Reading mode: Light Dark

How many Pro1/G6/G9 users shoot in RAW?

Go to last post
for the overwhelming majority it's not. of those, that think it is, they're simply fooling themselves. but we can let them have their "fun".
simonNYC said:
luvnozzy said:
for me, there was never a degraded/poorly exposed shot that, after
working it in ACR, was anything i wanted to keep anyway.

a jpeg workflow moves much quicker and less taxing on computer. i
always make a duplicate of the original and work that copy however i
like (normally just for a print and save for the web).

i have a strong suspiscion that there are MANY ameture photographers
slaving over a RAW workflow just because it's supposed to be better.
i think they're fooling themselves.

unless you TRULY have a need for it, i'd avoid it like the plague.

for god's sake, they can't even agree on a standard. jpegs are gonna
work with any program for years to come.
simonNYC said:
I've had my Pro1 for 3+ yrs now and over those years, I think I tried
shooting in RAW for a day before going back to JPG b/c of the extra
work required in processing/viewing raw files and the larger RAW file
sizes.

I was just wondering how many people who have the ability to shoot in
RAW format do and how many don't.

For those who do, do you find your pics that much better than if you
were just to shoot in JPG?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Take a look at this article: http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/rawtruth1.shtml
luvnozzy said:
in the unlikely event that someone can actually show you a "bad"
photograph made "great" by RAW processing, chances are there exists
hundreds of superb Photoshoppers (who don't spend there time here,
debating this issue) who can make the same image look better using a
jpeg workflow.
simonNYC said:
I've had my Pro1 for 3+ yrs now and over those years, I think I tried
shooting in RAW for a day before going back to JPG b/c of the extra
work required in processing/viewing raw files and the larger RAW file
sizes.

I was just wondering how many people who have the ability to shoot in
RAW format do and how many don't.

For those who do, do you find your pics that much better than if you
were just to shoot in JPG?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
luvnozzy said:
duckfat said:
I think it's the Canon jpeg that doesn't get my greens right, not iPhoto
--
Cameras don't shoot people...

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This is the point, it's too far gone. I'm splitting hairs here. I don't have the drive space or RAM to process everything in RAW so I'll be going back to jpeg til I can afford/need an upgrade. For a 'cheapish' camera there are a lot of necessary accessories to get the best from the G9.

I can't understand why the jpegs are noisier than the RAW files. For my paid work I'll still shoot RAW/jpeg (my projector likes jpegs), as prints from the former are truer. Trying to mix pink into a blue sky is plain wrong (I make paintings)
Did you get to see Kitchen Gun (apologies for off topic)
--
Cameras don't shoot people...

 
I use both and it really depends on the subject and the use of the image. If its a kid's birthday or some other event where the pictures will most likely end up on the web or 4X6 prints, I will use jpeg. In those cases, RAW is (for me anyway) gross overkill. On the other hand, images of landscapes, seascapes, dawn or dusk and artsy stuff... I use RAW. I use Lightroom and that make conversion quite easy. The only downside to RAW that I see is the huge file sizes... The ability to make a marginal shot into something much much beter is always a plus with RAW. I have been in this hobby for a long time.. since the early 70's.. I was shooting slides for a lot of those years. Then, unlike today, what you shot is what you got!! And, ISO 25 and 64 were the standard. I have to laugh a little when folks complain about noise at 1600. How times have changed.
--
ralph m
http://www.pbase.com/rmcmillan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmcmillan/
 
I've forgotten that my camera even has a JPEG option. I see no reason to use anything other RAW, all the time.
 
RAW is great for those of you who want to tweak levels etc but I tend to get what I need without the use or RAW. I prefer to only shoot in HQ JPEG for 100% of my shots. There's no visible artifact corruption in HQ JPEG and the picture can be tweaked marginally with excellent output results for printing, archiving etc at a fraction of the filesize of RAW. If the Pro 1 allowed for TIF (Tagged Image Format) then I would prefer this to JPEG for certain shots - but that's not a featured option on the Pro1.

RAW is great if you intend to blow the image up for billboard displays on the side of the free way but most photographers taking those images tend to shoot in Medium or Large Format. If you are working with a DSLR, RAW is necessary since the camera tends to require additional processing for every shot anyway.

For a straight-to-publication camera like the Pro 1, I see no need for RAW except under unique and extreme circumstances. If I tweak a JPEG that was saved in HQ and I think I might want to tweak it further, I save it in a lossless file format like TIF/TIFF when I'm done.

--
Regards,

Marco Nero.
http://www.pbase.com/nero_design/powershot_pro1

 
Marco Nero wrote:

i use a 5d, too, and i never shoot RAW with it. my 5d images require no more PP than any digicam i've ever used. no more and no less.
Marco Nero said:
RAW is great if you intend to blow the image up for billboard
displays on the side of the free way but most photographers taking
those images tend to shoot in Medium or Large Format. If you are
working with a DSLR, RAW is necessary since the camera tends to
require additional processing for every shot anyway.
Click to expand...
 
I nearly always used RAW when I shot with my Pro 1. The few times I did shoot jpeg, I pretty much always regretted it when I went to post-process the images. There would always be one or two that need just a little more tweaking, and the jpeg didn't cut it.

I always shoot RAW with my 20D. If I just need a quick jpeg, I batch process in Lightroom or CS2. I'd rather have all the information and decide what to do with it later than to throw it away and need it later. Once you get the workflow down, RAW isn't that big of a deal.
--
Cheers,

bg

'I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone.'
  • Bjarne Stroustrup, inventor of the C++ programming language
Check out my gallery at http://beerguy.smugmug.com

(See profile for the gear collection)
 
Very rarely on my G9 and XSi...only when I think I will have exposure or white balance issues. The only other exception would be the rare important events where the picture is crucial. Graduations, weddings, etc. only happen once so having RAW in my back pocket is my insurance policy. These important events are usually shot 70%-100% RAW. Vacations are for me to relax and enjoy myself so jpgs all the way unless I see something absolutely stunning that I could not fully capture in jpg. That being said, I usually don't take RAW enabled gear on my vacations.

The WB is easier to work around with a gray card or white surface. Exposure isn't but generally isn't a large enough issue for me to warrant shooting RAW 100%.

Photography (use of light, composition, technical execution) is one of my hobbies. Processing RAW files is something I do when it becomes necessary for me . Everyone is different.

When shooting RAW, I shoot 100% RAW+jpg but I may not ultimately archive the jpeg.
 
Pro1

Always RAW unless I am in a situation where I want to use high-speed continuous shooting (birds in flight...) the Pro1 gives much better shot-to-shot times in Jpeg

As someone said in an above post, folks tend to be very rigid in their beliefs about whether or not Raw really is "All That" , and will not be convinced otherwise...

If you have Lightroom, the workflow issues are non-existent. Before I had Lightroom, it was more effort/time to work with Raw.
 
simonNYC said:
I've had my Pro1 for 3+ yrs now and over those years, I think I tried
shooting in RAW for a day before going back to JPG b/c of the extra
work required in processing/viewing raw files and the larger RAW file
sizes.

I was just wondering how many people who have the ability to shoot in
RAW format do and how many don't.

For those who do, do you find your pics that much better than if you
were just to shoot in JPG?
Click to expand...
When I have the option, all I use is raw... final pc's might not be better, but I find the highlight recovery option to be VERY useful.
 
luvnozzy said:
good luck in getting anyone here to provide real examples of where
RAW saved their a$$. and normally, when you do, they'll show some
terrible photograph of nothing where they make it look a little
better viewed at 1,000%.
Click to expand...
The left is the corrected RAW, the right is the out of camera jpeg


luvnozzy said:
in the unlikely event that someone can actually show you a "bad"
photograph made "great" by RAW processing, chances are there exists
hundreds of superb Photoshoppers (who don't spend there time here,
debating this issue) who can make the same image look better using a
jpeg workflow.
Click to expand...
Unless you want to constantly be tweaking your sharpness, contrast, and WB in the field....RAW is superior.

Ever set your WB to indoor lighting types, and then shoot in sunlight? Your image will be a nasty shade of blue if you only shot jpeg.

I've been shooting RAW since my G1 back in 2001 or so. I don't see it as an added work flow issue, rather a "I don't like the camera making edits to my photos."

--
http://flickr.com/photos/eric_whalen/

 
you did not show us a "worked" jpeg version. why don't you give us the "untouched", full size, out-of-camera jpeg to try to duplicate your efforts and bring back the same amount of detail?

what you're showing us here is fine, but i know a skilled photoshopper can do much of the same with a jpeg image. not to the same degree, perhaps, but similar.

it would also be interesting to see these blown highlights in relation to the rest of the photograph. so many times, something like this is barely noticeable in context with the rest of the image, and when printed and viewed at a normal distance.

anyway, this issue always boils down to a matter of taste and one's willingness to "improve upon" the smallest of details. the infamous luminous landscape proprietor is a perfect example of someone that concerns himself with the minutia, yet churns out some truly ordinary, unremarkable images. the image might be perfectly exposed, sharpened to a "T" with spot on color balance, but...."yawn".

interesting subject matter, quality light, good composition should be a photographer’s priorities. RAW can't help anyone with that. i never did major RAW surgery that rendered an image i considered worth keeping.
Ominous said:
Unless you want to constantly be tweaking your sharpness, contrast,
and WB in the field....RAW is superior.

Ever set your WB to indoor lighting types, and then shoot in
sunlight? Your image will be a nasty shade of blue if you only shot
jpeg.

I've been shooting RAW since my G1 back in 2001 or so. I don't see
it as an added work flow issue, rather a "I don't like the camera
making edits to my photos."

--
http://flickr.com/photos/eric_whalen/

Click to expand...
 
luvnozzy said:
you did not show us a "worked" jpeg version. why don't you give us
the "untouched", full size, out-of-camera jpeg to try to duplicate
your efforts and bring back the same amount of detail?
Click to expand...
Ok...here you go.

oh...forgot to tell you...had my camera set to tungsten at the time of shooting.

And even if you can "come close" correcting the RAW image takes all of....2 seconds.
have at it jpeg master.
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen/image/96285674/original.jpg
luvnozzy said:
it would also be interesting to see these blown highlights in
relation to the rest of the photograph. so many times, something like
this is barely noticeable in context with the rest of the image, and
when printed and viewed at a normal distance.
Click to expand...
Yea, the brides dress is never noticeable.

--
http://flickr.com/photos/eric_whalen/

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top