Why I shoot RAW images - a synopsis (Page 2): :sm24:...

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

MichaelH wrote:

And if you normally save just RAW then you used 6k... (show quote)

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

Flash Falasca wrote:

If you shoot JPG and change your white balance to tungsten and forget to reset it you will know one reason to shoot Raw !!

This "let's see what happens? Lab Experiment" has probably converted more people to RAW than all the learned discussion.

You learn from your mistakes which is why I am brilliant!

James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)

Jack 13088 wrote:

This "let's see what happens? Lab Experiment" has probably converted more people to RAW than all the learned discussion.

You learn from your mistakes which is why I am brilliant!

==================

HiYa, Jack...

CooL! .. We Went To The Same School

;-)

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

James R wrote:

==================

HiYa, Jack...

CooL! .. We Went To The Same School

;-)

That makes three of us, Jim!

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

cthahn wrote:

Wonderful. If you are a photographer you should know all of this.

We know it. But stuff happens all the time. I have accidentally moved the white balance dial to the wrong setting on several occasions - no worries at all since I shoot raw.

gessman Loc: Colorado

[quote=MichaelH]

This is a synopsis of the post “Why I shoot RAW images”.

Downsides to saving RAW from camera:

-Probably slows buffering of burst image capturing [because it has more information[/quote]

I'm not sure if it's totally accurate or not but if, as I have heard, "cameras capture images in Raw from which a jpg can then be extracted," as in shooting in Raw and jpg, how would it be that shooting in burst mode would slow down buffering by shooting in Raw hence giving the processor less work to do? It would seem to me that, since a Raw file is going to be created regardless of whether a jpg is produced or not, the extra time to extract a jpg from a Raw file, although perhaps infinitesimal, would still take more time hence would slow down buffering?

I've also heard that cameras shooting Raw files ignore the settings which then only affect jpgs. I'm not sure if all cameras do the same or not.

MichaelH wrote:

The RAW also gives your descendants the option of seeing your image at its best.

It depends on what you mean by "your image at its best." My Raw files are unadjusted and have to be post processed to maximize the potential in terms of color, contrast, sharpness, etc. From the perspective of optimized appearance I would say an unprocessed Raw file would be "at it's worst." If "at its best" means in it's original unprocessed dull state so it could receive maximum processing for optimization, then I suppose you could say it would be at it's best.

I'm certainly open to other potentially more accurate comments on these three points.

jimdandy

RAW people, do your RAW thing and stop your RAW bible thumping. As said in an earlier post, who gives a crap.

jimdandy

RAW people, do your RAW thing and stop your RAW bible thumping. As said in an earlier post, who gives a crap.

whitewolfowner

MichaelH wrote:

img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (show quote)

Advantages to shooting RAW - everything

Advantages to shooting only jpeg - none, might as well shoot with a point and shoot.

MichaelH Loc: NorCal via Lansing, MI

gessman wrote:

It depends on what you mean by "your image at its best...

Point taken. Maybe I should have said "with its greatest potential". And your point about the finished edited image being the best - again agreed and it should be saved with the original.

I think (but am not certain) the reason that JPG only saving results in longer burst counts in burst mode is that the bottleneck is saving to the memory card - the JPG being much smaller than the RAW file is quicker to write.

MichaelH Loc: NorCal via Lansing, MI

gessman wrote:

I've also heard that cameras shooting Raw files ignore the settings which then only affect jpgs. I'm not sure if all cameras do the same or not.

My quick testing on my GX85 suggests that some of the settings that one would think are mostly for the JPG do get embedded in the RAW file. I applied the VIVID Photo Style and the difference in Lightroom between that and the one in Standard Style was just a difference in the Temp and Tint values. Different RAW file types may do it differently. It is an easy test, just apply some JPG "treatments" and see what changes between the images in your editor.

Argosinu

Photos are not "archived" unless in hard copy. Perhaps future software and hardware makers will make systems that are infinitely regressive to past systems, but I would not count on it.

gessman Loc: Colorado

MichaelH wrote:

Point taken. Maybe I should have said "with its greatest potential". And your point about the finished edited image being the best - again agreed and it should be saved with the original.

I think (but am not certain) the reason that JPG only saving results in longer burst counts in burst mode is that the bottleneck is saving to the memory card - the JPG being much smaller than the RAW file is quicker to write.

I must say that I've wondered about that and I'm not totally sure that the Raw would transfer slower just because of it's total bit count or not. The transfer rate is also affected by the fact that Raw is transferred in blocks rather than in single chunks. Raw and jpg are written in different kinds of code and jpg code is a translated code while Raw code is native machine language so I don't know if the process of coding jpg prior to transfer would affect the amount of time or not. Maybe one of our more technical people here could step up with the answer to that one.

gessman Loc: Colorado

MichaelH wrote:

My quick testing on my GX85 suggests that some of the settings that one would think are mostly for the JPG do get embedded in the RAW file. I applied the VIVID Photo Style and the difference in Lightroom between that and the one in Standard Style was just a difference in the Temp and Tint values. Different RAW file types may do it differently. It is an easy test, just apply some JPG "treatments" and see what changes between the images in your editor.

I've only ever messed with Canon Raw up to just recently and I have always used Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) to process my Raw files and somewhere in all the reading I did about DPP said that although you can edit the Raw files they remain unchanged in the end after the editing and I convert to tiff as opposed to jpg and just have not delved into it technically enough to know what Canon does and if it's the same as what you're using or not. I have not spent any time fussing with all this stuff so I'm pretty ignorant about it. I'd rather be out shooting. I'm not sure why I'm even sitting here involved in this conversation. LOL

gessman Loc: Colorado

Argosinu wrote:

Photos are not "archived" unless in hard copy. Perhaps future software and hardware makers will make systems that are infinitely regressive to past systems, but I would not count on it.

Is that your opinion or is there some recognized authoritative source of reference you have that you could share with us that points to a recent change in the digital archival process? I ask because the attribute of "a" on digital storage media stands for "archived" which simply means the data is locked and cannot be changed unless it is unarchived. It has been awhile since I have been concerned with all that so there's been time for many changes about that. Thanks.