JoeLopez
Well-known
Well said Tim
Shooting RAW a waste of time?
- Thread starter upceci
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 136
- Views 13K
mich rassena
Well-known
It's 2017, multi-terabyte hard drives and 64GB SD cards are not expensive, especially taking into account the comparative cost of cameras which shoot RAW.
For the way I use a camera, even RAW isn't good enough. I combine up to 30 exposures into a single image to reduce noise and increase usable dynamic range. What I need is more RAM and CPU performance to do the post-production that I like in a timely fashion. If your computer struggles with a single RAW file, get a computer that is comparably placed in the market to your camera (new Canon 7D, get an iMac Pro or a high-end Core i7 PC, old APS-C Nikon, get a Core i3-based computer).
For the way I use a camera, even RAW isn't good enough. I combine up to 30 exposures into a single image to reduce noise and increase usable dynamic range. What I need is more RAM and CPU performance to do the post-production that I like in a timely fashion. If your computer struggles with a single RAW file, get a computer that is comparably placed in the market to your camera (new Canon 7D, get an iMac Pro or a high-end Core i7 PC, old APS-C Nikon, get a Core i3-based computer).
NickTrop
Veteran
You're welcome. Glad you get it. Better yet, try it!
NickTrop
Veteran
When you shot your Tri-X or any film, did giant eviiiil corporations Kodak and Fuji have control over your images along with the lab?
Pioneer
Veteran
My digital workflow doesn't really justify my being too concerned about RAW or not. Anything that may accidentally be artistic is shot on film. I really have no misconceptions about my artistic abilities.
When I first started working with digital it was for documenting things. Physical conditions, forensic information, etc. Jpeg was the order of the day. In certain cases RAW image files and photo manipulation were frowned upon and discouraged. At the very least it meant a heck of a lot of extra paperwork to explain and document what you had done.
The great majority of my current digital photographs still document family and or other things I need quickly, like E-Bay sales. Again, jpeg is the order of the day. Most of those are usually deleted, the family shots are printed or made into books.
I also distribute digital files of family photos among the family using SD cards. These are jpeg (lossless?) because that format is universal and I have no idea what they will use to view or print them.
Most film gets scanned to TIFF if it is small enough format, or contact printed if it is too big to scan at home. Again, I am not too worried about RAW or not.
I have a couple digital cameras where I do shoot both RAW and jpeg. One is my Sigma DP3. The reason is so that I can immediately view the jpegs in any photo viewer to be able to make a quick decision whether or not the file is worth saving. If I don't like it I delete it. If I do want it saved I upload it in the Sigma software, convert the RAW file and save it for Lightroom.
I also use a couple of old Pentax digital SLRS (*ist D and K10D) which produce gorgeous photos IMHO. But the jpeg engines are not very good so I shoot RAW. The newer RAW conversion software does an amazing job of retrieving and converting the image data that has been captured by those cameras. In this case, newer software and older RAW files are an advantage for me and I get the output that I want.
But even in those cases where I do convert RAW files I really do not spend a whole lot of time doing it. White balance, color balance and maybe a bit of exposure adjustment are pretty much the limit of what I do.
I guess the conclusion of this very wordy thread is...it all depends. I don't think there really is one simple answer to this question. Sometimes it IS a waste of my time to save and work with RAW files. I open the jpeg, crop, size the image for the output I have in mind, sharpen and save. Other times it is a great way to end up with some quite amazing printed photographs. At least for my limited talent. In those situations I will spend a fair amount of time on the computer (similar to my darkroom work) to get a print that I want. And, in those circumstances, I am glad that I have the RAW image data to work with. Whether or not it really makes a big difference is not the point, it makes me happy, and that is the point.
When I first started working with digital it was for documenting things. Physical conditions, forensic information, etc. Jpeg was the order of the day. In certain cases RAW image files and photo manipulation were frowned upon and discouraged. At the very least it meant a heck of a lot of extra paperwork to explain and document what you had done.
The great majority of my current digital photographs still document family and or other things I need quickly, like E-Bay sales. Again, jpeg is the order of the day. Most of those are usually deleted, the family shots are printed or made into books.
I also distribute digital files of family photos among the family using SD cards. These are jpeg (lossless?) because that format is universal and I have no idea what they will use to view or print them.
Most film gets scanned to TIFF if it is small enough format, or contact printed if it is too big to scan at home. Again, I am not too worried about RAW or not.
I have a couple digital cameras where I do shoot both RAW and jpeg. One is my Sigma DP3. The reason is so that I can immediately view the jpegs in any photo viewer to be able to make a quick decision whether or not the file is worth saving. If I don't like it I delete it. If I do want it saved I upload it in the Sigma software, convert the RAW file and save it for Lightroom.
I also use a couple of old Pentax digital SLRS (*ist D and K10D) which produce gorgeous photos IMHO. But the jpeg engines are not very good so I shoot RAW. The newer RAW conversion software does an amazing job of retrieving and converting the image data that has been captured by those cameras. In this case, newer software and older RAW files are an advantage for me and I get the output that I want.
But even in those cases where I do convert RAW files I really do not spend a whole lot of time doing it. White balance, color balance and maybe a bit of exposure adjustment are pretty much the limit of what I do.
I guess the conclusion of this very wordy thread is...it all depends. I don't think there really is one simple answer to this question. Sometimes it IS a waste of my time to save and work with RAW files. I open the jpeg, crop, size the image for the output I have in mind, sharpen and save. Other times it is a great way to end up with some quite amazing printed photographs. At least for my limited talent. In those situations I will spend a fair amount of time on the computer (similar to my darkroom work) to get a print that I want. And, in those circumstances, I am glad that I have the RAW image data to work with. Whether or not it really makes a big difference is not the point, it makes me happy, and that is the point.
NickTrop
Veteran
Same "Moore's Law" argument applies to nth generation in-camera image-processing firmware.
Axel
singleshooter
For me RAW Files and RAW processing is no option.
I´m interested in taking photos and I get them from my cameras as jpegs.
If I were more interested in the process I would shoot more film and develop myself.
I can do some nice or maybe necessary manipulations with GIMP.
That´s enough.
For me.
I´m interested in taking photos and I get them from my cameras as jpegs.
If I were more interested in the process I would shoot more film and develop myself.
I can do some nice or maybe necessary manipulations with GIMP.
That´s enough.
For me.
mich rassena
Well-known
To some people, the burned out area on the beak, and the lack of detail on the wing at the left of the photo and on the eyebrow are important. JPGs work fine if the exposure is well within the dynamic range of the camera. But maybe I'm mistaken and I have the images swapped?
I also didn't see anywhere on the page a link to download both the RAW file and the original JPG. It's a bit hard to compare on the web because both linked images are JPGs and extremely small. But even then there are noticeable differences in what the camera-processed JPG shows and the post-processed from RAW JPG.
RAW gives the photographer more creative control in much the same way manual camera settings do. If more automatic settings work for your workflow, then great. For myself, I find myself stretching the camera's capabilities, and RAW helps me do so.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Not so long time ago I answered in similar thread. Was it POTN or exAPUG...
Anyway, here we go gagain.
What for the image is taken?
I'm taking it for not mural sized prints and for not wall sized screens. No HDR or any other distasteful over-processing. I'm capable of SOOC images ready to be printed. Almost 🙂
So, JPEG1 of 12MP size is absolutely sufficient.
My JPEG1 big time was with Canon 5D and Canon 50L lens. It was almost permanently set to ISO1600. And JPEG1 files from this combo were absolutely awesome. This pair handled TTL Canon flash extremely well. It was my JPEG1 SOOC and main camera for five or so years.
But 5Dc started to acting up and 50L lens worn out with Canon service not capable to repair it back to normal. So, I told this couple thank you and goodbye and...
get extremely lucky to receive M-E as the BD present!
It is totally different camera. More quirky at exposure and not as good as 5Dc at ISO1600. RAW is preferable, but luckily M-E has compressed RAW files which are not grossly massive.
Yet, honestly, M8 with Jupiter-12 or Industar-69 and no IR-cut JPEG1 10 MP files were also awesome!
Anyway, here we go gagain.
What for the image is taken?
I'm taking it for not mural sized prints and for not wall sized screens. No HDR or any other distasteful over-processing. I'm capable of SOOC images ready to be printed. Almost 🙂
So, JPEG1 of 12MP size is absolutely sufficient.
My JPEG1 big time was with Canon 5D and Canon 50L lens. It was almost permanently set to ISO1600. And JPEG1 files from this combo were absolutely awesome. This pair handled TTL Canon flash extremely well. It was my JPEG1 SOOC and main camera for five or so years.
But 5Dc started to acting up and 50L lens worn out with Canon service not capable to repair it back to normal. So, I told this couple thank you and goodbye and...
get extremely lucky to receive M-E as the BD present!
It is totally different camera. More quirky at exposure and not as good as 5Dc at ISO1600. RAW is preferable, but luckily M-E has compressed RAW files which are not grossly massive.
Yet, honestly, M8 with Jupiter-12 or Industar-69 and no IR-cut JPEG1 10 MP files were also awesome!
David Hughes
David Hughes
OK, but I shot slide film and have done for decades... So I'm happy with the shot from the camera as a JPEG. That's mainly because you can't do much with a slide; apart from correcting verticals with scissors and careful mounting and a lot of luck. Also I read the reviews and look for cameras that deliver the goods, even as jpg's.
Regards, David
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
- Local time
- 10:18 AM
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,685
- Location
- Northern California Sierra Foothills
I'm lucky, I enjoy the developing as much if not more than the shooting. I print, if one only posts on the various digital venues there really isn't much need for RAW to begin with.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Most cameras let you shoot both simultaneously. That way you could have jpgs for when you don't want to edit, but have the RAW files available when you need to.
peterm1
Veteran
Is it a waste of time.....no, not really it is not - at least in my view. At least not when shooting outside where there are big difference in light levels. That in any event is my reason to prefer RAW.
A continuing struggle with digital is the relatively limited dynamic range (which is admittedly getting way, way better) and more particularly the way blown highlights appear in digital images compared to film. The two are connected but not the same as blown highlights have to do with the way digital images are recorded as one of 255 tones - drop off the edge and there is no detail recorded. In film there is a nice progression from good exposure to wholly blown highlights and this makes it look natural - much as the eye sees it. But with digital from well exposed to over exposed and blown is like dropping off a cliff. And it almost always looks ugly in the final image
But I find that if an image is shot in RAW using Adobe Lightroom I can pull back a great deal of detail in highlights - the detail was there all the time but hidden or lost when the camera processed the image to JPG. (Of course you cant pull back detail that is not there at all). Similarly with shadows at the other end fo the spectrum but I worry less about lost shadow detail as it has less impact on image quality generally.
So I generally shoot RAW- or more accurately RAW and JPG together to give me the option of taking a short cut and jsut using the JPG image if the exposure of it is OK. Oh and I should add by the way that if the option is presented I save in RAW with minimal compression - I want all the data I can get and nothing lost to compression algorithms. The downside is two images are slower to process /save and they take more room on the memory card. But most cameras today are powerful enough that this is not a real problem and as to the memory used -well SD cards have huge capacity today.
The only real downside I have found is that as camera sensor sizes have increased the larger size of files takes more processing on my computer - I found for example that my PC struggled to cope with 24 megapixel NEX files when processing using an older 32 bit version of my processing software. I upgraded to the latest Lightroom version and also the latest 64 bit version of Adobe Paintshop Pro (which I run under Lightroom more or less like a plugin) and the two no longer make the computer "chug".
BTW I asked my niece who is a pro photographer and so is her fiance if they shoot in RAW. The answer was no they cannot be bothered. But they do mainly studio work I think and that is the reason - in a studio a good photographer can control light and manage their exposures much better.
A continuing struggle with digital is the relatively limited dynamic range (which is admittedly getting way, way better) and more particularly the way blown highlights appear in digital images compared to film. The two are connected but not the same as blown highlights have to do with the way digital images are recorded as one of 255 tones - drop off the edge and there is no detail recorded. In film there is a nice progression from good exposure to wholly blown highlights and this makes it look natural - much as the eye sees it. But with digital from well exposed to over exposed and blown is like dropping off a cliff. And it almost always looks ugly in the final image
But I find that if an image is shot in RAW using Adobe Lightroom I can pull back a great deal of detail in highlights - the detail was there all the time but hidden or lost when the camera processed the image to JPG. (Of course you cant pull back detail that is not there at all). Similarly with shadows at the other end fo the spectrum but I worry less about lost shadow detail as it has less impact on image quality generally.
So I generally shoot RAW- or more accurately RAW and JPG together to give me the option of taking a short cut and jsut using the JPG image if the exposure of it is OK. Oh and I should add by the way that if the option is presented I save in RAW with minimal compression - I want all the data I can get and nothing lost to compression algorithms. The downside is two images are slower to process /save and they take more room on the memory card. But most cameras today are powerful enough that this is not a real problem and as to the memory used -well SD cards have huge capacity today.
The only real downside I have found is that as camera sensor sizes have increased the larger size of files takes more processing on my computer - I found for example that my PC struggled to cope with 24 megapixel NEX files when processing using an older 32 bit version of my processing software. I upgraded to the latest Lightroom version and also the latest 64 bit version of Adobe Paintshop Pro (which I run under Lightroom more or less like a plugin) and the two no longer make the computer "chug".
BTW I asked my niece who is a pro photographer and so is her fiance if they shoot in RAW. The answer was no they cannot be bothered. But they do mainly studio work I think and that is the reason - in a studio a good photographer can control light and manage their exposures much better.
Archiver
Veteran
For the first few years of my digital camera life, I only shot in jpeg and prided myself on 'straight out of camera' images. This process was due to laziness and the expense of large memory cards that would hold a lot of raw images. At that time, I didn't know how to process images, nor did I have the money to buy larger and more expensive memory cards.
After some time, I discovered that I enjoyed tweaking jpegs in Photoshop. And when I bought the Sigma DP1, that camera required raw for the images to look any good. As memory prices dropped and processing images became something I enjoyed, I began to shoot all raw, all the time.
Now I shoot everything in raw. Lightroom presets handle batch processing, and I will tweak the occasional image if I think it is worthwhile, or needs rescuing from poor exposure or composition. Memory prices are at an all time low, and I actually regret not shooting in raw a lot eariler. Older cameras like the Canon 30D have a whole new life thanks to current versions of Lightroom.
After some time, I discovered that I enjoyed tweaking jpegs in Photoshop. And when I bought the Sigma DP1, that camera required raw for the images to look any good. As memory prices dropped and processing images became something I enjoyed, I began to shoot all raw, all the time.
Now I shoot everything in raw. Lightroom presets handle batch processing, and I will tweak the occasional image if I think it is worthwhile, or needs rescuing from poor exposure or composition. Memory prices are at an all time low, and I actually regret not shooting in raw a lot eariler. Older cameras like the Canon 30D have a whole new life thanks to current versions of Lightroom.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Scrambler
Well-known
In our house we have 4 decent(ish)-quality digital cameras of 2 different ages - a Pentax K100d and Epson R-D1 (which have the same sensor but turn out quite different results), a Canon Eos 650 and a Sony a3000 (a cheapy with a decent quality sensor).
The newer cameras have JPG engines that are stunning and I would have no hesitation in saying that the JPG can do whatever you want with them. They also have pixels to spare so even cropping is not necessarily an issue.
But the older cameras have, as has already been mentioned, limited processing ability and the ability to use a modern desktop running modern software means that even the well-regarded R-D1 B&W output is markedly inferior to the desktop processing from RAW to B&W. The same is true - even more true - with colour output from either camera.
What is missing in this comparison is real-time discussion. Back in 2005 the desktop hardware and software may have been no better than the cameras. I don't know - I just shot JPGs in the Pentax then and the R-D1 cost more than a (used but decent) car so I had to wait until its price sank from insane to merely excessive.
In my mind, for most people shooting relatively modern cameras (and what "relatively modern" means is negotiable) there is little difference. If you want to play more in the processing, even using presets, the RAW path works better (IMHO) for older cameras but with less gain with newer/current cameras.
The newer cameras have JPG engines that are stunning and I would have no hesitation in saying that the JPG can do whatever you want with them. They also have pixels to spare so even cropping is not necessarily an issue.
But the older cameras have, as has already been mentioned, limited processing ability and the ability to use a modern desktop running modern software means that even the well-regarded R-D1 B&W output is markedly inferior to the desktop processing from RAW to B&W. The same is true - even more true - with colour output from either camera.
What is missing in this comparison is real-time discussion. Back in 2005 the desktop hardware and software may have been no better than the cameras. I don't know - I just shot JPGs in the Pentax then and the R-D1 cost more than a (used but decent) car so I had to wait until its price sank from insane to merely excessive.
In my mind, for most people shooting relatively modern cameras (and what "relatively modern" means is negotiable) there is little difference. If you want to play more in the processing, even using presets, the RAW path works better (IMHO) for older cameras but with less gain with newer/current cameras.
Archiver
Veteran
From another perspective, the question could be, "is jpeg enough?"
Assuming you've got a camera with stellar jpeg processing and good lenses, and you're happy with that camera's jpeg output, then why not?
For years, I shot with the Canon 30D and 5D Mark II on jpeg, Natural profile, and I loved it. It was all I needed at the time. The colours and tones were smooth and creamy, and more than enough to document my life and take the occasional landscape or beauty shot. So for some, jpeg from a decent camera might be all they need.
Assuming you've got a camera with stellar jpeg processing and good lenses, and you're happy with that camera's jpeg output, then why not?
For years, I shot with the Canon 30D and 5D Mark II on jpeg, Natural profile, and I loved it. It was all I needed at the time. The colours and tones were smooth and creamy, and more than enough to document my life and take the occasional landscape or beauty shot. So for some, jpeg from a decent camera might be all they need.