PDA

View Full Version : raw images



millz
01-10-2009, 02:54 PM
can someone explain this to me should i be shooting in raw format. Whats got me thinking about it i was looking at APERTURE 2 and listening to the tutorials and they said true recovery is only in raw format. So should i be shooting in this mode or jpeg or whatever is fine.

laydros
01-10-2009, 03:44 PM
There isn't really anything wrong with shooting in JPEG. I shoot in RAW for 2 reasons (1) storage space is cheap (2) it helps me recover images when I underexpose, or slip up and forget to change to the correct white balance, etc.

I run everything through Lightroom anyway, so it's not really like there are extra steps involved.

I'd really like to see a little more "workflow" discussion here, I just kinda fell into a setup that sorta works for me. Maybe I'll start a thread if I get bored.

dr4gon
01-10-2009, 04:03 PM
No, jpeg is not fine. You should be shooting in RAW, or RAW+JPEG, but I guaranty you won't go back to looking at those jpegs ;)

With RAW there's just so much that can be adjusted (exposure, camera settings, WB, etc.....)

RAW captures all the sensor data, about 2 stops of light in either direction giving you lots of flexibility.

SONYNUT
01-10-2009, 05:52 PM
the problem comes when you want to get prints...

millz
01-10-2009, 05:54 PM
whats the problem with prints

dr4gon
01-10-2009, 06:29 PM
JPEG quality I'm guessing?

It's not too bad, but it's just that RAW is a LOT BETTER, so why limit yourself.

millz
01-10-2009, 07:09 PM
can i get alittle more explanation please i dont understand

dr4gon
01-10-2009, 07:38 PM
There isn't really anything wrong with shooting in JPEG. I shoot in RAW for 2 reasons (1) storage space is cheap (2) it helps me recover images when I underexpose, or slip up and forget to change to the correct white balance, etc.

I run everything through Lightroom anyway, so it's not really like there are extra steps involved.

I'd really like to see a little more "workflow" discussion here, I just kinda fell into a setup that sorta works for me. Maybe I'll start a thread if I get bored.


No, jpeg is not fine. You should be shooting in RAW, or RAW+JPEG, but I guaranty you won't go back to looking at those jpegs ;)

With RAW there's just so much that can be adjusted (exposure, camera settings, WB, etc.....)

RAW captures all the sensor data, about 2 stops of light in either direction giving you lots of flexibility.

Several good simpler reasons already outlined.

Here are some more:

pop photo (http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/5680/the-way-we-see-raw.html)

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

http://tinyurl.com/7f9jty

SONYNUT
01-10-2009, 07:43 PM
most reg photo places dont take raw..only jpg.bitmap. ping

dr4gon
01-10-2009, 08:04 PM
most reg photo places dont take raw..only jpg.bitmap. ping

Yeah definitely. but that's why you have to precess it yourself and not rely on the camera.

GotToyota?
01-10-2009, 08:29 PM
You shoot in RAW, save as JPEG via Photoshop or Lightroom (so you can get prints, post online, etc).

Peekayoh
01-11-2009, 06:00 AM
Horses for courses, Guys; both methods of shooting, RAW or JPEG, have their place.

Speaking for myself, nothing I've yet posted has been shot in RAW, only in JPEG. In the couple of months I've had the Camera I haven't had the time to invest in truly getting to grips with RAW processing, whereas I do have sufficient PS knowhow in dealing with JPEGs.
It is clear that the RAW workflow can better rescue a badly exposed image or one with to high a dynamic range but I am pretty confident in my own ability to get this right in Camera in the first place. Can shooting in RAW encourage sloppy camera work?
I will certainly get to grips with shooting RAW in time, but I have to say that I am very happy with the JPEG images to date.

For shooting a small sequence of shots of an interesting subject I will be using RAW +JPEG and comparing the results. I'm expecting the higher degree of control to be worthwhile. Whether the extra investment in time is worth it will be interesting and instructive.

When on Holiday I shoot at least 20 rolls of film (700 images) and an awful lot more with digital. Shooting RAW +JPEG I would need three to four 8GB cards and I have no idea how long post processing would take, but looong. I think this will remain a JPEG shoot.

There are other issues to consider as well. You need
A computer with serious horsepower
A lot of storage (Bluray disks make this easier) and You'll probably end up storing both RAW and JPEG.
All the RAW formats are proprietary and may become unreadable at some point in the future as technology moves on. At that time you may have to convert all your files to a new format which may be a pretty big job. Being an open format JPEG is likely to last much longer.
A lot more that I can't think of right now.

At the end of the day It's down to individual choice but, for me, I think both methods are valid.

Visual Reality
01-11-2009, 06:27 AM
Peekayoh, Lightroom can convert all of your raw files to Digital Negative (.dng) files upon import. This also does away with sidecar files.

For me, JPEG is useless. I don't even shoot RAW + JPEG, just RAW. What would I use the JPEG for? I'm going to have one made from the RAW anyway and it will be much better than the one the camera generated for me.

Peekayoh
01-11-2009, 06:51 AM
Well either way, it's gonna get a work out to see what suits me best.
Isn't .dng an Adobe propriety format?

dr4gon
01-11-2009, 08:55 AM
Peekayoh, Lightroom can convert all of your raw files to Digital Negative (.dng) files upon import. This also does away with sidecar files.

For me, JPEG is useless. I don't even shoot RAW + JPEG, just RAW. What would I use the JPEG for? I'm going to have one made from the RAW anyway and it will be much better than the one the camera generated for me.

Yeah, JPEG is just useless for me as well. That's what's taking up unnecessary space!

DonSchap
01-11-2009, 10:28 AM
Look, as much as you guys ONLY want to shoot the images ... and have someone else do your printing ... the fact is, you are just cutting off a part of the process. Color management and a good printer are the "next step."

Also, this is where the art aspect and the respective costs increase, because printing is a "consumable" ... and like gasoline ... ink and paper cost real money. I do believe what you folks really need to do ... is get into that part of "the process" and SEE what you are missing. Some of the alternative papers are just this side of incredible. They can make your image look more than just awesome, but add texture and light reaction that you simply CANNOT get of of GLOSSY/MATTE prints.

Having a "quality" printing system in your own home allows you time to experiment and produce most excellent and archival prints (capable of lasting 100 years).

There is one aspect of this "digital generation" that I do believe gets overlooked quite a bit. This is low tech storage ... "low tech" meaning that no power is required to view it, other than sunlight or candle power. By relegating yourself to just digital media to view or display your work, you will always need electricity. Electrical failure means you are, quite literally, finished, until the power comes back on.

By printing low tech ... you could bury the work in a vault or with with a person ... for a hundred years ... and the images would still be there ... requiring nothing more than the light of day to be viewed. Family albums would last for generations ... without browning or fading to nothingness.

Lastly ... if you forego this step ... your work will be lost ... and a lot sooner than you suspect. If you think losing a media card is devastating ... just lose the power and "see" what happens! :eek:

Good luck. ;)

dr4gon
01-11-2009, 10:43 AM
After we fill our bags o' glass. I just can't do as good of a job as Shutterfly and other online printing services, nor do I really want to have to deal with it right now. I hardly print anything anyway as it is. Plus after I get them printed, I have to store them lol (which I guess is part of the fun, which is at least for now, not (fun) for me.

Plus I need to get some more print worthy pictures!

DonSchap
01-11-2009, 11:00 AM
Plus I need to get some more print worthy pictures!

Okay ... now you just want to start a fight.

The fact is, most of us do not feel OUR OWN work is worth the time to print. Worst part is: Several years from now, you will curse the fact you actually thought and acted like this. I do speak from experience ... so, hey ... print, consarn it, and then decide to throw it away, later. You will not get many second chances at that FIRST CHANCE. :cool:

The "delete" key and "FORMAT Media?" selection are just a little TOO CONVENIENT?

Peekayoh
01-11-2009, 11:04 AM
I print my own on an Epson PX800FW.

Visual Reality
01-11-2009, 11:27 AM
Uh Don, wrong thread?

DonSchap
01-11-2009, 11:38 AM
Oops ... I was typing too fast. I was thinking: RAW -> Print ... and got carried away.

dr4gon
01-11-2009, 01:36 PM
No I don't delete (or haven't yet) anything that goes on my computer. With nearly 2.3TB of storage, there's just not a need to. With half of that being backup I have about 1.3 TB (2x640GBs) to store pictures and the remaining 1TB as a backup.

I have put it on my list of things to do though, to go through, and filter out my pictures.

I have always been one to save (horde) pictures, files, data, etc.... so don't worry. I still retain everything!

sparkie1263
01-11-2009, 06:52 PM
I am lucky I have a friend who works for a commercial printing company. He prints all the school pictures and sports pictures and special orders. I just sent him some images to print for me. I got them back today. He printed me two copies of each and one copy he printed on this metallic paper. They look 100 times better then on the regular paper. I only let him print a few of my images just to see how they would look. He made me a 16x20 print of my granddaughter in the soybean fields that came out great. He even matted it on a hard poster board. I gave one to my daughter and she loved it. He never asked me for a dime yet even though I keep asking for a price. I guess I will be wiring his basement soon.LOL

Frank

seanhoxx
01-11-2009, 07:06 PM
Do you know what kind / brand of metallic paper? a 16X20 on that and matted, a very sweet freebie Frank.

sparkie1263
01-11-2009, 07:22 PM
It is Kodak Professional Endura paper. The 16x20 was not on the metallic paper.

Frank