winterrose Loc: Kyneton, Victoria, Australia

Like most hobby snappers I shoot RAW for the same reason that I put a number on the door and painted a big white stripe over the roof of my shopping jalopy.

Not because it makes my clapped out old bomb go any faster, but it makes me feel like I'm a racing driver.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Well, we each have our own reasons for shooting RAW. If that is yours, so be it. Mine is to capture the most data the camera can capture. In fact, my technique of using RAW extends past the usual amount, coupled with metering the subject to accommodate that capture. It's an extension of the control I achieve when shooting film. It's more than just a paint stripe, but I'll make the most of your paint stripe if I photograph your car.
--Bob

winterrose Loc: Kyneton, Victoria, Australia

It ain't how much data your camera captures, what's important is how competently you manipulate it once you whack it into a photoeditor.

lambert

I shoot RAW at all times for the same essential reasons: I want to be able to use as much data as possible and if there is any data to be thrown away I want to have some control of that. :-)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

That's true. However, it helps to have that data there in the first place. If it isn't there from the start, it's definitely more difficult to put it there in post.
--Bob

JeremyVan

Quick question for you more experienced photographers.
I shoot raw and some times set my exposure wrong on purpose knowing I can correct it better later cause I shot it in raw.

For example I was shooting a professional mountain bike race and it was the middle of the day and the sun was behind the riders and I didn't want to blow out the sky but also did not want to have the rider under exposed.
I chose to slightly under exposed the rider and slightly over expose the sky with the plan of changing the exposure on both parts of the image after the fact.

Is this a common practice? Or am I missing something and doing it wrong?

Thanks
Jeremy

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Interesting, my philosophy is the exact opposite. I like fast, well handling cars that are discreet, in fact where appropriate I take any badges / signage off the vehicle. Only those that know recognize them and they understand. I don't need to feel like a racing driver based upon decals and paint. If I want to feel like that I have a rear view mirror!

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I shoot raw 99.99% of the time. The only time I shoot jpg is when I'm taking blank images to look for sensor spots. No need to do postprocessing on temporary files.

Since I use Lightroom to catalog all the photos I don't delete, and since LR handles raw files nicely, shooting raw doesn't cost me anything. I don't even have to shoot raw+jpg because if I want a jpg then LR will give it to me. The raw files are slightly larger than the jpg files, but memory is cheap these days. And if a photo needs postprocessing I have the most complete data available to do it with. And all my photos are in the LR catalog. At my age that's a necessity. Otherwise I would forget how to find a photo in the pile or sometimes I would forget that I even took a photo of something. But the catalog allows me to search for a subject as long as I have a good keywording practice.

As far as my car/trucks are concerned, I leave them looking as they were when I bought them (beyond adding normal scratches and dents). I once knew a guy who would take a sledge to his car every couple weeks. It kept people away from him on the road.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

No, you absolutely got it right. You set your camera for optimum exposure, which is not wrong at all. Although I had a quite colorful exchange on another thread that had the guy absolutely convinced my exposure was wrong and I would have done better had I shot it as a jpeg. Go figure.

It's one of the things you can do more effectively than with a jpeg. I do it all the time, but I use my experience with my camera to set the exposure based on the highest amount of light I can use without blowing the highlights, using the camera's spot meter mode.

That's exactly what I did for this image:

Running a quick black and white conversion will help you set black and white clipping points, and adjust shadow/highlight, contrast, clarity and dehaze (if you are using Adobe CC software).

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

catalint Loc: oslo

Hi Jeremy,

In fact , I also share the same "technique" :). While I still have much to practice, often I do not have the time to correct my exposure until I get it perfect. It blew my mind off when I started to shoot RAW and got deeper in PP. saved many pictures from what before was straight to trash.

Cheers
Catalin

Jim Bob

NOT AGAIN.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

The "correct" exposure is the one that will accomplish what you want to do with the image. That is exactly what you are doing.

JeremyVan

Here is an example photo

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Without trying to chase down the rabbit hole, I was at an event yesterday where the benefits of using both JPEG and raw were very clear to me. It was a social event - a fundraising luncheon - that wants images for their website - and the images are candid not posed. It is desirable to not be too intrusive. This year they are also collecting images for publication in a magazine that will cove the history of the event. The website wants color images, the magazine black and white. For the website it is this year's event. For the magazine it is several year's history. The lighting in the venue has very strongly backlighting from a floor to ceiling wall of glass.

Personally I find editing in raw much faster and easier than JPEG, and invariably there is some cropping and tonal correction required. For this project raw is a huge advantage. Composition, cropping etc. is similar for either format, but adjusting lighting, tonal range, and conversion to B&W is much easier starting from raw, especially for prior years where I didn't even consider the need for B&W. With raw I can simply do two different treatments for the images to be used - one for color, the other for B&W, including prior years. I don't see how I could do that easily starting from JPEG. Some color images don't convert well to B&W, and with JPEG you can go in the opposite direction.

I'll end up with two different portfolios, on for this year's website in color and another - probably with a different choice of images - in B&W covering multiple years.

In this situation raw rules, at least for me.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Yes! It makes me feel good!