Shooting in RAW
- This topic has 9 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated Sep 26, 2007 at 11:22 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
Do you guys mostly shoot in RAW when just out and about (not on a pro shoot)? I was wondering what are the negatives other then disk space if there area any? My camera is a 10mp and I carry two 2 gig mem cards so I don’t think I’d run out of space before I could get it on my laptop.
I shoot in JPEGs unless I’m looking at some tricky light or I know the shot has major-use potential (like cover treatments or two-page spreads).
Mike, I really like RAW, it lets me forget about white balance issues and worry more about good exposure and composition. I get about 150 shots on a 2G card with a similar file size.
You’ve got to like post-processing although with a few basic saved profiles and a dropper tool to set the white balance I can usually make files as good or better than what would come out of the camera in JPEG mode pretty quickly if I must.
They do take longer to work with but I also throw away a lot of shots before even touching them.
I always shoot RAW, even snapshots of my grandkids. With CS2 and ACR (I assume CS3 also but I haven’t upgraded yet), if there aren’t any problems, you can easily convert all files to another format, setting color space, size etc in a batch, with very little time spent on processing. If I have a problem however, then I can spend the time for fix. If I shoot JPG and have a problem, it’s too late, I can’t go back and reshoot in RAW. My feelings are better safe than sorry.
With my recent upgrade to the 40D, I am considering using sRAW for snapshots to save the space but still have the ability to process should I need it.
Im strictly Raw. The benefits ( non destructive adjustments) outweigh the extra work and storage space for me. It took a little while to adjust to raw, mostly due to the camera doing alot of processing with jpegs (sharpening etc) but I wont go back to jpeg, except when I’m really pushed for space on extending outings. In terms of file size, I could get 210 frames on 2gig cards with the 30D and about 150 now on the 10mp 40D. So the only time I really need to consder using jpegs to save space is when on vacation
Jpegs out of modern cameras are good and getting better – they are however still a compromise.
A raw file with a little effort will always give you a better image.
You do your contrast, sharpness, white balance, saturation ect ect ect shot by shot.As to memory cards – they now cost less than shooting film did per shot.
I could shoot a 4 gig, download it and then throw it away and still be spending less than I used to on the smae number of shots on tranny film with proc.
And that’s on 16+MP’s..www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
I shoot RAW all the time and have become used to it. Better archival quality too, I just burn all my select raws to discs and store them on hard drives as well – they’re always there to go back to. The loss of detail in jpegs freaks me out and post processing is a great opportunity to look at images in deatil as you work on them.
Morsie
I’ve gone back and forth, but mostly i just shoot jpeg’s. I agree with most here that ultimatly you can get a better image using RAW with some work, but using the histograms, and previews, i think i can get within about 95% of the RAW file output, and it takes me alot less time because i don’t ahve to do all the post processing – assuming i take a little bit of extra time and get the shot right in the camera the first time. All the RAW editing in the world won’t make up for poor lighting conditions, or not being there to get the shot because you are stuck behind a box doing post! I have made 20×30″ prints from 6 mp jpegs, and unless you look at the print from 6″ away, people love them. Learn how to use the different settings in the camera (WB, saturation, sharpness, contrast) to get the results you want when you pull the trigger, and i thnk you will become a stronger photographer.
Programs like lightroom and aperture which allow for editing of RAW files, and also provide alot of other great tools certainly make it alot easier to work with RAW’s though, so i will keep experimenting. But they also allow for lossless editing of jpegs which is really cool too. Ughhh..
Well this is pretty much the response I expected. Had I shot in raw I could have fixed the Bonita shots from my last Fl trip. I had left the camera WB setting in tungsten mode and everything was blue, real blue. Of course it could be argued that had I taken the time to fire a couple of test shots first I could have prevented it just as well.. In the heat of battle when you’re balancing busting fish on one hand and a potential problem with your fish shots on the other, the busting fish always take precedence in my boat.
Memory is pretty cheap and if you can save just a few shots it might just be worth it. I think I’ll switch over to RAW fulltime for awhile and see how it works out for me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.