LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


Should I shoot in RAW?

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras
Thread started 02 Jun 2009 (Tuesday) 11:32   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
CyberDyneSystems's Avatar
Joined Apr 2003
40,778 posts
Providence RI
[MORE/SHARE]

picturecrazy wrote in post #8036195external link
more like a few HUNDRED clicks for a few files.

If you are saying it's as easy as applying a preset to the batch and then exporting the lot... then you might as well be shooting jpeg and save even more time. ...

...this assumes that he does not want to best quality image file, or the most re workable image file, or that he is happy to settle for a jpeg at all.


Both file types have there advantages, but the fact is that RAW offers the superior image quality, this can not be disputed.

We can break down the benefits of RAW Vs. Jpeg in two categories to simplify.

1. Simple brute force Image quality.

2. Flexibility and workability.

Most people get hung up on the latter, and seem forget that it's not the only reason to chose RAW. We see accusations of using it as a crutch. etc..

These thoughts do not take into account the simple concept that many simply want the best available to them.

Even if I did no RAW specific processing tricks, I'd still want the best overall image quality. I'd still shoot RAW.

Post #46, Jun 02, 2009 14:42:27


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
My POTN Share Threads
Jake Hegnauer Photographyexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
lucas107
Member
Joined Dec 2008
82 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #8036681external link
...this assumes that he does not want to best quality image file, or the most re workable image file, or that he is happy to settle for a jpeg at all.


Both file types have there advantages, but the fact is that RAW offers the superior image quality, this can not be disputed.

We can break down the benefits of RAW Vs. Jpeg in two categories to simplify.

1. Simple brute force Image quality.

2. Flexibility and workability.

Most people get hung up on the latter, and seem forget that it's not the only reason to chose RAW. We see accusations of using it as a crutch. etc..

These thoughts do not take into account the simple concept that many simply want the best available to them.

Even if I did no RAW specific processing tricks, I'd still want the best overall image quality. I'd still shoot RAW.

how big does the picture have to be printed/viewed to really notice a difference at any distance you would actually view a photo. who goes to see someones pictures puts their face to the photo and says hey if you shot raw this could be 1.5% sharper. dont most people view it as a whole? im not a photographer by any meaning of the word but i do enjoy photos and id never say or think something could be better if it was just a smidge sharper because im never that close. ive seen some very large prints from 35mm which up close did not look the greatest but at a normal viewing distance were amazing. if you cared that much about quality why not use a 4X5 or bigger? its cheaper to buy

Post #47, Jun 02, 2009 14:48:21


20d, 50 1.8, 70-210 3.5-4.5

LOG IN TO REPLY
lostid
Goldmember
Joined Oct 2008
2,621 posts
22° 08' 22" N / 127° 51' 29" W
[MORE/SHARE]

Absolutely unless you shoot for items listed on eBay or Craiglist.

Post #48, Jun 02, 2009 14:48:26


flickrexternal link & Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
cfibanez
Senior Member
cfibanez's Avatar
Joined Aug 2008
843 posts
Stockholm, Sweden
[MORE/SHARE]

lucas107 wrote in post #8036680external link
... but if your just shooting a bird for fun then shoot jpeg and figure out how to use your camera properly.

Ooops... take it easy my friend. This is a friendly forum. We share our experiences, we learn from each other, and put our prestige aside.

Post #49, Jun 02, 2009 14:57:12


5D3 | 7D2 | 16-35 L II | 24/1.4 L II | 24-105 L IS | 40/2.8 STM | 85/1.2 L II | 100/2.8 L macro IS | 70-200/2.8 L IS II | 100-400 L IS | 580EXII | Kenko 1.4X TC | Gitzo monopod GM2541 | Gitzo tripod GT2541 | Really Right Stuff ball head & plates | B+W & Singh-Ray filters

LOG IN TO REPLY
lucas107
Member
Joined Dec 2008
82 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

cfibanez wrote in post #8036778external link
Ooops... take it easy my friend. This is a friendly forum. We share our experiences, we learn from each other, and put our prestige aside.

how is that not taking it easy? even if your are shooting raw you it still helps to have your camera set up properly. i bet there isnt one person on this forum who atleast does not strive for proper exposure on each shot hence the learn to use your camera. i wasnt saying they dont know how to use the camera i was just saying to everyone in the world who uses a camera...learn to use it makes things easier.
edit
also sorry if it seems angry or anything but i just find people ask this jpeg raw thing all the time and everyone is always if you want your pictures to look good shoot raw then someone always says i shoot jpeg when im listing something on ebay. i just find a cockyness to half the people who comment on this. its the same as the manual vs av tv settings. the people who shoot manual (not all of them but some) seem to think they are better and that its the best way to do it when what can you do that i cant in av with my exposure compensation of +- 2 stops? again not you but some people.
OP if you shoot jpeg do you find yourself doing much pp?
if not keep jpeg
if so shoot raw
might as well

Post #50, Jun 02, 2009 14:59:59


20d, 50 1.8, 70-210 3.5-4.5

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
ed rader's Avatar
Joined May 2005
22,036 posts
silicon valley
[MORE/SHARE]

lostid wrote in post #8036720external link
Absolutely unless you shoot for items listed on eBay or Craiglist.

for quick and dirty pics i open my raw files in irfanview, resize, sharpen and save as jpeg, which takes no more time than shooting a jpeg :D.

ed rader

Post #51, Jun 02, 2009 15:04:30


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/external link
http://erader.zenfolio​.com/external link
5D3, SL1, 16-35L f4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-300L, 100-400L, 35f2 IS, 24mm f2.8 ef-s, 15mm FE (sigma), 270ex II, gitzo, markins, benro

LOG IN TO REPLY
charliec
Senior Member
charliec's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
524 posts
Atlanta, GA
[MORE/SHARE]

lucas107 wrote in post #8036719external link
how big does the picture have to be printed/viewed to really notice a difference at any distance you would actually view a photo. who goes to see someones pictures puts their face to the photo and says hey if you shot raw this could be 1.5% sharper. dont most people view it as a whole? im not a photographer by any meaning of the word but i do enjoy photos and id never say or think something could be better if it was just a smidge sharper because im never that close. ive seen some very large prints from 35mm which up close did not look the greatest but at a normal viewing distance were amazing. if you cared that much about quality why not use a 4X5 or bigger? its cheaper to buy

If it's no more work, why not get the extra 1.5%?

Besides, I like being able to open, edit, and save a file repeatedly without the loss of any information. You can't do that with a JPG.

Post #52, Jun 02, 2009 15:10:02


LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
ed rader's Avatar
Joined May 2005
22,036 posts
silicon valley
[MORE/SHARE]

charliec wrote in post #8036874external link
If it's no more work, why not get the extra 1.5%?

Besides, I like being able to open, edit, and save a file repeatedly without the loss of any information. You can't do that with a JPG.

sure you can. just rename the file and "save as".

ed rader

Post #53, Jun 02, 2009 15:12:34


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/external link
http://erader.zenfolio​.com/external link
5D3, SL1, 16-35L f4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-300L, 100-400L, 35f2 IS, 24mm f2.8 ef-s, 15mm FE (sigma), 270ex II, gitzo, markins, benro

LOG IN TO REPLY
lostid
Goldmember
Joined Oct 2008
2,621 posts
22° 08' 22" N / 127° 51' 29" W
[MORE/SHARE]

ed rader wrote in post #8036835external link
for quick and dirty pics i open my raw files in irfanview, resize, sharpen and save as jpeg, which takes no more time than shooting a jpeg :D.

ed rader

Thanks for the info. I got to try the irfanview.

Post #54, Jun 02, 2009 15:16:25


flickrexternal link & Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
charliec
Senior Member
charliec's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
524 posts
Atlanta, GA
[MORE/SHARE]

ed rader wrote in post #8036888external link
sure you can. just rename the file and "save as".

ed rader

Ha ha, I know I can do that, but I meant saving over single files. I don't have to save edits of images. I can save the edited RAW file, and if I want the original file back, all of the information is still there.

Post #55, Jun 02, 2009 15:18:31


LOG IN TO REPLY
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
picturecrazy's Avatar
Joined Jan 2006
8,504 posts
Alberta, CANADA
[MORE/SHARE]

cfibanez wrote in post #8036361external link
Flip it into RAW? Picturecrazy, I'm sorry, but after such statement, I don't think you understand what RAW is about.

Congratulations!!!

This is the best statement of the entire thread. :p

I know exactly what RAW is about. That's why I know exactly when it's not needed for what I'm trying to achieve. Everyone has differing opinions of what they need, but it's pretty rampant on this board for people to say that RAW SHOULD BE THE ONLY WAY TO SHOOT. Because really... that is not quite the case.

Post #56, Jun 02, 2009 15:42:17


-Lloyd
BOUDOIR WEBSITE: The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photographyexternal link
Lifestyle Website: Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographersexternal link
Facebookexternal link | Twitterexternal link | Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
thatkatmat
Cream of the Crop
thatkatmat's Avatar
Joined Jul 2007
9,171 posts
Seattle, don't move here, it's wet and cold
[MORE/SHARE]

picturecrazy wrote in post #8037081external link
Everyone has differing opinions of what they need, .

True, everyone has their own workflow, different strokes for different folks.
Furthermore,
saying picturecrazy doesn't understand what he's talking about?....Take a look at the links in his sig....Some very nice work...
Cheers

Post #57, Jun 02, 2009 15:49:05


My Flickrexternal link
Stuff
"Never rat on your friends and always keep your mouth shut." -Jimmy Conway

LOG IN TO REPLY
CosmoKid
Goldmember
CosmoKid's Avatar
Joined May 2009
4,233 posts
NJ
[MORE/SHARE]

Specific Question:
I am shooting a concert tonight, indoors, and shooting RAW. I will be using exposure compensation +- 1/3.

Do I even need to use exposure compensation since it sounds like I can post-process to fix these small mistakes?

Post #58, Jun 02, 2009 16:04:45


Joe- 2 bodies, L 2.8 zoom trilogy and a couple of primes
iRocktheShot.comexternal link - Portfolioexternal link

Gear/Feedback
Facebook "Fan" Pageexternal link -

LOG IN TO REPLY
5x5 ­ photography
Goldmember
5x5 photography's Avatar
Joined Feb 2009
1,155 posts
North Carolina
[MORE/SHARE]

AudibleSilence wrote in post #8036128external link
My cameras never leave RAW. What would ever be the need to do so??? CF/SD cards are dirt cheap and converting raw to jpeg is as simple as a few clicks in post.

If you are shooting a lot of high volume fast FPS the RAW images drive down the FPS and fill up the buffer much faster.
When I need to shoot a lot of actions shots and speed counts I never shoot RAW.
I forgot to take my 40D off RAW and Ljpeg when I saw a Great Blue Heron standing on a rock dam. I snapped a few shots and when he took off I held the shutter button down. The buffer filled up fast and I missed a few great shots.
After PP the RAW vs jpeg there was not a great deal of difference. The IQ of the RAW images were better but not by enough for me to feel good about missing the action shots.
When the picture really matters I will switch to RAW but I agree that with proper technique and a little PP jpeg images can be great especially when you don't print over 8X10.

Post #59, Jun 02, 2009 16:21:40


My firearms review site. http://rangehot.com/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
ed rader's Avatar
Joined May 2005
22,036 posts
silicon valley
[MORE/SHARE]

charliec wrote in post #8036925external link
Ha ha, I know I can do that, but I meant saving over single files. I don't have to save edits of images. I can save the edited RAW file, and if I want the original file back, all of the information is still there.

then use lightroom, which is "non-destructive".

the only reason i'm bringing this up is that some people think exactly what you said the first time, which is not true :D.

ed rader

Post #60, Jun 02, 2009 16:33:01


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/external link
http://erader.zenfolio​.com/external link
5D3, SL1, 16-35L f4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-300L, 100-400L, 35f2 IS, 24mm f2.8 ef-s, 15mm FE (sigma), 270ex II, gitzo, markins, benro

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
4,826 views & 0 likes for this thread
Should I shoot in RAW?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00123 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.01s
1111 guests, 849 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is sbeecher

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.