Anyone out there who doesn't like shooting raw?

[littledebbie58]

I am really torn between shooting raw and not shooting raw. I use a fujifilm

S3. I can't decide if the trade off for less room on my memory card is worth

it. The pictures look too noisy on my computer, I am not sure if I am doing

something wrong. Is there anyone who doesn't like shooting raw? I would be

interested to know. Thanks.

[rainer_t]

-- "The pictures look too noisy on my computer ... "

 

It seems to be a quite common misunderstanding of what raw is and what raw does, to assume that unprocessed raw files would look better than in-camera jpgs. They don't. No processing, sharpening, noisereduction and the like has been applied on the data they contain.

 

What rawfiles do is to let YOU do all steps that are required to

produce the final image from raw-data. The in-camera jpg has already

applied a lot of processing on the original data. If the processing done by the camera was the optimum processing possible for a certain image is questionable, nevertheless, it's certainly better than nothing. With reasonably good light, and white-balance probperly set, in-camera jpg isn't bad at all. The advantage of raw is, that some choices can be made in post processing (setting of WB being a prominent one).

 

My be the question isn't so much if you like raw (and the post-processing of raw), but more if you really need what raw is able to offer.

 

Rainer

[mars c]

"Anyone out there who doesn't like shooting raw?":

 

For me , the question should be,

 

Anyone out there dont like a camera with raw feature?

 

The answer is, I do like a camera with raw feature, I like to have the option of shooting raw and/or jpeg.

 

Of course, if you dont mind not getting the best out of your camera, why would you hassle yourself by shooting raw?

 

BTW, you can switch off the raw feature of any camera that does have that feature.

[alfaromeo]

or better yet shoot RAW+JPEG, this way you have full control with RAW and the best out of your camera with JPEG

[andyaitken]

In other words is shooting RAW worth the time spent converting them and the added space on your card and computer? Perhaps it depends on the camera but for me (using a Leica M8 mostly for B&W) the answer is "no". I'm not seeing a significant difference between the 2 to make it worth the sacrifice. I have the option to save as RAW and JPEG at the same time which I might use for super-critical shots but then that uses up even more space.

 

I'd say if you're happy with the JPEGs why bother with RAW? I've heard many pro's say they just don't have time for RAW. I also suspect there may be a certain snobbery/elitism about shooting RAW - ie. "If you don't shoot RAW you're a crap photographer" kind of thing. Perhaps this is comparable to people saying "of course if you don't shoot on Kodachrome 25 you're not getting the best out of your camera" 20 years ago.

 

Anyway real photographers get it right first time - they don't have to fiddle with their pictures on a computer for half an hour to make them right ;-0

[andyaitken]

Putting on my flame retardant suit now...

[sunrisers]

The reason RAW uses more space on your memory card is that you are recording a great deal

more data than does the JPEG function. So if you plan on using the data, it is always better to

shoot in RAW because you have more options when you come to processing, for instance

better resolution, bigger prints and so on. If you never need to have that capablity, JPEG is

certainly the easier way to go. But as they say: never say never. One day, that million dollar

shot may come your way. You can always convert RAW to JPEG, but you can never go from

JPEG to RAW.

[brad_ballheimer]

OK I shoot both raw and jpeg and when i want some quick results i open up the jpeg files apply a sharpening and print very fast turn around then i go back open up best of raws then process and make "good" prints of stuff i want or save digital negs.I do like jpegs for the quick results and for general purpose "snapshots"I see no reason not to just shoot jpegs.You didnt say what type of work you did? Oh by the way i get large files on my cards anyway i go as i use a canon 1ds mk2.

[studor13]

Not so long ago I only had a 256 MB card. That gave me 44 shots in RAW mode.

 

When I go and shoot seriously I plan on 5 compositions, bracketing - and + for every shot. This gives me about 15 shots per session. It never bothered me.

 

I now have a 2 GB card and I still don't do more than 15 shots per session. (I sometimes shoot in JPEG mode of my family which I am more than happy with)

 

The point is I shoot RAW to get the best possible images. RAW also has a much larger room for error when over or under exposing. I'm no beginner, but it is very easy to get the exposure wrong by 1 stop. If you would have a look at my work you will see that the conditions in which I work under, there are a lot of exposure problems.

 

I don't understand how anyone can be "torn" between shooting one mode or the other. You choose one or the other to do what you want to do.

[SCL]

RAW shooting gives you the full range of capture capabilities but also saddles you with the responsibility to post process your images. If all you want are snaps, then shoot JPEG exclusively, and rely on somebody else's interpretation of what your shots should look like.

[doug_axford1]

I love your answer Andy.

 

I'm a long time pro & a digital pioneer, but more importantly, I make my living and that of my staff with my TIME and TALENT.

 

IF you are shooting in controlled conditions and can get your exposure and white balance set correctly prior to shooting, in MOST cases jpgs are exactly the same. I've easily printed 24x30 family portraits from jpgs with very little PS work.

 

On weddings services, I find it easier and with superior results to shoot raw and convert. There are other times, I will shoot raw, but it's less than 1% of my images. Keep in mind that I'm a 'people' photographer and 95% of all sales are 8x10 and smaller. If I were shooting commercial or landscape, my answer may be different.

 

The answer ultimately should be made by each photographer shooting samples of jpg large and raw of their typical shots and then comparing finished prints, not what's on the screen. Do you sell or display an LCD or CRT image? Make comparisons with the finished product. If you can see a difference, then balance that with your time and make your own decision.

 

Far too many people are getting very frustrated with the whole raw system and losing their interest in photography. Others love to spend hours finding the last bit of hidden data in an image. Each to their own, but PLEASE stop this preaching that if you don't shoot raw, you are not a good photographer. It just ain't so.

 

Doug

[Ed_Ingold]

Memory is cheap, and processing time for RAW files depends on the application. Much of the conversion work can be done outside of Photoshop, using Adobe Bridge, ACR or Lightroom.

 

I use RAW mode exclusively. It give me control if I need it. Routine (i.e. event) images need little in the way of post processing - ACR handles the conversion nicely while I do something else.

 

RAW also makes sense for well-controlled situations - landscapes and studio work. Commercial work, in general, demands a level of perfection that mandates detailed processing. Landscapes need attention too, if you intend to sell them. The print is made in the darkroom/lightroom. The camera is just the starting point.

 

For a sports or news photographer, time to press is critical, and JPEG is probably the most appropriate format. It also works for poke-and-hope dilitantes.

[jcuknz]

Cannot be bothered with RAW :-)

[don_e]

"I also suspect there may be a certain snobbery/elitism about shooting RAW - ie. "If you don't shoot RAW you're a crap photographer" kind of thing."

 

A comment like that is sure to appear in a discussion like this. I have yet to see anyone making it link to such a post. I'll consider the source whenever you link to an example.

 

As for time spent converting, I upload from the camera to LR which makes the conversion. It doesn't need my time to do anything except to choose the tone curve to use for the import. As for space considerations on the memory card, I have several fast and large cards for each camera. As for disk space, I buy a disk whenever I need it. My computer case has 9 bays for hard drives and a big power supply.

 

One of my cameras shoots raw+jpeg. If the jpeg is good to go, I'll use that. Its 3-4 seconds shot to shot shooting raw+jpeg with it. If I need better response, I'll shoot jpeg.

[akajohndoe]

It depends.

 

I almost always shoot raw with my 20D, because I want to have options later. However, it really depends on the purpose of the images.

 

With my Pentax Optio SV, there is no raw capability, and that is OK, too.

[nolefan32]

For those of us who operate under crunch time most of the time, RAW isn't worth the hassle. We shoot JPEGs nearly exclusively. I'm sure for those who have the time (and equally important, the desire) to play afterwards, RAW is the way to go. I for one don't have that kind of time most days, and really, not the desire either -- I find that JPEG Fine gives me perfectly acceptable results. Add to that, there are often shoots we go on where we're shooting hundreds of images; we simply don't have the space on our cards to be shooting RAW on those sorts of jobs.

 

And I agree with those who said that it's a completely elitist attitude those who think "real" photographers shoot exclusively in RAW. RAW has its place, but if in-camera JPEG was so unnecessary among pros, Canon and Nikon wouldn't bother putting that capability on their top-tier cameras.

[don_e]

"And I agree with those who said that it's a completely elitist attitude those who think "real" photographers shoot exclusively in RAW."

 

Where have you read such "elitist attitudes" from someone who shoots raw? Can you link to the discussion? I've read this in near every stupid discussion of raw vs jpeg, but have yet to actually see where the "elitist" comment was made.

 

I'm beginning to think it is plain bullshit.

[patrick_viebey___orlando__]

Maybe it's an over-simplification (or just me), but I think about raw/jpeg like film/slide...

 

If you shot film, it was almost impossible to figure out what the print would look like, so you 'trusted' the printing process. If you shot slides, you could see exactly how dense the image was, how color was working etc, which means you (or at least I) could figure out what adjustments I wanted on the print (and not 'automatic').

 

Of course, the ability to fix the 'ooops' is awesome the first time you forget to reset your white balance (and trusting white balance is pretty much always a compromise).

 

Regarding the difficulty, Photoshop Elements will suck in a 'RAW' image, adjust it (like your camera would, but probably better), and then let YOU apply what changes make sense to you, without affecting the image quality. But maybe some folks don't ever digitally edit their images (I only wish I was that good).

 

I recall there were folks who had the SAME argument about slide versus film. I think the answer is still - whatever works for you.

 

My 'travel' camera only stores JPEGs, and if I mess those up, not so bad, but if I'm on a paying gig, I want all the options I can (so, I use BOTH).

 

To me, it's like saying your an elitist because you like both airbags and seatbelts...

 

 

pat

[steve_sharf1]

Andy stated above:..."Anyway real photographers get it right first time - they don't have to fiddle with their pictures on a computer for half an hour to make them right"

 

I assume you're waiting for lots of responses...

 

heres mine: If you go about shooting lots stuff, just snapping pictures, you're shopping. ... If you edit your images digitally or adjust them in a darkroom, you're creating something ...a piece of art.

[justinblack]

As with anything else in photography, what you choose to do and how you choose to

photograph is your business. If you like the ease of shooting JPEG, then that's great. You

can make good images and have fun. One can make strong and perfectly valid

photographs this way. The issue is that shooting RAW is in a sense like shooting b&w film,

over which you control optimum exposure, development, and printing for the final image

you wish to make. Shooting RAW provides the starting point to create the finest possible

result from the camera in question. Is this important enough to deal with the hassle of all

the necessary post-processing? This is an individual decision.

[andyaitken]

OK, the ;-0 indicates that that was really a joke, but anyway, "If you go about shooting lots stuff, just snapping pictures, you're shopping. ... If you edit your images digitally or adjust them in a darkroom, you're creating something ...a piece of art." that just doesn't hold any water. I don't even know where to start; OK lets try this, as far as I remember neither Robert Capa or HCB ever bothered printing/adjusting-in-the-darkroom their own pictures. Obviously they were just shoppers and not half the creative artist you are. So JPEG = shopping, RAW = artist. Hey, look I don't even need to find a link for you Don...

[don_e]

"Hey, look I don't even need to find a link for you Don..."

 

Yah. Sigh. Oh well...I gotta go adjust-in-the-darkroom some k14 8-)

[Tim_Lookingbill]

If you don't want a camera with a RAW feature at least get one

that has a live histogram. That way you'll know if your shadows

and highlites have been blown out so you have a chance to

bracket the next shot.

[silvergull]

I used to shoot RAW+small jpeg in my Canon 10D. Then, I read Ken Rockwell's site

extensively. His suggestions, along with my experimentation, has led me to abandon RAW

and I now shoot large jpegs. My 10D allows 3 parameters that I have adjusted for low

sharpening, and 3 different contrasts and 2 different saturations.

 

I am very pleased with the results, 12x18 inch prints on Museo Silver Rag paper. The

reduced post-processing is very welcome too.

 

For serious tripod work, I plunk my Rollei 6008 down on the tripod, shoot 120 Fuji Astia

or B&W film and scan the results with my Imacon 343 which produces 16 bit TIFF files. No

screwing around with RAW files there either. :)

 

Cheers, Jim

[Rene11664880918]

You've heard the pros, now a few words from a begginer! I've been using a DSLR for only 3 or 4 months. I'm having so many problems adjusting to it after 20+ years of film. I also don't have the time to be shooting all day so what ever I can get on the weekends I shot it in RAW then during the week whenever I have the time in my office I sit in front of a computer and play around with the pictures. This way I'm learning a lot and I really like the idea that with only one frame of RAW I can come out with ten different imagines. In a while if I get to master digital shooting I might change to JPEG coz I don't really need large prints, A4 size is good enough for me. I have also tried shooting RAW+JPEG but basically I notice that if I get the setting wrong (which happens VERY often) that's the end of it for the JPEG so I stopped doing that and I'm basically learning to process RAW. I'm also sure that if I had more time to expend behind my camera I would and wouldn't wanna bother with RAW.