More on RAW / Poll

I hope no one minds ~

a) yet another post on Raw;
b) link to another forum, and
c) a POLL

This is probably a trifecta of bad manners but what the heck.

The below discussion caught my eye because its interesting, and provides another perspective on why or why not shoot raw. Personally, I do both, depending on the situation, but mostly Jpegs. I have PS CS which I found to be a bit noisy in raw conversion, but it does make it a lot easier to integrate Raw into the workflow. Before I had CS, I shot only Jpegs.

http://www.robgalbrait​h.com …ed&sb=5&o=&fpar​t=all&vc=1

That's a great thread and I have a lot of respect for Noel. And in most cases I agree with him. I'll never forget what a longtime ChampCar shooter told me last year when I asked him if the guys shot RAW. He said, "If you have to shoot RAW, then you don't belong out here." Basically what he's saying is that of you can't get the shot right out the camera the first time, then you're not much of a photographer.

I shoot all my sports in JPEG for the speed and convenience. Both shooting and post-processing. However, when out shooting landscapes, portraits, etc., I shoot RAW just so I do have those after-shot options of recovery if the shot is blown. Rarely is the shot blown.

I think that as we shoot more and more RAW, we'll become lazy photographers and rely more on the post-processing in front of our PC's fixing photos rather shooting the scene right to begin with.

But, maybe that's okay too. I remember the first time I was in a darkroom. My thoughts were, "Wow! This is the other half of photography." There is so much you can do in a darkroom! Same applies to digital too.

I think by being raised on film I will always go for the proper shot out in the field instead of thinking of how I can correct/re-compose a photo later at the PC.

Anyway, in my opinion the two modes of shooting: RAW and JPEG both have their places and there is NO right or wrong method. And don't let anyone ever tell you so. If you hold a RAW or JPEG print side by side you will absolutely not be able to discern the difference. However, when enlarging to super-size prints, I think shooting RAW will shot its advantage as there's just more information there to use when enlarging ro 20x24 and above.

You mean Jpeg for sports, right Jim?

Ilya

Yup. Fixed. Thanks.

I shoot JPG for several reasons.

- Speed - The files save faster and fill the buffer slower. I can shoot a burst of 9 shots and in 5 seconds another burst of 9 shots the in 5 seconds a third burst of 9. RAW is definately slower.

- Storage - The JPGs are smaller, I can fit more on my memory cards, transfer more files per minute to my X's Drive. I can store more pics on my HDD and write more pics per DVD-R disk.

- Convenience - JPGs are less work to use.

I seldom discard pics due to white balance or exposure issues, so RAW wouldn't offer me much in this respect.

My discards are usually due to the camera focusing on the wrong place or motion blur or subject moving behind something or deciding that the composition sucked (yes most mistakes are made by me, not my 10D).

As for using RAW to get the best possible picture in technical term? That is not my aim. I am trying to improve my skills as a photographer, I don't think that being pedantic over minor technical details would do anything to improve my photography. Often I don't even sharpen my pics, it isn't necessary for prints and it isn't needed if I reduce the image to a third by a third for web publishing.

I don't want those that view my pics to enlarge them on their screens to check for critical sharpness, anyone that does that has missed the idea completely.

The proper way to view a picture on screen is to see the whole picture at once, don't zoom in so you have to scroll. If the image looks fine when sized to fit your screen, then it IS fine.

Bravo, Mark! Well said!!

My 10d now has the "RAW Switch" soldered in the "ON" position!


I had shot a lot in jpeg before making the switch,. and well,. the difference is huge. Having 100% of my camera's color data in the file is a real treat and I find the results very noticeable.

I just don't see a reason to sacrfifice any of it's benifits. The only time I would, would be when speed is an issue. (the 10D does take roughly HALF the amount of time to flush a full buffer of jpegs as compared to RAW files,.)

unfortunately, my S-400 doesn't have a RAW switch, so for now, I never use it. That will soon change, I hope!!

Then again, maybe it will prove unnecessary (based on Mark's great post).

I mostly shoot in jpeg but then again I am not a professional. However, I shoot in raw in instances where there is no room for error.

Mark, congrats your statement was very well made. I agree JPEGS are great for high action shooting (sports) it sucks to convert & edit a 1gig card of a track meet or basketball game in RAW, I did my last one today and no more. I even did a birthday party in RAW and it just takes too much time to edit and convert.
As for portraits & landscapes I do enjoy shooting RAW for the colors and details but thats more of shooting 30- 60 shots. Great feature but it does not work for all applications. I wished Canon saved to TIFFS instead of JPEGS.

I do appreciate the buffer speed benefits of JPG for the pro shooters like Jim but I shoot RAW 100% of the time.

I was going to make a comparison between recordings in EP vs. SP on VCR tape but that wouldn't be accurate. As Jim points out, NO ONE can tell the difference between an image shot at the highest quality JPG or RAW. The real benefit comes in post processing. If you're going to tweak your images, and for me that's half the fun of it, then you need to shoot RAW for a multitude of reasons too numerous to waste time on now since it's been debated here and is available in the archives.

I shoot primarily in RAW, although I suspect that in certain situation such as Jim encounters at a race course, JPEG really is a more sensible approach. Unfortunately, I am not one of those individuals whose skill with a camera all but assures a keeper every time I push the button. I’ve found that a lot of otherwise marginal pictures (where my skills were clearly not equal to the task at hand) can be resurrected by adjusting basic settings of an uncorrected RAW image. This is much harder to do to any meaningful degree with JPEG.

To a certain extent, this gets into the discussion of photography as art. A RAW image gives me considerably more creative latitude with an image in post procession---at least much more so than a JPEG image that has been color corrected, sharpened, massaged, and otherwise manipulated in the camera before ever being recorded to the Compact Flash card. What I do with many images is certainly best described as ‘artistic license’ as opposed to a faithful, literal recording of an event. In that application, RAW simply works much better for me, and I concede that its utilization is to a large degree a ‘work-around’ for my shortcomings behind the camera.

Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Mea culpa.

Only RAW here.
It was a bit getting used to but at the moment I work much faster thanks to C1 DSLR.

I'm reall picky about quality and even my JPEG's are always somehow worked on for levels and curves.

It takes me MUCH longer to edited all JPEG's in PS than using C1 with RAW's.

The extra stops you get with RAW have saved some pictures I would have missed other wise and that's a shame offcourse if you have the option of shooting RAW.

I have to admit I love to print at big sizes (50x75 CM from the lab).

The option of storage is not really a problem today.
I use a 160GB Harddrive and store both RAW's and medium size JPEG's and a folder with TIFF's. After a year shooting I'm arround 60GB full knowing the market from HDD's running out of space will never be a problem.

The only real problem is I had to invest in a 1GB CF card prof. speed because 512MB was too little. Normally I carry a 30GB XsDrive II with me for downloading if the card is arround 75% full. I never miss an option this way, and be honest after 120 shots it's time to get something to drink or eat offcourse ;D.

JPEG's on the 10D look amazing and alot better than on any other camera I have seen/used, but the extra dynamic of RAW is something I would not want to miss.

BUT I have to admit, you have to change your workflow.

Greetings,
Frank

I started out in jpg when I first got my 10D in June of 2003. But after getting my work flow done with the raw images (lots of batching down in PS) I no longer find it such a pain to work with as I first did. I have to admit though, I am an amature so shooting RAW has been a life saver. I got the 10D so I can capture every moment of my daughter's life (she just turned two yesterday so I'm still pretty trigger happy). There have been lots of time where that perfect shot was saved by shooting in RAW.

I also admit that I have my set button set to the "change quality" setting and I'm not afraid to use it when not shooting my daughter.

I think the RAW convertions will get better (and I've seen them get better of the short time I've been using it), so 16 years down the road when I put some "baby shots" together for my daughter's graduation, I think I'll be glad I shot in RAW (don't you think). As TIFFS, they are huge! The loseless compression of the RAW is only about two to three size bigger of the Fine Jpeg setting which in my opinion very good.

I shoot Raw . Because I like to "tinker" . I'm still learning and can fix my Images. I do make mistakes, and can correct white balance and exposure more easily. It seemed the recomended process when I got here so I went with what I thought the more experienced were doing. And I've learned alot I wouldn't have with a point and shoot jpg camera. Man I can't believe what I've spent! As a Pro with thousands of images to process I imagine I would want dependable JPG speed and hope to get it right. I'm only imagining this
There seems to be alot of folks doing or going back to JPG fine here and the other forums.
Every time I spend for another piece of software, I wonder when or if I won't need it anymore

Eric