Is RAW really worth it?
Dec 20, 2022 15:59:21 #
I shoot only RAW. I find it is easier, quicker and more accurate to get the result I want in post processing.
Dec 20, 2022 16:04:22 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
The RAW file is (typically) uncompressed and has a... (show quote)
All that detail.and you don’t mention that ‘raw’ is a description, not an acronym.
Dec 20, 2022 16:18:37 #
Jpeg is fine for most folks.
But the reality is you will never realize ALL the image quality, detail, dynamic range, color range, and uncompressed data your camera sensor and lens can capture if you never take Raw files, just a fact.
Personally I shoot raw+jpeg to separate camera card slots, on all my shoots, professional and personal.
I use the jpegs for quick on-site uploading to clients online sites and news media as needed. Then I later process the raw files for final output. The jpegs also serve as a redundant backup if I have a corrupt card recording the raw images. That could save a paid job.
Do what works for you and be happy.
But the reality is you will never realize ALL the image quality, detail, dynamic range, color range, and uncompressed data your camera sensor and lens can capture if you never take Raw files, just a fact.
Personally I shoot raw+jpeg to separate camera card slots, on all my shoots, professional and personal.
I use the jpegs for quick on-site uploading to clients online sites and news media as needed. Then I later process the raw files for final output. The jpegs also serve as a redundant backup if I have a corrupt card recording the raw images. That could save a paid job.
Do what works for you and be happy.
Dec 24, 2022 07:04:59 #
bikinkawboy wrote:
I see a lot of truly outstanding photos on this si... (show quote)
YES, EVERYTHING in RAW... I shoot RAW + Jpeg. Memory is cheap, who cares about being redundant ? I don't use Lightroom... ACR is fine for me and my convoluted filing system. Do what makes you happy... Personally the process REALLY starts in post for me... MUCH more satisfying than framing a rectangle and clicking !
Dec 24, 2022 07:31:38 #
MrBob wrote:
YES, EVERYTHING in RAW... I shoot RAW + Jpeg. Memory is cheap, who cares about being redundant ? I don't use Lightroom... ACR is fine for me and my convoluted filing system. Do what makes you happy... Personally the process REALLY starts in post for me... MUCH more satisfying than framing a rectangle and clicking !
Dating back to my days as a slide shooter, I figure my job is done when I ‘click’, and most of my time is in choosing perspective and framing .
Dec 24, 2022 07:51:37 #
rehess wrote:
...most of my time is in choosing perspective and framing .
So...
No grab shots
No shots of fast action
No shots of ephemeral subjects like Grandpa kissing Santa Claus
Dec 24, 2022 08:07:21 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
So...
No grab shots
No shots of fast action
No shots of ephemeral subjects like Grandpa kissing Santa Claus
No grab shots
No shots of fast action
No shots of ephemeral subjects like Grandpa kissing Santa Claus
I am Grandpa - you won’t catch me kissing Santa.
Sometimes instinct has to rule.
Yesterday, watching the Squirrel Feeder during the blizzard, I took a photo as a woodpecker arrived, expecting to get a photo of two birds sharing the Squirrel Feeder. Instead, I got the cardinal being uninterested in sharing. The day before, I clicked as a second cardinal came in; I expected to see conflict - instead the incoming cardinal did a U-turn. I was ready for a situation, choosing perspective and framing, then photographed whatever situation did develop.
cardinal unwilling to share
after incoming cardinal makes U-turn
Dec 26, 2022 10:56:27 #
Raw only. Then I toss the trash and only process what I want to print or show off or keep for the future.
Dec 27, 2022 08:31:13 #
The eternal debate continues….
I haven’t shot a jpeg for over 22 years. Here’s why, simply.
Jpeg = 256 tonal values per channel
Raw = 4096 tonal values per channel
Gives you so much information to work with. Why wouldn’t you? Try bringing back blown out highlights or lighten dark areas with 256 vs 4096. Which would you prefer? Also, read a little about ETTR (expose to the right) if you have never heard of it.
Photoshop and Lightroom is about $10 per month with a free trial. Might be worth giving it a try.
I haven’t shot a jpeg for over 22 years. Here’s why, simply.
Jpeg = 256 tonal values per channel
Raw = 4096 tonal values per channel
Gives you so much information to work with. Why wouldn’t you? Try bringing back blown out highlights or lighten dark areas with 256 vs 4096. Which would you prefer? Also, read a little about ETTR (expose to the right) if you have never heard of it.
Photoshop and Lightroom is about $10 per month with a free trial. Might be worth giving it a try.
Dec 27, 2022 08:36:18 #
Robertl594 wrote:
The eternal debate continues….
I haven’t shot a jpeg for over 22 years. Here’s why, simply.
Jpeg = 256 tonal values per channel
Raw = 4096 tonal values per channel
Gives you so much information to work with. Why wouldn’t you?
I haven’t shot a jpeg for over 22 years. Here’s why, simply.
Jpeg = 256 tonal values per channel
Raw = 4096 tonal values per channel
Gives you so much information to work with. Why wouldn’t you?
256 values provide me with more than enough information. I normally make only small changes in what the camera ’captures’.
I am more interested in what I saw than turning what I wish I had seen into art.
Dec 27, 2022 13:53:56 #
One useful feature of raw is that it provides something for forums to talk about. Here we are, 21 pages and 8 months later and the discussion is still active.
If we didn't have something to discuss, the forum would be pretty dull.
If we didn't have something to discuss, the forum would be pretty dull.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.