Why shoot in RAW?

YankeeMom wrote in post #9645511
UGH -- here I am still stuggling to master DPP and STILL wondering if it's necessary? Most of my pics only need light editing and 99% of the time I print in 4X6 size. If I only need to make minor adjustments here and there, does RAW really make a difference? IOW, if I adjust the exposure, color, or sharpen my SOOC jpegs vs. doing the same thing with RAW files and print in 4X6 size, will I really see a difference?

I expect that when DPP becomes 2nd nature to me, it will be easier, but for now it is more work for me to develop all the pics and I hate to think of storing such large files when I am not getting an obvious benefit (a better photo in my hand) in the end. I guess I just have to test/compare to know for sure, but I wonder what others think?

The casual photographer who only makes 4×6 prints or posts to the web will probably not see a significant difference.

Of course, if that casual photographer manages to capture that once-in-a-lifetime shot, then having it only in JPEG may well prevent that shot from being made into a truly outstanding photograph. But those are the risks you take for the sake of convenience.

The choices are yours.

YankeeMom wrote in post #9645511
UGH -- here I am still stuggling to master DPP and STILL wondering if it's necessary? Most of my pics only need light editing and 99% of the time I print in 4X6 size. If I only need to make minor adjustments here and there, does RAW really make a difference? IOW, if I adjust the exposure, color, or sharpen my SOOC jpegs vs. doing the same thing with RAW files and print in 4X6 size, will I really see a difference?

I expect that when DPP becomes 2nd nature to me, it will be easier, but for now it is more work for me to develop all the pics and I hate to think of storing such large files when I am not getting an obvious benefit (a better photo in my hand) in the end. I guess I just have to test/compare to know for sure, but I wonder what others think?

I'm not sure if you've check this demo.
http://www.usa.canon.c​om …articleID=1228&​fromTips=1

DPP is very easy to use. IMHO, very worth learning how to use it. As has been posted before, RAW gives you the ability to adjust WB. It's very easy to convert RAW to JPG, you can do a batch of them. The other is to shot RAW and JPG, then get rid of the RAW that you're sure need no adjustment.

20droger wrote in post #9617705
If you set the camera to JPEG, then the camera makes the decisions for you.

Somebody wrote the program to convert RAW to JPEG, I would put money down that the somebody knows a bit more than most people who own the camera. Deep down Canon knows how there product works better than anybody.

Seems to that JPEG is like shooting with slides, you have to everything right in the camera to get a good photo. RAW is like negative film, gives you a bit of wiggle room if made a mistake in camera.

Mark

windpig wrote in post #9645585
I'm not sure if you've check this demo.
http://www.usa.canon.c​om …articleID=1228&​fromTips=1

DPP is very easy to use. IMHO, very worth learning how to use it. As has been posted before, RAW gives you the ability to adjust WB. It's very easy to convert RAW to JPG, you can do a batch of them. The other is to shot RAW and JPG, then get rid of the RAW that you're sure need no adjustment.

Yes, DPP is a snap. Here's a trashed image, still not a keeper, but having the RAW and using DPP made a big improvement.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

20droger wrote in post #9645558
The casual photographer who only makes 4×6 prints or posts to the web will probably not see a significant difference.

Of course, if that casual photographer manages to capture that once-in-a-lifetime shot, then having it only in JPEG may well prevent that shot from being made into a truly outstanding photograph. But those are the risks you take for the sake of convenience.

The choices are yours.

You summed it up pretty much the way I figured. As for the once-in-a-lifetime shot, well, coming from me, it's not likely to ever be anything significant and I have to weigh that extremely rare possiblity against all that convenience. Thanks for the feedback.

windpig wrote in post #9645585
I'm not sure if you've check this demo.
http://www.usa.canon.c​om …articleID=1228&​fromTips=1

DPP is very easy to use. IMHO, very worth learning how to use it. As has been posted before, RAW gives you the ability to adjust WB. It's very easy to convert RAW to JPG, you can do a batch of them. The other is to shot RAW and JPG, then get rid of the RAW that you're sure need no adjustment.

Yes -- those are the exact tutorials I am using and, you are right, she makes it look so easy, but there are still things I cannot do with DPP, so after using DPP I still have to upload to another program for things like horizon adjustment/straighteni​ng (though I hear they are finally bringing that update to DPP this spring), cropping, red-eye, etc.

You did give me something to think about, though -- deleting those huge RAW files (or, even better, just burning them to CD and taking them off my computer altogether) would probably be the best bet if/when I get very comfortable with DPP and fully make this transition. I guess this is a good enough thought to keep plugging away at it. (Mainly, I need to build up my confidence with DPP and PP and just experiment with prints!)

Thanks so much for all the feedback and encouragement.

blackhawk wrote in post #9645684
Yes, DPP is a snap. Here's a trashed image, still not a keeper, but having the RAW and using DPP made a big improvement.

That is a great example and exactly why I am trying to learn RAW/DPP in the first place. I am mainly concerned about the every day stuff that I develop into 4X6 prints (namely, snapshots.) It doesn't help that I take apx. 2000 pictures a month!

Here's an interesting debate -- I read that Photoshop allows for people to edit their jpegs with the same program as RAW -- that you can use the same features (change WB, picture settings, etc.) on SOOC jpegs. Because of this, some are going back to shooting jpeg. Does this make sense? Just curious, because some were die-hard RAW users. (FTR, I do not have Photoshop, so can't confirm how it works.)

YankeeMom wrote in post #9645731
That is a great example and exactly why I am trying to learn RAW/DPP in the first place. I am mainly concerned about the every day stuff that I develop into 4X6 prints (namely, snapshots.) It doesn't help that I take apx. 2000 pictures a month!

I think the issue is how many keepers you get out of an one outing? For me, on an outing taking about 150 shots, I only have maybe a bit more than 10% keeper ratio. Is about 15 to 20 shots. I shoot in raw. They take about 2 to 3 hours to process them. These are my recent shots:
http://www.flickr.com …g/sets/72157623​332744021/

To process 15 to 20 shots aren't a lot. These are indoor shots and taken under ISO1600. RAW is the way to go because there are so many variables that make your shots suck... Wrong white balance and color. Excessive contrast and too shadowy. Now, if I have a dead line to meet and must submit 50 to 100 shots, jpeg is the way to go because you are not going to process all 100 shots in couple of hours.

YankeeMom wrote in post #9645759
Here's an interesting debate -- I read that Photoshop allows for people to edit their jpegs with the same program as RAW -- that you can use the same features (change WB, picture settings, etc.) on SOOC jpegs. Because of this, some are going back to shooting jpeg. Does this make sense? Just curious, because some were die-hard RAW users. (FTR, I do not have Photoshop, so can't confirm how it works.)

No because you are ending up still spending the same amount of time post processing the shots. The advantage with jpeg is that you don't spend time processing the shots because the camera setting does it for you. If you have to post process the shots a lot, you might as well shoot in raw.

YankeeMom wrote in post #9645759
Here's an interesting debate -- I read that Photoshop allows for people to edit their jpegs with the same program as RAW -- that you can use the same features (change WB, picture settings, etc.) on SOOC jpegs. Because of this, some are going back to shooting jpeg. Does this make sense? Just curious, because some were die-hard RAW users. (FTR, I do not have Photoshop, so can't confirm how it works.)

I posted this yesterday in another topic but I think it will help you understand the difference also. This was taken directly off of Adobe's web site -

Adobe Photoshop CS4 software is the industry standard in digital image editing. Photoshop holds an important place in the pro photographer's toolbox, for detailed pixel-level editing and compositing, but photographers face a variety of workflow concerns beyond image editing. Lightroom 2 addresses these needs in a photographer-centric way. Each module in Lightroom is dedicated to an essential photographic task — use the Library for importing and managing photos; the Develop module for fundamental photographic adjustments and processing hundreds of photographs at a time; and the Slideshow, Web, and Print modules to easily present photos onscreen, online, or in print. Lightroom also goes further, enabling you to manage raw files, even if they are offline, with automatic importing from the folder on your computer used for tethered shooting.
Lightroom excels at processing large volumes of photographs, creating the perfect negative, and outputting collections to the web, print, and slide shows. Photoshop remains the ultimate pixel-level, individual image-editing, and compositing application. Together, Lightroom and Photoshop are the comprehensive software duo for post-processing and editing of digital imagery.
For example, you may have 2,000 photographs and need to quickly preview, sort and rate them, embed your copyright on each, correct white balance, change tonal and color values, and make monochrome copies (or add a wide array of other special effects). Then, you need to output to a slide show, print, or the web, and all under the pressure of time constraints. For this common type of photographic workflow, Lightroom is the ideal solution.
Now perhaps some of your photographs are destined for an advertising layout. After choosing the best images, you may need to add a special effect to a model's eyes or change the pattern of a dress or pull the model completely away from her background to create an intricate, multilayered composite. For this, Photoshop is the ideal solution.

TooManyShots wrote in post #9645780
No because you are ending up still spending the same amount of time post processing the shots. The advantage with jpeg is that you don't spend time processing the shots because the camera setting does it for you. If you have to post process the shots a lot, you might as well shoot in raw.

Exactly!

YankeeMom wrote in post #9645759
Here's an interesting debate -- I read that Photoshop allows for people to edit their jpegs with the same program as RAW -- that you can use the same features (change WB, picture settings, etc.) on SOOC jpegs. Because of this, some are going back to shooting jpeg. Does this make sense? Just curious, because some were die-hard RAW users. (FTR, I do not have Photoshop, so can't confirm how it works.)

Very few shoots are true keepers.
If it has no content, it's a trash shot. Sharpness, even framing isn't the final criteria of what is a great image; content is.

You can save them, but be brutal about what is a keeper.
Invest time only in images worth it.

Today for most people there's no reason(s) not to shoot RAWs...

YankeeMom wrote in post #9645511
UGH -- here I am still stuggling to master DPP and STILL wondering if it's necessary?

I like DPP,,it's a neat programme..

I aquire, tweek and convert to Jpeg using DPP.. Any further editing I use CS4..

YankeeMom wrote in post #9645759
Here's an interesting debate -- I read that Photoshop allows for people to edit their jpegs with the same program as RAW -- that you can use the same features (change WB, picture settings, etc.) on SOOC jpegs. Because of this, some are going back to shooting jpeg. Does this make sense? Just curious, because some were die-hard RAW users. (FTR, I do not have Photoshop, so can't confirm how it works.)

Although you can apply the same tools you won't get the same effects because the extra data just isn't there. I use Lightroom for all my shots and I've recently gone back to the pictures I took on my first trip to Africa. Unfortunately that was before I discovered the advantages of raw and was still shooting in jpeg.

It's heartbreaking looking at all these once-in-a-lifetime shots and knowing they could have been just that bit better if I hadn't thrown all those bits of data away into the Kalahari sands. It doesn't help that I'd only been using a proper camera for a couple of months and didn't always get it right in the camera.

"]Well I would love to try and shoot RAW, but I've heard that you need a ton of space on your PC because the files are so large...I know it would kill my PC if I tried to open just a few RAW files...It kinda sucks, cause I would love to try it...[/SIZE]