I want to know if a lot of people shoot in Raw these days? It's a lot of work to do post processing of a couple of hundred pics.
Raw - Is it realy worth shooting in Raw these days
(52 posts) (26 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
I do and dont find it to adds time to my workflow as I tweaked the jpegs anyway. I use LR to edit the raw images.
Posted 1 year ago # -
90% of the time I shoot Jpeg with A D300 and 100% with my Fuji X100. The only time I use Raw is for High Dynamic range images, of for something I need the maximum amount latitude in editing.
That being said, I use Lightroom as well, and it handles Raw seamlessly and doesn't add any time at all.
You will probably find most everyone shoots raw but how much, will vary on the equipment they are using, environment at the time of the shot, and what the end product will be used for.
Posted 1 year ago # -
When I'm going on a photoshoot I shoot JPEG + RAW (JPEGs are previewed faster on my PC). Then I tweak the images I liked and when I'm finished I delete all RAW files except the very best. But if I'm taking snapshots, I'm shooting in JPEG only.
Posted 1 year ago # -
If I'm shooting something that I know will need a lot of editing I'll shot in raw (jpeg+raw) and use Lightroom3. But most of the time I always shoot in jpeg.
Also, editing software programs for jpegs have come along ways in the last 5 years, just as cameras have. Nikon's free ViewNX2 editing software is a good example.
Posted 1 year ago # -
There is a lot to gain if you shoot raw for sure. When you feel like you don't wanna do any post processing you can just batch convert even 1000+ pictures with Lightroom for example and drink a coffe while it converts em. It will do auto white balance and auto sharpening+denoise if you have it set up that way and generally it will do a better job than the in camera jpeg cpu.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Raw is for people that want to get maximum benefit from digital technology. While you can process using jpeg images raw gives us more latitude or digital information to work with in the image.
Sometimes not understood is that Nikon raw files also contain the jpeg image in the event that image suffices for what you are doing. Programs like Breeze Browser Pro will extract these and fine tune them to some extend very quickly.
I use raw because it is fun for me to reveal parts of an image that might normally have been lost in a jpeg because of not having much control of the in camera processing that makes changes in broad strokes that effect the entire image.
Raw users have a lot of flexibility in deciding what specific objects they want to brighten, darken, sharpen, soften, with definitive control on noise reduction to preserve detail.
Programs like Adobe Photoshop CS with plugins by companies like NIK, Perfect Photo, Topaz, Alien Skin, Imagenomic, Photomatix, Neat, Noise Ninja, and many others are excellent tools. Stand alone programs like DXO, Nikon NX2. Silkypix, and Corel also have much to offer. Adobe is the most flexible, but the cost of entry, even before plugins, is significantly higher.
Posted 1 year ago # -
100% raw, don't get the idea of shooting jpg's when You are not reporter and work under pressure. for me shooting jpg's is like shooting polaroids in the old film times.
Posted 1 year ago # -
+1
Posted 1 year ago # -
adamz said:
100% raw, don't get the idea of shooting jpg's when You are not reporter and work under pressure. for me shooting jpg's is like shooting polaroids in the old film times.+1
I to shoot 98% of the time in RAW. The only time I use jepg is when I change my D7000 setting to CH (continus high speed).
Posted 1 year ago # -
Raw all the way; No argument from the shooting point of view.
JPG (or TIFF) may be what a customer wants for end use, but getting pictures to that point is another matter. RAW just gives you so many more options for editing and tweaking on the way there...
Posted 1 year ago # -
Those of you editing in Raw, is basic editing (contrast, brightness, sharpening and etc.) a plus to do in Raw or do you use Raw more for differnt effects, serious detailing and etc.? Also does removing noise work better in Raw?
Why I ask is most everything I shoot has to be out the same day or next day. I find editing in Raw isn't that much more time consuming but it's sounding like I haven't given Raw the effort that I should have.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Bland said:
Those of you editing in Raw, is basic editing (contrast, brightness, sharpening and etc.) a plus to do in Raw ...Even Nikon's humble NX software will let you do all that and more (like over and underexpose by ~2 stops) and **not** introduce fringing or much (if any) of the distortions and aberrations you'll get in JPG images as the quality goes down each time you mess with one and save/reload it. The fewer steps you have to go through once you do have to convert it to JPG, the better - RAW processing is ideal for all that kind of stuff.
The other thing is that once the image is processed in whatever your raw processor is and you have cropped/adjusted it while still in RAW format, you can save it into a TIFF file and retain all that detail, edit and save the image again and again and again and again and again as needed for end use in Photoshop and it is still as good as that first save. Like I said above, the fewer things you have to do in JPG, the better the results, at least that's what I find anyway. As they say: YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary).
Posted 1 year ago # -
bjrichus said:
The fewer steps you have to go through once you do have to convert it to JPG, the better - RAW processing is ideal for all that kind of stuff.Thanks for the info, bjrichus. That is a problem I have at times, mainly with indoor/night concert lighting. I have a concert to shoot in a couple of weeks, I'll try Raw this time.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I always shoot both, when I get home and view the images on a big screen I then decide which version to archive. If I'm really pleased with the shot I'll keep the RAW, if it's just OK I'll keep the JPEG. I'm pretty ruthless at the editing stage, if I don't like the pic it will get permanently deleted.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Bland said:
Thanks for the info, bjrichus. That is a problem I have at times, mainly with indoor/night concert lighting. I have a concert to shoot in a couple of weeks, I'll try Raw this time.Just make sure you are 100% used to the longer time it takes to write to the memory card.
If you have space on the cards, try shooting RAW+JPG together, you get both to mess with then.
Posted 1 year ago # -
For me, I find both formats have plenty of benefits, and the are times I would use one or the other (sometimes both, but quite rarely now).
JPEG is of course about convenience and speed. If I have to shoot 3-4k shots over a whole week to get a presentation ready with with very little time to prepare (as happens a few times a year), I don't have time to sit down with the raw converter and experiment. I need to spend more time selecting pictures, and with as little time possible post processing. To this end, I've learned how to get the settings right (exposure and white balance) the first time. This is also great for raw shooting, since that means less time needed to play around with them. JPEG files are also much smaller, load faster and are more portable. The few times I have lost card data, I was able to recover jpeg files completely, but lost any raw files present.
Raw files of course have more information in them. Of course, a print or an image viewed on a monitor will always end up throwing away a lot of it, but with raw files, you can pick and choose what you end up using. Principally for me though, I find that the main advantage is that raw files work better in my workflow (bridge+PS), since the raw files and jpeg files link up more easily, and it is easier to sort out originals from final files. That's the main reason I use raw mostly, and the additional information in the files is great too.
As for time spent processing, well, I would say that it's not too as bad as you might think. True, it takes me a few minute with each image, but that time spent allows me to consider aspect ratio changes, variations in cropping, controlled sharpening, and most importantly, burning and dodging. If I did that with JPEG images, it takes just as long. Also, I can't do any of that in camera, so it all has to go in post. The end result is that, assuming that I'm not satisfied with what I get out of camera, raw and jpeg tend to take the same amount of time.
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
I'll throw this out since not everyone here get's paid or is always shooting for "art" and photograph family, dogs, snapshots, etc. Eating up hard drive space for snapshots never makes since to me. Most DSLR owners don't own or want to own Photoshop either. Most DSLR owners don't own or want to own Photoshop since they are just recording their kids and family.
Non-paid, no gallery show, and internet only images - Who uses Raw for that?
Posted 1 year ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
Non-paid, no gallery show, and internet only images - Who uses Raw for that?I do. Harddrives are not expensive anymore. I use Aperture for processing. I do own Photoshop but I don't use it very often. As I just do it for myself as a hobby I am also not in a hurry and I don't need to have the images ready by a certain time. I use raw because I don't want to give away image quality (why let the camera process something that a computer can do as well and maybe much better).
Also I started digital not too long ago ( about a year and a half) and my film camera was an FM2/FM3a manual camera. So my DSLR does have a number of settings I still need to get used to and that I tend to forget... :)
Posted 1 year ago # -
@Tao - me. IMHO, this what You describe is not a problem of shooting RAW vs JPG's, but it's a lack of determination of keeping only the files You really like, it took me couple of years to learn to delete every single image I don't like. That way, I'm having only this what I want in my library, it doesn't take me too much time to develop the raw (I'm working on hundreds of images instead of thousands) and it doesn't take too much HDD space. My usual keeping ratio (this what I process in Aperture) is around 10-20% of this what I shoot initially. As for software, You don't really need Photoshop to manipulate Your images. It's a great software, if You need to create something out of nothing. If You want to have just a digital studio than there is either LR or Aperture, which cost You around $100 each, and that is not a huge amount of money comparing to the total costs of photography.
Posted 1 year ago # -
100% RAW
Once you get used to Lightroom it is very quick
Hard drives keep getting cheaper and bigger I have 2 TB so big files are not an issue
but I do delete any rubbish
can't see any point in shooting both RAW and jpeg
the only reason for not shooting RAW is refusing to learn LR or aperture and or have an old and very slow computer
Posted 1 year ago # -
For me yes, for you, I don't know.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
Non-paid, no gallery show, and internet only images - Who uses Raw for that?I do 100% Raw. I think the main reason for me is it provides me with choice.
I always try to get it right in camera i.e exposure and WB. 90% of the time, I will be happy with the result, however, there has been always time when I feel like to play around with the pictures whether just the WB, trying out some PRESETS or minor adjustment here and there, B&W and whatnot.
As has been said by others, LR does make bulk adjustment/converting files so easy. It has been the scapegoat for not using/learning photoshop for me.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I shoot RAW nearly all the time. I am simply a hobbyist, do not shoot thousands of images at once and generally am not under strict time frames. I do try to get the image right in camera, but then I miss most of the time. I use processing to bring out color, contrast and sharpness that does not come directly out of the camera. I delete perhaps 95% of the photos I take. Not worried about hard drive space because hard drives are cheap these days.
All that said, some people I know have time constraints are under pressure and need feedback to clients nearly immediately. At times, when I shoot with my D7000, I put an eye-fi card in the second slot and then download jpgs to my tablet which allows friends and colleagues immediate nearly feedback to select which images they would like me to send them. I can then fix them up in Photoshop. Its not so much as a workflow for me but a hobby flow.
Have fun!
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
