Do you shoot (and Edit) in RAW

[cardmnal]

I usually shoot in a mode that provides both RAW and high quality JPEG. It sure eats up memory cards though.

It seems that the RAW files provide a much larger image file but this may not always be a good thing. Often the JPEG is the better looking image coming out of the camera and requires less work in the digital darkroom.

I am curious as to what type of files others like to work with and why.

Alan

[Jerryb]

hi cardmnal,
First it was my understanding on raw file that a camera always stores the picture in that format and that it in the download software with the camera that changes that raw file to jpg or other format. Now along with this, since there NO standard for raw format per say... the software you use must have the necessary drivers to work with that camera since various camera manufacutres sometimes use a different raw format...

note: the reason people like to use the raw format, and from my expereience, is that it will give you more data ie; will let you see more shades of grey and black... whereas in your other formats when you convert to your traditional format a lot of the darker shades of grey and black are dithered and lost..

be that said, and I may be wrong on raw.. smile... I almost never use jpg format for long term saving or editing pictures... use jpg format just for sending and posting picture.... The reason, jpg is a lossy format, in just compressing the file you can lose data/quality.. ie; fine details or shades get changed....and in fact just resaving a jpg file you can lose quality... I prefer for both long term saving and editing saving in either bmp or tif or png formats.... these formats are non lossy formats.... they retain the quality of the picture when you convert to that format and also retains the full quality even if you do a lot of resaves!! On raw I like editing in raw when there a problems with real dark shades..... that hiding various things... a dark chair in a dark background maybe completly lost when useing one of the standard format but if using the raw format you can see it enough to bring it out...

well those are my thoughts......

Originally Posted by cardmnal

I usually shoot in a mode that provides both RAW and high quality JPEG. It sure eats up memory cards though.

It seems that the RAW files provide a much larger image file but this may not always be a good thing. Often the JPEG is the better looking image coming out of the camera and requires less work in the digital darkroom.

I am curious as to what type of files others like to work with and why.

Alan

[pavel123]

I used to shoot JPEGs until I tried RAW... Never going to use JPEGs again.

Pros of RAWs:

-They store more info. The data are are arbitrary trincated by your camera soft on conversion to JPEG. Some of the useful data may be discarded, ex highlights. On JPEG you end up with totally white highlights while with proper RAW conversion you may be able to get this out.
- No problems with color cast. You select color temp on processing. My camera is usially way off with automatic settings and then I have painfully correct the pic in PS.
- Much easier saturation adjustment, color correstions etc.

You need a good RAW converter. Try Abobe LightStudio Beta 4.0 (I hope it's still downloadable for free).

Yes, RAWs take up more space. I used to get away with one spare 1GB card, now I need at least 5. But it's well worth it.

Pavel

Originally Posted by cardmnal

I usually shoot in a mode that provides both RAW and high quality JPEG. It sure eats up memory cards though.

It seems that the RAW files provide a much larger image file but this may not always be a good thing. Often the JPEG is the better looking image coming out of the camera and requires less work in the digital darkroom.

I am curious as to what type of files others like to work with and why.

Alan

[Tpage]

I shoot RAW only because of the exposure latitude it allows, which is simply not available when shooting jpeg. When shooting full manual outdoors, lighting can change in an instant and sometimes the exposure is off. Also I don't have to rely on the in camera white balance, saturation, contrast and sharpening. If I were to make such changes to a jpeg image, I figure that those changes have been applied twice, by the camera and then by me which seems pointless.

I know in advance that the workflow is going to be time consuming, but I have the time and figure the end result is worth it. My workflow is quite straightforward, and unless I'm going for a special effect, images are ready for print in around a minute each.

[Swampy]

I shoot both

JPEG: for most family reunion, point and shoot situations etc. The camera is smaller and travels well. The 5+MP JPEGs are sometimes acceptable for pre-press. I have a batch dropplet in Photoshop to save these as TIFF after downloading from the camera

RAW: For all studio or commercial shots or anything I know is going to be used in a pre-press environment. I use the Adobe DNG Converter to convert RAW to DNG which is a universal format (and about 1mb smaller than the origianal RAW without loss of detail) and doesn't care what camera model you use. Even newer cameras that don't have a CR profile can be manipulated in PS Camera Raw Software and Bridge. The converter allows for auto naming etc. while converting. Very handy. Photoshop handles DNG just fine and treats them just like RAW files.

[tking512]

I shoot both - I just recently moved to shooting in RAW for portraits and I will never go back to jpegs...I've seen a major improvement in my results when I shoot in RAW. Now, for family pictures or snapshots, I just stick to jpegs.

[CJ Swartz]

I shoot both. The camera that I now use most of the time (Fuji S5600) uses overly-high levels of noise reduction on images, especially those shot at ISO400 and above. If I'm shooting in full daylight at 80 or 100ISO, then I will probably shoot jpg; if I'm shooting at higher ISO, then I switch to raw so that I can decide what level of noise reduction to use. If there are tricky light conditions, I will also shoot raw so that I can have more control over exposure during post-processing. I would shoot raw only, but my camera can't bracket shots automatically or shoot multiple images while in raw mode, and sometimes I want these features turned on.

[WishfulPixel]

I shoot RAW, but I also think it depends on your background and why your shooting. I use most of photographs for retouching projects, so like to keep as much info as possible. You lose about 7/8ths of the quality when you shoot jpeg, dont you?

A seasoned film photographer would probably benefit from shooting jpeg. I think some of the older Pro's shoot jpeg.

While I'm a PSD jockey. The ability to adjust WB from the RAW file on my calibrated monitor is really sweet. Thats my take.

[CharlesBell]

It makes more sense to capture in a format that does not lose data in compression. jpeg uses lossy compression and depending on the amount of compression, loses data.

tif file compression does not do that. But my Nikon D50 won't take tifs.

For what its worth, I figured out that I could capture images while working from inside PhotoshopCS2 using menu File, == import ==> WIA

The images came out as bmps.
I have not yet figured out how to get Nikon raw pictures.

[Swampy]

Apparently CS3's Camera Raw module will let you edit TIFF and JPEGs in CR. So even your point and shoot shots will be available to do global adjustments.

[K.C.]

Originally Posted by WishfulPixel

You lose about 7/8ths of the quality when you shoot jpeg, dont you?

No, it's not that simple. There are 12 different levels of JPEG quality, each with their own algorithm for compression and sharpening.

Originally Posted by WishfulPixel

A seasoned film photographer would probably benefit from shooting jpeg. I think some of the older Pro's shoot jpeg.

Huh?

Why would a 'seasoned film photographer' benefit from shooting a jpeg ?

I've been shooting for 38 years, 30 professionally and never shoot a jpeg. All of the pros I know only shoot RAW.

[WishfulPixel]

Originally Posted by K.C.

No, it's not that simple. There are 12 different levels of JPEG quality, each with their own algorithm for compression and sharpening.

I understand that, but either way your loosing when shooting jpeg because of the compression. Your then depending on the hardware in the camera to do the conversion for you, this determines what information you do and dont get.

I shoot jpeg for family events etc, but for work reasons, I ALWAYS shoot RAW.

Originally Posted by K.C.

Huh?

Why would a 'seasoned film photographer' benefit from shooting a jpeg ?

I've been shooting for 38 years, 30 professionally and never shoot a jpeg. All of the pros I know only shoot RAW.

Funny, as much as I want to disagree with you, your right, most of the images I see get passed through my office are shot RAW, but this also depends on what they're shooting, and why they're shooting it, and the style of shots the photographer likes to take, there are tons of variables. the frame bursts are much slower with shooting RAW also.

I say a "seasoned photographer" would benefit more than most others simply because if YOU have been shooting for 38 years, then you clearly know more about capturing a look in the camera without doing alot of post to achieve you goal. Saving yourself space on your card and alot of other benefits. I know for a fact some run way fashion photographers shoot both, wirelessly transmit them to a PA in the crowd with a DVD burner and sell the CD from there. They then have the RAW files to correct from. So like I said in my first post it all depends.

I on the other hand am a photoshop jockey and dont have the experience to shoot jpeg and get exact exposure everytime so I shoot RAW.