Steve'sDigicams

hanalwala · Aug 28, 2010, 1:04 PM

I have never taken any pictures in RAW so far. I have always downloaded pictures in JPG only.

Now I am going on a holiday to Darjeeling and will be taking a lot of pictures there. Should I take pictures in RAW alone or both JPG and RAW and then come back and learn how to edit them in RAW.... Can someone please teach us how to edit a RAW file..... Is sit very difficult ??.... Your advice will help a lot of people like me....

wave01 · Aug 28, 2010, 1:27 PM

Hi using RAW is not that hard what you can do is take one of each that way you can compare, but it will cut down the number of pictures you get on your card so take plenty of cards or you may have a backup device.
With Raw the file you what you get is like a negative and it has to be developed thats where DPP comes in you can open it up and sort out the picture there
look here http://www.usa.canon.com/content/dpp2/index.html
you may want to to do JPG for snaps and RAW for the more interesting stuff just a suggestion to get more pictures on a card. Good luck have a good trip

VTphotog · Aug 28, 2010, 1:33 PM

My advice would be to use Raw+JPG, and only do the Raw developing on those shots that need it, and the ones that really should be made into poster size prints. Raw can give you better quality, and developing a Raw photo can allow you to correct WB and exposure problems (we all make mistakes sometime), but for most purposes, the JPG will be suitable.
When using a small sensor camera, I tend to shoot Raw as a matter of course, in order to get as much from it as possible. With DSLR, if mine had the Raw+JPG, that is what I would use always. As it is, I make a choice based on subject matter.
Editing (or developing) a Raw file can be pretty simple, or as complex as you care to make it. If the shot is overexposed and needs highlight detail recovered, it can take a bit of time to get right. If it is simply a matter of correcting WB or underexposure for a series of shots, most Raw converters can batch process pretty easily. Advice and details on how to do all this depend on which program you use. I think you may be able to find some answers in the software forums.

brian

TCav · Aug 28, 2010, 1:42 PM

First, if you're planning to shoot RAW for any length of time. make sure you've got plenty of storage space. RAW files are typically twice the size of Large Fine JPEG files, and if you want to record both, you'll need three times the storage capacity than if you were just recording JPEG files alone. So get a lot of extra cards, and maybe a Wolverine ESP 5250 or an Epson P-7000.

Second, shooting and post processing RAW isn't much more difficult than for JPEG. What is different is the levels to which you can post process RAW files in the event that you need to (or you just feel you need to.) Go take some photos in RAW+JPEG before you leave, and see what it takes to do what you want. If you have installed the photo editting application that came with your camera, then you have everything you need. If you use some other application, then you may or may not have everything you need, and now's the time to find out. If the images straight out of the camera are to your satisfaction, then you're done, and shooting RAW was a waste of time and space; if not, then RAW files will let you play with them more than you could with JPEG files.

tclune · Aug 28, 2010, 1:46 PM

I don't use Canon, so Brian may be right for your equipment. But I find absolutely no value whatsoever in shooting RAW + JPEG on Nikon. I can batch process the photos under Capture NX2 to give me the same JPEGs I would have gotten from my camera, and I save the storage space of all those JPEGs. If Canon has any comparable software (and I suspect that LightRoom 3 would do the same basic thing for both Canon and Nikon formats, but I haven't used it), it just doesn't seem to make any sense to shoot RAW + JPEG.

I should add that I don't generally batch process my photos anyway -- if I can't be bothered looking at a photo long enough to PP it, why would I want a print of it?

hanalwala · Aug 28, 2010, 2:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tclune

I don't use Canon, so Brian may be right for your equipment. But I find absolutely no value whatsoever in shooting RAW + JPEG on Nikon. I can batch process the photos under Capture NX2 to give me the same JPEGs I would have gotten from my camera, and I save the storage space of all those JPEGs. If Canon has any comparable software (and I suspect that LightRoom 3 would do the same basic thing for both Canon and Nikon formats, but I haven't used it), it just doesn't seem to make any sense to shoot RAW + JPEG.

I should add that I don't generally batch process my photos anyway -- if I can't be bothered looking at a photo long enough to PP it, why would I want a print of it?

I have used Lightroom 3 in the past many times to edit JPEG pictures and I am quite comfortable using it..... In that case should I stick with JPEG shooting and processing ??

TCav · Aug 28, 2010, 3:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hanalwala

..... In that case should I stick with JPEG shooting and processing ??

The big advantage of shooting RAW is that, if you only have one opportunity to get it right, your best chance is with RAW.

fldspringer · Aug 28, 2010, 4:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hanalwala

I have used Lightroom 3 in the past many times to edit JPEG pictures and I am quite comfortable using it..... In that case should I stick with JPEG shooting and processing ??

If you use Lightroom with JPEGs, the same program doing the same steps are used with RAW images. The only difference will be how much farther you can move sliders before things start to fall apart. You then just save as a JPEG when it looks like you want.

hanalwala · Aug 28, 2010, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fldspringer

If you use Lightroom with JPEGs, the same program doing the same steps are used with RAW images. The only difference will be how much farther you can move sliders before things start to fall apart. You then just save as a JPEG when it looks like you want.

I took a trial shot this morning with RAW and then did the editing in Lightroom 3 ..... here is the result... Please comment....This picture was just taken in the house to see what I get in raw...

Ordo · Aug 28, 2010, 10:55 PM

I'm also entering the RAW world. A lot to learn. Look here:

http://digital-photography-school.com/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach

And here:

http://www.shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/software_computers/0308rawprocess/

Google: RAW processing and you will get a lot more info. I don't know if these lectures will guarantee you better picks, but i sure you they will delay Alzheimer symptoms for sure.

Aug 28, 2010, 1:04 PM	#1
hanalwala Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Dubai (U.A.E.) Posts: 268	RAW format. *I have never taken any pictures in RAW so far. I have always downloaded pictures in JPG only.* Now I am going on a holiday to Darjeeling and will be taking a lot of pictures there. Should I take pictures in RAW alone or both JPG and RAW and then come back and learn how to edit them in RAW.... Can someone please teach us how to edit a RAW file..... Is sit very difficult ??.... Your advice will help a lot of people like me.... __________________ Canon Digital EOS 60D D-SLR Canon Lens 55-250mm Canon Lens 18-55mm Canon Lens EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM IS Canon Lens EF500mm F4L IS USM Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX Macro Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 Wide angle Website:www.hussainnalwala-photography.com

Aug 28, 2010, 1:42 PM	#4
TCav Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland Posts: 13,742	First, if you're planning to shoot RAW for any length of time. make sure you've got plenty of storage space. RAW files are typically twice the size of Large Fine JPEG files, and if you want to record both, you'll need three times the storage capacity than if you were just recording JPEG files alone. So get a lot of extra cards, and maybe a Wolverine ESP 5250 or an Epson P-7000. Second, shooting and post processing RAW isn't much more difficult than for JPEG. What is different is the levels to which you can post process RAW files in the event that you need to (or you just feel you need to.) Go take some photos in RAW+JPEG before you leave, and see what it takes to do what you want. If you have installed the photo editting application that came with your camera, then you have everything you need. If you use some other application, then you may or may not have everything you need, and now's the time to find out. If the images straight out of the camera are to your satisfaction, then you're done, and shooting RAW was a waste of time and space; if not, then RAW files will let you play with them more than you could with JPEG files. __________________ The lens is the thing. 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'. "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot. Last edited by TCav; Aug 28, 2010 at 1:44 PM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Aug 28, 2010, 1:27 PM	#2
wave01 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: North West England Posts: 1,750	Hi using RAW is not that hard what you can do is take one of each that way you can compare, but it will cut down the number of pictures you get on your card so take plenty of cards or you may have a backup device. With Raw the file you what you get is like a negative and it has to be developed thats where DPP comes in you can open it up and sort out the picture there look here http://www.usa.canon.com/content/dpp2/index.html you may want to to do JPG for snaps and RAW for the more interesting stuff just a suggestion to get more pictures on a card. Good luck have a good trip

Aug 28, 2010, 1:33 PM	#3
VTphotog Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA Posts: 4,309	My advice would be to use Raw+JPG, and only do the Raw developing on those shots that need it, and the ones that really should be made into poster size prints. Raw can give you better quality, and developing a Raw photo can allow you to correct WB and exposure problems (we all make mistakes sometime), but for most purposes, the JPG will be suitable. When using a small sensor camera, I tend to shoot Raw as a matter of course, in order to get as much from it as possible. With DSLR, if mine had the Raw+JPG, that is what I would use always. As it is, I make a choice based on subject matter. Editing (or developing) a Raw file can be pretty simple, or as complex as you care to make it. If the shot is overexposed and needs highlight detail recovered, it can take a bit of time to get right. If it is simply a matter of correcting WB or underexposure for a series of shots, most Raw converters can batch process pretty easily. Advice and details on how to do all this depend on which program you use. I think you may be able to find some answers in the software forums. brian

Aug 28, 2010, 1:46 PM	#5
tclune Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,093	I don't use Canon, so Brian may be right for your equipment. But I find absolutely no value whatsoever in shooting RAW + JPEG on Nikon. I can batch process the photos under Capture NX2 to give me the same JPEGs I would have gotten from my camera, and I save the storage space of all those JPEGs. If Canon has any comparable software (and I suspect that LightRoom 3 would do the same basic thing for both Canon and Nikon formats, but I haven't used it), it just doesn't seem to make any sense to shoot RAW + JPEG. I should add that I don't generally batch process my photos anyway -- if I can't be bothered looking at a photo long enough to PP it, why would I want a print of it?

Aug 28, 2010, 10:55 PM	#10
Ordo Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: BsAs Posts: 3,452	I'm also entering the RAW world. A lot to learn. Look here: http://digital-photography-school.com/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach And here: http://www.shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/software_computers/0308rawprocess/ Google: RAW processing and you will get a lot more info. I don't know if these lectures will guarantee you better picks, but i sure you they will delay Alzheimer symptoms for sure.