[alitech]

Hey Yaw'll

I wanted to touch this subject from my own viewpoint. Having read up on pros and cons of the RAW format, I had a few questions.

I have seen different reviews and insights about having the ability to shoot RAW images. Some people say RAW images aren't really worth the effort as camera's today do a very good job on the JPG conversion on their own.

Is there an argument over this from the profesionals?

I am now the proud owner of the Panasonic LX3 which shoots in RAW as you must have known. Now, is it worthwhile for me to use the RAW mode in this camera or not?

If it is, how would I batch convert these to JPGs. I know Irfanview does that but does Irfanview do it intelligently observing each image making adjustments? i.e. what contrast or brightness to apply, adjusting the histrogram, adjusting the colours to give the optimal output?

I have read that using the power of a computer processor over a inbuilt processor of your digital camera will yeild much better results. How exactly is that achieved? Do you have to sit through all your images and adjust them one by one before saving them in JPG format? I sure no one has that much time.

Is there another software to do this? What are your experiences?

[senu]

There are a few RAW vs Jpeg threads which might help you get a feel for previuos thoughts on the subject
"search" is your friend

In the matter of Batch processsing, it is possible with most RAW processing software to apply an "edit " to one image and then "automatically" apply this to a batch of similarly taken ones.( like a recipe)
This cuts down processing time dramatically.
Also with time you get very quick and savvy at doing it quickly so having a reasonable large no does happen fast

[paulwIre]

I shoot almost everything raw. I process the images in Lightroom and it's brilliant for doing batch processing on photos.

Raw just gives you so much flexibility, especially in difficult conditions.

[lightpainter]

Personally I Post Process all my images in RAW and only convert those that I am going to post on the web to JPG, can’t really see why you should want to batch change from RAW to JPG, you would only be using up more space on your hard disk, unless you intend to delete your RAW captures!

[TarMoo]

I used to shoot JPEGs until recently when I left my camera with the wrong white balance and a had a blue cast on all my outdoor shots.

Now I shoot RAW. The main benefit is that there is a lot more scope for modifying the image than you have with JPEGs. Now I make modifications to all my RAW images.

The only problem is that you need good software to process RAW images. Nikon has Capture NX, but I have found Bibble Labs Pro a lot easier to use. You can make the same adjustments to multiple images. I find it takes just a few seconds to process each RAW image. I chose Bibble Labs because it is relatively inexpensive and was recommended on the bythom.com website. I have tried Lightroom, but it is more expensive and more difficult to learn than Bibble Labs.

I don't think that I would ever just convert to JPEG without any adjustment. I typically use one of more of - recover blown highlights, add fill light, straighten, sharpen, apply noise ninja, crop.

I suggest you download trial versions of RAW processing software of interest ans see which ones you like.

[kBm]

Originally Posted by TarMoo

I used to shoot JPEGs until recently when I left my camera with the wrong white balance and a has a blue cast on all my outdoor shots.....Now I shoot RAW.

Went down a similar path, now its RAW all the way!

Originally Posted by TarMoo

The only problem is that you need good software to process RAW images. Nikon has Capture NX, but I have found Bibble Labs Pro a lot easier to use.

Nikon capture is painfully slow, but very good. Even better when its free with the camera!

Originally Posted by paulwIre

I process the images in Lightroom and it's brilliant for doing batch processing on photos. Raw just gives you so much flexibility, especially in difficult conditions.

Couldn't agree more! Once you get into a work flow, process doesn't take that long. RAW can provide a lifeline if shots have not gone your way. I dont find the data size to be a big issue - i guess its relative to whats on the market in terms of memory ie 4gb cards, 8 gb cards, plus 500 gb externall hdd etc

Lightroom is a breeze to use, very slick. The only problem for me is im coming to the end of my 30 day trial..... I need to find the funds or reformat my hdd....

[Naith]

Originally Posted by TarMoo

I used to shoot JPEGs until recently when I left my camera with the wrong white balance and a has a blue cast on all my outdoor shots.

ha ha - that's EXACTLY what happened to me when I was in the UK back in June. Boy was that frustrating!

Since then I've always shot in RAW. Though with a tour of Italy coming up in October I'm debating whether to shoot in JPEG so I don't have to buy any more memory cards!!! If so, I'll be checking (I hope) every time I turn the camera on all the settings BEFORE I shoot...

[laimonas.s]

I suppose it depends on what/how you shoot...

If your more of an "artist" and dont take that many photos (instead you focus more about the concept or the quality), use RAW. a 70mb TIFF file is going to print much nicer than a 3mb JPEG. Also you have the advantage of more detail and dynamic range information.

However if you shoot more commercially/amateur shots, then JPEG is the way forward. RAW drains out the battery much quicker and also takes up valuable space on the hard drive. Its much quicker with JPEG, especially if you use software like Lightroom, Aperture etc.

Personally, i shoot strictly RAW, but everybody has a different opinion!

[ryart]

I have a Panasonic LX2 and find that shooting in RAW does give much higher quality results. Given the small sensor size greater gains can be had from shooting RAW on a compact camera than a dSLR. When shooting in jpg the in camera processing makes an educated guess as to the correct result which works reasonably well most of the time, but with RAW you can have the final say without the loss of quality involved with editing a jpg. If you want a quick set of jpgs use a batch processer and just tweak the awkward ones. If you ever want to go back and get the best from your shots you always have the RAW to fall back on. It might be worth trying the software that comes with the camera.

Given the reasonable price of hard disk space these days the additional storage space isn't a problem for most people.

The problem with the LX2 is the time between shots when shooting RAW. Hopefully they have improved on this with the LX3, but if you are trying to take shots in quick succession and find it slow try switching to jpg.

It is certainly worth making jpgs for viewing as they load quicker. With the LX2 I have never noticed any difference in battery life between shooting RAW and jpg. If there is a difference I'd be interested to see the test data.

I'd be very interested to see some shots taken with your LX3 if you fancy posting them.

Cheers, Malcolm