I have never shot in RAW and everyone i know is telling me that its what i should be using. True or not?
And after i change my camera mode to shoot in RAW is there anything else i need to do? Like any extra steps to take to upload or edit?
Can someone please tell me everything that i need to know to successfully shoot in RAW.
Thanks in advance!
Just set your camera to RAW and away you go.
Depending on the software you have you may need to install some more to edit RAW files and if on the later versions of Windows you will be able to view them.
If you want to print a photo you will need to convert it to another format first - at least for me as my printer will not print RAW files.
You can either adjust the RAW file in the editing software or just load it and save to jpg and the software will do the adjustments.
Just try it and see what happens on a couple of photos - you can always switch it back if you do not like it.
I took a couple pictures of my step dad mowing the yard in RAW.
Let me know what you think.
Iso:100, 200mm, f/5.6, 1/320
Iso:100, 55mm, f/4.5, 1/500
One of the things that RAW offers is file flexibility. You can make some dramatic changes in WB and lighting parameters that can save your shots.
The powerful aspect of JPEG is that you can download the images immediately and they are ready to present ASAP. It does require that the photographer know how to operate his camera with its specific controls (get it right the first time), so you actually take the initial shot and do not have to play with it, afterward.
By using BOTH, you have your "editable" files and your "rush" files at the same time. If someone needs your work ASAP ... they get the JPEG files straight to the web and you can beg off on the editing for a while. But, if both they and you can wait until you get home and edit/adjust your files, then RAW is the way.
Until you get serious ... you may just want to get a bigger media card and shoot BOTH JPEG & RAW for a while, before committing to a SD card full of "need to edit" files. :eek:
Just a thought. :rolleyes:
As far as the lawn mower man ... you might want to use or increase your fill flash, to reduce that front shadow.
You can not tell a lot from your photos. Raw tends to be for adjsuting things like you have the camera on auto white balance and you take a photo under tungsten light. The colour is all orange? so in RAW you change the white balance; also you are working on an uncompressed format so the files are 4x the size ? so it allows you to modify them without losing any detail.
When I first started using a dslr I took photos in both formats as I had the option but soon moved over to just RAW.
As Don says you can do that and you will be able to see what is happening in the camera. Memory cards are so cheap theses days you could carry a couple as they will fill up faster and juge for yourself the differences.
Don: Im not sure what fill flash is or where to find the adjustments for it.
Anthony: I didnt even convert the files i just edited them and uploaded them to photobucket and thats it, so maybe my MacBook Pro did the work for me?
So shooting in Raw is mostly for night shots, or shots that have weird lighting?
I use picasa and it converts from RAW to jpg automaticaly on upload. I assume it has some default setting it uses.
As I say the file is also uncompressed so as well as the ease of altering the white balance you have a bigger file to play with.
Try setting the camera to take RAW & jpg you will be able to see the differences when you view them on the Mac side by side.
For the very first time in my life, I agree with Don. :) RAW + JPEG gives you the best of both worlds: You have your camera edited JPEG that you can immediately use, and you have your digital negative that gives you the full potential of what you've captured.
From my very first digital camera I have always shot RAW, actually, RAW + JPEG, there was never any thought of doing otherwise. The RAW file is my negative: It's the file I can go back to again and again, tweak and re-tweak, without penalty, because all of my changes are completely non destructive.
JPEG is my Walgreen's one hour photo print. Quick, easy, with the camera having most of the control. I don't usually do much if any editing to the JPEG, because I can see the loss in quality almost immediately.
Shooting RAW is really no more difficult that shooting JPEG. There is the step of converting to JPEG for display, but that's just a button push away, or with LR simply exporting the file as a JPEG. The only drawback is that a RAW file takes up more space. The advantage is that you have a lot of latitude to "fix" files that maybe aren't perfect. At some point a lot of JPEGs are unfixable, but in RAW format the extra latitude may allow a fix for that same file, for me I always want that ability.
As for just being for night or special lighting situations, uh, no. It's for any photograph you want to have the ability to make the best it can be. Don't you want that for all of your photographs? I know I do. The only disadvantage I can see with the RAW + JPEG is space, and space is relatively cheap.
I highly recommend Adobe Lightroom, or Apple Aperture. They reduce RAW workflow to a non event. The both edit the RAW file, or actually, they keep a log of changes made to the RAW file that are shown in real time on your screen. You aren't actually making any changes until you export the file. The export saves the changes you've made in the file type you choose without changing anything on your original file. Your digital negative is preserved with the log of changes you've applied until you make more changes or discard all of the changes. There isn't even a thought you are working on a RAW file, it's just simple editing.