Always RAW?

[mattprince]

Hi,

I got a Sony A200 and have been shotting in raw for all my photos. I have been doing this as i was told by someone that raw is the best quality and as most if not all photos are enhanced in photoshop then its better to start with a blank canvas.

Is that right?

Matt

[bartonflyer]

Matt,

I have a Sony A700 & usually shoot RAW + JPG (does the A200 have that option?), then if I get it right the jpg is fine for most purposes for me, but if there is something special needs tweaking or I get a really good shot (unusual for me :) ) then I always have the RAW file as well.
I do think it really depends on just what you are doing - if you're out taking snapshots then with the right camera settings you can captre most of what you want in jpg then not have a raft of processing, but for the time you slightly blow it, then having the RAW is an insurance policy - however I'm sure there'll be loads of opinions, mostly disagreeing :)
Cheers
Ian

[AsylumVoid]

I always use JPG. because i'm rubbish. LOL!

Most of my images look fine in it, whatever works for you, works for you. It is the image itself that is important, what format it's in doesn't really matter.

[mattprince]

I always use JPG. because i'm rubbish. LOL!

Most of my images look fine in it, whatever works for you, works for you. It is the image itself that is important, what format it's in doesn't really matter.

Hi,

Well from what i understand jpg is a loss file and raw is lossless.

So it does actually matter.

Matt

[tinysmall]

Yep, jpeg is a lossy file and raw is lossless. Every time you open and close a jpeg you loose data on it. I shoot only in raw and save all my images as tiff's and a copy as jpegs (for web use). It does depend on what you're shooting though. If it's just holliday snaps, jpegs are fine but for anything serious that you might want to edit, shoot in raw. Shooting raw+jpeg does have some small advantages as far as saving a bit of time goes but if you edit all your pictures like I do, its pointless and takes up too much memory. But again, that depends on how you use your camera.

[AsylumVoid]

I've noticed the difference when I use MSpaint, quite substantially, but not on my photographs.

As I said...i'm rubbish...so, it's probably my own ignorance.

[lostmysnorkel]

RAW all the way for me!

Back from a 300-shot wedding I'll probably only open 30-40 in Photoshop proper. Everything else is tweaked in ACR

[BarryM]

jpeg for studio work cos i have total control (well my kind of control) of the lighting etc and no issues,
but on weddings its raw raw raw, as Snorks said, final tweaks with colour balance, exposures slightly adjusted etc are all done in raw, its a great failsafe measure too in case a shot is over exposed or under with the mad rushing i do at a wedding. And the raw workflow can be done in less than half an hour, all batch tweaked then converted over to jpeg,

I then have a raw folder, final jpeg folder for each wedding

[zigleon]

RAW + JPG for me mostly.....always RAW at weddings for the same reasons as others

[copycat]

RAW for everything cos I use lightroom and it makes it as quick and easy as using jpg but with much more control..

[robbie-doux]

I've been happier with what I've been able to do with a picture since I went to RAW, bu tit has slowed me down hugely - I've now always got mountains of shots to trawl through. THen, that's not a bad thing, as it makes me think more when I take the shots.

[ozonepirate]

I use raw if its for a commissioned fine art or product shoot but for weddings and every day stuff i shoot jpegs because i dont need to print huge pictures, but i always save my pics as tiffs and LZW compression which is pretty lossless!

[MANIAC-GFX-]

Raw for me as im not that good at taking pics yet,plus im getting into HDR and you can use 1 Raw file for it.

[ozonepirate]

Raw works really well for HDR images. I tend to use 3-5 raw images for a good HDR.

[Senken]

Every time you open and close a jpeg you loose data on it.

This isn't actually correct. You only lose information on a jpeg when it is opened, edited and saved. Opening and closing a jpeg has no loss at all.

[Suzi]

I have NEVER shot a jpeg. RAW gives you 2 stops either side, so if there is ever an issue with exposure - or that dreaded white wedding dress - then you will still have detail in everything, and be able to adjust. A jpeg will lose information every time it's opened, worked on and saved. Every time it's re-saved, it's compressed - so more information thrown away. Those missing details have to be "made up" - or "Interpolated" somehow. The software you use will do its best to get it right, but the more times you re-save, the more you lose.

[Chris Hawkins]

This isn't actually correct. You only lose information on a jpeg when it is opened, edited and saved. Opening and closing a jpeg has no loss at all.

Not quite correct. Opening and closing loses no data, but opening and saving does - regardless of whether it is edited.

[BarryM]

Robbie, u mentioned slowing down with raw, i reckon you should take a look at lightroom, you have all the controls of a jpeg nearly, and speed is phenominal as is the batch methods of making loads of changes, im firing through a wedding in raw in 2 hours now, lightroom incorportates sepias and warm tones etc using presets which can be actioned in lightroom, then finally when ready after culling, renaming, etc etc you just export the lot as jpeg.

Im even working on droplets now that if i want to run an action from ps such as soft focus or something it can be done on the final output of the jpeg when converting.

[David Worthington]

After many combinations over the years, i have settled on Raw AND jpeg for all my wedding / commissioned work........I find that if the camera AND I get exposure right then the jpeg is fine for even wall size enlargements.

as cameras have got better over recent years they are getting it closer and closer to correct with a bit of input / experience from the tog.......... the safety margin was vital in the early days of digi, but less so now.

a raw file is still the safe back-up to have just sitting in the background....and most importantly its FUTURE PROOF if converted to DNG format

[-Rob-]

I have to confess I am certainly no expert but my advice would be that if you have the memory capacity to shoot in RAW then do it and as memory is so cheap these days then there really is no excuse.

If you shoot in RAW and get the picture right straight from the camera then great, all you need to do is a quick conversion however if the photo needs a few tweaks then having a RAW file is the only way to do it.

Obviously when you are just happy snapping then you can forgive yourself a few exposure or white balance errors but for any photos where you aim for quality then give yourself all the help you can with RAW.