Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 18, 2015, 11:40 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,547
Default How many people shoot RAW

I know, the answer to that one seems obvious. For me, every picture I take is important. That said, up to now, I have been shooting only in j peg, and there have been a few times that that came back to bite me. Last night I discovered pse11 has a raw converter. I watched a you tube tutorial and saw how easy it is to repair an image that was shot raw. Yes, I've been under a rock. So, before spending megabucks on a raw converter, I am going to try out camera raw 7, I think it is, in pse11.
So I will try raw+jpeg and see how it works out. I am using a 32gig card, and with my 20 mp camera, it will shoot roughly 1, 000 pictures.
OK, that's all, just wanted to sse what others think about it.
__________________
Always use tasteful words - you may have to eat them.
You cannot find knowledge by rearranging your ignorance.

My Flickr
-Robert-


Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 18, 2015, 12:32 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,234
Default

With my first couple of digital cameras (Minolta D7hi and Pentax *istD), I used Raw almost exclusively, mostly to squeeze the most detail possible out of the 5 and 6 megapixels, and to control the noise better than from jpeg.
I got less enthusiastic about Raw when I started using the Fuji X-S1, partly because the only converter which seemed to work properly, was the one bundled with the camera software, and also the greater detail on noise control of the sensor made it less necessary.
With my Pentax K3, I have the option of choosing Raw after I have taken the shot and reviewed it, which saves considerable trouble, but seldom use it. Part of the reason is simply laziness. Mostly, though, it is because I don't really need it. I have gotten used to whatever quirks the camera has about exposure, and I normally have it set for a bit of negative exposure compensation. When the dynamic range of a scene is really high, I have quick access to in-camera HDR. Noise is not a problem unless at very high ISO settings, and there is sufficient detail that I don't feel the need to try and eke any more out of it.
So, for my purposes, Raw is pretty much 'out of the picture'.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2015, 12:34 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
kazuya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,007
Default

I always shoot raw+jpg
if the picture comes out needing editing I use the raw file, you can do so much more with raw than jpg
kazuya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2015, 1:16 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

RAW is great for some stuff, but few people print anymore, so shooting RAW is a waste if your final result will be on an sRGB display anyway.

I rarely shoot RAW.
__________________
  • 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; Jun 18, 2015 at 1:19 PM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2015, 6:25 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 297
Default

For special occasions like weddings or graduation photos where I had to correct my mistakes, I should use RAW.

But, as a hobby and pastime, I want to use all the in-camera JPEG features like film modes, aspect ratios and white balance, especially B&W where I can see it visually on-site with the liveview.

I do have to remind myself that I have to think exposure as if using an optical viewfinder and not rely too heavily on the liveview. It's easy to start biasing the exposure to compensate for the colors and white balance.
BBbuilder467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2015, 7:31 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,741
Default

When I'm rattling off frames on a sports shoot... it's jpeg only (save maybe the first couple of runners/riders- RAW +jpeg)
For all else, I'll always shoot RAW... whether on my D3100/D300 or my FZ-150.
Fine detail can be controlled more as can dynamic range,never mind colour accuracy...

The D300- I only use for extending D-Range- all else is fine "as-is"...
The D3100- colour accuracy always needs correction...
The FZ-150- RAW offers a much "cleaner" image and a wee bit more D-R...
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2015, 8:33 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,298
Default

When I started out with digital I shot with a Nikon E4100 P&S and a Sony DS-75 3.3 MP camera.Niether could shoot RAW. Then in 2006 I bought my first DSLR, a Minolta 5D with 6.2MP. Then came my first post processing software Adobe PSE 4. I didn't start fully using RAW until about 2010 when I bought an iMac and Apple Aperture. Aperture handles raw and jpegs identically. Because of that I never went back to shooting jpeg until I bought my NEX 6. One of the things Aperture did not offer was lens distortion correction. If you shoot with the NEX 6 and the compact 16-50 kit lens then you must have distortion correction. The NEX 6 only performs distortion correction in jpeg so jpeg it is when I shoot with that particular lens, My other lens for the NEX 6 is the 50 f/1.8, and raw works fine. Just the wide stuff needs the correction. That seems to be the trend of the new mirrorless system from Sony. Although the prices don't reflect this in any way.

The biggest advantage I see shooting raw is with the highlights and shadows. It seems to expand the useful dynamic range quite a bit. For instance if I shoot into a backlit scene your subject will usually be a silhouette with a bright background. In jpeg it would most likely be a lost shot. Even if you could pull some detail out of the shadows the colors look wrong. In the reverse situation trying to pull detail out of blown highlights. A jpeg shot usually ends up looking very flat. A washed out look. Not good.

In raw you have a much better chance of saving these kind of shots, and more room to enhance the good ones. I also find the because of this adjusting levels in post seems to work much better. It give you more room.

As for noise, I would have to say I see an advantage in raw. Just not as big of a deal as the highlights and shawdows.

I would imagine that you maximize the details in raw also. You eliminate loss of pixels thats inherent in using jpeg.

One of my all time favorite favorite pics from way back
Shot in jpeg with my small Nikon P&S and processed in PSE-4
Attached Images
 
__________________
A-mount
E-mount
Canon S95
lomitamike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2015, 6:21 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Nikon calls it D-Lighting. Sony calls it DRO. I don't know what Canon calls it, or even if they have it.

It handles the shadows in high contrast images, doing what people would do in post processing anyway, RAW or not.

This is not your father's JPEG.
__________________
  • 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.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2015, 9:02 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,741
Default

TCav- whilst DR optimizer's are useful- they rarely give you a jpeg with anything like the tonal range a RAW offers... certainly with regards highlight retention... in fact some camera's RAW D-Range is so large these days it almost renders HDR antiquated...!!
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 19, 2015, 10:32 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,234
Default

Simon;
It depends on how the manufacturer implements the DR. My K3 takes 3 exposures at exposure intervals I designate, and combines them for a true HDR image by merging the bracketed exposures. I think that others do it with a single exposure by adjusting the tone curves, though.
The K3 of course will only do this with a static image, so Raw is still sometimes needed.
brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:08 AM.