Pros and Cons of Shooting in RAW as a beginner

I can't think of a more boring or less inspiring subject.

Each to his or her own. And some people do it for a living, having no choice. If the OP's course is purely aimed at learning basic photography and image processing, RAW is going to be the way to go. If the course includes other aspects like the professional side, the RAW/JPEG decision would include factors other than the acknowledged advantages of RAW capture

I shoot Nikon and I can use NX-D to quickly process the files to match any OOC JPEG.

I've heard the argument for JPEGs(I don't agree with it) that you're letting the folks who know the camera best do the post processing for you.

The problem with that is that using a program like NX-D or the equivalent from other makers lets you still use the manufacturers knowledge, but the way it's done can be updated/changed rather than being baked in for the lifetime of the camera. I've done the quick work-up in NX-D before also, even though I prefer to use Lightroom.

On Ansel Adams -

Ansel was a consultant for Polaroid: that consultancy period lasted nearly 40 years, beginning in 1949.

Adams tested nearly every product Polaroid made during the span of his consultancy and Adams is credited with the idea of developing Polaroid's 4x5 film (Type 55).

Adams did use Type 55 film in a 4x5 Film back - and - he also used (extensively) a Polaroid SX70 for his work.

For those interested (and when one can access public places more freely again), Harvard Business School has, in their Baker Library, Special Collections Section, a massive collection of Adams' correspondence, test photos and his work produced on many Polaroid Cameras and Polaroid Films.

It is amazing.

WW

OP, if you don't plan to PP, shoot JPEG. If you got room, shoot JPEG and RAW and keep the RAW just in case.

The JPEG loss debate is overblown in my opinion.

Here are some JPEG multi gen tests I did...31 generations of the same JPEG.

31 Generations of JPEG’s compared

Personally, I shoot JPEG and RAW.

And then there's the vulnerability of JPEG files to corruption. Just one bit out of place and the file's toast! Not so with uncompressed TIFF or RAW.

Lossy compression is part of the JPEG protocol, so there's no way to make a JPEG file more robust against data corruption. And finding the corrupted bit(s) and re-instating image integrity is near impossible.

One advantage of RAW, is that you have the full real estate of the sensor. So for example, I shoot formatted jpeg at 16:9 so I can create slide shows to match video 16:9 on my 4K UHDTV or monitor or youtube. Since the sensor is nominally 4:3 (it's Sony RX100iv camera), 16:9, 1:1, 3:2 jpeg settings chop off some of the sensor data. If I use RAW file, I have the full sensor's resolution of 4:3 to move around in rather than the originally limited 16:9 or 1:1 or 3:2 jpeg if I shot in one of those rather than 4:3 jpeg. So let's say I chopped off someone's feet in the 16:9 jpeg, the RAW will have caught them so I can crop a different part of the RAW original and include the feet.

Here's an example. The picture is the RAW file. The gridded area shows what was actually shot in the viewfinder and what's in the 16:9 formatted JPEG photo. The portions at the top and bottom was what I didn't see in the viewfinder when I took the shot. But it includes what the sensor recorded. I can now [editted] move down the 16:9 format grid to include the feet. Of course, I lose an equal amount of the top. But you can see the flexibility.

Also, if I want to print, I'm not limited to 16:9 jpeg. I can use the full 4:3 captured by the camera in RAW.

Shooting Raw gives you more latitude with regards to exposure, WB, and the overall look of the photo (Picture Controls, Raw converter, etcetera). Also, if you practice ETTR you gain DR. There is very little reason not to shoot Raw -- I shoot Nikon and I can use NX-D to quickly process the files to match any OOC JPEG. As for shooting Raw+JPEG, I don't recommend that because once you learn how to optimally expose a Raw file you will find that is different than optimally exposing a JPEG file (herein lies a can of worms, but this refers back to the aforementioned practicing of ETTR).

however shooting in raw and jpeg saves the time of covnerting the raw file into jpeg for MOST websites to show. It doesnt matter how great a photo is, or how big it is size wise, or that its in lossless raw when the website only allows standard jpeg format.

It doesnt matter how great a photo is, or how big it is size wise, or that its in lossless raw when the website only allows standard jpeg format.

That's irrelevant to the extra flexibility in processing that RAW capture allows before conversion to a JPEG for web posting.

I refer you to my two previous examples, both posted here as JPEG files, yet the 2nd version was only made possible by shooting RAW.

...yet the 2nd version was only made possible by shooting RAW.

Here, here!!! Also my point, and the main reason I shoot in RAW.

I've done the quick work-up in NX-D before also, even though I prefer to use Lightroom.

Personally, NX-D is my go-to choice, though I have used ACR in Photoshop for some Raw conversions.

"Shooting Raw gives you more latitude with regards to exposure, WB, and the overall look of the photo (Picture Controls, Raw converter, etcetera). Also, if you practice ETTR you gain DR. There is very little reason not to shoot Raw -- I shoot Nikon and I can use NX-D to quickly process the files to match any OOC JPEG. As for shooting Raw+JPEG, I don't recommend that because once you learn how to optimally expose a Raw file you will find that is different than optimally exposing a JPEG file (herein lies a can of worms, but this refers back to the aforementioned practicing of ETTR)."

however shooting in raw and jpeg saves the time of converting the raw file into jpeg for MOST websites to show. It doesn't matter how great a photo is, or how big it is size wise, or that its in lossless raw when the website only allows standard jpeg format.

Much is lost when merely sharing photos on the web. That doesn't negate the value of being able to do more robust edits (as demonstrated in this thread), or of being able to utilize the inherent latitude in the Raw file.

Regarding being quicker, I have a routine and find the conversion to be the quickest part of my workflow.

• I start by I uploading the files to my computer.
  
• Then I typically set default WB and Picture Control settings that I apply to the entire folder.
  
• Then I evaluate the individual photos and adjust from the default settings based on the exposure, the scene, and my intended edits.
  
• Then I open a selected Raw file as 16 bit TIFF in Photoshop.
  
• Crop.
  
• Use an Action (just press a quick key) to apply some USM to increase contrast and use the same layer to apply some additional curve adjustments to the file.
  
• Convert from my working color space (AdobeRGB) to my destination color space (sRGB), resize for web presentation, and save as an 8 bit JPEG (another one click Action on my keyboard).
  

The entire process often takes less than a minute from the selection of the file to the resulting photograph I want to share -- YMMV.

Another reason I practically never shoot JPEG and only Raw has to do with the settings I use in my camera to aid me in evaluating exposure. Since I flatten the Picture Controls and use UniWB (a topic for another thread), my OOC JPEG files are pretty much unusable for general consumption.

Here's my own RAW+JPEG example. This was taken with my D800, and has been printed up to a 20x24.

Here's the SOOC JPEG. This was a 30 second exposure at base ISO, and admittedly it's murky and probably could have been tweaked to get a better JPEG in camera, but this is what it is. Notice that parts of it are blown out, despite being essentially a night seen, and seemingly mostly limited dark details.

Here's the version I actually printed. My aunt, who has lived in this house for better than 50 years, has the 20x24 framed and hanging in the dining room. I'm going to have to do another print so that her kids don't have to fight over it. I don't think I'd have been able to get this if I hadn't shot it as RAW.

It's true that you can't(normally) post RAW files to the web or send them for printing. To draw a film analogy, how many of you have sat around looking at and admiring your friends negatives or critiquing the photo based on them?

Especially when I'm printing, I generate a JPEG with the highest quality setting directly from the edited RAW that gets passed, unmodified, to the lab. Web postings are usually done the same way, albeit generated from RAW at much lower resolution. In the past, I have sent TIFFs to the lab. With lower resolution cameras, I'd sometimes see a small difference, but when you start getting into the 24mp+ range TIFFs are both really unwieldy and also I see no perceptible difference between a TIFF and a first-generation JPEG.

It's true that you can't(normally) post RAW files to the web or send them for printing.

No, you can't ever post raw (not RAW, it's not an acronym, unlike JPEG) files to the web because they haven't been rendered, and for the same reason, you can't send them to a print lab. However, you CAN print from raw images without creating file in a different format. This is how Lightroom works, among others. You edit the raw image using parametric commands. The software renders the (file and edits) for display on the screen and to send to the printer. I never create a JPEG for printing. If I can do all of the edits in LR, I print directly from the raw file + edits. If I have worked in other software, I print from a lossless format, usually TIF. When I post to the web, I create a temporary JPEG that isn't stored locally after uploading. I have almost no JPEGs in my photo data at all.

I can't remember the last time I shot in JPEG format.

No, you can't ever post raw (not RAW, it's not an acronym, unlike JPEG) files to the web because they haven't been rendered, and for the same reason, you can't send them to a print lab.

What I meant by my "normally" comment is that I HAVE posted them for the express purpose of letting people look at them/tinker with them.

Also, at least for me, I can't remember the last time I printed something at home, which kind of kills printing directly from LR. I get better results from a lab with a much better printer than I could hope to have at home and that's in regular use. I always wasted more ink that I cared to just keeping my printers at their best(which negated any cost savings) and I'd still usually get results that were, to my eye, inferior to what Walgreens, much less a really good lab, could print. YMMV.

. . .

Regarding being quicker, I have a routine and find the conversion to be the quickest part of my workflow.

[edit PP workflow steps]

The entire process often takes less than a minute from the selection of the file to the resulting photograph I want to share -- YMMV.

For clarity: separation of two points which are entirely different.

Post # 6,

"I know of situations where turn around speed and speed of publication is paramount and the JPEG file is used: some photographers may choose to capture JPEG only and they typically will have pre-programmed in camera Post Production, allowing a print, publication or send to client as the JPEG SOOC (straight out of camera). This absolute necessity is rare, it being used for quick turnaround Sports Images or News and Current Affairs. I know of two Wedding Photographers who shoot JPEG only for similar reasons. It should be implicit that if you expect quality imaging you will have to be accurate with Exposure and White Balance using this technique."

I make it clear now that the term "turnaround" refers to the time taken from shutter release to viewing/publication of the image: in the situations outlined in Post #6, typically wifi transfer of data from camera to server/computer, on site is used. i.e. there is no time delay taking the card from camera and transfer to computer at the end of the day's shoot.

The quote above from Post # 38 refers correctly to "part of my workflow".

Underscoring now - Post #38 refers to the Post Production Workflow and not the total workflow from Shoot to Publication which is referenced in Post #6.

WW

I make it clear now that the term "turnaround" refers to the time taken from shutter release to viewing/publication of the image: in the situations outlined in Post #6, typically wifi transfer of data from camera to server/computer, on site is used. i.e. there is no time delay taking the card from camera and transfer to computer at the end of the day's shoot.

As a little bit of a sidenote to this point-

Newer high-end NIkons(or maybe more up and down to the line now) can use BT and WiFi to connect to a program called SnapBridge running on a tablet or phone. I'm guessing that other makers have something similar, but I don't know enough to say what it is. I find SnapBridge of limited utility to me, but still use it. My only Snapbridge-capable camera is my D500, and my main use is for GPS data(since it avoids the unwieldy hot shoe GPS). The other thing it can do is send a low-res JPEGs to your device, which CAN be handy if say you want to email, text, or post on the web quickly.

SnapBridge zaps a ton of battery power from my phone, and I rarely use the image transfer function since it makes the battery drain even worse and I don't like filling up space on my phone with photos that I'm going to work up on the computer anyway. Still, though, there are times where I've been glad I had it.

I do wish Nikon had a good built-in solution where I could sync to a computer connected by WiFi, but that's never happened. Maybe, maybe(but probably not) the new ARM-based Macs will be able to run Snapbridge.

Yeah, for my Z6, nothing beats a card reader in a high speed USB socket. Rocket fast. I can't remember which app is which, but the one you can use as a monitor and remote trigger is handy.

When I print, I often go from RAW to printer through Qimage. It's a non-destructive editor and I can avoid any limitations of JPEG. It will map the maximum color space possible for the camera and printer. If I have to do something fancy like a lot of cloning or special effects, then I generate a TIFF in another editor and print with Qimage.

When I print, I often go from RAW to printer through Qimage. It's a non-destructive editor and I can avoid any limitations of JPEG. It will map the maximum color space possible for the camera and printer. If I have to do something fancy like a lot of cloning or special effects, then I generate a TIFF in another editor and print with Qimage.

That's exactly what I do, although with Lightroom rather than QImage. I work in the ProPhoto space, so the edited raw files and TIFFs have a much wider gamut than the sRGB gamut of JPEGs. (Or to be more precise: they can have a wider gamut. Not all images do.) It would be a shame to waste the wider gamut of the camera and printer by putting the image through the bottleneck of an sRGB JPEG.

If you use LR as your home database, you can use plugins that will create JPEGs to your specs from the edit raw files, upload them to a number of common destinations (Smugmug, Zenfolio, Flickr, maybe more) and then discard the JPEG files. That's normally what I do when I want to post online, as I have both Smugmug and Flickr accounts. I have to go back to some fairly old directories, created when I was more of a beginner, to find stored JPEGs.

I always wasted more ink that I cared to just keeping my printers at their best(which negated any cost savings) and I'd still usually get results that were, to my eye, inferior to what Walgreens, much less a really good lab, could print. YMMV.

Although the cost of ink laid onto a print and good paper is less than the charges of a good lab, that's unfortunately not the real cost of printing at home. There's the wasted ink, as you mention, which is quite a lot with my current printer, and of course the cost of the printer itself. I printed for years on dye-based Canon printers that I got free, bundled with cameras. Dye inks aren't archival, but they tend not to clog. But if you want larger sizes and archival inks, the printers themselves are a major expense; good 17 inch pigment printers run roughly $1300. So I don't think of home printing as a way to save money. I doubt it is. I do it because I enjoy it, have far more control than I had sending things to a lab, and generally get superior results. But I know a lot of good photographers who don't print their own.

I haven't used many labs, but none took TIFFs. The ones I used required JPEGs.

The thing that comes to mind,

that photo of the house. The original image you can see it was taken late at night. The modified image, looks like you either took it 5 hours earlier at twilight, or used quality flood lights

No, you can't ever post raw (not RAW, it's not an acronym, unlike JPEG)

Not an an acronym, agreed, but nevertheless it's still capitalised in most camera menus and manuals.

Personally, I'm in favour of capitalisation when referring to the RAW file format - even though it's not a standard - because it's then immediately obvious what's being referred to. As opposed to the word 'raw' in any other context.

The modified image, looks like you either took it 5 hours earlier at twilight, or used quality flood lights.

Except that the stars in the sky wouldn't have been visible at twilight.

The picture is what it is. Maybe shooting it at twilight might have given a similar appearance, but sometimes circumstances conspire against such choice. A sunset or sunrise, for example, takes place at a fixed time and in a fixed direction.

Thank you everyone for all of the information. It has been extremely helpful. One quick question though, I shot a couple pictures in raw and they ended up like this when I tried to open them in photoshop. Does anyone know why this is happening?