Do you shoot RAW?

[hwchoy]

RAW is a collection of data bits with metadata (such as WB, ISO, etc). In JPG these are already fixed in the cam and cannot be changed. So if you let your cam do the conversion, you cannot go back and change the WB if it came out wrong.

 

[dkw]

Ask this simply because I m puzzled indeed.

Whats the reaosns that cause you shoot all in RAW using your camera, and convert to JPG using your computer.

Isn't there a simpler way of doing this? Shoot RAW and process to JPG all in your camera by simply shooting JPG.

I know there are many ppl who shoot RAW cos that give them more rooms to PS later on but you dun normally do,...therefore,.... :dunno:

Just curious. ;p

That's wrong indeed, a lot of people do post-process after shooting, be it with RAW or JPG, and is one of the joys (and pain!) of digital photography. In JPG, the data is already 'compressed', you have lost image information already in the interest of space saving. The camera make a 'best guess' of what the picture should look like and chucks out all the other ancillary information. No matter what, the small processor in the camera can never be as sophisticated in this processing as dedicated software on a more powerful computer, therefore folk prefer to move this step out of the camera and into their own hands. In RAW, all the information (well almost all) captured by the sensor is retained, hence the huge files. However, you now have much more latitude to fix the pictures in if you somehow got it wrong in the first place. A most common problem is colour balance. Working with RAW, it is much easier to correct colour than in JPG, and some kinds of colour correction can't be done at all in JPG. Try it yourself, set a wrong WB, take a few shots in JPG and try to correct later in PS....it will be a royal pain, but in RAW, a cinch to do. RAW also seems to give you a little more dynamic range for exposure, so you can recover detail from slightly blown or underexposed areas that are forever lost in JPG. RAW files also tolerate sharpening better. Try setting high sharpening default on your camera, and see some of the strange artefacts that occur. Having said that, I've only recently started shooting RAW, but I think this will be the only way I shoot from now onwards.

Cheers,

 

[rainman]

That's wrong indeed, a lot of people do post-process after shooting, be it with RAW or JPG, and is one of the joys (and pain!) of digital photography. In JPG, the data is already 'compressed', you have lost image information already in the interest of space saving. The camera make a 'best guess' of what the picture should look like and chucks out all the other ancillary information. No matter what, the small processor in the camera can never be as sophisticated in this processing as dedicated software on a more powerful computer, therefore folk prefer to move this step out of the camera and into their own hands. In RAW, all the information (well almost all) captured by the sensor is retained, hence the huge files. However, you now have much more latitude to fix the pictures in if you somehow got it wrong in the first place. A most common problem is colour balance. Working with RAW, it is much easier to correct colour than in JPG, and some kinds of colour correction can't be done at all in JPG. Try it yourself, set a wrong WB, take a few shots in JPG and try to correct later in PS....it will be a royal pain, but in RAW, a cinch to do. RAW also seems to give you a little more dynamic range for exposure, so you can recover detail from slightly blown or underexposed areas that are forever lost in JPG. RAW files also tolerate sharpening better. Try setting high sharpening default on your camera, and see some of the strange artefacts that occur. Having said that, I've only recently started shooting RAW, but I think this will be the only way I shoot from now onwards.

Cheers,

Hi, I also another 1 who always shoot JPEG and do post processing on JPEG...
Thanks for ur clear explaination for lazy ppl like me to explore raw.

so the difference is on the post processing part..no wonder I see the pics like no diff leh - JPEG and RAW.... ohh now I get it.

BTW I'm using adobe elements for PS and was prompted to save the JPEG after PS like options 50%..How u guys choose the baseline option? Maximum value?

 

[Bluewater]

Thanks a nice piece of information, dkw..

 

[misnomer]

Just downloaded EVU.... try some RAW this weekend

 

[cthemoon]

Just downloaded EVU.... try some RAW this weekend

Newbie to this forum..
Need ur advice.. where can I download EVU? I had downloaded the File Viewer Utility.. is EVU N FVU the same thing?
How is EVU compared to Photoshop CS?

 

[misnomer]

Newbie to this forum..
Need ur advice.. where can I download EVU? I had downloaded the File Viewer Utility.. is EVU N FVU the same thing?
How is EVU compared to Photoshop CS?

EVU is an improvement on FVU. You need to have FVU installed first and then install EVU on top of it. The link is here -->

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=DownloadIndexAct

How does it compare to PSCS? Well, I don't have PSCS, but one big advantage.....its FREE! I have found it quite user friendly though.

 

[cthemoon]

EVU is an improvement on FVU. You need to have FVU installed first and then install EVU on top of it. The link is here -->

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=DownloadIndexAct

How does it compare to PSCS? Well, I don't have PSCS, but one big advantage.....its FREE! I have found it quite user friendly though.

Thanks for the info..
Will try and do the download and experiment with EVU..
Once again Thanks to misnomer

 

[kingkangkong]

hi.
newbie.

read the stuff. but still abit confused.

is there any obvious difference in photo quality if I shoot in raw?

that means before any photo editing has taken place.

can i see the difference?

I'm using fuji S5000, so I am able to shoot raw.

wanna practice skills, agree on getting things first time right.

Like when using SLR before.


Thanks in advance.

 

[Bluewater]

what do you think of the near future.. will the RAW format become the standard format?

 

[Witness]

hmmmm how raw is raw??? i shoot film haha...

 

[Virgo]

I shoot RAW ONLY for product shoots, when it's difficult to conduct another shooting session if you made a mistake, and there're not many pics (each pic counts).

Not even for wedding shoots and travel/landscapes, cos they come in huge quantities and takes up too much time and resources!

That's why I choose the 3rd option: don't shoot raw, just to emphasize the frequency of shooting in JPEGs.

In fact, JPEGs will test the photographer's skills in the camera settings.

 

[Virgo]

what do you think of the near future.. will the RAW format become the standard format?

Don't think so leh Bluewater. I think JPEGs will still be the standard format. In fact, JPEG 2000 will be the choice in the future, because of many additional benefits such as:

1. Index capabilities
2. Compression efficiency (files gets smaller will preserving image quality)
3. Image metadata
4. Image security, etc

Cameras are yet to implement such compression techniques. May be some has done so, but I'm not sure which model. Heard of some cameras has this capabilities. Anyone care to share?

 

[Necroist]

So do you guys backup your untouched RAWs into DVDs/CDRW/ExtraHDs or modified and postprocessed RAWs.

 

[dicarlos]

I am new and surprised at the non mention of tiff usage. The Raw software that came wuth my 828 is brutally slow and I'm looking for an alternative. I'm not sure if there is a PS plug in or if I need CS. However the clarity is the same as Tiff (and size) which is easier to use. If your doing anything worthwhile, J-peg is like dial-up, and everytime you open it, then save it ,it denegrates more and more. It's nice that the 828 backs up Tiffs with 3mb j-pegs and if I don't want projects out of particular prints then I discard the Tiffs. The working color on the Tiffs is easier. Enough of that.
I wound up here wondering if anyone has used the Sony HGD0758 wide angle converter on the 828. I just ordered one today and am anxious to here. The Sony site doesn't really endorse the mating of the two.

 

[hwchoy]

I believe TIFF is lossless compression vs JPEG. Nevertheless it is a "final form" format unlike RAW where the sensor data and metadata and stored separately.

 

[hwchoy]

So do you guys backup your untouched RAWs into DVDs/CDRW/ExtraHDs or modified and postprocessed RAWs.

I always save the RAW files themselves, plus the PSD files. The JPEG can be generated from the PSD anytime and the RAWs you keep in case you want to redo the WB settings or whatever.

Storage is dirt cheap these days.

 

[scud]

went to recce at esplanade for coming weekend firework.
since the weather is nice, decided to shoot RAW so that can explore RAW format. but i took quite a while for my PC to load these pics. after few minutes of waiting, did some PS (PSCS) and save the file in jpg. it took me abt 30minutes to complete the whole process, and that was only 1 pic!!!

gosh, maybe my pc hardware is not up to the task yet, P4 2.4GHz,M/board with 1MB of cache memory and 256DDR. guess that i need to upgrade the RAM!!!! sucks.....

 

[hwchoy]

can't be so bad. I have a P4 2.4GHz as well with 512MB and things zip along pretty quickly. My PSD files are typically 40MB each. My disks are 7200rpm with 8MB buffers.

 

[scud]

i think HDD also play a part in determining the read/write. my HDD was bought 2 years ago, 40GB.
dunno how to check for my HDD buffers.