Do you really need to shoot RAW when using LR3?

Hi,

The title pretty much asks the question, but if so why?

I'll stick a poll in to get the current feel?

The reason I ask is I just that I use JPeg for speed and LR3 seems to be able to do so much I wonder why I should bother with RAW and the reduced speed and ease of use.

I almost never use anything else for processing if that makes a difference.

Cheers.

I voted yes.

I guess I don't NEED to shoot RAW, but it gives that much more leverage in processing an image.

I accidentally left my camera at jpeg only recently on an outing... not so bad in general, but I think I also had exposure compensation turned on @ +1... so I had a lot of blown out skies. In RAW, I could have recovered most of it using highlight recovery, etc... but with the .jpg's there was no information there. But in general I shoot RAW to not only fix my mistakes... but just for the leeway to push or pull something further than I might otherwise. I don't feel any reduced speed (my main machine is a 2.0ghz core 2 duo... and everything is pretty snappy.)

As far as ease of use, I have it apply the Adobe Standard RAW by default with bumps up in clarity and vibrance automatic on import; but may play with camera default or camera landscape sometimes to see if any improvement comes from that. As for sharing, I'd have to export any edit to .jpg anyway... exporting RAW edits to .jpg work just the same... I just delete the exported .jpgs when I'm done with them, as the edits are in LR's database.

All that said, if you are happy with shooting .jpg, like your results, etc... keep doing what works!

Thanks, I actually meant shooting speed (I quite often do birds in flight), however the point about exposure compensation sounds interesting and detail lost forever in jpg.

Really, the poll is, well, to put it kindly, meaningless. As you have noted, you can shoot jpegs and get decent results processing them in Lightroom and so the obvious answer as to whether you need to shoot Raw with LIghtroom is "No". You answered your own question.

Now, back in the early days of LR1, it would only handle Raw files, so then the answer was "Yes".

The Canon software Digital Photo Professional has tools that can only be used with Raw files. So, if your question was "Do you need to shoot Raw to use all the capabilities of DPP?" the answer would be "Yes".

The broader question should be: "Do you need to shoot Raw to be able to keep and bring out all the qualities of a photo, whether in DPP. Lightroom, or other Raw processors?" -- to that the answer is definitely "Yes".

But, if you ask "Do you need to shoot Raw to get a nice/good image?" well there the answer would be "It depends". Some images can be great right out of the camera. But if they need processing, you are best with a Raw file, but you can get away with some processing in a Raw processor such as Lightroom. And then if you use an app like Photoshop, well, there are a lot of things Photoshop can do and it doesn't give a whit as to whether an image started as a jpeg or a Raw file.

But, Lightroom and other Raw processors were designed to work with image elements that the Raw format can optically work with but if you want to use them on jpegs, do what you can. But, there are limitations caused by jpeg compression, both in "shrinking" the bit depth to 8 bits and by discarding unused image data to give a jpeg with a smaller file size, and the plain fact is that this is a "lossy" process that puts limits on how much you can process them whereas the Raw file keeps all data collected by the sensor and so has more latitude in how much you can do with a Raw processor without having to deal with things like clipped highlights, clipped colors, and blocked shadows. And, Raw doesn't have the conversion which can result in artifacts that you can see and that can be pretty ugly if you try to shift tones in jpegs beyond their 8 bit and compressed limits.

Thanks Tony, thats very informative, and yes you;re right I didn't put my question very well but hopefully the intent came through my poor choice of words.

I notice from your shots (I'm guessing there are more somewhere as they seem to stop around 2008) that you did some BiF and sports shots which I imagine take the same sort of discipline, so I ask did you find that shooting RAW meant you missed some good shots just because the FPS were reduced?

John_N wrote in post #13127824
Thanks Tony, thats very informative, and yes you;re right I didn't put my question very well but hopefully the intent came through my poor choice of words.

Heh! Well, actually I don't think there is any one "right" answer for your poll, which I did try to illustrate! Unless the answer is the one where I just said "No" you don't "need" to shoot Raw to use Lightroom. But for me I greatly prefer to shoot Raw!

Heh! In 2008 I did some shifting of some things and so some stuff sort of died off whereas other stuff became more active. After '08 less landscapes shooting and less trips to other out-there areas, including a stop to my kiteboarding photography and to some wildlife preserves, but more street photography, for example.

Finances has been a big limitation for me since '08 and more recently I've been "transportation-challenged", but that's just my little story.

If your interested in more recent stuff, you can use the PBase Recent function or in my main page there is a Recent Interest gallery. The Miscellaneous Walkabouts gallery is also fun to update!

And, nice to know you looked!

As far as camera performance and Raw, well here's my story:

For a number of years, '02-'06, I did all my "serious" shooting with "advanced" compact digicams, jpeg only. I used them because they gave you access to modes such as Av, Tv, M, ISO and I really was into learning as much photography as I could!

Of course, they had some serious shortfalls -- shutter lag and bad high ISO noise were obvious and I ran up against the limits of trying to process jpegs plenty of times.

I had also been doing my "homework" -- research that followed the rise of DSLRs and the advent of the Raw format. I became convinced that this was where I was headed. I put it off until '06, but at the same time I was putting up with the limitations of the compacts and the jpegs.

Well, in '06 I made the leap and bought the 30D and some lenses that would give me a wide range of focal lengths -- wider for things such as landscapes/scenic shooting, longer for my fledgling attempts at birding and wildlife, and all through the middle, with a good macro lens to boot...

Now the 30D is an 8MP camera, so the Raw files are not as huge as those of today. The 30D has a max fps of, I believe, 5fps in High Speed Continuous Mode. With shooting Raw that does slow down a bit, maybe to 3-4 fps, so slow by today's standards...and, with Raw the buffer fills up faster which slows down the operation while the buffer empties after a number of shots...

But, coming from the shutter lag of the compacts (not to mention the P&S cameras I used occasionally) well, I was quite happy with the 30D! I didn't push it for things like the "ultimate" BIF shots, I just used it to its abilities.

In fact, the one thing about the 30D that got to bugging me was the fact that with the higher ISOs I frequently had to shoot at and with the close crops that were so often needed with things like birding and wildlife, the images showed (gasp) more noise than I wanted!

Well, I put up with that for a while because I wanted to build up my collection of lenses for the things I aspired to shoot -- good glass for the birding/wildlife stuff and then for events like sports, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS which I knew would (and does) deliver premium AF, and enough on the wider end to meet all needs landscap/scenic-wise (and I had the great 100mm f/2.8 macro). But during this span of time I also had my eye on the 5D, which started out looking like a "niche" camera for fine arts, landscapes, portraits, weddings, etc, and which boasted a nice high ISO performance. These things got my attention, because of the fact that I was involved in a variety of shooting where the resolution and the high ISO performance would really be great -- so I got one in '07 and have loved it ever since!

But, of course the 5D being full frame, was slower than the 30D. It's not a prime choice for things like birding, although any time I set out to use it for things like that it has held up well (with a good lens) in AI Servo (it has excellent Center Point AF) and had continued to deliver beautiful images, it's just slower!

Well, happy as a clam with two nice bodies, the fact remained that birding was occupying more and more of my life, and in '07 I kept a close eye on the new high-performance 1D Mk III -- a camera which set new standards for the DSLR world, not just the blazing fps but with great high ISO/low noise performance, a AF system that was sophisticated and designed for being able to customize your AI Servo operation, and all in a body that could resist the elements that one so often encounters outdoors (especially in this region). All of these things "spoke" to me -- for the type of shooting I did it seemed like the "dream" body!

In its early days, though, the 1D3 showed some notable AF problems with AI Servo, and so I just watched as initially people complained, tried to work through things with Canon, and then Canon finally came to grips with things and did a recall, and put in all a couple "fixes" in place, one hardware fix and a firmware fix.

When the recall was over and new units began shipping, then I was ready and took the leap! It was some time later in '07, but I really don't remember the date. What I do remember is having a body that gave me new freedom and potential! And I was off and running, still chasing birds but again going in numerous directions. In fact, I still used (and use) the 5DC as a favorite walk-around body, together with its "kit" lens the 24-105 f/4L, because together they make a nice "light/compact" combo compared to the !D3!

But then the 1D3 naturally became my camera of choice for "demanding" shoots, not just for birds an wildlife, but of course for sports and for a lot of event shooting as well, although I can do event as well as street shooting with my 5D as well -- things like that are, well, a toss-up! In fact, another area that can be a toss-up is Macro photography. The 30D is actually a body I still use for this, because of the three it has more "pixels on-target". So, in good light the 30D still delivers with macro shooting! But, in lower light, well the 1D3 has the high ISO advantage over the 30D which can mean a lot, and sometimes the AF capabilities can play a significant part (with 19 cross-type selectable AF points) and also, Live View has occasionally been quite useful for assisting with manual focusing.

But back to your question about performance with Raw files -- well, I guess I don't need to emphacise that with the 1D3 that just isn't a real concern. I actually have dialed down my "normal" high speed continuous speed to 6 fps! And, the 1D3 delivers much faster (with Raw files), I just rarely need it! In fact, once I was shooting a sports event and I decided to use the 1D3s two-card feature to shoot in Raw+jpeg, putting the Raws on the CF card and the jpegs on an SD card for backup (which I never needed and which I no longer resort to) and if there was some slowdown from that it really wasn't bothersome. This sport (kiteboarding) is something that requires responsive, quick AI Servo AF, and then, when the little "burst" of action happens, you have to be able to fire off a quick sequence of shots, and the 1D3 delivers at all levels, expecially using a lens like the 70-200,

So, with the 1D3 Raw is not a problem! But, I should say that when I do grab another body, I'm not unhappy with the results! In fact, when I've used the 5D for BIF or other "demanding" things, I can get nice results even though the 5DC has a max frame rate of 3 fps. In fact, shooting Raw I don't see much of a slowdown in fps (although the buffer fills relatively quick compared to, say, the 1D3).

So, really, I was committed to shooting Raw, but that also led me to making choices to get the gear I needed for the job.

And then, my gear acquisition came to an end sometime in '08, and then by the end of '08, well, as you've noted, I've become much less active in some of these things. In fact, I haven't spent much time at all where bird chasing pays off. But, that also means that I'm more active with my 5D and occasionally my 30D!

You don't NEED to, but it's quite beneficial unless to do little to no pp on your photo's. When I first got LR3 I shot in jpeg and edited jpged. Worked well at the time. Since I switched to RAW I can totally see the difference in the flexibility and ease of processing a photo. WB is a quick example. Pushing exposure seems more forgiving RAW. Besides taking up way more space I'm definitely glad I made the switch. You can always do a batch edit and save on standard pp to make it look like a jpeg SOOC.

At the end you like I said you don't need to, but it's definitely beneficial besides taking more time and space, which for some may not be worth it.

Again, thank you, especially to Tony - what an epic tale, as soon as I saw the size of that post I went of to get some toast and settled comfortably

Very interesting what you say about the different cameras too.

Today I'm resolved to give RAW a proper go and just now tried a burst comparing RAW to JPEG and to my ear it didn;t sound much different although I got bored of holding the shutter down on JPEG before it gave up where as with RAW it hit buffer after a few seconds.

One thing I did just this second notice (after taking another quick batch), the FPS is dramatically reduced if it is dark, any idea why that might be? Not that its a problem just something I observed.

Another bonus to shooting RAW I just found is that the 60D has internal RAW processing, sort of like having DPP in camera, not as sophisticated but it does chromatic aberation and barrel distortion correct as well as the usual stuff which came as a surprise then saves it off as a separate JPEG.

One might only spend some time visiting this thread to really understand why one "Needs" to shoot in RAW format, https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=684360
If you're gonna spend the time to learn to take a properly exposed photograph, as you exhibit on your sites, why not take a little longer and learn how to process that photograph...kinda of a "be all that they can be" sorta thing.

The use of raw vs jpeg is seperate from which set of post processing tools you use. Using jpeg format is simply throwing away data....8bit vs 12bit or 14bit. Why spend hundreds/thousands on photography equipment only to start off with an 8 bit compressed file? That is shooting yourself in the foot.

Always shoot raw. If you think that for some reason you MUST have a jpeg from the camera, turn on raw + jpeg. Send the jpegs as email attachments if needed. But bring the CR2 raw files into LR3 or other tools where you can make the most of the image. Then you can export the completed image as a TIFF, PDS, or jpeg as needed.

chauncey wrote in post #13132306
One might only spend some time visiting this thread to really understand why one "Needs" to shoot in RAW format, https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=684360
If you're gonna spend the time to learn to take a properly exposed photograph, as you exhibit on your sites, why not take a little longer and learn how to process that photograph...kinda of a "be all that they can be" sorta thing.

thanks... there goes the rest of my day

Seriously though wonderful and inspiring thread from just the few pages I've seen.

I think you guys just made a convert!

It depends on what you need from post processing. If all you want is asset management then jpeg is fine. If you want more than what you get straight out of the camera, you should strongly consider raw.

You don't NEED it but lots of people find it preferable to use RAW due to the flexibility it offers. Some people, including top-of-their-field professionals feel that just shooting jpgs is fine though.

MCAsan wrote in post #13132429
Using jpeg format is simply throwing away data....8bit vs 12bit or 14bit. Why spend hundreds/thousands on photography equipment only to start off with an 8 bit compressed file?

I hate to burst everyone's "bits or larger color space" bubble......but what was that format that 95% end up with?

Oops.......LOL