Ugly Hedgehog Newsletter

Hello! I just started getting into photography about a year ago and purchased my first SLR camera this past summer(Sony a55)

I was wondering if someone could explain the advantages/disadvantages of shooting your photos in RAW. Is it better to shoot in RAW? Does it produce a better final image then if you were not to shoot in the regular format?

Katie

au2panner Loc: Grand Jct, CO

http://photo.net/learn/raw/

Take a look at that, I think it will help you under stand it. I always shoot with the raw/jpeg setting. Takes up a lot more space, but you will always have what the camera saw, not just your eye.

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

RAW, as compared to the compressed JPEG, is far superior in overall color and tone, and further allows for more post processing with less loss of quality. Always, at least, store a RAW file, even if you also store a compressed JPEG.

suzan226 Loc: Fla

How do you store a raw file? I just download to the computer, and some are shot raw how do they show up. They seem to have the jpeg file

Adubin Loc: Indialantic, Florida

Katie,

The bottom line is that RAW files provide you with much more data to work with in the post processing of your photo. It is a lengthier process but worth it. The jpg are smaller than your RAW files. When first started in digital photography all shot in was jpg, but for the last 3 years I only been shooting in RAW and find much better. I recommend that you do some searches on the Internet for comparisons of jpg vs. RAW files. Below are couple of websites that are worth while looking at.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Randyb1969 Loc: Armpit of California

I personally love RAW. But I don't recommend it for someone just starting into photography. I started using it almost immediately because of the articles I read and the podcasts I listen to(yes I tend to be a bit obsessive). I love the idea of not losing any of the quality of my photos. But here's a reality check. I'm not a pro and my photos are not studio photos of top models. Nor am I shooting landscapes to be hung in a fancy gallery( although that is kind of a dream). But because I insisted on shooting RAW from the outset, I've become quite dependent on the camera RAW utility in Photoshop. My wife on the other hand started shooting JPEG and still does(and she is much better at portraiture than I am). She can do things in Photoshop to JPEGs that I only know how to do in camera RAW. And she can get twice as many shots on one CF card. If I had to do it all over again, I would definitely start with JPEG and learn that first. In fact, I may just take a step backward so that I can learn those things I skipped in the interest of "quality". Just my .02 and my experience.

wmralls Loc: Kansas City

Thanks, adubin. An excellent write up on the RAW format and usage. I personally prefer to shoot in RAW/JPG then trash the RAW (NEF) files I do not need and the JPG files that are hurting leaving great JPG and RAW that let me get to great JPG.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

Because you have the Sony Alpha 55 you can shoot in RAW and JPG at the same time. Many cameras can't do that.

If you use PhotoShop CS5, the Bridge function will take in your RAW files and auto convert them for use in PhotoShop. There are things you can do to a RAW file in Bridge that are reversible or modifiable but if you did the same things to the file in PhotoShop they aren't. RAW truly is far superior for starting with maximum quality, shifting them from Bridge to PhotoShop, keeping the files in uncompressed mode until you're done working on them, saving them as PhotoShop files and eventually TIFF files.

Using JPG files means the camera has compressed the sensor data as it is being saved, and you already have some loss of quality right from the start. Then when you open the JPG in a photo-editor, work on it, and resave it as a JPG and you've got some more loss. Every time you open and save a JPG file there's some loss. Each loss is minor but it starts to add up and deteriorate quality.

If this is just a hobby for you and you print small prints like 4X6 or as large as 8X10, the deterioration of the finest JPG compression may not bother you. If you're a pro beyond the wedding market (many shoot in high-res JPG because they can pack more shots onto a memory card), you want to shoot RAW or RAW plus JPG.

Also, think ahead. It may not seem like you want or need RAW quality now, but what about further on down the road when your eye is trained enough to see the difference and you wish you had shot in RAW?

dannydperez

Also, think ahead. It may not seem like you want or need RAW quality now, but what about further on down the road when your eye is trained enough to see the difference and you wish you had shot in RAW?[/quote]

Great comment - that is what I did. Now I have SEVERAL older shots that I wished a thousand times would have been shot in RAW, but now after post processing, they are smaller in size, and the details lost DO show up in prints over 11 X14. I've been converted, and unless I absolutely know it's just going to be a "snapshot", it will be shot in RAW, just in case it turns out to be a wallhanger instead!

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

Great comment - that is what I did. Now I have SEVERAL older shots that I wished a thousand times would have been shot in RAW, but now after post processing, they are smaller in size, and the details lost DO show up in prints over 11 X14. I've been converted, and unless I absolutely know it's just going to be a "snapshot", it will be shot in RAW, just in case it turns out to be a wallhanger instead![/quote]

And what if that "snapshot" turns out to be important later - such as a relative or good friend who dies and you want to print and give an 11X14 of him or her to the relatives? See what I mean about always getting the best file now when you can?

By the way, you should always post process a copy of the original and hide the original away somewhere else. Hard drive space and DVD disks are stupid cheap and you've got no excuse for not saving the originals as is out of the camera. Then your shots won't end up being too small and can't be printed large.

For those shots you wished a 1,000 times were better, there is a program called Genuine Fractals that can somehow enlarge a file to print larger without noticeable degradation. I don't know how important your shots were or how expensive GF is now, but you could consider it.

dannydperez

Marco, you are correct. You never know when that snapshot suddenly becomes priceless. I'm going to set my camera to RAW and leave it there - memory is so cheap now, why not. I always do some sort of post processing anyhow, so there's really no excuse NOT to use RAW all the time, at least for me, as I'm always looking for that one or two shots that stand out, even when simply shooting "snapshots" Thanks!

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

Look at the Ken Rockwell site. He points out that your raw file are going to end up a Jpeg file in the end. If you do your work setting your camera to get the results you want in Jpeg you will not have to shoot raw. When I started in photography I did B&W using either 4"X 5" or 2 1/4" negatives. If I didn't get things right I could fix it in the darkroom. Then came 35mm and color and I had to send the negatives to the lab. So I learned to do it right in the camera. Same goes with RAW and Jpeg. If you want to fix your shots later shoot in Raw or do the work in your camera before you shoot and shoot Jpeg. - Dave

jdtx Loc: SA, Tx.

you better be really good if you are gonna only shoot in jpeg..

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

RAW shots do NOT have to end up as a JPG. A RAW file post edited can and should be saved as TIFF which has no compression and retains virtually all the original information. JPG format never has to be used for anything if you choose not to.

dannydperez

I've been doing a little experimenting the past few days, shooting a few shots in RAW and JPG, with all the proper setting in my camera. Both came out similar, but after conversion to JPG, the ones starting as RAW files had visibly more details and somewhat larger files. It appears that even if they ultimately end up as JPG (if you choose not to use TIF), it seems the details are clearer. I'm going to continue testing, of course!!