Why Raw? - An Example: I walked around Woodstock last night and took some random shots - no tripod. Since I was shooting raw, I knew I'd be able to make adjustments later. My first...

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I walked around Woodstock last night and took some random shots - no tripod. Since I was shooting raw, I knew I'd be able to make adjustments later. My first shot is below - sooc and the processed version. I'm ashamed to say that I had left the camera set to 100 ISO.

I'll post a few more in the Gallery.

tradio Loc: Oxford, Ohio

You have so much more to work with shooting RAW.

Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.

That's what I like about shooting raw: I can make errors and somehow I can correct them in post....
I've not only had ISO at completely unsuitable numbers, but also had images turn out orange or green or... well you name it, because I forgot to re-set white balance after playing with it.
I don't have full PS, use PSE, but I think it is just as forgiving for these kind of errors as the full PS.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Morning Star wrote:

That's what I like about shooting raw: I can make errors and somehow I can correct them in post....
I've not only had ISO at completely unsuitable numbers, but also had images turn out orange or green or... well you name it, because I forgot to re-set white balance after playing with it.
I don't have full PS, use PSE, but I think it is just as forgiving for these kind of errors as the full PS.

I used LR 6 for these.

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

Morning Star wrote:

That's what I like about shooting raw: I can make errors and somehow I can correct them in post....
I've not only had ISO at completely unsuitable numbers, but also had images turn out orange or green or... well you name it, because I forgot to re-set white balance after playing with it.
I don't have full PS, use PSE, but I think it is just as forgiving for these kind of errors as the full PS.

And you can deliberately "underexpose" to avoid blowing highlights with the confidence that the shadows can be revealed in post processing. The color/white balance thing is a lifesaver or great creative tool, not to mention it is fairly easy to apply a "local" color/white balance to a section of an image which can make life much easier in mixed lighting. Yeah, it's really hard to argue with the benefits of such a great shooting workflow.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Gene51 wrote:

And you can deliberately "underexpose" to avoid blowing highlights with the confidence that the shadows can be revealed in post processing. The color/white balance thing is a lifesaver or great creative tool, not to mention it is fairly easy to apply a "local" color/white balance to a section of an image which can make life much easier in mixed lighting. Yeah, it's really hard to argue with the benefits of such a great shooting workflow.

Shooting in the dark at 100 ISO, I was definitely underexposing, but LR 6 got something out of them.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I MUCH prefer RAW!

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee, WA

I do this on purpose quite a bit - not necessarily ISO 100 but night shots at ISO 200 knowing I'll be able to get the results I want in post with less noise and no blown highlights.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

jerryc41 wrote:

I walked around Woodstock last night and took some random shots - no tripod. Since I was shooting raw, I knew I'd be able to make adjustments later. My first shot is below - sooc and the processed version. I'm ashamed to say that I had left the camera set to 100 ISO.

I'll post a few more in the Gallery.

It would be interesting to see what can be done with trying to fix a JPEG vs adjusting the raw file of the same image.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Morning Star wrote:

That's what I like about shooting raw: I can make errors and somehow I can correct them in post....
I've not only had ISO at completely unsuitable numbers, but also had images turn out orange or green or... well you name it, because I forgot to re-set white balance after playing with it.
I don't have full PS, use PSE, but I think it is just as forgiving for these kind of errors as the full PS.

While you are correct, your unfortunate post suggests that shooting raw is primarily for rescuing photos that were poorly captured. Why that is a benefit, it is not one of the main reasons for shooting raw. Some of the main reasons are that raw files contain all the original shooting data and jpegs only contain a subset of that data. Raw files have much wider latitude when making adjustments to your images in post allowing you, among other things, to extract much more clean details from deep shadows. Raw files give you a better ability to modify white balance. JPEGS have in camera settings burned in which can negatively impact adjusting them to your liking in post. These are only a few of many reasons to use raw. Rescuing an image captured with the wrong settings is very low in the list for me.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

GoofyNewfie wrote:

It would be interesting to see what can be done with trying to fix a JPEG vs adjusting the raw file of the same image.

It been demonstrated here many times You can often get good results editing jpegs but raw files have more data to work with and provide a much greater latitude for adjustments. In difficult lighting situations especially, you will almost always be able to get much better results with raw files if you are skilled using post processing tools.

Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.

mwsilvers wrote:

While you are correct, your unfortunate post sugge... (show quote)

One has to start somewhere using raw. Unfortunately I was not granted full knowledge of everything that can be done with a raw file, or in my case .orf
Gradually I will learn all that can be done. I'm retired, there is no boss waiting for me, housework does not complain if I let it wait (my husband sometimes does, at such times I'll invite him to do the dishes).
So, I just enjoy doing the things I know I can do with my camera, and take my time to learn everything else. If you saw my earlier message about Tony Philips' book you'll know that I am serious about learning, too.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

mwsilvers wrote:

It been demonstrated here many times You can often get good results editing jpegs but raw files have more data to work with and provide a much greater latitude for adjustments. In difficult lighting situations especially, you will almost always be able to get much better results with raw files if you are skilled using post processing tools.

Believe me, I’m aware.
Would be a good example for other to see.

Fstop12 Loc: Kentucky

Jerry, I'm curious to know what your camera settings were when you took these shots. Were you shooting in Manual? Aperture Priority? What was the aperture and shutter speed?

Richard Engelmann Loc: Boulder, Colorado

I shot entirely with JPEG until repeated posts on UHH convinced me I was missing something. Then I shot with both, using the JPEGs as a quick way to scan the photos to identify the keepers. Now I shoot only RAW and "open with" the Windows Photo app to perform the quick review. Editing the RAW files gives me a wonderful ability to salvage poorly exposed shots, but also to improve those aspects that were inherent in the shot, especially shadows and color balance.