail and dynamic range. I realize that it takes some time to learn a new technology, but I am not too lazy to learn.

[EOSAddict]

I really don't think you know what you are talking about. I pay even more attention to the exposure when shooting raw. There is a very small window, much like slide film, that you can capture the full dynamic range. The adjustments made when processing the raw file are to maximize detail and dynamic range. I realize that it takes some time to learn a new technology, but I am not too lazy to learn.

Having just come back from a 2 week holiday shooting exclusively RAW for the first time it is definately not the lazy option! RAW workflow makes you think much more about the shot you are taking. Before, when shooting JPEGs, I used to 'fire and forget'. Now, I think much more closely about the shot as I don;t want to spend hours needlessly tweaking sliders in RSE late at night!

I am now trying to process about 500 RAWs from the holiday! If any are any good I might post a couple!

Where RAW scores in my mind as a relative novice on it is the ability to extract levels of detail impossible from JPEG. I took some evening shots of the standing stones at Carnac, Brittany and could only get an angle into the sun. The dynamic range was huge but shooting RAW has enabled me to get a decent image.

[buze]

I shoot raw depending of the hour. In bright daylight I don't see the point; the camera rarely misbehave in my experience, and if I really screw up the exposition, I can see it imediately on the camera histogram and reshoot.
If I get less light, or get inside etc, then I switch to RAW.

[buze]

I shot RAW+Small Jpg. Two reasons for this; firstly I can view them on my Epson P2000 and zoom in to check sharpness etc., and secondly, its easier when I'm using Windows Explorer as I can view the Jpg thumbnails to identify the shots. :)

I had understood that the P2000 could read CR2 files and display them correctly... Was I wrong ? I'm strongly considering getting one (it's so easy to fill up 1GB these days :D)

[EOSAddict]

I had understood that the P2000 could read CR2 files and display them correctly... Was I wrong ? I'm strongly considering getting one (it's so easy to fill up 1GB these days :D)


My understanding is that the P2000 can view the CR2 same as it can a CRW but can't zoom in or display histogram. However, as the CR2 format has a separate JPEG (rather than embedded like CRW) you can view/zoom/histo that file on the P2000 fine.

Her's hoping Epson will take notice of all the feedback and do another firmware update!!

[SkipD]

I always shoot RAW + Large JPG. The JPG's are used for a quick scan, and frequently go to my wife's computer for her to use as-is. The RAW files are kept only for the good shots and then are processed via PS into the real keepers. I have a total of a little over 4GB in card space, so space isn't a problem.

[jfrancho]

I always shoot RAW + Large JPG. The JPG's are used for a quick scan, and frequently go to my wife's computer for her to use as-is. The RAW files are kept only for the good shots and then are processed via PS into the real keepers. I have a total of a little over 4GB in card space, so space isn't a problem.SkipD,
That is an interesting point. I imagine that you pay special attention to the WB, exposure, etc., so that the "As shot" values are as close to perfect as possible. That sounds like a very efficient method.

[SkipD]

SkipD,
That is an interesting point. I imagine that you pay special attention to the WB, exposure, etc., so that the "As shot" values are as close to perfect as possible. That sounds like a very efficient method.You're exactly correct in your assumption. The beauty of RAW, of course, is that if I goofed I still have a way to fix the problem.

[ScottE]

I just noticed this thread and am amazed at the coment about shooting RAW being for lazy shooters.

The lazy people are the ones who shoot jpg and let the camera make all the image processing decisions about light balance, sharpness, saturation, shadow adjustments, highlight adjustments, noise reduction and exposure. Shooting RAW is anything but for lazy people because the photographer has to sit down at a converter and make decisions on all those factors.

It is true that with RAW you can sometimes save a photo that was poorly exposed and would have been a write off with jpg, but for best results proper exoposure is just as important.

People who shoot RAW do so because they want to control decisions that the camera makes for them otherwise. That is a syptom of being very particular about the quality of the finished product so those same people are probably the ones who take the most care about exposure. (There may be a few people who shoot RAW because it is easier to cover up mistakes, but that is a minority.)

Scott

[Simon Spiers]

Raw only because of space and the fact i can make a jpg when i get home.

[Rob612]

RAW + Jpeg here. Jpeg for quick browsing, handing out and other quick stuff. RAW for everything else.

[buze]

Thanks for the feedback in the Epson p2000. I finaly found one in stock for £329 + Free Shipping at http://www.abc-digital-cameras.co.uk and ordered that...
I just might start shooting raw full time now :D

[EOSAddict]

Thanks for the feedback in the Epson p2000. I finaly found one in stock for £329 + Free Shipping at http://www.abc-digital-cameras.co.uk and ordered that...
I just might start shooting raw full time now :D

I got mine from warehouseexpress same price (but paid for delivery Damn!)

[PacAce]

The ability to tweak RAW can and does make for lazy photographers. Getting the right exposure the first time, reduces, if not eliminates RAW processing correction.

That statement is like saying shooting negative film makes for lazy photographers. Getting the right exposure the first time, reduces, if not elimnates negative film processing correction. :rolleyes:

[eos-rob-uk]

Just started shooting RAW only, and found i am doing a bit less post processing,

RoB B

[lancea]

That statement is like saying shooting negative film makes for lazy photographers.
Darn right Leo! Last time I bought a pack for my Polaroid Spectra Pro it cost me $32. You don't want to be a lazy photographer when you take those 10 frames :mrgreen:

Mind you - I wandered out on Friday and in just over an hour filled-up my 1GB card with RAW only ...

[ayotnoms]

not even close....
RAW ! !

Even if I nailed every shot with the correct WB, Aperture, Shutter, etc I can't think of any reason why I would want the onboard camera electronics to throw 4-5MB of image data away. Once that image data is discarded, it cannot be recovered.

And for what? to save CF space? I'm sure it's a concern for many but personally, the cost of an $80 1Gig card is not stand in the way of maximizing the performance from my multi-thousand dollar investment.

...but that's just me :-)