Should I go RAW only?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
scorrpio
Senior MemberPosts: 2,421
Like?
Re: Should I go RAW only?
In reply to IGotShot, 6 months ago

I find RAW+JPG a total waste of both card space and burst buffer capacity.    I really don't need a JPEG of every missed-subject, missed-focus, open-mouth, closed-eyes shot.    Nor do I need a jpeg of every single image in a 10-shot burst.   If I ever decide that I really want a JPEG from my in-camera engine, I have in-camera RAW processing option.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ron Poelman
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,931Gear list
Like?
No one mentions the Elephant, but.
In reply to knickerhawk, 6 months ago

Namely, a taste for the proprietary "look".
If you like the Canon look,
you are extremely unlikely to try to duplicate it in RAW.
That I think, is the main excuse for this endless debate;
sheer weight of Canon shooters who lose their
comfort zone every time they touch RAW.

 Ron Poelman's gear list:Ron Poelman's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H2 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 Sony SLT-A57 Sony Alpha 7R
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Charles2
Senior MemberPosts: 2,024
Like?
Re: What?
In reply to knickerhawk, 6 months ago

knickerhawk wrote: I have an Oly EPL1 and an Oly EM5. I don't use Olympus Viewer much, but I've used it more than enough to determine that there is no difference in its output compared to straight OOC jpegs (assuming similar settings applied).

Oh, one must find similar settings ( ). I have not found a menu option on the raw developers from camera firms that simply reproduces the settings of the camera JPG. Yes, with experience you learn to develop a raw better than the camera JPG 90+ percent of the time. It is those last few exceptions when you wish you had such a menu option.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
carl english
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,785Gear list
Like?
Re: Should I go RAW only?
In reply to scorrpio, 6 months ago

scorrpio wrote:

I find RAW+JPG a total waste of both card space and burst buffer capacity. I really don't need a JPEG of every missed-subject, missed-focus, open-mouth, closed-eyes shot. Nor do I need a jpeg of every single image in a 10-shot burst. If I ever decide that I really want a JPEG from my in-camera engine, I have in-camera RAW processing option.

If you have eyes closed out of focus open mouths and missed subject there's no software out there that can help you.

 carl english's gear list:carl english's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
carl english
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,785Gear list
Like?
Re: Should I go RAW only?...
In reply to macclesfieldman, 6 months ago

macclesfieldman wrote:

carl english wrote:

At this moment in time most of the best images out there are jpeg and I see no reason why this will change as image quality is improving all the time.

That is probably because all the good RAWs are converted into JPG! So this argument is not extremely useful at this moment in time.

Your reply is not extremely useful as the point I was making is the majority of Camera owners use jpeg, a very high % do not even know what raw is.

 carl english's gear list:carl english's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Colin Franks
Contributing MemberPosts: 652Gear list
Like?
Re: Should I go RAW only?...
In reply to carl english, 6 months ago

I think it foolish to suggest to someone to "shoot Raw" without also informing them that they'll need the software and know-how to do it properly.

 Colin Franks's gear list:Colin Franks's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Canon EOS 6D Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM +16 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mark_A
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,248
Like?
If you have been doing RAW+JPG then ....
In reply to IGotShot, 6 months ago

If you have been doing RAW+JPG then ....

You will have adequate memory cards for the task. You will probably have a computer up to the task of raw processing, and if you have hard drives / storage sufficient for RAW+JPG then there are no reasons there not to switch to Raw only.

Did you ever find yourself using the jpg images rather than bothering with the raw? if you did and perhaps often then it might make you think twice.

Try it, why not, you can always go back if you don't like it.

Mark

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tony Beach
Senior MemberPosts: 4,735
Like?
Re: Ask yourself
In reply to Lanidrac, 6 months ago

Lanidrac wrote:

Its a hassle shooting only raw

Getting optimal image quality is more of a hassle than just settling, that's for sure.  The only time I shoot JPEG is when I want to check my sensor for dust.

and does not make you a better photographer doing so.

I consider post-processing to be part of photography -- so yes, being better at that can indeed make you a better photographer.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tony Beach
Senior MemberPosts: 4,735
Like?
Exposure is often different, so yes
In reply to IGotShot, 6 months ago

I routinely apply negative EC in the Raw converter to my photos before sending them to Photoshop for further work.  By taking advantage of the extra headroom in the Raw files I get more DR and a bit less noise; when shooting JPEG you have to sacrifice the headroom or the photo ends up being too bright because exposure and every other camera setting is baked into the JPEG file.  Consequently, I never shoot Raw+JPEG because the JPEG files are of no use to me.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tony Beach
Senior MemberPosts: 4,735
Like?
Re: Should I go RAW only?
In reply to dwight3, 6 months ago

dwight3 wrote:

...after messing up some WB settings and having a hell of a time trying to correct the images,

This corresponds with my experience as well, which is that it's easier to edit a Raw file than a JPEG file, a lot easier.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
BertIverson
Senior MemberPosts: 2,968Gear list
Like?
OT Alpha -- Re: YES -- exposure latitude ... Should I go RAW only?
In reply to AlphaTikal, 6 months ago

AlphaTikal wrote:

The question is not To shoot raw or jpeg. The question is raw+jpeg or raw only.

I would never use the JPG, so I guess my answer is only shoot raw.
As others have suggested, shoot both for instant use of the photo.

Cheers,
Bert

 BertIverson's gear list:BertIverson's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lanidrac
Senior MemberPosts: 1,886
Like?
Re: Ask yourself
In reply to Tony Beach, 6 months ago

Tony Beach wrote:

Lanidrac wrote:

Its a hassle shooting only raw

Getting optimal image quality is more of a hassle than just settling, that's for sure. The only time I shoot JPEG is when I want to check my sensor for dust.

Well good for you. Want a star?

and does not make you a better photographer doing so.

I consider post-processing to be part of photography -- so yes, being better at that can indeed make you a better photographer.

Thats like saying "I can take a lousy photo and fix it later because I shoot raw". Nonsense. If you use any DSLR, you need to PP to get the most out a photo! Shooting jpeg until you have a good handle regarding your camera and not just shooting in Auto all the time, is smarter than filling up your drive space with huge crappy RAW pics.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tony Beach
Senior MemberPosts: 4,735
Like?
Re: Ask yourself
In reply to Lanidrac, 6 months ago

Lanidrac wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

I consider post-processing to be part of photography -- so yes, being better at that can indeed make you a better photographer.

Thats like saying "I can take a lousy photo and fix it later because I shoot raw".

No, it's saying that post-processing is best done when starting with a Raw file.  Post processing a baked JPEG is like preparing a meal from leftovers.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lanidrac
Senior MemberPosts: 1,886
Like?
Re: Exposure is often different, so yes
In reply to Tony Beach, 6 months ago

Tony Beach wrote:

I routinely apply negative EC in the Raw converter to my photos before sending them to Photoshop for further work. By taking advantage of the extra headroom in the Raw files I get more DR and a bit less noise; when shooting JPEG you have to sacrifice the headroom or the photo ends up being too bright because exposure and every other camera setting is baked into the JPEG file. Consequently, I never shoot Raw+JPEG because the JPEG files are of no use to me.

FYI, you can edit jpegs in certain versions of CSRAW almost with the same amount of headroom of raws by opening the jpegs via Adobe Bridge. You will be surprised at how much can be done (regained) from those jpegs in CSRaw. Much more than editing a jpeg in Pshop alone. It depends on the Raw file version and the version of CSraw with Bridge whether it works or not. Try it.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lanidrac
Senior MemberPosts: 1,886
Like?
Re: Ask yourself
In reply to Tony Beach, 6 months ago

Tony Beach wrote:

Lanidrac wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

I consider post-processing to be part of photography -- so yes, being better at that can indeed make you a better photographer.

Thats like saying "I can take a lousy photo and fix it later because I shoot raw".

No, it's saying that post-processing is best done when starting with a Raw file. Post processing a baked JPEG is like preparing a meal from leftovers.

Hey, I'm done with you. I know when a cause is lost.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tony Beach
Senior MemberPosts: 4,735
Like?
Re: Exposure is often different, so yes
In reply to Lanidrac, 6 months ago

Lanidrac wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

I routinely apply negative EC in the Raw converter to my photos before sending them to Photoshop for further work. By taking advantage of the extra headroom in the Raw files I get more DR and a bit less noise; when shooting JPEG you have to sacrifice the headroom or the photo ends up being too bright because exposure and every other camera setting is baked into the JPEG file. Consequently, I never shoot Raw+JPEG because the JPEG files are of no use to me.

FYI, you can edit jpegs in certain versions of CSRAW almost with the same amount of headroom of raws by opening the jpegs via Adobe Bridge. You will be surprised at how much can be done (regained) from those jpegs in CSRaw. Much more than editing a jpeg in Pshop alone. It depends on the Raw file version and the version of CSraw with Bridge whether it works or not. Try it.

No thank you.  I have my workflow, it's quick and easy, and I have latitude in many ways that JPEGs cannot do.  If you want to bring us some side-by-side comparisons then by all means do so, then we can investigate your claims.

Check out my photos here... http://www.dpreview.com/members/3344131210/galleries

Checked out your photos, and from what I can see you are in no position to inform me.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tony Beach
Senior MemberPosts: 4,735
Like?
Re: Ask yourself
In reply to Lanidrac, 6 months ago

Lanidrac wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

Lanidrac wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

I consider post-processing to be part of photography -- so yes, being better at that can indeed make you a better photographer.

Thats like saying "I can take a lousy photo and fix it later because I shoot raw".

No, it's saying that post-processing is best done when starting with a Raw file. Post processing a baked JPEG is like preparing a meal from leftovers.

Hey, I'm done with you. I know when a cause is lost.

Likewise.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leonard Migliore
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,830Gear list
Like?
Re: Exposure is often different, so yes
In reply to Lanidrac, 6 months ago

Lanidrac wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

I routinely apply negative EC in the Raw converter to my photos before sending them to Photoshop for further work. By taking advantage of the extra headroom in the Raw files I get more DR and a bit less noise; when shooting JPEG you have to sacrifice the headroom or the photo ends up being too bright because exposure and every other camera setting is baked into the JPEG file. Consequently, I never shoot Raw+JPEG because the JPEG files are of no use to me.

FYI, you can edit jpegs in certain versions of CSRAW almost with the same amount of headroom of raws by opening the jpegs via Adobe Bridge. You will be surprised at how much can be done (regained) from those jpegs in CSRaw. Much more than editing a jpeg in Pshop alone. It depends on the Raw file version and the version of CSraw with Bridge whether it works or not. Try it.

And why would I want to have almost as much headroom?

-- hide signature --

Leonard Migliore

 Leonard Migliore's gear list:Leonard Migliore's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 Nikon D300 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 10-24mm f/3-5-4.5G ED +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tony Beach
Senior MemberPosts: 4,735
Like?
Re: Exposure is often different, so yes
In reply to Leonard Migliore, 6 months ago

Leonard Migliore wrote:

Lanidrac wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

I routinely apply negative EC in the Raw converter to my photos before sending them to Photoshop for further work. By taking advantage of the extra headroom in the Raw files I get more DR and a bit less noise; when shooting JPEG you have to sacrifice the headroom or the photo ends up being too bright because exposure and every other camera setting is baked into the JPEG file. Consequently, I never shoot Raw+JPEG because the JPEG files are of no use to me.

FYI, you can edit jpegs in certain versions of CSRAW almost with the same amount of headroom of raws by opening the jpegs via Adobe Bridge. You will be surprised at how much can be done (regained) from those jpegs in CSRaw. Much more than editing a jpeg in Pshop alone. It depends on the Raw file version and the version of CSraw with Bridge whether it works or not. Try it.

And why would I want to have almost as much headroom?

I look forward to seeing how blown highlights are recovered.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris59
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,250Gear list
Like?
Re: What?
In reply to AlphaTikal, 6 months ago

AlphaTikal wrote:

Chris59 wrote:

Having said this, if you are happy with your JPEGs, then that's fine, but don't expect the images you produce to be as good as your camera and lens can do.

I think, this is an old fact. It depends on the output and what camera and lens you have and the processing. The new JPEG engines are fantastic and doing it right in camera, with almost no intention to post process, there is no reason to use RAW if the scene don't require it. The resolution is the same with both formats. Often, the images aren't better with RAW. But as I said, this depends on scene, setting, camera, processing, style, output... so no generalization is possible.

Not quite.  Resolution is better with JPEGs from post processing rather than in camera.  You don't have to take my word for it, try it for yourself - or better yet, compare JPEG versus RAW on any DSLR on this website.

Don't get me wrong, if JPEG is good enough for you, then that's okay, but you need to see the difference before you decide!

-- hide signature --

· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads