RAW....is it really worth the hassle?

[Ronald M]

RAW is about preserving control over manipulation, any kind which is best done with the RAW file. One does not edit pixels until all that can be done with the RAW file has been done. Then you go into Photoshop and do pixels.

If you do not wish to manipulate, just tell the camera to give you a JPEG. You will be a happy camper. The downside is you may become more sophisticated and want the RAW data later and you will find the camera has trashed it. It can not be recreated. I did a Canon seminar years back and the rep did RAW + JPEG. She used the JPEG most always and trashed the RAW once she detirmined the JPEG was good enough., but once and a while she needed it.

Sharpening is a perfect example. It needs to be applied at final size so how do you make a 4x6 and a 16x20 from one file? A compromise has to be made either by reediting a JPEG which is a no no, or accepting improper sharpening.

 

[user237428934]

With every digital camera I owned, I did a test the first days and shot RAW + JPG parallel. At home I imported them in Lightroom and compared. For every single camera, I didn't like the jpg-colours compared to the colours the raw-converter shows even without modification or calibration for that camera. Within Lightroom you don't even notice if you handle a jpg-file or a raw-file (one exception is the handling of the white-balance).

If someone uses special programs for raw-conversion like Canons DPP then I can understand that raw needs more time. With Lightroom or Aperture this argument is not valid.

 

[gavinlg]

If someone uses special programs for raw-conversion like Canons DPP then I can understand that raw needs more time. With Lightroom or Aperture this argument is not valid.

This needs to be quoted. Read it, and then read it again. And then read it again.

With the correct software,it isn't any harder to use a raw file than a jpeg. This whole "raw is more effort/hassle" thing is really very flawed. Get the free trial of adobe lightroom on the adobe site and be amazed.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Raw (DNG). Often, I don't need it. Sometimes -- usually, either to correct exposure or white balance -- I do. Yes, I could shoot DNG only when I needed it, but the hassle of toggling from DNG to JPEG is infinitely greater than the hassle of DNG in Lightroom.

In the studio, for pack shots and step by steps, I often shoot JPEG with the Nikon, but I'm in full control of lighting and the subject ain't going anywhere so I don't need the 'safety net' of DNG, nor do I need maximum quality. The Nikon has replaced Polaroids for this, and they were even more critical than JPEGs.

Cheers,

R.

 

[dexdog]

Similar to a couple of previous posters, I typically shoot both RAW and jpeg (after all, memory is cheap). The great majority of the time, the jpegs are just fine, but the RAW is very useful when adjusting white balance or fixing highlights.

 

[DNG]

What is the hassle shooting in RAW?

Good Question!
In ACDsee Pro 3, there are no extra tools for RAW files. It uses the same tools for RAW and JPG.. How easy is that!

I would think LightRoom is the same..Although I don't understand way there needs to separate program for RAW developing. I have used some free RAW developers before, but, once I used ACDsee Pro 3, I won't go back. If ACDsee can use the tools for RAW & JPG, why can't others follow suit?

rant:
Do I "really" need another $200 program "just" for RAW... Suckers they are. 😛. I think RAW Software is over rated or over priced...
I guess PS has a build in RAW developer, but, why does it have to be a separate program (plug-in)? Technology is past that for some editing programs.

Do we "really" need dozens of tools over JPG tools?, Exposure, WB, Curves, Levels, Highlight recovery, Mid-tone Recovery, Shadow recovery, as far as exposure controls?

I found all those "raw tools" in some software, just plain un-necessary, because I found the changes to be marginal at best over the standard exposure stuff. But, that's me I guess. Keep it simple, but give me the tools I need, don't over-control the software please...
That's Why I like ADCsee Pro 3. Simple, but the right balance of control without over kill. Just because some geek/nerd can make a new control that is marginal at best, doesn't mean I need it, or should "buy" the upgrade either. Why, to keep a company's income revenue stream going... HUH! not me. !
rant over:

 

[DNG]

If someone uses special programs for raw-conversion like Canons DPP then I can understand that raw needs more time. With Lightroom or Aperture this argument is not valid.

This needs to be quoted. Read it, and then read it again. And then read it again.

With the correct software,it isn't any harder to use a raw file than a jpeg. This whole "raw is more effort/hassle" thing is really very flawed. Get the free trial of adobe lightroom on the adobe site and be amazed.

Same with ACDsee Pro 3..As Lightroom and Aperture. Just as easy as JPG. Try their free trial too.

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

Good Question!
In ACDsee Pro 3, there are no extra tools for RAW files. It uses the same tools for RAW and JPG.. How easy is that!

I would think LightRoom is the same..Although I don't understand way there needs to separate program for RAW developing. I have used some free RAW developers before, but, once I used ACDsee Pro 3, I won't go back. If ACDsee can use the tools for RAW & JPG, why can't others follow suit?

....I love ACDsee!...does he still wear his schoolboy outfit? 😱 - sorry!

 

[wgerrard]

I think a reasonably accurate analogy can be drawn between jpegs versus RAW and farming out your developing and printing versus doing it at home. In both, it is a question of time and convenience versus the ability and the requirement to weak.

For me, digital is all about automation and convenience. The less I need to do, the better. So, I shoot JPEG's. I see very few I wished were RAW so I could feed them to Photoshop. Sometimes trading a bit of quality for time is a good deal.

 

[user237428934]

This needs to be quoted. Read it, and then read it again. And then read it again.

With the correct software,it isn't any harder to use a raw file than a jpeg. This whole "raw is more effort/hassle" thing is really very flawed. Get the free trial of adobe lightroom on the adobe site and be amazed.

😕 😕 😕

You just quoted the 2nd paragraph I wrote. I assume you only read the 2nd paragraph.
In the first paragraph I wrote that I use lightroom. In the 2nd I wrote that it's more effort to use special programs like DPP. Isn't that true?

 

[gavinlg]

😕 😕 😕

You just quoted the 2nd paragraph I wrote. I assume you only read the 2nd paragraph.
In the first paragraph I wrote that I use lightroom. In the 2nd I wrote that it's more effort to use special programs like DPP. Isn't that true?

No I was quoting the part that said it's not any more effort to shoot raw than it is jpeg. We're on the same page 🙂

Also true that if someones using the proprietary software like DPP or capture NX it would be more effort.

 

[David_Manning]

When you shoot jpeg with a sophisticated camera, you're choosing your film and your look before you expose...just like in film days. You're also allowing the camera to do the sophisticated things you bought it for (matrix metering, exp compensation, etc). All those are thrown away when you choose to import a RAW file (unless you use the manufacturer's software which reads your camera settings).

On my D700, I can set saturation, sharpening, white balance, and a host of other things. The camera is so damned smart it'll correct for color fringing IF and WHEN it sees it, and even expand dynamic range. It also reduces noise at high ISO. If I shoot RAW, I get neutral everything...the good and the bad. So after the fact, I have to clean up the noise, correct color fringing, change saturation, etc. In fact, in RAW I'm letting my laptop's software "bake" the image instead of my camera manufacturer...which means I'll inevitably have to make corrections to my RAW converter's guesses.

So, set what you want, shoot what you need. If you have your settings right, jpeg is great...just like a color chrome. I spent a boatload of money on a camera which will help me get the look I want right out of the box...why do it twice and accept my image according to what Adobe or Apple thinks best?

I think fear (not knowing how to deal with technical shooting issues) and the lemming factor (Joe Blow in the studio shooting for Vogue uses RAW, so should I) factors into this RAW vs. jpeg decision tree. At the end of the day, most of us will send an 8-bit file to the printer anyway.

By the way...in Aperture, regardless of RAW or JPG...the original is the "master" and never touched. This is what non-destructive editing is. Every time you view your edited image, you see your original JPG or RAW file, plus a little list of your changes...so there is no "save-destroy" cycle going on.

Sorry to sound so practical...but it is what it is. I'd take mediocre, lossy, blown-out jpegs of immersive images anyday over technically perfect, boring subjects.

Rant over 😉

 

[gavinlg]

When you shoot jpeg with a sophisticated camera, you're choosing your film and your look before you expose...just like in film days. You're also allowing the camera to do the sophisticated things you bought it for (matrix metering, exp compensation, etc). All those are thrown away when you choose to import a RAW file (unless you use the manufacturer's software which reads your camera settings).

On my D700, I can set saturation, sharpening, white balance, and a host of other things. The camera is so damned smart it'll correct for color fringing IF and WHEN it sees it, and even expand dynamic range. It also reduces noise at high ISO. If I shoot RAW, I get neutral everything...the good and the bad. So after the fact, I have to clean up the noise, correct color fringing, change saturation, etc. In fact, in RAW I'm letting my laptop's software "bake" the image instead of my camera manufacturer...which means I'll inevitably have to make corrections to my RAW converter's guesses.

So, set what you want, shoot what you need. If you have your settings right, jpeg is great...just like a color chrome. I spent a boatload of money on a camera which will help me get the look I want right out of the box...why do it twice and accept my image according to what Adobe or Apple thinks best?

I think fear (not knowing how to deal with technical shooting issues) and the lemming factor (Joe Blow in the studio shooting for Vogue uses RAW, so should I) factors into this RAW vs. jpeg decision tree. At the end of the day, most of us will send an 8-bit file to the printer anyway.

By the way...in Aperture, regardless of RAW or JPG...the original is the "master" and never touched. This is what non-destructive editing is. Every time you view your edited image, you see your original JPG or RAW file, plus a little list of your changes...so there is no "save-destroy" cycle going on.

Sorry to sound so practical...but it is what it is. I'd take mediocre, lossy, blown-out jpegs of immersive images anyday over technically perfect, boring subjects.

Rant over 😉

Exposure compensation and matrix metering still apply to a raw file. Not arguing or anything, it's all about what works for each person of course.

But, the beauty of RAW is that it isn't a automated program choosing your colors/tones/saturation/sharpening/white balance as the camera does with JPEG. You yourself set all that stuff. If you don't want or need the control, then jpeg is great.

I do a lot of interior work for magazines and if I used JPEG files I'd be out of business within weeks. I try to get exposures right (balancing inside and outside light) in camera with the limited lighting equipment I have, but I always end up having to lift shadows and dull down highlights quite a bit in post. A Jpeg file would fall apart in that sort of situation.
Similarly, I did a light test 2 weeks ago with a girl on a property to try out some new reflectors. I accidentally left the camera in JPEG. Most of the files were near unusable. Skintones go greyish, sharpening is crude and tones are harsh.

So hardly a lemmings mentality there - I know a lot of people shoot their cat or their potplants with their expensive cameras and expensive software - "polishing a turd" with their gear if you will, but there are definitely advantages for some people, and considering it's not actually any harder or more time consuming to use than JPEG you can see why most people are now using it.

 

[payasam]

In three years with digital SLRs I haven't taken a single picture as a JPEG. Working with raw files is a way of life: and life itself is sometimes a hassle, sometimes not. I suspect I'm not being too helpful.

 

[semilog]

One other thing about Lightroom. With my Olympus files, the in-camera JPEGs were usually as good as or better than the first pass with Lightroom v.1 or v.2. With the Lightroom v.3 beta, the first-pass Lightroom files are better. It's just absolutely superb - particularly the way it deals with chroma noise. The base output now looks like a good Provia transparency (yes, this makes me happy).

I see no reason at all to upgrade from Photoshop CS3 to CS5, but I will buy LR3.0 the day it's available!

 

[shadowfox]

One other thing about Lightroom. With my Olympus files, the in-camera JPEGs were usually as good as or better than the first pass with Lightroom v.1 or v.2. With the Lightroom v.3 beta, the first-pass Lightroom files are better. It's just absolutely superb - particularly the way it deals with chroma noise. The base output now looks like a good Provia transparency (yes, this makes me happy).

I see no reason at all to upgrade from Photoshop CS3 to CS5, but I will buy LR3.0 the day it's available!

As both Olympus and LR user, I'm glad to hear this.
Similarly I don't find it necessary to upgrade beyond CS3.

 

[sacundim]

I think RAW's reputation for being a "hassle" comes from old, unfriendly RAW conversion software that forces you to spend time converting the RAWs before you can even view your images at full resolution. And then you have to load them into your image editor...

Half a million folks have already mentioned Aperture and Lightroom in this thread, and that's my answer too. With software designed to make your work easy, RAW is not at hassle at all. I personally shoot RAW-only on my G1, import the photos using LR 3, and do all the processing I want fairly quickly right there in LR (and often you don't need any!). I display my photos on Flickr, so I use an export plugin in LR to upload to Flickr—I just highlight the files I want to upload and export them straight to my galleries.

 

[ampguy]

I think RAW is only needed if you're a bad photographer. If you don't watch for accurate WB and exposure, yes, RAW can save you. Otherwise, it's a waste of time and space.

 

[exiled4979]

First I will point out that I still shoot film B+W and colour negative, but I do like the results from my two digital cameras - a pocket compact and a cheap DSLR. Since starting with digital, everything I've read or heard tells me that - for the best results I need to shoot in RAW and go through numerous tedious ( to me! ) procedures in Photoshop. Well, I usually shoot 'fine jpegs' with my D40, but every so often go the RAW way, mainly because that's what I think I am supposed to do!
Unlike most, I don't have 'Photoshop' but am quite happy with 'Paintshop Pro X1' which I believe is similar. If my jpegs are correctly exposed, they usually just need a little sharpening to give me the best looking prints I've ever made. Paintshop Pro has a facility called 'smart photo fix' which makes the correction decisions for you, and to my dismay using this gives just as good or even better results than I get from ten minutes messing around with curves and sliders on one of these massive RAW things that needs converting before anything will recognise it!
Maybe its just that I don't often need a big print these days, or the fact that I am not interested in spending lots of PC time on each picture - after fifty years of Photoshoping in the dark - with my fingers, and bits of card on wires! 🙂
So - I think RAW is overrated and overstated, how about you? (well - we have not had any controversy here for a while!) 😉
Dave

this is definitely personal choice, and need for RAW varies from camera to camera... Olympus have the best JPG processing in regards of color, tonality and over-all quality (noise reduction / sharpness / details), but highlights are still a problem... if you dial down contrast, JPGs don't look so good anymore, and they require some curve adjustments, and with contrast set to more pleasing level, you'll soon find yourself HDRing half of shots just to rescue some shadows and highlights, so...

RAW is not that much more work than normal processing of JPGs, just takes a bit more time to import/export... I always shoot RAW, it simply gives better results, but I agree that 80% of all shots on print would look pretty much the same, only if you get exposure just right and know your camera inside-out so you can actually judge how would something look printed based on your LCDs or histograms...

 

[Ronald M]

I don`t mess around with my raw files. They come out of my D40,200,700 & D3 just fine.

If you want more saturation, contrast, more sharpening, make a preset so all these these settings change in the raw converter with one click.

Nikon NX2 Raws will take on the camera JPEG settings automatically and is the only converter that will. Presets work in NX2 and Photoshop. Paintshop ?? NX2 can be had from Cameta camera for $119. That is where mine came from.

I did two Nikon D40 images in CS5 yesterday, 800 ISO by mistake. The noise reduction was left from a previous image and it worked so well I had to check the META Data to see the ISO. It is absolutely outstanding & stunning. I could hardly believe my eyes.

LR3 uses the same converter. Adobe has a 10% off sale good thru 11/30/2010 . Offer code CS510NOV. WWW.adobe.com/goCS5NovOffer. Apply the offer code at checkout.