| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/11/2009 10:08:39 PM · #1 |
I shoot raw only if i really really have to. But most times i JPEG it. I try to get lighting perfect if i shoot models and for landscape try to let the camera bump the colors so i dont have to saturate them too much. I think I get less artifacting issues that way. The only thing that seems unavoidable is converting to black & white.
And whats your workflow? do u convert raw to tiff and save the tiff, or convert from raw straight to jpeg? And do most of you shoot everything in raw, from studio to landscape? |
|
|
|
03/11/2009 10:16:52 PM · #2 |
Not that I'm an expert, or even claim to know what I'm talking about, but I shoot everything in raw. As explained to me once, why throw photo info away by shooting anything else. Plus I like the ability to tweek exposure if I have to. I try to get it perfect before I shoot, but when I don't, shooting in raw sure helps. I convert to jpeg most of the time.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2009 10:18:17 PM · #3 |
| I've never shot in RAW. All my pics are JPEG. I've no idea how all that stuff works to be honest though! |
|
|
|
03/11/2009 10:18:28 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
03/11/2009 10:21:08 PM · #5 |
I shoot everything in RAW. I even sold my little Powershot and bought a new G10 so that I'll have RAW on my pocket camera. I like the freedom it gives me, and the fact that the camera doesn't mess with the images (saturation, sharpening, etc).
IMO, RAW is better because it is like a negative; shooting JPEG is like sending your film to CVS and getting cheap prints back - they're "adjusted" for "better" results. Often, I don't agree that those results really are "better," or they simply do not match my interpretation of the scene. In short, I don't like having the camera do all the thinking for me.
As for workflow, I shoot RAW, adjust them in Adobe Camera Raw, edit them in PSCS3, and save them as TIFFs with LZW compression. Then if I make prints or post a shot to the web, I convert it to JPEG.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2009 10:26:46 PM · #6 |
| I honestly haven't really had any problem with my camera's processing of my photos to JPEG. I used to shoot in JPEG all of the time due to hard drive space constraints... but I've recently switched to shooting in RAW + JPEG. I haven't increased my hard drive space, I just kinda liked the thought of having more options in post with RAW files. But so far I haven't had any shots in RAW that I have really felt that I had considerably more power to do pp to in RAW than with the JPEG. |
|
|
|
03/11/2009 10:32:13 PM · #7 |
I use RAW + JPEG all the time. If I am away from my computer, I can still view the jpgs on another computer to see what I got, etc. And sometimes I can do a 10 second edit of a jpeg that I just want to email someone real quick. Once I got the tools to work with RAW files, though, I seldom want to work with jpegs. Being able to nondestructively edit my raw file every which way (I use Aperture, but Lightroom does the same thing) and not worry about saving all the time (and worrying that each new save might compress and lose data) is nice, and the things you can do with raw files are amazing.
I use R+J on both my d90 and my g10.
Note: at least on my cameras, RAW is only possible in the Manual modes (Aperture, Shutter priority, full manual). Once you select any Auto mode, you will get only jpeg.
Plus, Hitler shoots jpeg only.
ETA: worth having some bigger, fast cards, maybe. I used 4 and 8MB Sandisk Extreme III SD cards, until my brother got me two 16G Extreme IIIs for Christmas. They are SWEET.
Message edited by author 2009-03-11 22:55:05. |
|
|
|
03/11/2009 10:45:38 PM · #8 |
LOL! Well, I'm convinced. Only JPG + RAW for me from now on.
Actually, I have yet to try Lightroom with my RAW files... I've just been using Canon's utility to convert the RAW files... I'm rather new to all this RAW stuff but looks like I'll have to give Lightroom a shot. |
|
|
|
03/11/2009 10:50:56 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
...if I make prints or post a shot to the web, I convert it to JPEG. |
Why not print the TIFFs? |
|
|
|
03/11/2009 10:54:59 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
...if I make prints or post a shot to the web, I convert it to JPEG. |
Why not print the TIFFs? |
A lot of places only take JPEGs -- I don't make photo prints at home. Also, starting with (I think) PS CS2, the best-quality JPEG setting uses lossless compression.
My camera only does JPEG (unless hacked), so I've never really had to face the decision ...
Message edited by author 2009-03-11 22:56:15. |
|
|
|
03/11/2009 11:06:05 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Why not print the TIFFs? |
A lot of places only take JPEGs -- I don't make photo prints at home. Also, starting with (I think) PS CS2, the best-quality JPEG setting uses lossless compression... |
In order to get the best print, I try to supply the best original, generally between 45MB and 74MB. But I know nothing about "JPEG losslless". I use the format for low res web only.
I do know some labs accept or, even, require JPEG. I just won't use those.
Message edited by author 2009-03-11 23:09:02. |
|
|
|
03/11/2009 11:07:18 PM · #12 |
If you want to know why, really why you should shoot raw, get the book on camera raw by Bruce Fraser.
Camera Raw by Bruce Fraser
This is an EXCELLENT book that really puts it all into perspective. After reading this, you will know exactly when and why you should shoot RAW, and when and why it doesn't matter.
Paul |
|
|
|
03/11/2009 11:07:23 PM · #13 |
| I normally shoot RAW with my SLR. I like having the flexibility. I'll go to JPEG if I need a fast burst speed or its just snapshots. I still shoot a lot with my Powershot S5 and though it only does JPEG, I still get some of my best shots with it. |
|
|
|
03/11/2009 11:49:20 PM · #14 |
I don't shoot RAW either. I used to and I do understand the benefits of it. For my purposes, I don't believe that the extra overhead and time required to deal with those files is worth the extra effort. I have done some side by side comparisons of 24x36" prints, one made from a RAW original and the other made from a JPG original of the same image and I can't see enough difference to make me want to take the RAW route.
I'm not suggesting that anyone who prefers to shoot RAW not continue to do so :)
|
|
|
|
03/12/2009 01:29:23 AM · #15 |
| I see where it's beneficial in controlling artifacting and such so I use it for landscape and related stuff. But I dont think I'll be using raw for studio photoshoots, specially when i have a lot of shooting to do. I prefer to get the lighting as perfect as i can in studio so I dont really do much post processing. |
|
|
|
03/12/2009 02:38:03 AM · #16 |
If the exposure of the shot is correct, then I cannot see a significant difference between RAW and JPEG on a low res print. However, if I have to correct the exposure or do heavy work with levels/curves (think about those histogramms with holes in them), the difference can become very noticeable.
A very convincing explanation |
|
|
|
03/12/2009 05:24:34 AM · #17 |
Depends what I want to use the shots for -
If Im using my camera for normal snapshots to put in an album on a day out or holiday I generally shoot jpeg due to the space needed.
When Im on a mission to take useful shots I shoot raw just so I have more freedom with any editing I want to do afterwards.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2009 05:53:47 AM · #18 |
It depends what you are going to do with the shot as well, the quality @ 100% on the RAW file is so much better than the JPEG, that said I've printed a JPEG at 20inch x 24inch and the quality is fantastic.
As I post process every shot I always shoot in RAW to give me the extra flexibility if when I screw up the exposure :) It doesn't take any more time to pp than if I'd shot in JPEG. I just bought another 8GIG card for £30 so memory isn't that expensive anymore either. |
|
|
|
03/12/2009 06:58:01 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Adamsw216:
Actually, I have yet to try Lightroom with my RAW files... I've just been using Canon's utility to convert the RAW files... I'm rather new to all this RAW stuff but looks like I'll have to give Lightroom a shot. |
Lightroom didn't convert RAW from the Canon 50D very well at least when the camera was first released. I don't know if that is still the case. |
|
|
|
03/12/2009 08:33:37 AM · #20 |
I shoot both Raw and JPEG on both of my cameras...I also purchased a point and shoot that shoots Raw too---the Panasonic LX3. It is the best of both worlds!
Message edited by author 2009-03-12 08:34:15. |
|
|
|
03/12/2009 08:57:13 AM · #21 |
Using Lightroom, I find there is not much overhead in shooting raw. - I've spoiled enough photos to the demons of improper white balance and (slight) overexposure during my pre-raw, pre-lightroom days!
I do appreciate that pros have to factor in time a bit differently than I do - delivering photos directly from the camera to the customer is of course the fastest and cheapest way to do the business. But, as a post-processing buff I find it hard to imagine that any photo straight from the camera is perfect enough that it cannot be made even more perfect by some quick adjustments to exposure etc.
(early LR did not manage the colors very well, but now I think it provides a good enough starting point for fine adjustment) |
|
|
|
03/13/2009 09:00:13 PM · #22 |
I usualy don't shoot RAW. I am to lasy to do it. And to be onest, I find it not to be necesary, most of the time.
I do shoot RAW when I really, really want to make sure the phtos would come out OK (like for special events, etc.). But this is quite rare. |
|
|
|
03/13/2009 09:25:09 PM · #23 |
| i used to shoot primarily in Jpeg, but switched over to RAW. you never know when a finger will slip to a button, messing up a perfectly great photo, and having the white balance, or exposure off. |
|
|
|
03/13/2009 09:47:43 PM · #24 |
I used to shoot Jpeg all the time until I noticed it would clip colours a lot faster than Raw files do- this basically means you can keep a lot more detail in heavily saturated areas, whereas in Jpeg it just goes to a detail less blob.
Also, banding in skies etc is reduced in raw and the tonal gradations of every colour are smoother making pics look a bit more natural looking. |
|
|
|
03/13/2009 09:49:37 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by photokariangel:
i used to shoot primarily in Jpeg, but switched over to RAW. you never know when a finger will slip to a button, messing up a perfectly great photo, and having the white balance, or exposure off. |
I'd just like to point out that white balance in jpegs can be easily rectified since the advent of lightroom, just use the eyedropper to select the colour that should be white and viola. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 12:01:42 AM EDT.
