A&P Shooting RAW images

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by peoplescar, Feb 13, 2007.

  1. peoplescar

    peoplescar Guest

    Anyone do this regularly. it eats up a lot of memory so I just shoot in JPEG fine. What type of difference in the quality of an image is there. I've tried to figure it out but can't see anything really drastic. thanks for the help.
     
  2. SLED

    SLED build an idiot proof device and someone else will

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2001
    Messages:
    28,118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    AZ, like a bauce!
    I only shoot RAW unless I need to quickly provide previews for whatever reason, or just don't care about the image quality.

    Here is an article that might help explain why RAW is superior to shooting jpeg
    http://www.lonestardigital.com/shooting_raw.htm
     
  3. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,737
    Likes Received:
    55
    I shoot only RAW because I shoot for fun and art, instead of professionally for sports or media.

    RAW is a higher quality image, which means you get more data, and better detail, and it's lossless. For an artist, or anyone who's going to be post processing, printing, and archiving, RAW is a MUCH better way to shoot.

    If you're shooting in a scenerio where you won't be post processing all of the images, then the best quality jpg is probably a better choice. The camera does some internal PP, which makes the 'out of the camera' adjustments a little better, it doesn't take up as much space, and it's a universal format...

    But outside of the pro's, theres no reason to shoot jpg.

    memory cards are cheap.
     
  4. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    most people won't notice a true difference in your basic shots but some will claim to be able to. Shooting in RAW allows you to have greater control over your shot after it's been recorded. JPEG does allow for adjustments but RAW allows for greater adjustments.

    I never shoot in RAW, mainly because I don't have a RAW converter, but a lot of my shots have been used for print and digitally without shooting in RAW...:dunno:
     
  5. Blair

    Blair New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    8,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    how can you not have a RAW converter? it is free with your camera.
     
  6. mobbarley

    mobbarley Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney
    Software makes a big difference.

    I only shoot raw because I use aperture.

    If I was still using photoshop + ACR I would still be using jpg+raw when needed.
     
  7. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    lightroom makes batch editing RAW fast.

    RAW is 12 bit, jpeg is 8 bit, thats a huge differnce.
    Better exposure and white balance editing
    ablility to do edits to the metadata instead of the actual pixels, so its non destructive.
    Memory is cheep, memories are priceless
     
  8. JaimeZX

    JaimeZX Formerly of :Sep 2001: fame - Also: Sprout Crew OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,226
    Likes Received:
    26
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    I only *don't* shoot RAW if I'm just doing basic snapshots.
     
  9. Blair

    Blair New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    8,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    :werd:

    i use aperture and the fact that it is so easy to handle really makes size the only "downside"
     
  10. CornUponCob

    CornUponCob New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2001
    Messages:
    15,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    I shoot RAW because I never have time to cook.
     
  11. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,737
    Likes Received:
    55
    I <3 aperture...
     
  12. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    lightroom > aperture
     
  13. :bigthumb:
     
  14. I only shoot raw for portraits. Anything else I just use jpg fine.
     
  15. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,737
    Likes Received:
    55
    haven't tried lightroom. currently use bridge+ACR and aperture...
     
  16. BeachBoy

    BeachBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,214
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    I shoot raw and love lightroom.
    I often put RAW+small JPEG basic so i can shoot pics by email right when I come back home
     
  17. cftofu2k

    cftofu2k OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,949
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    California
    more flexibility. big files shouldn't be a problem if your computer is up to date. :hs:
     
  18. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never installed the Nikon software and CS doesn't support the d200
     
  19. mobbarley

    mobbarley Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney
    Only because it works on windows :ugh:

    Aperture has a lot of features which in my brief play with lightroom doesnt compete with.
     
  20. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    not really. the only thing it offers that lightroom doesn't is stacks and books :greddy:

    1.0 offers a lot more than the beta
     
  21. mobbarley

    mobbarley Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney
    stacks are great :drool:

    I always thought the betas looked way too thin. Ill have to check out the real thing.
     
  22. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    you have no ability for global presets, the printer driver sucks in comparison, etc. Plus red eye removal, clone/heal etc, all in the meta data so non destructive editing
     
  23. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,737
    Likes Received:
    55
    Nice. I'll have to check it out.

    although I use imageprint for my print driver, and I love it.
     
  24. jennyjenn

    jennyjenn New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    I don't shoot in anything BUT raw. Definitely worth it. I wish my computer was new enough to support aperture. :wtc: :wtc: :wtc: :wtc:
     
  25. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    Once you start shooting raw, you'll rarely shoot in jpeg. Colors are more vibrant, white balance is 10x easier to fix, +/- 2 exposure compensation <3. The only thing negative (for me) is slightly more noise than in jpeg.

    Extra hard drive space isn't an issue since memory is cheap nowadays (external HD, internal HD, DVDs).
     

Share This Page