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

RAW only - if you want simple processing use Lightroom or Aperture, often no need for photoshop et al. You can of course use it if you wish. Raw and Jpg look the same in lightroom, but there's more ability to work with raw files.

If you're happy with jpgs and it ain't broke though, I'm not telling you to fix it. You need to enjoy it affter all.

Mike
 
250swb said:
Well, speed aside (yes it could possibly take all of two seconds to press the right buttons to process a RAW file), you spend a shed load of money on a posh camera, you spend a whole load of time driving to and fro to make some photographs, you spend endless hours on the internet pontificating about photography, and then you let the camera do all the processing work to come up with a JPEG that is fixed for ever just the way Canon (et al) says it should be.

And yet all around software is moving on, its getting more out of the available data, but now and for ever more you can do sod all with your JPEG because thats that, the end. But with a RAW file the information is waiting to be processed with different RAW converters, it can take advantage of improvements in software we haven't yet seen, its all the data that the camera could get at the time with nothing thrown away in processing the JPEG. A case in point would be the new version of ACR that comes with CS5 or soon Lightroom 3. Its new algorithms reduce previous noise by maybe more than a stop, so a RAW image shot at 1600 ISO now looks like it was shot at 800 ISO or less. But a JPEG shot at 1600 ISO will still look like it was shot at 1600 ISO till the end of time. Of course there is nothing wrong with noisy high ISO images, but at least you can have more choice with RAW.

So RAW is a waste of time? It strikes me JPEG is the waste of time, effort, and money and you are kidding yourself into thinking its difficult or time consuming.

Steve
Click to expand...
Points taken Steve, but here is a guy that does not want to go back to pictures - to alter and play around. If I have a good picture to frame, put in my portfolio or occasionally hand to someone in exchange for cash - I'm happy, o.k. - I often need another copy from storage - but just a copy-and presently I can do this with jpegs YMMV. Re the speed issue - in a couple of weeks time, I shall spend two weeks in Turkey, and shoot hundreds of images, I know between jpeg and RAW -which will be the easier to handle when back home!....apart from the memory card aspect :)
Dave.
 
For me, I shoot JPG with minimal in camera settings. I haven't shot RAW for a while. I find that RAW can be an advantage in tricky lighting or WB cases. When I scan my negatives, I scan as TIFFs. There are much better than scanning to JPGs.

I use ACDsee Pro 3, so RAW and JPG editing uses the identical tools. and uses "Non-Destructive" editing. So Developing RAW is no different than developing JPGs. And, no file is changed until it is "saved as" an output file, in either format.
 
i pretty much only shoot raw. i often work quick and enjoy having all the highlight room and color balance help i can access.

it really isn't a whole lot more work with modern versions of CS etc.

for a B+W shooter it is a big plus!
 
I used to shot Jpeg when cards were expensive and thought that was good enough. Well, cards got cheaper and I started using RAW and still do. I need all the help I can get with exposures and the ability to save an image. I find it easy to work with and if I have been on a trip there is no going back to retake an ooops in a Jpeg. I don't see myself going back.

Bob
 
kshapero said:
Why TIFF Bill?
Click to expand...

There are many industry standard image formats, some open, others not so much. Each standard has it's own purpose and goal when being developed. JPEG was focused on compression. You will find that zipping (compressing) JPEG files yields almost no additional compression. Every time you open a JPEG to edit it, as mentioned above, the software tries to compress it down further. Compression on top of compression the software tries to make things small.

The TIFF standard is not about compression, it's about image stability and quality. They are MUCH BIGGER than JPEGS so people don't use them too often but they are a well supported standard but just about all programs. I really like TIFF because there isn't another standard that I believe keeps the volume of information that has as high a probability of being supported 40 years from now. While I'm not 100% sure that CDs or DVD will be readable I am sure that stuff in the cloud will be accessible.

It's like democracy, it's not perfect, but it's the best we have so far.

B2 (;->
 
I only shoot RAW when I'm shooting digital, and I have very good reasons to do so:
  1. RAW files as a rule encode about 1.5 EV more exposure latitude than a JPG file.
  2. This gives me much more freedom to correct any shooting mistakes I inevitably am making, like salvaging blown highlights or adjusting white balance (both of which are impossible or hery hard to do with JPGs).
  3. RAW files encode their color channel data with 16 bits of resolution instead of in 8 bit resolution as with JPG. Compared to JPGs, this offers much more freedom for gradation curve adjustments before a processed image shows color banding (posterization).
The exposure latitude argument is particularly important: Hardly any camera has a light metering system that can guarantee that there won't be any blown highlights in a picture. If you want to make sure you don't get blown highlights with JPGs, you have use a negative exposure correction factor (slight underexposure) - this will invariably cost you some shadow detail. Not so with RAW: On your computer, you can visualize any blown highlights and tweak the exposure down (generally about 1.5 EV max.) until the blown highlights are gone. You'll do that after the fact in PP, and you only tweak the exposure down far enough so that the highlights are retrieved, but still directly at the upper end of the tonality scale. This way, you can minimize shadow detail loss, effectively preserving much more shadow detail than with JPGs.

Consider this analogy: RAW files are just like film negatives that offer you ample potential for manipulation. JPGs are like paper prints directly from a photofinishing service that give you virtually no influence on the quality of the end product.
 
I shoot a Leica Dlux-4 and a Panasonic G1, and have used many other digital cameras, including the Epson R-D1, before that. I admit that theoretically RAW is the way to go. As a practical matter, I get better and much faster results using jpgs and Picasa. I think you have to be a real expert with raw processing before your results will match the automatic corrections good SW can do with a jpg. Picasa even does a damn good job with poorly exposed jpgs. As a result, that's all I shoot now.

/T
 
I always shoot raw. I import the whole card into lightroom and then edit the ones I like. Delete the rubbish and keep the rest sat neatly in lightroom. Easy work flow and great picture quality
 
+1 for Lightroom. Everything gets saved as RAW+DNG. 80-90% of the time, the Olympus .jpg files are as good as or better than I would get myself, at least as a starting point. The other 10-20% of the time they're not. LR makes it very easy to quickly go through my shots and ditch the files that I don't need. Usually the files ditched are the RAWs.

I *always* scan film to .dng files in VueScan.
 
Jpeg on both my digitals (5d + e-p1) just bakes the file. By that I mean they always have overdone skin tones, lifeless shadows, yucky noise and processing, white balance errors etc. With lightroom or aperture it isn't any harder to shoot raw. You simply put your card in the card reader, auto-import into either program, and then if you don't want to edit them, you can export selects to jpegs for print. If you see things you want to fix, it takes a few seconds per file. With that sort of ease of workflow I don't understand why anyone would ever shoot jpeg.

Perfect.
 
I think too much is made of the difficulty of working with raw files. There are a lot of free video tutorials online and once you've seen the difference in the images that raw processing can reveal... you'll never turn back.
 
When I first delved into digital a couple years back I was totally new to it all and only shot JPG as I had no idea. I never really got along with it and ditched digital going back to film for another couple years. I'm getting back into digital now and only shooting in RAW.

Like others have said I view the raw file as my negative. It's more work, sure, but I don't find Processing the RAW files all that laborious or annoying.

I've NEVER been happy with Jpg's. JMHO.
 
To get the most out of one's files, RAW is the way to go. I only use jpegs when I shoot events, and need an image quick and dirty. I don't get paid enough to process hundreds of RAW files!

RAW is definitely not a hassle. It is like being in the darkroom again.
 
Olympus = JPG's

Panasonic = RAW

I find that you gain almost nothing with Olympus by processing the RAW, they do such a good job on JPG.

Just the opposite with Panasonic G1 - RAW or else....or else the color balance won't be correct and all the other parameters, too. RAW is essential on the G1, not too much hassle with the SilkyPix software that comes with the G1...

.
 
I spend hour after hour reading internet forums, reading reviews and looking at photos to figure out which sensor has the best performance.

I study DXO's camera performance data over and over again to make sure my camera will have the best sensor.

I spend lots of money to insure I own the highest performance camera/sensor I can afford.

Then I shoot jpegs and intentionally throw away 60% of the data collected by the sensor.


Think about it.
 
reala_fan said:
Olympus = JPG's

Panasonic = RAW

I find that you gain almost nothing with Olympus by processing the RAW, they do such a good job on JPG.

Just the opposite with Panasonic G1 - RAW or else....or else the color balance won't be correct and all the other parameters, too. RAW is essential on the G1, not too much hassle with the SilkyPix software that comes with the G1...

.
Click to expand...

Olympus cameras do have a big rep for good jpegs, however I have to say that I wasn't happy with the jpegs from either my e-3 or my e-p1. They were loads better than the fried chicken yellow and grey nikon jpegs, and loads better than the canon 'flat as a cardboard sheet' canon jpegs, but I could still get significantly better tones/colors/skintones/high iso noise performance out of a raw file + ACR converter.
 
reala_fan said:
Olympus = JPG's

Panasonic = RAW

I find that you gain almost nothing with Olympus by processing the RAW, they do such a good job on JPG.
Click to expand...

I agree that Olympus cranks out better-looking Jpegs (in general, not every time) than Canon or Nikon as long as they are within acceptable ISO performance. I think color-balance (don't confuse this with white-balance) is the key.

I shoot JPEG + Raw on my E-P2, it's rare that I have to tweak the RAW unless when I want a certain look or B&W.

Conversely, my wife shoots only RAW with her 5D (especially for clients), guess who gets to tweak most of them? :)

... In Canon's defense, full-frame + prime L glass is good, *very* good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom