SHQ v RAW--is it worth it?

[tom_brabant]

Using an Olympus 5050, I have used, for sometime, alternately,

SHQ and Raw formats. I have processed Raw formats through Olympus'

plug in to Photoshop. I can tell very little difference, if any.

I admit that most of my shots have been of the landscape variety,

in good lighting conditions. So the advantage via raw re white

balance is not obvious advantage. Am I crazy? I have been

printing 13x19s on an Epson 1270, and am totally satisfied with

SHQ. But I like good quality. But is the trouble of raw worth it?

I am interested in people who have used raw and found it really

better, and why.

 

Thanks in advance

[m_.]

I read somewhere that the RAW file on this camera has little, if any, advantages over SHQ. But for Canon, RAW is very useful as you can change white balance and exposure after the shot is taken. Not on this camera. If SHQ is satisfactory to you, I don't see why you need to use RAW which operates slower and uses more memory.

[tom_brabant]

Thanks for your advice. I have read so much about RAW on the net and elsewhere, that I thought I was beginning to lose my eyesight. I think I might just continue to use SHQ, leaving RAW for some very difficult lighting situations. Even then, I might be tempted to fire off three shots in the bracket mode in SHQ, and sandwich two or more of the shots in Photoshop, and work from there. I'll just have to experiment. Thanks again.

[michael_flaherty]

I use RAW on my C5050 Zoom. In fact, you can change white balance before processing these RAW images, a feat you can't do with JPG's. Also, you can alter the exposure significantly more (both ways) with RAW's than JPG's without impacting overall image quality. Clearly, RAW processing gives the photographer more options after the shot is taken than with JPG's.

 

I shoot RAW on all my digital cameras, including Canon's 1D and D30. Only way to go, IMHO. And I use Adobe's RAW converter in Photoshop CS to to the conversions.

[Spearhead]

There's a big difference between "reading something" and having real experience and I'd advise that you pay attention to that.

 

RAW has a huge advantage if you are the typoe of person who does a lot of work on your images. If you are happy with what comes out of the camera in SHQ, that's fine, but it doesn't mean it's what you can do with some post-processing, assuming you are using a good RAW converter like Adobe's. It's similar to the difference between machine prints and a really good individual printed image. When you shoot in SHQ, you choose a set of parameters (including white balance) that may not, with some thought, be best later. In RAW mode, you make the decisions with a free hand later.

 

There may also be an incremental gain in quality that may or may not show in the print, depending on the specific image. And then there are the obvious speed and size tradeoffs to think about.

 

But if you can't tell the difference, don't bother, it will be more trouble.