Raw or Not?

[Martin Standley]

Just picking up a point made by Rob lee in the last thread.
I have a nikon Coolpix 8400 and have always shot in 'normal', however I would be interested in ayones thoughts on shooting in 'Raw'.
Are there any advantages?Does it improve image quality?
Any information would be appreciated.

[rob lee]

Hi Martin, never had a camera with raw yet so dont fully understand it, but i think the idea is that you literally have the raw image with no camera artifacts added to it , which at times can help when you have "awkward" shooting situations & helps to post process/ rescue the shot. No doubt someone will answer soon who knows what they`re on about

[JGobeil]

Just picking up a point made by Rob lee in the last thread.
I have a nikon Coolpix 8400 and have always shot in 'normal', however I would be interested in ayones thoughts on shooting in 'Raw'.
Are there any advantages?Does it improve image quality?
Any information would be appreciated.

I always shoot RAW because it gives me more options in post processing. When shooting JPEG, the camera decides what treatment is needed and it is impossible to come back.

Shooting RAW with a P&S camera is not always as practical as with a DSLR since some of those cameras are not very speedy in saving the picture to the memory card - in some cases it can take as long as 4 seconds and even more with some older cameras.

Also, RAW pictures are bigger than JPEGs, so if you don't have a big hard disk to keep them or a large capacity memory card, this may be a problem.

Finally, some expertise/practice is required to do a decent job processing the RAW pictures.

I suggest you give it a try and see if it is for you. Most cameras will allow you to save both a RAW and a JPEG picture at the same time.

[RJM]

RAW is just a tool that can be occassionally handy. The D90 shoots both JPG and RAW simultaneously so I can have the best of both worlds. If I an feeling artsy and have a few pics that can benefit from some tweaking or special effect then having a RAW file is a nice luxury. I am not a fan of shooting RAW exclusively.

Really depends on your final output and resolution. RAW can allow more pixel-peeping details to be revealed and non-destructive editing but there are lots of gotcha ya's. If you take lots of images the huge file size (PC transfer and processing) and doubled archive requirement (RAW file + JPG or TIFF) can be a burden.

I certainly would not shoot RAW files 100% of the time. Just too much hassle for everyday use. It is not suitable for archiving and always needs to be converted for practical use in email, display or printing.

Unlike the standard JPEG format, every camera brand uses its own proprietary RAW format that can be specific to each camera model. At least Nikon does this with each new model! Moreover, since RAW is not an industry standard there is no assurance the format your pic is shot in will be supported by software in the future. Thus you should always convert your RAW files to JPG or TIFF for archiving.

RAW itself is not a real image, just the "ingredients" for one. In order to see an image shot in RAW, you need a converter or "recipe". Not all converters are created equal. Some can be better than others. Even the camera makers converter may not be the best.

Every recipe needs a cook (aka you) so if you enjoy constantly updating software, spending hours in front of the PC learning to use same software, and tweaking poorly shot pics to make poster-size prints then RAW can be for you.

I spend enough of my life in front of the PC as it is. Shooting RAW signs me up for even more face time with the PC than I have now. I shoot too many pics to fool much with post processing and I only view my pics on full HD resolution monitors (~30% of the D90's 12MP!) and print 5x7 so any detail gains through processing are usually lost in my final output anyway. This is a hobby for me, not my job.

I prefer to put effort into perfecting technique and getting the shot right the first time. Also much easier/fun to reshoot the pic to get proper white balance/color balance/ and exposure while you have the subject in front of you than to fix or tweak it in processing later. Needless to say, it helps if your camera LCD is color accurate and easy to see.

Of course if lighting is bad or you are still learning the camera or maybe your technique need work, then maybe RAW can help salvage a good pic from a bad. But the newest dslrs have gotten so powerful that many tweaks can be done in camera anyway.

hope this helps,
Rick

[Paul Corfield]

I shoot 100% in RAW and process in Adobe Lightroom and love the end results. If you shot a load of photos in the same setting then you just adjust one of them, copy the settings used and then apply those settings to all the other photos in one hit so the time spent adjusting is quite minimal and actually quicker than working with jpegs. I often like to crop in close as the dslr allows me to do that and sometimes I crop right in to 100% which is easy when I shoot in RAW as all the detail is retained. If I tried that in jpeg it would be full of jpeg compression artifacts. If ultimately image quality is what you want then shoot in RAW. If you are happy with what you get now then stick with jpeg. Maybe your camera also shoots in Tiff which is somewhere in between the two.

Everyone has their own way of working and their own use for the photos so you just need to see what works best for you.

Paul.

[JGobeil]

Most of the photographers serious about their work shoot RAW exclusively when using DSLRs. This is the only way to get the most from the pictures you have taken.

If the photo is good to start with, one click will process it - easy and quick. If it has flaws, a little more work is needed but many can be salvaged. The same cannot be said about JPEGs unfortunately.

Of course it it is a matter of choice and JPEGs can still bnring results that are quite good. Many are satisfied with that.

[vkalia]

What you get with RAW and not JPEGS:
1/ Ability to adjust color temperature as per your needs, non-destructively
2/ Great dynamic range, so improved ability to handle extreme contrast (such as bird in shade with bright sky behind)
3/ Improved ability to adjust the tonality of an image to get it just per your tastes, with reduced risk of image degradation
4/ Significantly better ability to handle high-ISO noise
5/ Improved quality when it comes to large prints (A2, posters, billboards, etc - even significant crops, if processed properly, print very well)

Downsides of RAW:
1/ Files are larger
2/ Transfer time to PC
3/ Greater time on a computer
4/ More HD space for storage

The way I see it, all these options can be managed. I get about 200+ images on a 4GB card on my 50D, and with a 2GB card on my 1D2. That generally covers me for a few days of shooting (I'd be impressed with myself if I ever took 200 keepers in a day!).

Transfer to PC can happen while I am doing something else.

More time on a computer is required but this is quite low - I generally process only a handful of images from a shoot, and it typically takes me 3-4 min to go from a good RAW image to output. And for a problematic image, RAW helps me save shots that would otherwise have to be binned, were they taken in JPEG.

Even if you process a lot of images, you can create a batch action to convert them to JPEG using the camera settings - and this can run in the background while you do something else. And for the images that need special attention, you have the option of RAW. The best of both worlds.

It takes a little bit of effort to optimize your RAW workflow, however - and if you are just shooting to have ID shots, then JPEG may indeed be simpler and less bothersome. But if you are a keen photographer, it is worth spending the extra time to learn to work in RAW, so that you have the option to use it if needed. Personally, I dont own even a compact that doesnt do RAW.

Vandit

[JGobeil]

Very well said Vandit ! A genuine RAW 101 course...

I use 8GB cards - they are quite cheap now.

I always shoot RAW with my DSLR - no exception. With the G10 P&S, I usually shoot RAW also - one exception: family snapshots.

For family snapshots, I set the G10 to "Auto". This full automatic mode takes care of everything. The camera is there, with a RD2000 flash set for bounce, and anybody can use it - point and shoot as it should be. These simple photos are perfect most of the time and make great souvenirs.

[Martin Standley]

Many thanks for your responses.
Most informative, I'll be out trying raw this weekend.

[vkalia]

Good luck with that. If you are interested, I have an article on a RAW workflow for processing images on my website here:
www.photosafariindia.com/articles.html

It should give you a good indication of how to process your images. The entire process may seem very onerous and in the beginning, it probably will be... but as you get the hang of things, it isnt so bad. I recently sent in a submission of 20 images to Elle magazine (possibly the last client I would have considered for my photography, but hey...), and it took me about 1.5 hours - or <5 min per image - to get the images from RAW mode into a ready-for-publication stage.

You might also want to compare your RAW conversions to the in-camera JPEGs as a measure of how well you are doing. If you shoot at high ISOs, RAW + Neatimage/Noise Ninja will pretty much destroy in-camera JPEGs when it comes to quality.

Vandit