Landscapes...do you shoot RAW or just JPEG?

I shoot RAW +Jpeg...If there's something I can save about a bad photo, I have the RAW, but for those times when the photo needs nothing done except resize the JPEG is ready to go.

Much of my landscape work is for exhibit and competition so it's always RAW. Typically those pieces have fairly extreme values between highlight and shadow so I want to be able to recover as much as possible.

Well then, that should be an indication of just how good an image that RAW file will produce once you've finished with it.

beachbum2277 wrote in post #9733472
.....It's just so tough to start processing that RAW file when you have that nice looking JPEG sitting there...

.

I love using RAW for my landsacpes.

looks like I have to start using RAW huh?

.

beachbum2277 wrote in post #9738702
looks like I have to start using RAW huh?

.

Some people don't want to go through the hassle of shooting RAW bcoz' of processing time. I can understand that but, you get so much more control with adjusting images the way you want it to look/how it should look. Once you learn the workflow for RAW, it'll be a breeze.

It all depends upon your style, work flow and how much time you want to put into each image. One of the biggest factors in favor of RAW - for the way that I shoot - is WB.

For wedding and social event work color balance, the bride's white gown, proper skin tone, etc. is far more important critical than what you encounter in the standard snapshot. RAW quickly and easily enables me to "slide" over to whatever warmth or coolness I'm trying to achieve. I apply this same philosophy to my landscape work.

What sort of a mood am I trying to convey with the urban or rural composition..... harsh, still coolness or warm and inviting golden tones? Again, working with the entire digital negative I can easily change that aspect as well as recover pixels that may have been compressed out in JPG highlights or dark shadows.

beachbum2277 wrote in post #9738702
looks like I have to start using RAW huh?

.

I dont think you Have to Its up to you really, If you have been happy thus far stick with what works. Why screw up a winning recipe? Like i said there is always RAW+jpeg. If you dont feel comfortable jumping into raw all the time. Heck my g9 is still on raw+plus mainly do its my snap shot camera and the jpegs are faster to load n print using some one else computer. But i still have raw to bring home and edit as i please.

Another RAW user - converting to dng on it's way into Lightroom and any processing there. Only very rarely now into Photoshop.

Always RAW the amount of control that leaves for later is endless. Not much you can do to a jpeg. It's worth the extra 8mb of data it will take on your computer.

Rarely have I seen a jpeg image that is as well done as a raw that I process. Or that looks just the way I desire.The jpeg may look 'good'
but almost always (99.9%) I can do better (w/raw).

RAW, using no camera presets and opening in DPP using "faithful".

Anyone care to post their RAW workflow steps?

.

For a single image. Load into DPP, Correct white balance by finding my grey card shot, batch correct the rest of the images shot in that light, correct exposure if needed, find a pic style that may suit the image,Add or subtract contrast, push or pull saturation, and sharpen as needed, possibly clone out a dust spot which can actually happen any time if i spot it. For a Pano i just batch convert to jpeg and stitch to see if it will come out how i like before i edit the raws.
I actually enjoy editing a raw more then a jpeg for me its faster then dealing with Photoshop. I remember when i went to the zoo for the first time and said "thats it, im shooting full RAW, i watched all my shots to not get my count up, when i got home i had alot to deal with. Thinking, Man i have to edit ALL of them. Which of course is not true, Loaded into DPP i found my keepers and gave then a 1 check, selected all 1s, and found well i dont take many great pics lol, it cut my workload down by more then half. Once i edited my first one, i opened it in windows saw it, and thought... yea that wasnt so hard. From there i just got faster. my only time i get slow is when i rack my head over should i push the contrast ONE more? or the saturation just a bit? To make things faster i just do both and convert.
But most images dont need as much tweaking then i thought. I remember thinking of what i read, "Raws always come out dull and NEED edited" or "You MUST edited a raw" which isnt always true. Alot of time selecting a pic style after correcting white balance if needed and exposure if needed i hit the nail on th e head and am happy with the image.
I say go out and shoot a landscape with RAW + jpeg. Load into a folder. I separate my raws and jpegs into different folders. Example my main folder will be named what the shoot was, once opened you see a folder with the raws in it, but the main folder has my edited jpegs.From there, edit the raw in your software of choice and compare your jpeg to the camera jpeg.

neilwood32 wrote in post #9734153
I dont even have that nice Jpeg there - I shoot on RAW only. I use the Neutral picture style so there is absolutely no tweaking of the histogram in camera. What I see is what I have got.

That way I can process the image 100% as I like to whether it be B&W or colour. I prefer the relatively flat RAW as I can then decide where to alter exposure/saturation/co​ntrast/sharpening.

Once you get into the way of processing RAW, it becomes very simple and only takes a minute or two in general (some pictures inevitably take longer where I have screwed up a setting:o)

i experimented and set the WB and exposure/contrast/brig​htness settings to auto and 9/10 of my pics came out better than the original.

this was done in photoshops raw converter btw. not sure if lightroom or other programs have auto features

jonneymendoza wrote in post #9742423
i experimented and set the WB and exposure/contrast/brig​htness settings to auto and 9/10 of my pics came out better than the original.

Are you saying you used the Auto function in Adobe Camera Raw? If so, what's the point of Raw then if all you're doing is hitting auto? Doesn't the camera do the same conversions when it automatically kicks out a JPEG?

.