Do you shoot RAW?

[krissears]

Sadly mine doesn't have that function but it would be cool to try it out one day.

 

[reanimator]

Raw ftw!

 

[Lomographer]

raw is abit too big a file size for me

only imp events or photos that i will need to pp then i will shoot raw

 

[grelim]

I shoot JPEG and find that you can also edit the image in PS or Lightroom.. Don't understand the main difference if edit also from RAW.

 

[waderbreak]

that's because you don't see the loss in data. the manipulation you can do with raw is much greater than jpeg without losing quality in the actual picture.

 

[grelim]

Hi waderbreak

Thanks for the advice.

 

[reanimator]

Try shooting the same picture both in JPEG and RAW.
Try editing them.

You will definitely see the difference as you tweak the different values.

The reason why JPEG is that small is because, the camera processes the RAW images and compresses the data into JPEG format, thus losing some data in the process.

 

[grelim]

The reason why JPEG is that small is because, the camera processes the RAW images and compresses the data into JPEG format, thus losing some data in the process.

Hi Reanimator

Thanks for the advice, it becomes much clearer to me liao...

Another question, if I want to use HDR, should I do it there and later convert from RAW in lighthouse or vice versa?

 

[reanimator]

If your HDR merger reads your RAW files.. sure go ahead and just use the raw files to do HDR..
If it doesnt, you'll have to use lightroom to convert it to a readable file for your HDR merging software.

 

[grelim]

Thks for the advice again reanimator!

 

[Derrick965]

Hi to all

There are always pros and cons to the RAW question. By normal usage, we really do not need to shoot in RAW. It takes up too much time to process, download, uses too much space, etc. But if you have a camera that can shoot in both RAW + JPEG simultaneously, have at least a 16 GB CF card (that means a total of 500 plus photos), and a 500 GB hardrive at home, then I say go for it (for every shot you take), and use RAW as a back-up and storage. When you make multiple copies from JPEG, you lose the resolution gradually. RAW does not, and it will be a good archive for future reproductions. You do not have to waste time playing with it yet - you already have the JPEG straight away. But in case you need that one particular photo you have taken, and need to retain its originality, then RAW comes in handy.

Regards to all

 

[reanimator]

Thks for the advice again reanimator!

Cheers!

Hi to all

There are always pros and cons to the RAW question. By normal usage, we really do not need to shoot in RAW. It takes up too much time to process, download, uses too much space, etc. But if you have a camera that can shoot in both RAW + JPEG simultaneously, have at least a 16 GB CF card (that means a total of 500 plus photos), and a 500 GB hardrive at home, then I say go for it (for every shot you take), and use RAW as a back-up and storage. When you make multiple copies from JPEG, you lose the resolution gradually. RAW does not, and it will be a good archive for future reproductions. You do not have to waste time playing with it yet - you already have the JPEG straight away. But in case you need that one particular photo you have taken, and need to retain its originality, then RAW comes in handy.

Regards to all

Only if you've edited the photo and save them again. Making direct copies of JPEG files will not degrade the image file quality.

http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/formatsjpeg/a/jpegmythsfacts.htm

 

[YSLee]

Re-visiting this poll, this is one of those polls where time will have some effect on the results. I didn't use to shoot RAW, but ACR and Nikon Capture NX 2 has changed things a lot in my case. That and way faster machines and really cheap hard disks. As a result I now shoot exclusively RAW.

 

[phazed1]

I shoot RAW for serious stuff and JPG with my point and shoot (family gatherings, function etc).

 

[Lomographer]

I shoot RAW for serious stuff and JPG with my point and shoot (family gatherings, function etc).

yea you'll hardly need to pp family pics..

makes sense;p

 

[electron]

Until recently, i only shot in RAW for high contrast scenes and landscape shots during holiday shots (maybe 1%). Now, after discovering that RAW is indeed the digital equivalent of a negative, I shoot a lot more RAW+Jpeg (L) 90%!

 

[Wzierbovsky]

I shoot everything in RAW, even the nonsense photographs e.g. when I need to buy replacements for a particular grocery item and need a photo of the label to carry with me. Haven't really touched JPGs on DSLR for 3 years now.

 

[jtsky]

Shoot in Raw most of the time, unless I need the pics urgently.

 

[TheStig]

Hi to all

There are always pros and cons to the RAW question. By normal usage, we really do not need to shoot in RAW. It takes up too much time to process, download, uses too much space, etc. But if you have a camera that can shoot in both RAW + JPEG simultaneously, have at least a 16 GB CF card (that means a total of 500 plus photos), and a 500 GB hardrive at home, then I say go for it (for every shot you take), and use RAW as a back-up and storage. When you make multiple copies from JPEG, you lose the resolution gradually. RAW does not, and it will be a good archive for future reproductions. You do not have to waste time playing with it yet - you already have the JPEG straight away. But in case you need that one particular photo you have taken, and need to retain its originality, then RAW comes in handy.

Regards to all

I have 8GB CF card, and I shoot in RAW. It's not like I can shoot soooo many pics in one day. 8GB card is good for more than 500 shots (I use 40D). I don't shoot in both RAW + JPEG, only in RAW. It does take (a lot) more time since you have to process the files, and the sizes are huge. I just love how versatile RAW files are. I can alter almost anything. I'd just delete unfocused and badly composed shots to save my HDD space. I love RAW!

 

[engrmariano]

after 2yrs of owning dslr...

tried once on a photoshoot (raw + jpg), i think i dont want to shoot jpg only anymore.