Being new to DSLR cameras I began shooting all my pictures in the highest quality JPEG. However, I recently started to shoot in RAW and I like the fact I can change the colour temperature and exposure on photos I like, but didn’t get these setting right on the camera. .

I’ve started to shoot all photos in RAW, so I can make these adjustments if I haven’t got it right in the camera. However, apart from having to convert every Raw file to JPEG, Are there any other downsides to using RAW?

I have a 1Gig and a 2 Gig CF card so I’m not bothered about the space on these.

Thanks

[wabbitt]

Well you've already mentioned the benefits.

The only big downside is the amount of space the file takes up and the time it takes to process the image afterwards.

Apart from that, the RAW file is the best method of capturing your image.

I still think it's better to capture the image right in the camera first and shoot as JPEG. I know it takes practice, and checking histograms, etc. but it makes you a better photographer if you get this right first off. Especially if you are working with lots of images rather than just a few at a time.

OK... I'm boring myself now...

[geofftelforduk]

For me one of the biggest disadvantages is the time it takes to get them all processed (depending on how fussy you are off course) and converted to JPG/TIFF!!

Apart from that they have been a lifesaver on a couple of occasions!!

[Bristol Pete]

Personally, I have noted that RAW converted to TIFF and then jpeg retains more detail than a shot jpeg. You cab print TIFF too.

However, if I am shooting a lot of stuff then yes, jpeg is the only answer or shoot both but then you are talking about serious memory.

[tomson]

I always shoot raw - batch processing the good ones to psd before tweaking them doesn't take too long. The main downside for me is storage space and archiving - must have several hundred gigabytes worth of images now and I'm not quite sure what to do with them.

[dave_bass5]

You dont know what you have started with this question.

I was glad I was shooting in Raw yesterday, had a lod of under exposed pictures of my new baby daughter whioch I managed to rescue. I think shooting against a bright, flowery duvet cover played havock with the exposure.

[probedb]

A good discussion happened here

http://mezzoblue.com/archives/2006/05/16/raw/

[senu]

If you can afford the space : you can shoot raw+ jpeg. ( Such as is possible in Canon 350-30D) Best of both worlds, really
If you like the jpegs you are sorted:if not Raw comes to the rescue ( albeit with processing time)

If you only rely on Raw it can make you a tad less proficient with maximising your ability to take excellent jpeg pics .
Also due to time involves in tweaking some pics will never see the light of day.
Lastly.TBH some pics dont need to start life as RAW as they will at best be used in emails or webpages so the extra PQ / detail may not have been needed the first place

Oh.... Nick: As good as raw is, if you ever have to convert a large no you will realise how consequetial the time taken is: As yo hone in your RAW skills also try to take well exposed jpegs and use RAW ( +/- jpeg) for those critical shots

[Radiohead]

RAW every time. I see little point in spending thousands on bodies and glass, and then not maximising the detail and resolution of the image I capture. I can see whether the shot is a keeper or not regardless of capture format. For me it's the same concept as shooting Adobe RGB rather than sRGB.

Use a fast converter like RSP and, IMO, the time issues of even large scale conversions aren't so much of an issue. My last wedding saw me come home with 1400 images, swiftly edited down to 350 1st choices - RSP converted these to JPG in less than 1 hour. Just because you shoot RAW doesn't mean you're any less careful at getting the image right in capture in the first place.

At the end of the day though - shoot what's right for you, and you alone.

[springtide]

I shoot RAW + Jpeg - Using the jpeg only as a proof.

So, when you really want to enhance that "good one" - you have the RAW file.

And as you have the jpeg, there's no need to convert every RAW file for standard viewing/browsing.

At the moment I'm using the Olympus software to convert the Raw files. It doesn't take too long,, but transfering from the camera takes a while. I think I read somewhere that the Olympus E-500 is only USB 1.0!!!!

I think there is a batch option in the software too.

I'll set camera to RAW + JPEG tonight and see how much extra space it eats on the card.

Thanks

[dave_bass5]

I agree 100% with Radiohead
The way i look at it is that what ever i shoot im going to PP it. not much but maybe just tweak the levels and WB if its off (im not that good at shooting yet). Most of my better shots end up on smugmug so they all get reduced to 800x532 @ 72dpi and then sharpened by me as its better than letting smugmug do it.
For me its much quicker to use C1 as it has a very fast browser, it allows you to correct many shots at the same time, lets you apply the same WB, levels sharpness etc to many shots with just a couple of clicks. It also means im keeping the quality slightly higher untill final output to .jpg or .tif
while im not saying shooting .jpg wont get you the quality for me its the speed of the workflow that pushes me to RAW, plus the fact that you can adjust the exposure without loosing too much IQ IMHO
I do see a lot of shots posted on the net that really should have some PP. they are under exposed, soft, WB way out etc so if your going to do it i dont think shooting RAW will really slow you down (quite the oposite), again IMHO
of course we all have our own way of working and this is mine.

[senu]

Originally Posted by Nick Cartwright

At the moment I'm using the Olympus software to convert the Raw files. It doesn't take too long,, but transfering from the camera takes a while. I think I read somewhere that the Olympus E-500 is only USB 1.0!!!!

I think there is a batch option in the software too.

I'll set camera to RAW + JPEG tonight and see how much extra space it eats on the card.

Thanks

It will take sort of double.. Do not use you camera to transfer images very fast usb2 card readers abound for under £20. Much faster and you save battery life too. If you are like me you will also be a lot less anxious to install capture software on each PC you need to capture the images on.

I certaily agree that every RAW image has the potential advantage of being the best quality image you can get off the camera. But it is time and skill dependent to an extent .
Until you get to be a dab hand at quickly converting after tweaking I would not abandon Jpeg so quickly for " instant gratification" ,
In the interim the jpeg + raw option allows gentle easing you into the world of " RAW photophiles"

[richard plumb]

I can understand Radioheads sentiment, but also Senu's pragmatic approach.

On a properly exposed image, how much more measureable detail is there in a RAW compared to JPEG image? Not much I'd wager.


RAW obviously comes into its own if you need to tweak things, so Large+RAW as insurance may be useful, or for critical/paid for shots. I should try especially for indoor shots where the WB is often off

But I don't see the advantage for properly taken shots, and I do try to avoid too much PP (I already take ages on a big trip where I've taken 1,000+ images)

More good advice. I have found that it is the indoor shots that need more work. Due to my shortcomings (and the odd scene that confuses the metering). I am learning quickly though and have discovered I can adjust the exposure and the flash, and use centre weighted metering if the background is playing havok.

Some shots I took on a nice sunny day at a barbeque needed no post processing at all, they came out looking superb, the best photo's I've ever taken. It was the second day of ownign my DSLR and I knew then I'd made the right choice.

I may use Raw + Jpeg for indoor, and just JPEG for outside.

Thanks

Anybody here tried Adobe Lightroom yet? It is a very good (and easy) new solution for RAW image processing. The software is still in Beta so it is free right now to try it out.

George Mann

http://dpmac.com/adobe

[tomson]

I've just started tinkering with Lightroom - so far, so good. I'm preferring it to Aperture (which, on my lowly G4s is far too slow and the interface is a mess). Lightroom just seems more friendly and straight forward.

There's a nice summary of the beta 3 version here:
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/lig...troom_b3_1.htm

and a useful user forum here:
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforu...cfm?forumid=72

[Radiohead]

Sadly not available for Windows yet

[springtide]

Originally Posted by richard plumb

On a properly exposed image, how much more measureable detail is there in a RAW compared to JPEG image? Not much I'd wager.

I have a Minolta 7D, and the difference is huge between best JPEG and RAW.
Not sure if thats to do with the internals or just the 7D compression used for JPEGs (maybe they expected people to use RAW for best)

[Biscuit761]

My FZ20 only has the options of Tiff or Jpeg, normally shoot in highest quality and biggest image size Jpeg, Tiff seems to be totally by-passed in this discussion, is it not worth using ?

May try some tripod shots this weekend in both Tiff and Jpeg to see what difference there is.

Bill

[senu]

Originally Posted by Biscuit761

My FZ20 only has the options of Tiff or Jpeg, normally shoot in highest quality and biggest image size Jpeg, Tiff seems to be totally by-passed in this discussion, is it not worth using ?

May try some tripod shots this weekend in both Tiff and Jpeg to see what difference there is.

Bill

RAW is a form of Tiff, in that unlike jpeg, there is no compression ( or in the case of TIFF, compression, if at all present, is "lossless" ( no quality loss).

RAW however has the advantage of giving you full control over white balance, more exposure latitude ( out of camera compensation) and flexibility in that unlike the jpeg ( or tiff) the in camera image processing is not permanently applied to it.
In fact a RAW image may initially appear very dull compared to the "vibrant" processed Jpeg until you work to bring out its potential to the fullest.:This tweaking is itself a bit of a skill
This is why with cameras with very good in-camera processing, any diffferences between a well exposed , best quality ( least compressed ) jpeg and RAW file of the same image may be virtually non existent

Any differences you will see from your Tiff or Jpeg will relate to the amount of jpeg compression: the file size of the the tiff will obviously be larger: