shooting in Raw (Page 2): If you shoot JPEG only, You are leaving it up to the cameras software to render the JPEG it will store from the RAW picture it takes. So you end up with a...

Bobbee

If you shoot JPEG only, You are leaving it up to the cameras software to render the JPEG it will store from the RAW picture it takes. So you end up with a preprocessed picture and are missing large amount of detail/information. Like many others that have suggested it. Get a large, FAAST card, I use 16 gig shoot alot of parties and have never ran out of space, switch your camera to RAW+JPEG and shoot away. When you are processing you could run across a 'winner' and ou can switch to AW processing and open the wonders of working with RAW. In this case you also have nothing to loose. When you get the feel for what you can do in RAW later on, you can go back and put the 'bling' on your photos. IF your don't shoot RAW+JPG, you cannot. I save my images rightout of the camera in a dir named ORIG and then RAW and JPG. All editing are copies of these. Those are what I deliver. Have fun.

AdkHiker Loc: Northeast

Why shoot RAW? Here are some numbers (from my EOS manual).

JPEG = 256 colors per channel (3 channels: R,G,B). Best JPEG (fine) 274 shots per 1 GB card

RAW = 16,384 colors for a 14 bit processor (that's a bunch) 76 shots per 1 GB card (that's not a bunch)

Shooting combined brings the shots down to 59

Still try some shots in RAW. There are times that it is nice. But a fine JPEG is no slouch either.

RockinRobinG Loc: The Middle of Nowhere, Nebraska

AdkHiker wrote:

Why shoot RAW? Here are some numbers (from my EOS manual).

JPEG = 256 colors per channel (3 channels: R,G,B). Best JPEG (fine) 274 shots per 1 GB card

RAW = 16,384 colors for a 14 bit processor (that's a bunch) 76 shots per 1 GB card (that's not a bunch)

Shooting combined brings the shots down to 59

Still try some shots in RAW. There are times that it is nice. But a fine JPEG is no slouch either.

My point exactly. The RAW files eat up a lot of space.

architect Loc: Chattanooga

I also shoot exclusively in RAW. I then make the best Jpeg image, or images, I can from the RAW file. I then delete the RAW files except for the small percentage of keepers, which I save on an external hard drive. It makes no sense to me to keep all of the large RAW files that you know you will never use again.

SolarUV

AdkHiker wrote:

Why shoot RAW? Here are some numbers (from my EOS manual).

JPEG = 256 colors per channel (3 channels: R,G,B). Best JPEG (fine) 274 shots per 1 GB card

RAW = 16,384 colors for a 14 bit processor (that's a bunch) 76 shots per 1 GB card (that's not a bunch)

Shooting combined brings the shots down to 59

Still try some shots in RAW. There are times that it is nice. But a fine JPEG is no slouch either.

The most important part of this choice is the 8 vs 14 bits per color. And in newer cameras manufactures are going to 16 and 24 bit per color.

To imagine this difference, think of the range of color and tone on a face in a portrait. Do you want only a few levels of red in the facial tone as you process the image or 64 times that many levels? Or in the sky do you want to go from back to full sun in 256 steps or 16,384. I choose to go for the bigger range and not worry about memory and disk space until later. You can off-load images to external disks or whatever, but you can won't enlarge the range of facial or sky tones after the fact.

Michael

MtnMan Loc: ID

Hi,

Just a couple of things I think I have learned recently, at least in regard to the Nikon 5100:

1. An advantage to RAW is that you do not have to worry about white balance because you can change it in the Nikon software that comes with the camera. The Nikon View software doesn't let you change the white balance with jpegs.

2. The in-camera HDR processing does not work with RAW images. Not sure about the other in-camera processing. It may work with RAW + Jpeg option...I need to dig in again to confirm. I am liking Active D-Lighting better than the in camera HDR anyway, so this may not matter.

Regards,
Larry Leach

MWAC Loc: Somewhere East Of Crazy

architect wrote:

I also shoot exclusively in RAW. I then make the best Jpeg image, or images, I can from the RAW file. I then delete the RAW files except for the small percentage of keepers, which I save on an external hard drive. It makes no sense to me to keep all of the large RAW files that you know you will never use again.

This is what I do as well, no need to save a RAW file after I've processed it - unless I think I might go back to a certain file.

If I was a professional, I would be saving the RAW files for all my "keepers" but I'm Just A Mom With A Camera. ;)

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

RockinRobinG wrote:

Recommendation: If you are going to shoot in RAW (I shoot RAW & JPEG at the same time) be sure you have an external hard drive with a lot of space...you can get a relatively good one for less than $100 at the right place. The RAW files will eat up the memory on your computer before you know it. I personally had this happen...lesson learned.

I shoot with a Nikon camera so my original files are NEF. The first thing I do is to convert the NEF files to DNG in the DNG converter in Photoshop. The resulting files are about half the size with the same amount of information. I set up a mirror hard drive on my computer. This is two, 2 terrabyte hard drives working in conjunction with eachother and this creates a dual set of files back to back on the two hard drives. This way I have two identical files on two hard drives being created at the same time. About 2 months ago one of the mirror hard drives failed, this is a common occurrence, but my information was safe because I had 2 hard drives working back to back. I was able to access the files off of the good hard drive and years of work was saved. I had to buy two new hard drives and install the information on them both and I have double hard drives again. The lesson learned is that electronic file saving has good points and bad points. One hard drive is not enough.

fabians Loc: Glendale, AZ

Like others posted here, I only shoot RAW with my Nikon D70. I use Elements 9 to process my photo's. One more point to the other posts, when you process RAW photo's and then save, the save format is always some other format, like TIFF or JPEG. You can never accidently overwrite a RAW file so when processing your RAW photo and you feel you did something wrong, you can always reload your RAW photo and start over.

CAM1017 Loc: Chiloquin, Oregon

JPEG files are processed in the camera with a program set up by the camera maker which is based on there idea of what the photo should look like on color, saturation, etc. It is not necessarily what you would consider to be what you like. The program also makes the file smaller. Take a raw file and the identical JPEG and compare the file size. You will be surprised at the difference. The raw file is and unaltered file just as the camera saw it. You must then process it in what ever editing program you have to something you like. The raw file gives you the most control over your final product. I only shoot JPEG when I'm in a real rush or don't really care to much in the final result.

Richard94611 Loc: Oakland, CA

The difference in quality between the jpg files shot at the same time with RAW files and just shot at the highest quality setting but without RAW is something I had never heard of and am happy to know about. Thanks for the info.

blackmtnman

I shoot everything in NEF...HUGE files, and use Corel. Because of that, I recently upgraded to a quad core abacus, actually two of them, and a switching set up. 1 terrabyte memory, and added as much temp memory as I could. I manipulate the images in RAW, then save a copy in JPG. I keep the RAW files saved and untouched. I'd appreciate some comments and discussions about this. Cam 1017 started with some good comments

gizzy.whicker Loc: Cumberland Co., Illinois

My RAW files won't let me same back to them. They always remain just as they came from the camera... unless I delete them, which I do quite frequently, saving only the "Best of the Best", and trash canning the rest.

blackmtnman wrote:

I shoot everything in NEF...HUGE files, and use Corel. Because of that, I recently upgraded to a quad core abacus, 1 terrabyte memory, and added as much temp memory as I could. I manipulate the images in RAW, then save a copy in JPG. I keep the RAW files saved and untouched. I'd appreciate some comments and discussions about this.

blackmtnman

[quote=gizzy.whicker]My RAW files won't let me same back to them. They always remain just as they came from the camera... unless I delete them, which I do quite frequently, saving only the "Best of the Best", and trash canning the rest.

Not sure where that problem comes from. My biggest problem with RAW is I let the files pile up. Takes forever to delete the junk images.

And I'm sorry...noob here hijacking the thread.

LittleRedFish Loc: Naw'lens (New Orleans)

MWAC wrote:

A raw file is essentially the data (think of it li... (show quote)

MWAC said mirrors what "outdoor Photographer" magazine stated in their Nov. issue. That being said, the RAW file will not look as sharp as the JPEG file does when you first put it on your computer to edited. Basically my understanding is that in JPEG your camera has already done some of the editing for you. (as mention above)
If you lack the software, or the knowledge of how to edited RAW you can end up with a picture that actually looks worst then the JPEG.
If you can, pick up the magazine (Outdoor Photographer, Nov. issue) and read it. There they look at both the pros and cons of shooting in JPEG and shooting in RAW.

If you really want to cover all you basis, then look to see if your camera allows you to shoot in both RAW and JPEG at the same time. Yes, it will eat up a lot of memory, but you will get a better understanding of the differences.
A picture is worth a thousand words applies here.
Edit and print both of your pictures and look closely at the final results. Make your decission from there on what mode you want to shoot in.