bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

I see a lot of truly outstanding photos on this site that were taken RAW and then post processed. I tried taking a few RAW and right out of the camera they pretty mundane. I don’t have photoshop, so of course I can’t doctor them up properly.

I guess my question is, you that post process, do you shoot all of your shots as RAW, or just those you think have potential for something better? I ask because last evening my daughter, two grandsons and I took an evening walk. She and I both had cameras and together (including one of the boys) we shot nearly 400 jpeg images. Yes I trash canned a bunch, but the amount of time I would have spent post processing RAWs would have been enormous. Any responses?

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Yes.

If I shot JPEG instead it would require much more time at the computer post processing. It would require more skill to do the post processing. I shoot raw to save time and effort both behind the camera as well as later in post.

Shooting raw reduces my time and effort behind the camera. I don't have to consider any of the camera picture controls or even worry about setting WB.

I also shoot raw to save disk storage space on my computer. I only have to store the raw files and parametric processing instructions. If I shot JPEG and then processed those I'd be forced to save 16 bit TIFF or PSD files which are huge compared to my raw files.

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

I shoot RAW almost exclusively.

BebuLamar

I always shoot RAW + JPEG. I rarely use the JPEG files. I don't think what I do is really post process. I use the RAW files because I can make the adjustmentsy afterward. And yes it's worth it. The cost of shooting RAW is nothing to me.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I shoot everything saving the RAW file, then process in DPP (Canon's editor).
The image when first loaded into DPP has the looks based on the criteria that is used to create the JPEG (RAW +JPEG) then I go from there.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Using optional import settings in Lightroom Classic, my workflow is the same for RAW or JPEG. The RAWs get an automatic guess much like cameras give an automatic guess making JPEGs. The advantage then is that if a shot can use highlight and shadow adjustment, there is more room for it in the RAWs.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

I guess the answer is....whatever turns you on as a photographer! Some people take the time to post process, other people don't think it's worth it.

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

Interesting reasoning. Thanks!

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Yes, I shoot nothing but RAW files.



Why did you have to "trash can" a bunch? Was it because the composition, exposure or sharpness was poor? Or was it because you simply did not put the effort into recording something worthwhile?



That comment suggests you may not be conversant with RAW processing. I can open lets say 15 RAW image files into my editor with the exact same 'picture profile' applied to them as the in camera produced jpegs. If I don't want to do anything with them in the way of adjustments I simply select all 15 and tell my editor to save them as jpegs at a certain size/quality that determines file byte size. There's no "enormous" amount of work involved.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

It take me little time to process a RAW image.
It is not a hassle for me at all.
Yes, a few more options to work with IF need be, but it only takes me a few minutes per shot.
But I don't process EVERY shot, only the ones I will be using - for printing or posting on the web.

13 Loc: I am only responsible to what I say..not what

Raw.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

As I start writing this, I count that you have already received several very polarized replies. Mine will be a little different.

The answer to your question is that yes, raw is worth it.

But the answer to your question is also that no, raw is not always necessary or worthwhile.

There are very meaningful benefits to be gained from working with raw files if shooting at relatively low ISOs with modern camera equipment and if one wishes to spend the time and effort editing and finishing photographs. There are some photographic subjects which can only be readily captured by using raw files and doing significant post processing.

But it is also true that for other subject matter, the full range of what can be printed can be captured in a properly exposed JPEG file, if the camera is properly set up and prepared for the exposure. It is also true that some camera models make it much easier to make those adjustments, and to make them accurately. In any case, a full understanding of the range of adjustments and how to use them is required. Most do not bother to learn and build that understanding.

I have my camera set up to save both raw and JPEG files. For most situations, I shoot as if I am going to use the JPEG, even if I already know that I am going to use the raw file. LightRoom is set up to use my camera parameters as the starting point for any editing. It makes the process about three times easier.

Despite what you read here this does not have to be a binary, "one or the other" question.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

To answer your question, definitely YES!!!
--Bob

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

Since you posed your two-part question to those who post process, and I post process, then I'd answer your first question by saying, yes, everything I shoot is shot in raw. The second part of your question is a little trickier, though, but the best way I could answer is by saying that if I don't feel a scene/subject/whatever has some purpose or potential, then I don't bother shooting it.