| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/19/2008 07:59:48 AM · #1 |
I found out that shooting in RAW makes my camera so slow! So do you have any suggestions:
- When one to shoot in JPEGs (what's your preferable analysis)
- When in RAW and so on...?
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 08:02:41 AM · #2 |
I haven't shot in JPEG for probably about 3 - 4 years now. Everything I do is in RAW. My camera handles the speed quite well.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 08:30:15 AM · #3 |
| I do RAW when I know I am shooting for a challenge, or I think I have difficult shooting conditions. I use JPEG when I am basically snapshooting, need burst mode, or it's not going to matter much. |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 08:40:53 AM · #4 |
RAW 100% of the time now.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 08:42:28 AM · #5 |
Always RAW, now that I have the 20D. But when I was using my Fuji 4900z (pretty similar to your camera) RAW was painfully slow and I rarely used it, so I hear ya...
R. |
|
|
|
05/19/2008 08:54:46 AM · #6 |
Depending on your camera and what you are doing.
Now it's always RAW because there's a jpeg embedded in each RAW file anyways. If I do time-lapse photography, I'm not going to adjust each photo so I shoot jpeg for that, otherwise if the shot matters, I shoot RAW and every shot matters.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2008 09:05:33 AM · #7 |
I'm quite new to shooting in RAW and have found so far that odd lighting conditions are a good example as you can set the white balance afterwards. Also if there is a large lighting variation you can bring out some of the shadows.
Your best bet is to shoot various situations in different light conditions in RAW and JPEG then process both till your happy and see which comes out best. You may find you cannot improve the shot in certain lighting shooting RAW so you may as well just shoot in JPEG ... thats what I've found so far anyway!! |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 08:13:33 AM · #8 |
I always shoot RAW+JPEG - RAW for the flexibility, JPEG for convenience, but always shoot both.
What sort of memory card are you using? It might be the memory card that's slowing things down rather than the camera - the difference is much more noticeable with RAW because the files are so much larger.
I use Sandisk Extreme III, they've worked well for me.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 08:56:31 AM · #9 |
Tried shooting RAW+JPG for a short period, but the extra workload and storage space requirements are not worth the very small benefits.
I thought I was a picky perfectionist, but RAW was just not worth it. My detailed tests on my 400D with Canon DPP combination showed me that the benefit of using RAW is extremely insignificant, and pretty much everything is just as achievable using JPG. True, with the right software, RAW does give something like 1% extra margin of recoverable error in the highlights. For shadows, any benefit of RAW was swamped by sensor noise, so no benefit there. RAW converters are a little more capable of changing 'camera settings', but if you know how to edit JPGs, you can do much the same stuff in photoshop.
I continue to shoot JPG 100% of the time, and enjoy 5 times the storage space on my cards and hard disk, faster loading and faster processing of images, using my choice of standard software.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 09:04:35 AM · #10 |
I always shoot RAW (although not on my P&S) and don't really understand the whole RAW is slow workflow issue..... I used RSP while it existed and now LR (which I am less then thrilled with) but the work flow for both was pretty easy. The JPG's I shoot with the P&S go thru the identical workflow. Sure - It takes more space and is slower in camera then just JPG. When on vacation and I want to give rels a straight image, I turn on RAW+small JPG which is fine for email size or printing 6x4's.
Message edited by author 2008-05-20 09:05:27.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 09:40:16 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by surfdabbler:
My detailed tests on my 400D with Canon DPP combination showed me that the benefit of using RAW is extremely insignificant, and pretty much everything is just as achievable using JPG. |
DPP doesn't recover highlights very well. Switching to lightroom you'll find raw gives you a lot more recoverable shadows and highlights *and* it will speed up your workflow. Jpeg's slow me down ... too much work to get a good image. Raw plus lightroom lets me shoot hundreds of images on wedding day and have the good ones up in a slide show in time for the reception. Couldn't live without it.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 09:41:04 AM · #12 |
For me ... raw always ... except when shooting sports. I wish I could shoot sports in raw, but there just isn't enough card space or disk storage to store all of the images.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 10:36:08 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by surfdabbler:
Tried shooting RAW+JPG for a short period, but the extra workload and storage space requirements are not worth the very small benefits.
I thought I was a picky perfectionist, but RAW was just not worth it. My detailed tests on my 400D with Canon DPP combination showed me that the benefit of using RAW is extremely insignificant, and pretty much everything is just as achievable using JPG. True, with the right software, RAW does give something like 1% extra margin of recoverable error in the highlights. For shadows, any benefit of RAW was swamped by sensor noise, so no benefit there. RAW converters are a little more capable of changing 'camera settings', but if you know how to edit JPGs, you can do much the same stuff in photoshop.
I continue to shoot JPG 100% of the time, and enjoy 5 times the storage space on my cards and hard disk, faster loading and faster processing of images, using my choice of standard software. |
The problem with JPG only is that you're letting the camera make some hard and fast, irreversible decisions for your image. With RAW, you have more flexibility over white balance, contrast, sharpening, exposure settings, etc.
Sure those algorithms CAN be applied against a JPG, but it will be applied against a set-in-stone version of of what your camera saw. You could apply those to a JPG you download from google images too, same thing.
Once you get used to RAW, you cannot imagine shooting without it. I shot RAW+JPG for a bit while transitioning and have since gone back and purged all the wasteful JPGs cluttering up the storage folders.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 10:41:58 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by surfdabbler:
Tried shooting RAW+JPG for a short period, but the extra workload and storage space requirements are not worth the very small benefits.
I thought I was a picky perfectionist, but RAW was just not worth it. My detailed tests on my 400D with Canon DPP combination showed me that the benefit of using RAW is extremely insignificant, and pretty much everything is just as achievable using JPG. |
I tried RAW and felt the same way you do. I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt this way, because I thought that maybe I was just doing something wrong. My editing software doesn't support RAW files either, so I'm sticking with Jpg. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 10:44:19 AM · #15 |
I used to shoot JPEG, but after seen the benefits of shooting in RAW. I never went back. I solely shoot raw now. The ability to manipulate the image without losing quality is priceless.
Message edited by author 2008-05-20 10:52:50. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 10:58:47 AM · #16 |
I shoot RAW except for when I am shooting action. Of course, you are shooting more bursts. I also hate going through 200 RAW shots. (I also hate going through 400 JPGs but that goes a little quicker). Otherwise its RAW all the way.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 11:14:38 AM · #17 |
I never shoot jpeg, it wastes my time.
I shoot exclusively in RAW.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 11:17:45 AM · #18 |
| The only time i shoot in JPEG is when i'm at an event or something and i'm running out of CF space. Otherwise 100% RAW. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 11:21:59 AM · #19 |
At the moment I shoot JPEG Fine unless it is a very important shot, then I switch to RAW. Reason being mainly size. I only have a 4gb card, so I have a choice of 370 JPEGs or 109 RAW. I usually take 200-300 in a couple hours when out. I do intend to buy several larger cards but other things will be coming first. :)
Edit:
Ideally I want to shoot RAW+JPEG, jpegs as previews since RAWs can be kinda slow to work with :)
The only other problem is disk space, I know space is cheap these days but filling 16gb cards every day is gonna add up.
Message edited by author 2008-05-20 11:24:40. |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 11:22:21 AM · #20 |
well since I discovered lightroom I LOVE RAW now! But I have only been using it for portraits for now.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 12:52:35 PM · #21 |
Are lightroom and Aperature sort of the same (assuming one has a Mac) or do they serve differnt functions?
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 12:54:14 PM · #22 |
| how do you switch the settings to shoot in raw? |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 01:06:49 PM · #23 |
D200: RAW + JPG Normal
D50: RAW + JPG Basic (Basic is hardcoded in d50 and you can't shoot in other quality with raw :( )
for 90% of the time jpg is fine :)
|
|
|
|
05/20/2008 01:08:28 PM · #24 |
RAW = Anything remotely important
JPG = Anything casual or for sports |
|
|
|
05/20/2008 01:56:51 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
RAW = Anything remotely important
JPG = Anything casual or for sports |
Same here, except when shooting RAW I'll shoot in RAW + JPG mode (easier to do a quick view on the JPG's on the PC later to sort & thin).
|
|
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: 08/27/2025 07:53:21 PM EDT.
