RAW? Or Not??

tzalman wrote in post #12524629
but rather than accepting off-the-peg Walmart jpgs I prefer custom tailoring.

Really? You think you're a better photographer because you 'custom tailor' your images? I would say a better photographer would get the shot right in-camera.

There is no right or wrong..it's just a preference, no need to be condescending..

PixelMagic wrote in post #12524592
What Raw conversion software do you have available?

What type of photography you do most frequently?

I have 5 kids and I am just started learning this stuff. It is a hobby of mine. As far as programs, all I have is Photoshop Elements 9. It has ACR. Do you recommend something else?

Not really, I was just curious although with Photoshop Elements isn't really suited to editing Raw files in batches.

Since every Raw file also has a JPEG embedded you can shoot Raw and if satisfied simply extract the JPEG. If not, you can edit the actual Raw data to get what you want out of the file.

What camera are you using? Some older cameras don't embed a high resolution JPEG in the Raw file but I'd venture to say all newer cameras do.

ErnaR wrote in post #12524651
I have 5 kids and I am just started learning this stuff. It is a hobby of mine. As far as programs, all I have is Photoshop Elements 9. It has ACR. Do you recommend something else?

Geez, how hard is it to batch your RAW images in to jpegs after you download from your camera.

PixelMagic wrote in post #12524680
Not really, I was just curious although with Photoshop Elements isn't really suited to editing Raw files in batches.

Since every Raw file also has a JPEG embedded you can shoot Raw and if satisfied simply extract the JPEG. If not, you can edit the actual Raw data to get what you want out of the file.

What camera are you using? Some older cameras don't embed a high resolution JPEG in the Raw file but I'd venture to say all newer cameras do.

I have a Canon Rebel T1i. It is by far the best camera I have ever owned...

windpig wrote in post #12524699
Geez, how hard is it to batch your RAW images in to jpegs after you download from your camera.

it's not hard at all...again..it's time consuming...

there are tons of resources that are much more reliable than an internet forum..

here's a start: http://www.macworld.co​m …10/05/whentosho​otraw.html

http://www.wired.com …b/2008/05/why-you-should/

Here is a good write up from a pro that does shoot raw: http://www.digital-photography-school.com/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach

This is required uniform for those times when you do shoot raw: LINK

The T1i is an extremely capable camera. One approach would be to shoot Raw and use the free Digital Photo Professional software that shipped with your camera to process your files. For those files that you think don't need any processing you can use the same software to generate JPEG files.

There are also free utilities that will extract the embedded JPEG from the Raw file. My personal opinion is that its always preferable to shot Raw but your mileage may vary.

PixelMagic wrote in post #12524745
The T1i is an extremely capable camera. One approach would be to shoot Raw and use the free Digital Photo Professional software that shipped with your camera to process your files. For those files that you think don't need any processing you can use the same software to generate JPEG files.

There are also free utilities that will extract the embedded JPEG from the Raw file. My personal opinion is that its always preferable to shot Raw but your mileage may vary.

Do you know if the embedded jpeg is a large enough file? I think the Rebel series will allow you to shoot raw + jpeg. You might try that so if you find an image that needs heavy processing you'll have the raw file to fall back on.

ShotByTom wrote in post #12524649
Really? You think you're a better photographer because you 'custom tailor' your images? I would say a better photographer would get the shot right in-camera.

There is no right or wrong..it's just a preference, no need to be condescending..

I'm sorry you didn't understand. I wasn't referring to correcting mistakes. I truly believe that I can do a better conversion in LR than the camera's firmware can do of even the most perfectly exposed image. And I am not preaching or saying that my credo fits everyone. I am retired today and freed from the pressure of business calculations. I have the leisure to pursue "fine art" and maximum quality. I would not be surprised to hear that most other people have different considerations, after all Walmart sells many more shirts than Savile Row tailors. Nevertheless, I still maintain that if maximum quality and self-expression are the goal, a RAW file is the essential starting point.

ShotByTom wrote in post #12524770
Do you know if the embedded jpeg is a large enough file?

The embedded jpeg's are typically pretty small.

For the record I shoot RAW as well.

tzalman wrote in post #12524773
I'm sorry you didn't understand. I wasn't referring to correcting mistakes. I truly believe that I can do a better conversion in LR than the camera's firmware can do of even the most perfectly exposed image. And I am not preaching or saying that my credo fits everyone. I am retired today and freed from the pressure of business calculations. I have the leisure to pursue "fine art" and maximum quality. I would not be surprised to hear that most other people have different considerations, after all Walmart sells many more shirts than Savile Row tailors. Nevertheless, I still maintain that if maximum quality and self-expression are the goal, a RAW file is the essential starting point.

I linked to a article in macworld that talks a bit about when to shoot raw. the last time I shot raw was for a portrait that the customer wanted in 16x20. I know jpeg would have been fine, but I was a bit paranoid so I shot raw + jpeg. I still use it sometimes, but not when I have a ton of images to process.

Some day I'll get a new pc with an i7 and 24 gigs of ram, maybe I'll go back to raw then, but I hate waiting all day to download and prep images for processing!

You can judge for yourself; go to Imaging-Resource and download a Raw file shot by a T1i camera: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/T1I​/T1ITHMB.HTM

A free resource can extract the JPEG embedded in the file: Instant JPEG from Raw
You can then use DPP to convert the Raw file To JPEG using the default settings and compare the two results.

I can't think of a reason why I'd want to shoot Raw + JPEG when the two approaches outlined above are available to me.

ShotByTom wrote in post #12524770
Do you know if the embedded jpeg is a large enough file? I think the Rebel series will allow you to shoot raw + jpeg. You might try that so if you find an image that needs heavy processing you'll have the raw file to fall back on.

I avoid getting into Raw vs jpeg arguments when it comes to people deciding a personal workflow for general photography because it does depend on various things. The type of photography you do and your needs and preferences will factor in there and nobody can tell you what's right and what's wrong. I've seen/heard good reasons for people who shoot jpegs some/much/most/all of the time, and others who typically shoot Raw+jpeg to get the most out of both formats.

The biggest reasons for shooting jpeg are some combination of speed, convenience and space saving. If a person has the skills to "get the shot right" in the given conditions they are shooting in, these could certainly be very good considerations.

But, the fact is that there are fundamental advantages to the Raw format that won't just go away because of these considerations. True that you can be very happy with your jpegs and that you can even do a degree of post processing to your jpegs and you can go crazy with "artistic effects" with jpegs and so to you the advantages of Raw may not matter.

But, over and over again people come on the forum looking for ways to improve their photos -- not necessarily "fixing user error" (that's really a diversion) but ways to enhance a photo in various ways, and one of the most common questions is "did you shoot this in Raw?". This is because so often we may want to look at, say, highlights and/or shadows, or fine tune the colors or whatever and the fact is that you have significantly more latitude to do that with a Raw file. Fact. True, you can do some with a jpeg. True, you can make a bit of an adjustment to the White Balance with a jpeg -- just don't do too much or things can get ugly!

I went totally Raw some time ago because, for the type of photography I've done over the years, it made sense that I would want the full range of processing capabilities possible. Sure, I used to shoot point & shoot cameras and compact digicams and have had plenty of jpegs I've been quite happy with, but I also occasionally would want to work over an image and found the limitations frustrating. Also, I'm not a studio photographer or typically one who shoots with controlled indoor lighting where I can just set up and shoot -- I'm usually outdoors dealing with a variety of conditions, a lot of bright daylight highlights and darker shadows and such, and these are conditions where Raw files/processing will outshine a jpeg, well, any day!

Can you tell which one was captured in Raw or JPEG?

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

smooth3000 wrote in post #12527217
Can you tell which one was captured in Raw or JPEG?

No. It's perfectly possible to edit a jpg or to blow a Raw.
Since this is a 'trick question', my guess woud be #2 is Raw.

What's your point?