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

[gavinlg]

The problem with that argument is that it isn't actually any extra hassle to begin with. Maybe 7-10 years ago (which is about how up to date wrotniak's website is) when raw converters were clumsy and terrible to use.

 

[NickTrop]

I really don't see any difference from a practical standpoint in the prints I've made between RAW and jpeg. In fact, PS affords me more options than any RAW converter that I'm aware of. I think the "RAW" people are overstating RAW advantages, understating jpeg advantages, understating RAW disadvantages, overstating jpeg disadvantages, overstating the importance of what they see when they pixel peep, and understating what the final product - the print, looks like. A low compression highest quality jpeg setting is just fine, way way more than merely adequate. It's not like these are 2 megapixel cameras and these 10-14 megapixel cameras are leaving you wanting for additional anything... the jpeg engines in modern cameras are refined and get it perfect nearly every time except for white balance on occasion. If your camera has a RAW setting, it also has a manual white balance setting. Use that - it's better than any correction in post and it's "real time".

 

[Creagerj]

I'm not a fan of the JPEG's my D200 creates so I always shoot raw. However, I save a lot of time by only editing and displaying the good ones, so usually it isn't much of a hassle. Control over color balance is very nice as well.

 

[sper]

Another non-silly, pragmatic pro-photog, non "RAW snob" to join Ken Rockwell in telling it like it is about RAW:


Hardly worth the hassle...

Is this the first time someone quotes Ken Rockwell without being ironic?

How is this thread actually this long in 2010? Come on people! This is not an open debate in professional photography and hasn't been in years.

Even iPhoto basically automatically processes your raw images immediately. Step up your game a little...

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I really don't see any difference from a practical standpoint in the prints I've made between RAW and jpeg. In fact, PS affords me more options than any RAW converter that I'm aware of. I think the "RAW" people are overstating RAW advantages, understating jpeg advantages, understating RAW disadvantages, overstating jpeg disadvantages, overstating the importance of what they see when they pixel peep, and understating what the final product - the print, looks like. A low compression highest quality jpeg setting is just fine, way way more than merely adequate. It's not like these are 2 megapixel cameras and these 10-14 megapixel cameras are leaving you wanting for additional anything... the jpeg engines in modern cameras are refined and get it perfect nearly every time except for white balance on occasion. If your camera has a RAW setting, it also has a manual white balance setting. Use that - it's better than any correction in post and it's "real time".

If you're doing critical work where color MUST match the original objects, as in art reproduction and most product photography then RAW not optional, it is required. I just did some photographs of paintings a couple weeks ago and they had to match the paintings PERFECTLY. You just cannot do that with JPEG. A JPEG is not like a negative that can be endlessly manipulated after scanning (or in the darkroom). Its an 8 bit image that VERY quickly loses quality as curves are adjusted and as you said white balance is baked in. Setting it in the camera is not easy to do accurately without a color temp meter. Yeah, I know the cameras have a way to automate that but in my experience doing critical work, it just doesn't work well.

 

[Peter S]

In my opinion it is about how much control you want. If you always had others developing your film then maybe jpeg's are fine. On the other hand if you worked hard at getting your film/developer combination give the results you wanted by tinkering with dilution/time/agitation then RAW in a digital workflow makes sense as it gives you way more manoeuvring space to tinker. Nowadays RAW conversion is so easy that I do not understand why people still shoot jpeg.

 

[Rob-F]

A note for Aperture users:

Earlier I commented that RAW enables us to make changes without degrading the file. That's true. But in my One-to-One session at the Apple store yesterday, my instructor reminded me that when we makes changes to an image using Aperture--even to a JPEG-- Aperture always assigns those changes to a copy of the original. The original (called the master in Aperture lingo) always remains untouched. So for Aperture users, one can use JPEGS if desired, without worry of harming the master file when making changes.

 

[Rob-F]

Well stated?

Well stated?

I really don't see any difference from a practical standpoint in the prints I've made between RAW and jpeg. In fact, PS affords me more options than any RAW converter that I'm aware of. I think the "RAW" people are overstating RAW advantages, understating jpeg advantages, understating RAW disadvantages, overstating jpeg disadvantages, overstating the importance of what they see when they pixel peep, and understating what the final product - the print, looks like.

Gee, that's a lot of stating. I kind of lost track. Well said, though, I'm sure!

 

[sig]

I never use raw files, but just to be sure I always use the Raw + Jpeg setting.......

 

[eddie1960]

I shoot raw almost exclusively and after moving up to lightroom 3.2 recently i revisited files I hadn't touched in 4 years (CS2 at the time) I was surprised how much better an image I could extract in post with much less effort than in the past. I'll likely go back and revisit a number of images now (great more time at the computer *snark*)

 

[user237428934]

A note for Aperture users:

Earlier I commented that RAW enables us to make changes without degrading the file. That's true. But in my One-to-One session at the Apple store yesterday, my instructor reminded me that when we makes changes to an image using Aperture--even to a JPEG-- Aperture always assigns those changes to a copy of the original. The original (called the master in Aperture lingo) always remains untouched. So for Aperture users, one can use JPEGS if desired, without worry of harming the master file when making changes.

That's the year old behavior of Aperture, Lightroom, iPhoto, even an old Version of Picasa did this (shame on me that I even tried Picasa).

The nice thing in Lightroom is that you don't notice what kind of file you are working on. Except for the WB. The slider works differently with a jpg file. Another difference is the colour. I never liked the jpg colour output of the cameras I worked with. I like most of the standard profiles of lightroom for raw files much better. For me Raw means bigger files but less work compared to jpg-files.

 

[wgerrard]

Let me fix an earlier comment written with a tired brain after a day of air travel:

I said: By the time you see a RAW file displayed in Photoshop. the data has already been significantly massaged.

I was trying to say: By the time you see a RAW file displayed anywhere, the data has already been significantly massaged.

Or so I seem to remember.

The point was that a file of data is not a picture. Any and every time we see a RAW image, no matter what displays it, we are seeing an interpretation of data.

 

[tic]

I use Canon DPP raw software for raw-shots from my EOS 500D dslr and S90 compact. It is a bit of a hassle and I will start using Lightroom any time now... Apart from the increased exposure latitude, color fidelity etc I like to use the feature in Canon DPP that corrects lens distortion automatically. Its great to get really straight lines in shots with my EF-S 10-22 at 10mm and from my S90 at 28mm. In Canon DPP this can only be done with raw files. I understand the same features can be found in LR3.

 

[Danlo]

To get anywhere near the look and dynamic range of color print film you must shoot in raw and have good knowledge in raw-developement and postprocessing.

If you shot alot of slides before jpeg with high contrast and saturation is probably good enough..

But if you have shot bw film before, jpegs are truly a catastrophy! Its desecration to compare bw jpegs with a nice darkroom copy from a bw negative.

A scanned and postprocessed bw negative is nowhere near a true darkroom copy, but its still lightyears ahead an out of camera bw jpeg.

 

[Keyne]

I shoot in RAW and love it over JPEG. I like the whole workflow routine I have working now and I actually enjoy going through the selection and then "dark room" part of the process. However, I do use LR3 and it is very easy and fun to use the tool to process how I want and seemlessly publish via print or to Flikr. I am new to Lightroom and for me it makes a huge difference... I never got the hang of Photoshop Elements (processing JPEG) but over the past month I have my LR process down to the point where it is really just second nature. I would never shoot JPEG again.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Comments in this thread seem to break down into "I absolutely need it," "I sometimes need it and its nice insurance," or "I never need it." Although this may be maddening, this may be a different strokes sort of topic. I personally like the flexibility that RAW gives me -- the only time I switch to JPG-only is when I have planned badly and am running out of space on a memory card.

Ben Marks

 

[Nikon Bob]

Ben

You hit the mark from where I sit. There are pros and cons to everything and individuals pick what works for them. Just another case of no single right way of doing things.

Bob

 

[ederek]

There is a scene I shoot on occasion, and it's the only time I switch to continuous mode (and always fill up the buffer). Shot it two days ago, frustrated with the buffer, and decided that when shooting this scene in the future, I'll be switching off the RAW+JPEG mode and going RAW only. If I only have room for one, the jpeg has to go...

 

[kuzano]

Might as well ask... "Do I process my own film"

Might as well ask... "Do I process my own film"

I did a couple of rolls of B/W in the early 60's. Forever cured my desire to process my own film. Hence, how do I feel about Post Processing. It sucks as bad as being in a wet darkroom, and I actually remember that experience all too well.

One of the reasons I did not buy an Olympus M4/3 until the E-PL1 came out. They installed a weaker Anti-Aliasing filter in that model, which greatly improved it's JPEG output.

Yes, I do download my images into my computer. However, hardly any of them ever see any time in an editing program. I can do all the image editing I can handle in Picasa or Windows Live Photo Gallery, which are both excellent image organizers.

 

[kuzano]

This post reminds me of a story......

This post reminds me of a story......

The story about the guy who wears three condoms.

A Sheepskin because he is allergic to Latex,
A Latex over the Sheepskin for safety
Another Sheepskin because his girlfriend is also allergic to Latex.

Very similar to shooting RAW.

Where is the thrill and/or the danger in that.

Jpeg only!! No protection at all.