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

[jackkurtz]

RAW about 90 percent of the time.

jack
--
A few of my photos:
http://web.mac.com/kurtzjack/ or
http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=4177

 

[Adjuster]

jpg for business photos. Don't care so much about quality. Just need the image for the record.

RAW for all personal shots.

 

[k2racer]

I also would like to add another raw CHDK hack adoptive, I only shoot RAW now on my G7 and I think the effort to PP shows!

I noticed though that with perfectly exposed and white balanced photos (using whibal) the differences are a lot smaller as I would expect. On the other hand, in difficult lighting situations the benefit is big and clour is so much richer!

I also like some grain, so I mostly do not use noise reduction a lot ( I use raw therapee for developing). Sharpening is for me the most difficult part and I find that there Lightroom is easier to use (with the alt button you can see what you're doing)

I also like the fact that I can fit less on my sd card. Now I think more about a shot and that's always a good thing. With an extreme III card the raw write time is really quick!

see some of my raw g7: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ronaldbunnik/

 

[jerryk]

I use my G9 in raw all the time. Same with my 5D and iDMKII. I use the same workflow (Lightroom and if required CS3) to process images from all three.

--
jerryk.smugmug.com

 

[b52 s]

Only RAW+jpeg all the time

I use my G9 in raw all the time. Same with my 5D and iDMKII. I use
the same workflow (Lightroom and if required CS3) to process images
from all three.

--
jerryk.smugmug.com

 

[Koosla]

... and no reason to do otherwise.

 

[luvnozzy]

i did for a long time, but in the end it simply did not make a difference, and all i did was waste time.

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.

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?

 

[luvnozzy]

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%.

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.

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?

 

[duckfat]

On the whole, I agree with you. I've just discovered that greens come out 'nicer' in RAW, I've never liked Canon's green. I do the simplest iphoto adjustments and it boils my computer! Nice bit of detail available too, and wierdly the camera jpegs appear to have more noise than the RAW files.

It's a bit like running a race bike on the roads though, if that makes sense. Loads of people do it, and I'd love to if I could afford it but it might not be wise....
--
Cameras don't shoot people...

 

[Robert Hoffman]

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%.

For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't,
no explanation will suffice.

Yeah, we're just a bunch of schmucks.

--
'Don't sneak up on it - surround it'

 

[duckfat]

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%.

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.

I only use iphoto, it doesn't even split RGB. The jpeg has horrible green and less detail in the bluebells



...Than the RAW. My workflow took about 10 seconds. I can't use Photoshop and I'm pretty sketchy with iPhoto, but I'm glad I can get a green I can live with!



Granted, it's a bit of a hassle!

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?

--
Cameras don't shoot people...

 

[Randy Collins]

--
Randy C.
Canon: SX100
Fuji: S9000
Oly: C-2100 * C-5050 * TCON-17
San Antonio, TX

 

[luvnozzy]

i'm not sure what you mean by a "race bike"?

one thing's for sure, you won't catch me on one of those clownish $5,000.00 road bikes, all decked out in the latest tour de france garb.

Good God, how many times have i seen these rank ametures as described above, clipped in at a stop light, trying to balance themselves, only fall over sideways? Ouch!

it baffles me, because if it's their intent to get in shape, why not get a sturdy, stable, clipless mountain bike and ride away...city, road, country or whatever? You know, exercise is exersice, and 5k road bike isn't going to get you in any better shape than a $600.00 mountain bike.

sheesh.

It's a bit like running a race bike on the roads though, if that
makes sense. Loads of people do it, and I'd love to if I could afford
it but it might not be wise....
--

 

[luvnozzy]

why use iPhoto? my G5 has it, but i've never touched it.

 

[dmanthree]

Hell, why not?
--
-------------------------------------------------

 

[Drew Conway]

My S60 is in RAW mode all of the time. For me, it's not so much of a "RAW is better than JPEG" issue as it is the amount of control I get in processing with RAW files.

I like lossless editing and I like being able to edit and have changes stored in small .xmp files rather than having separate version of .jpg files or .psd files for my changes.

If you've tried editing a JPEG in Adobe Camera Raw, you know how sensitive JPEG photos reacts to small changes in the settings versus RAW files.

When I made the switch a few years back, yeah it was painful, especially on a slower computer. But now, I find my RAW workflow to be simple and fast and JPEGs with the camera settings burned into them would slow me down.

 

[duckfat]

Why not? It's simple (like me). I can publish straight from it, never have to 'save as' or convert anything. It aint broke, unlike me! Why would I want anything else?
--
Cameras don't shoot people...

 

[luvnozzy]

because, apparently, it doesn't get your greens right.

i've never had any such problems w/ Adobe products.

Why would I want anything else?
--

 

[duckfat]

I think it's the Canon jpeg that doesn't get my greens right, not iPhoto
--
Cameras don't shoot people...

 

[simonNYC]

This is probably very true. I've had a pro1 for 3+ yrs now and recently picked up a G9. Despite never shooting in RAW when using the Pro1, i've been shooting only RAW with the G9. While it's kinda cool and all that I can make adjustments to white balance and exposure using RAW, i never really had a problem with the white balance/exposure when shooting with my Pro1. I'm just wondering if it's even worth my time/hard drive space to keep shooting in RAW or if i should just go back to jpg.

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.

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?