I used to shoot RAW & JPEG, now I am using just RAW
winterrose wrote:
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.
Why do I shoot RAW? Here are some reasons.
1. I tend to be risk averse. Shooting RAW is like taking out insurance in case something goes wrong. As a bonus, this insurance is practically free.
2. That little view-finder on my camera is not so good at showing me much detail and the back screen is usually even worse. Shooting RAW lets me pick up more detail and it may turn out to be useful when I can examine and edit my shot on a big screen.
3. I actually enjoy the editing process and having a RAW image to work with means greater latitude in doing that editing.
Why don't I shoot RAW all the time?
a. My camera (Sony A6000) has some features that work only with JPEG. Sometimes I get curious about them so I take some test shots.
b. Panorama mode is one of the features that, on my A6000 at least, only produces JPEG images. I don't use use this much but on occasion I do.
c. If I am in a hurry to get an image that does not have to be a quality image I might shoot jpeg.
Shooting in RAW gives you the ability to do so much more with the image when processing the image with what ever software you use. Shooting in JPEG severely limits this. Memory card are so inexpensive that it would be foolish not to.
Gene51 wrote:
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).
No, you absolutely got it right. You set your came... (
show quote)
Well as a Rookie at UHH here, I vote for #2
Silverman wrote:
Well as a Rookie at UHH here, I vote for #2
I myself as a Rookie, have purchased a Nikon D3300 with 3 lens and have absolutely "0" experience in image processing, and having a Acer Chromebook 15 laptop, do not know exactly what Photo-editing program I may use on this Chromebook, so I now ask my fellow UHH Photographer's to aid and guide me in my Photo-editing education. HELP!
winterrose wrote:
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.
I don't "shoot" anything.
I *record* images in raw and/or JPEG, according to the requirements of the situation. I like both approaches, and I use them for entirely different reasons and in very different situations.
I'm not an absolutist. There is a continuum of tools and solution paths. I have no "workflow religion."
If you are going to call someone stupid, at least use "Quote Reply" so we know who you think is stupid.
Interesting..He has much the same attitude as Ken Rockwell. Me, I don't care about what publishers want, I want to play with my images. they often bear very little resemblance to the original, when I'm done with them. So, It's RAW for me.
But he makes a good point for those who shoot for publication, I suppose.
winterrose wrote:
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.
I doubt that "most" non-pros shoot RAW for the same reason as you. I have several reasons, but I'll just mention one big one--I convert many photos to B&W, and when you do that to a JPEG, you lose a lot (contrast decreases, for example.)
winterrose wrote:
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.
I do it because I like the sound and look of the word "RAW"!!!
But seriously, I find that I like at least a hint of detail in my highlights and certainly a modicum of detail in the shadows. Try getting that shooting a white racing car on a sunlit track while still getting detail in the driver's black suit when shooting jpeg. I find I get at least 2 extra stops on the highlights and deepest shadows with my D800 shooting RAW.
W
Why not shoot both it don't cost nothing?
I think most of the raw shooters are old guys like myself and pp on the one hand gives them something to do with the time on their hands and the other gives them an excuse to be away from the wife!
rmalarz wrote:
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
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.