DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> RAW
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 14 of 14, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 07/28/2005 09:31:26 PM · #1
I have been shooting in RAW mode for the last month or so, but I still wonder if the extra work out of the camera is worth it.

What seems to be the verdict by some of you?

How many of you shoot raw?

Is it worth it?

Thanks
 07/28/2005 09:37:14 PM · #2
I did at first, but then I decided that unless I am shooting something important, I just use fine jpg and it saves a lot of time and work and comes out just as good.
 07/28/2005 09:40:01 PM · #3
I like the fact that I can change the white balance of my pictures. Then I don't have to worry too much about getting it right while I'm shooting.
 07/28/2005 09:53:39 PM · #4
I haven't shot JPEG in most of a year, and not going back. RAW gives me much more flexibility. I expose "to the right", so the additional dynamic range offered by the RAW file is a real, tangible benefit. It's also great to be able to tweak WB prior to converting to JPEG.
I find the RAW workflow every bit as easy as a JPEG-based workflow, perhaps easier when all is considered.
 07/28/2005 09:56:03 PM · #5
Have a look at "Real World Camera Raw" and you won't ever shoot JPG again.
 07/28/2005 09:58:25 PM · #6
I always shoot RAW with my Rebel, and JPG with my S1 (because it can't shoot RAW). With my G2 (now dead), I also shot RAW.

If you shoot RAW, besides being able to adjust white balance and exposure, you can sharpen it using the best software and techniques on the computer, without sharpening the JPEG artifacts as you do with a JPEG. You can sharpen it as appropriate for the output destination.

Also, when interpolating up for printing, you are not enlarging noise.

For small web pics at 640x480, that doesn't make much of a difference. But I am now less happy with my S1 when I try to work with a photo at full size and I see those artifacts. I put it on low sharpening, but in fact that doesn't help much, because it's still compressed coming out of the camera (and I presume they sharpen before they compress, as they should).

So I shoot RAW when I can. What you need to find is good workflow software. Using something like Bibble or Breezebrowser, worst case, you could process all the files at once, using default settings. It only takes a couple minutes of processing, and then you could archive the RAWs to CD. But I think you'll find, like me, that you adjust each picture individually. With Bibble, you are simply walking through a browser-like tool, changing settings, even cropping, and then the actual settings are applied when you drop the set in a queue, so they are processed in the background, all at once. If you keep the settings file, you can later go in and change it, and it will use the original RAW file for the next processing.

Try downloading the trial of Bibble and using it for 30 days, or RAW Shooter Esssentials (which is free, forever, though it doesn't let you crop). I think you'll be sold on the workflow.
07/28/2005 09:58:47 PM · #7
O.K people what software do you use for processing your raw images?
 07/28/2005 10:33:16 PM · #8
photoshop CS2

07/29/2005 12:03:08 AM · #9
I always shoot RAW now. Using RAW Shooter Essentials adds no time to my workflow over jpg and completes many of the steps I would have done previously with the jpg file. After converting I find that there is very little work left to do, maybe crop, a little level/curve adjustment and resizing. That is it.
 07/29/2005 12:12:55 AM · #10
I keep hearing people say that in RAW there is no camera manipulation. But since the sensor only sees things in shades of black and white (or grays), then isn't the camera really still doing some manipulation to convert it to color.
07/29/2005 12:17:49 AM · #11
Originally posted by puma:
I keep hearing people say that in RAW there is no camera manipulation. But since the sensor only sees things in shades of black and white (or grays), then isn't the camera really still doing some manipulation to convert it to color.


Yes, there is some in camera manipulation. There is even some compression as I do not believe that either canon or nikon uses true lossless file format.

But there is a clear difference in the level of manipulation and the results and the abilites you have to work the shot later.
 07/29/2005 12:20:54 AM · #12
"If you have to ask then just shoot JPG." - Ken Rockwell

//www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
 07/29/2005 12:53:07 AM · #13
Originally posted by deapee:
"If you have to ask then just shoot JPG." - Ken Rockwell

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


Counterpoint
 07/29/2005 02:08:50 AM · #14
Originally posted by markcas:
O.K people what software do you use for processing your raw images?

Rawshooter Essentials. Worth every penny I spent for it :)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/27/2025 06:32:32 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/27/2025 06:32:32 PM EDT.