Digital Question: why shoot RAW??!

[Alice Mutasa]

I keep reading that I should be shooting RAW files as this is the highest quality, but I cannot see any advantage over JPG; am I missing something?! I read a long article in a photo mag about all the adjustments that can be made to the image in RAW mode, but every single one of these can be done on a JPG image in-camera (& save a huge amount of time), or afterwards in Photoshop. When I tried a few RAW images, they looked exactly the same as the JPGs in photoshop anyway; I couldn't see clearly the adjustments that could be made (the image was a tiny thumbnail). I have had my JPG images re-produced at A3, at high quality, in magazines, so can anyone explain to me why I would want to spend hours & hours manually adjusting a RAW file to get the same quality?? Any responses appreciated!

[Stemmy]

Hi Alice and welcome.

I shoot RAW at all my weddings. fFor the simple reason I can control the White Balance, Contrast, Exposure etc. when I get home in the computer rather than worrying too much about it on the day.

The image is better quality as its not had any compression yet.

Just found this - loads of info.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...awtruth1.shtml

Hope this helps

[Choogster]

I second Mr Stembridges thoughts.

[tonymidd]

Hi Alice
Welcome. there is a difference, a big difference between RAW and Jpeg. Basically even fine jpeg throws away at least 25% of the data, RAW keeps it all. Also each time you open a jpeg and resave it you can loose a bit more data.
The basic RAW work flow is not that time consuming but it can get you a much wider dynamic range. Also you are less likely to induce artifacts processing in the computer than in camera. The in-camera processing for a jpeg can be a bit vicious even at the softest settings and it's done by a tiny computer compared to the average work station.
Jpegs fine for holiday snaps and the web but for repo RAW wins.

[Tim]

Useful link Martin.. Explains it well

[Matt Needham]

Shoot RAW if you have the time for or enjoy post processing. Shoot JPEG if you don't. There is no one right way that's best for all photographers in all situations. The idea that RAW is always better than JPEG is just as silly as "Pros only shoot slide film", and "Pros only use black cameras." If you are getting good results shooting JPEGs, and RAW seems like a pain in the butt, then more power to you. I like post-processing so I shoot RAW most of the time.

Check out this article by Yervant (probably one of the world's most famous wedding photogs, and one of my favorites). He shoots JPEG.

http://www.wedshooter.com/2005/12/20/soft-touch

[lostmysnorkel]

It all depends on where you want your images to end up.

Personally, I always shoot in RAW. Even if I don't intend any manipulation afterwards.

I send all my images to the lab via the internet, either FTP or with their software, and that's the time I convert to jpeg, for speed.

This way, I only ever get prints made from 1st generation jpeg files.

Better quality than shooting jpeg, compressed by the camera, tweaking on the 'pooter and saving changes, comperssed again, having the client say 'Can I see that in B&W?' - saving again - more compression, then sending to the printer to be processed.

In between time, I would convert to another uncompressed file format for more detailed manipulation BEFORE going to jpeg.

The RAW conversion doesn't take too long, just open all the images from Bridge, then in the RAW ddialogue box, select all and save - choose your format and folder and let it go.

It seems quite happy working away in the background without slowing any other apps down too much.

[Wineman]

I think your best option is to get a D200 and shoot both at the same time!



Hello to everyone here by the way - my name is David and I am based in Kent.