raw and editing

Hi,

New to all this.
Should I shoot in RAW? or both RAW & JPG?
What are the benefits in having a RAW file as well or only shooting in RAW?
What main editing differences is there between a RAW file and a jpg?
What can I edit with a RAW that I can't with a jpg in photoshop, or vice versa?
Do RAW files take up more disk space?

That will do for now, I'm sure from a few answers there will be a few more questions.

Thanks in advance all.
John

John, this is only my preference. But I shoot strictly RAW whether in studio or just taking photos for my own use. My logic is that I don't want jpegs filling up valuable space on my media cards when space is so important!

Raw allows you edit over and over again until you get the desired results. White balance can be changed to fit you taste and no matter how many times you edit you can always go back to the original data(image) and start over.

Lots to read, but a great article that will answer all your questions plus the ones you haven't thought of yet:
http://www.ronbigelow.​com/articles/raw/raw.h​tm

DigitalSpecialist wrote in post #8154521
John, this is only my preference. But I shoot strictly RAW whether in studio or just taking photos for my own use. My logic is that I don't want jpegs filling up valuable space on my media cards when space is so important!

I just checked my RAW files from before and they 15mb, jpegs are just 3-4mb. It also said on that site the last person wrote that RAW files take up more space. Are you using different settings or camera? How are your RAW files smaller?

The raw files aren't smaller, but he was saying that if you want to save space, do so by not shooting Raw+jpg, but just Raw

Ah ok... so apart from just saving space, is it worth shooting only in jpeg or only RAW? I have 2x 4gig memory cards and I will mostly be taking bird photos.

I found when I tried shooting Raw+jpeg it just cluttered my work space and my workflow by having to deal with two copies of one image for, ultimately, no real gain to me. Since I'm quite used to a Raw workflow, it is much simpler for me to shoot in Raw only.

Others have reason to use jpegs more in their workflow and use Raw for more specialized development as well as archiving -- to them the convenience of jpegs, especially in small-file speed, pays off.

But for the type of photography I do, Raw gives the most potential benefit and I don't need to revert to jpegs until I'm ready to produce a certain output file that requires a jpeg.

I don't need JPGs instantly, and since I'm going to tweak things in RAW and generate new JPGs based on those adjustments anyway, I have no need to produce them in-camera. I believe this also speeds up burst shooting because the camera isn't busy performing its JPG processing; it just has to write to the card. I can certainly shoot plenty of RAW on an 8 GB card.

Shooting JPG is predicting the camera settings so as to create a picture that best matches the visualization you have in your mind.

Shooting RAW is setting the parameters in post-processing by observing their effect in real time on the monitor, eventually adopting the values that produce the best picture a specific shot is able to deliver. The latter may well differ from what you had in your mind, or, in your visualization, you just didn't "define" every aspect of the image that might actually be important. Many times a subtle modification can take the picture a long way, but you have to see it to appreciate its impact.

joroco wrote in post #8159834
Ah ok... so apart from just saving space, is it worth shooting only in jpeg or only RAW? I have 2x 4gig memory cards and I will mostly be taking bird photos.

Well, that's a choice only *you* can make. I shoot Raw, others prefer jpg...

I am very new to shooting in RAW myself. I am finding for myself, it is beneficial to shoot both RAW and JPEG. 1) I really do send pics across the internet-convenient for fast transfer.
2) I learn from RAW vs JPEG in PP. I definitely love working on PP and RAW- still very new at it. The JPEG shows me what I like and dont like and want to try in PP.I agree- having both in workflow takes energy. Space isn't a problem for me becauseI don't normally shoot over 100 shots at a time.

I'm also prety new to this RAW format. I just have a hard time opening up the rew files. So many programs say it's an invalid image file or something like that, and can't be opened. Then I end up useing the Canon program to open it. Are there ad-on programs for the above mentioned GIMP program, or other programs, that will open Canon Raw Image File.
Thanks,
Mike

Lightroom and CameraRaw (with photoshop), depends on what version of photoshop you have though..

I still can't work out from what people are writing whether there are any major benefits from shooting in RAW only. I have noticed myself now from testing a little that you need good organization skills to keep track of what you are importing, converting and export the edited jpegs. I haven't seen much when testing editing RAW but then I guess it takes time to learn what to do.

I'm going to be mostly shooting birds outdoors, not sure if I should go RAW yet, the editing does seem easier but still haven't got the hang of it...

And that will probably be the case for quite sometime. It certainly isn't going to hurt to shoot in RAW, but the benefits may not be noticable at first, or depending upon your desired end result, maybe not at all. From what I have picked up from my relatively short time shooting digital is that RAW's advantage is in the post processing. It allows more latitude in what you can do with the image or information.

I would say try both ways for a while and see what you need. I personally shoot RAW when I think I may get some really nice photos for framing. JPEG is usually sufficient for the "family photo album".