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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Why am I afraid of RAW?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 54, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/18/2010 02:13:37 PM · #26
Ah yes, RAW. Personally I reserve raw for tuna. My goal is normally to remove data from a file: to leave out everything that is not the picture. So I start with a JPEG and just subtract from there until I'm satisfied. What I need is a 'Junior JPEG' format.
 09/18/2010 06:03:26 PM · #27
oops... spazzed out on this post. nevermind. i would delete it completely, but that's just not possible.

Message edited by author 2010-09-18 18:04:59.
 09/18/2010 06:04:14 PM · #28
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
You could start off gradually, by shooting in the raw.

Slippy, I have this image of you, lurking in the forums, until someone posts something that triggers your gutter brain :-)

I'm an open book. ;-D
 09/18/2010 06:14:05 PM · #29
It's DPC's fault that I use RAW. I didn't have to make backup copies of my originals when I use RAW.

Now, of course, I understand it and will never to back to jpeg. Well, occasionally, when I'm running out of card space I switch, and then curse the whole time that I'm editing because I didn't shoot RAW and don't have the flexibility to which I'm accustomed.
09/18/2010 06:44:36 PM · #30
I resisted RAW for a long time because the files were too big for my old computer, which had an 80GB hard drive. But since I started playing with HDR, and discovered what could be done using a single RAW file, I can no longer justify using JPG.
 09/18/2010 07:08:34 PM · #31


I felt this thread needed better visuals.
 09/18/2010 07:44:37 PM · #32
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
I resisted RAW for a long time because the files were too big for my old computer, which had an 80GB hard drive. But since I started playing with HDR, and discovered what could be done using a single RAW file, I can no longer justify using JPG.


i hear alot about this proc...how is single HDR accomplished?
 09/18/2010 07:49:19 PM · #33
Originally posted by blad:
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
I resisted RAW for a long time because the files were too big for my old computer, which had an 80GB hard drive. But since I started playing with HDR, and discovered what could be done using a single RAW file, I can no longer justify using JPG.


i hear alot about this proc...how is single HDR accomplished?

You process the single RAW file three times, once for "normal" exposure, and once each for over- and under-exposure to bring out detail in the highlight and shadow areas, then combine the three exposures (either with proprietary software or "manually") into a single image with detail throughout the full range of tones.
 09/18/2010 07:58:11 PM · #34
Originally posted by nshapiro:
....What makes RAW really practical is a program like Lightroom which lets you quickly generate as many JPEGs as you want with as little or as much processing as you care to apply.


Are you saying you can "batch" process a bunch of raw files by just selecting them and running a commonly used (for you) editing procedure?
 09/18/2010 08:12:00 PM · #35
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
....What makes RAW really practical is a program like Lightroom which lets you quickly generate as many JPEGs as you want with as little or as much processing as you care to apply.


Are you saying you can "batch" process a bunch of raw files by just selecting them and running a commonly used (for you) editing procedure?


Oh yes. Either by "synching" edits to them, or by making all the settings you wish on one photo and then copy/pasting them to others.
 09/18/2010 08:16:14 PM · #36
Cool. Thanks, I might look into it.
 04/07/2015 04:36:53 PM · #37
Update...

After using shooting raw and editing in Lightroom for a while I'm now afraid to shoot jpeg. :)
 04/07/2015 05:03:15 PM · #38
Well, THAT's progress!
 04/07/2015 06:23:15 PM · #39
Originally posted by wormtown:
Update...

After using shooting raw and editing in Lightroom for a while I'm now afraid to shoot jpeg. :)


LOL.

Took a while...
 04/07/2015 08:01:31 PM · #40
I always shoot JPEG, and will probably continue until I'm forced. Raw takes up too much room, and I like my room!!

Message edited by author 2015-04-07 20:01:58.
 04/07/2015 09:34:04 PM · #41
Originally posted by Neat:
I always shoot JPEG, and will probably continue until I'm forced. Raw takes up too much room, and I like my room!!

It surprises me that you don't shoot RAW. I think if you tried it and saw how much more flexibility you had you might make the switch.
 04/07/2015 09:52:56 PM · #42
Originally posted by markwiley:
Originally posted by Neat:
I always shoot JPEG, and will probably continue until I'm forced. Raw takes up too much room, and I like my room!!

It surprises me that you don't shoot RAW. I think if you tried it and saw how much more flexibility you had you might make the switch.


It actually started as an experiment to prove to myself that I could do just as well shooting in JPEG than raw, and I think it just went from there. I'm not in the technical side of production as you know...
 04/08/2015 07:20:59 AM · #43
white balance control alone is reason enough to shoot RAW.

04/08/2015 07:25:55 AM · #44
I shoot in RAW and JPG but only very very rarely use the RAW files. I am quite lazy (pushed for time) so tend to just use the JPG with a Topaz Adjust preset though I am more and more lately not liking the preset results and just adjust the sharpness and contrast/brightness.

I like the keep the RAW files in case I ever get the time or skills to return to a photo and make it shine. Though judging by the number of photos I have accumulated I doubt very much that will ever happen until retirement.
 04/08/2015 07:54:37 AM · #45
I always shoot RAW & JPG and I find that if I get it right in camera then I don't need the RAW file. BUT I rarely get it right.
 04/08/2015 11:18:38 AM · #46
I had three major stumbling blocks to raw.

1) I lacked the disk space to store raws.

2) I lacked the equipment to reasonably take raws.

3) I had no need for raws.

I got over point 1 by simply decided that I needed to spend money on disk. Right now, I have about 14T of disk on my computer, mirrored, so more like 28T, with two disks per mirror as backups, so more like 56T of disk. I currently have about 5T of free space.

I got over point 2 by abandoning price as the selection criteria for carfcs and now I only buy fast lexar cards. The fastest they sell. I pay a lot of money for them, but the write speeds are noticeably faster than cheap cards. With my cameras, Canon, Lexar has always been measurable faster than SANDisk as well. I also bought a lot of cards. I own 8x32GB lexar cards. That's four to six hours of picture taking in a busy situation such as an all day rugby tournament where shotgunning is an ideal strategy for taking pictures.

As for 3, that took the longest. When I shot film, I only did it to make prints that I could scan to 640x480 to post on the internet. When I got a DLSR back in 2003, I used to take pictures that I shrunk down to 640x480 to post on the internet. Right now I have a 1Dx, and the majority of pictures I take are shrunk down to 800 on a maxside for posting on the internet. But looking back at pictures I could have taken raw, and didn't, I feel a lot of regret. Usually I just take the composition as it appeared in the viewfinder, but for certain pictures (primarily rugby) I actually crop and might even adjust some sliders on the image. It's nice to have that option, even if I seldom use it. For a long time, I kept my camera in jpeg mode, and only swapped to raw when I thought I was taking an important picture. Then I kept forgetting to swap back and forth. Then I started keeping it in raw/jpeg all the time, except for rugby, and that mostly worked. Then I bought some expensive lexar cards because amazon had a good sale on them, and almost immediately I replaced all my cheap cards. With the fast cards, I didn't even have to drop raw to take rugby pictures, so now I'm always in raw, with small jpegs. For rugby, I crop the small jpegs, and for everything else, I have the raw available just in case.
 04/08/2015 11:38:07 AM · #47
I do the RAW thing i'm not at all sure why but i do.
 04/08/2015 12:07:19 PM · #48
When I received the D60 my friend who I brought it from, banged it in my gray matter. "It is a sin to shoot in JPG, just never do it"
So shooting from day one in raw was totally daunting to me.
Took me a very long time to understand why and what the differences were. It took me 3 days to figure out how to see the images for when I downloaded it from the camera and then another week to figure out how to process it to basic minimal stuff. Took me much longer to learn other things about processing and I still am learning.
Jpg saves tons of editing time. The raw, am liking the tweeking time, its almost a relaxing therapy to have a really awesome final touch to an image your happy with in the end.

It wasn't until I joined here and those minimal challenges that I had to figure out how to switch and shoot jpg.

RAW really paid off when I did my first two prints. For me its a no brainer. If you love the editing time.
I have a huge issue with the room space with the raw, so it forces me to do cleaning with every time I shoot. It's keep or delete.

Message edited by author 2015-04-08 12:09:56.
 04/08/2015 12:26:00 PM · #49
Originally posted by jgirl57:
Jpg saves tons of editing time.


I find the opposite. Using Lr, I can do my basic processing on many RAW images, and easily duplicate settings between similar shots. This alone saves tons of time. The ability to just move a slider to adjust white balance also saves tremendous time compared with painstakingly adjusting curves on a JPEG. Further, the ability to rapidly, efficiently optimize the basic processing of an image allows me to completely avoid Ps for a large percentage of my images, again saving time. Finally, Lr allows me to rapidly publish to the web without saving web-specific versions and uploading through a browser interface.

Originally posted by jgirl57:
I have a huge issue with the room space with the raw, so it forces me to do cleaning with every time I shoot. It's keep or delete.


No doubt, RAW takes up more space, most especially since we almost always store JPEGs as well. From my perspective, with the incredibly low costs of rotating hard drives, space should not be a consideration for most photographers, though I know that there are some folks that generate a *lot* more images than I do. the key is managing the space well.
 04/09/2015 10:34:17 AM · #50
Time is but a number.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 05/03/2025 08:46:17 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: 05/03/2025 08:46:18 PM EDT.