Raw?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shawn Philip Nelson

Shawn Philip Nelson

Veteran
Okay, so I own a Canon 20d and I've heard all about RAW mode but I have no idea how to work with it, why I would want, what's the difference between RAW-jpeg and RAW uncomp, etc. I tried searching the archives but couldn't find a good thread breaking this info down. Does anyone have any good sites that help guide you into the world of RAW? I'm getting a RED and that's all RAW too so I figure I better start learning on my 20d now.
Thanks a bunch for any links.
 
To be more precice, no higher rez, but more (actually all) data is retained for after shoot manipulation.

Shooting JPG camera discards part of the data when applying presets.

Shooting RAW you can deside afterwards what settings you want to use converting RAW to TIFF or JPG or whatever.

In some cases this is usefull, in some cases not worth it, like the old thread proves.
 
The average user won't really tell the difference between Raw and JPEG. But once you start getting creative in photoshop, raw becomes your best friend. JPEG discards that extra information in the highlights and shadows. Jpeg is the last step in the chain, great if you're not making any changes.
 
I dont want to be argumentative, but I just have to respond to a couple things said. Referencing the ppoints in the other thread is one thing, but as there are point made here, I feel the need to reply.

raw is what any pro uses for any print work. think of it as highER rez
Click to expand...

No and no. But Petrus corrected the second part, but I'll get to that correction.

I'm a 7 year full time professional working in the second largest market for my area in the country. I not only make a very comfortable living, but I am in demand, dont look for work and pull a large enough day rate that I can afford to only work 3 days /week. Which I actually did for the last tywo years until started a film project and now need to dump cash into that.

I say none of this to say I'm cool, special, or great; I only say it because NO, RAW is not what "any pro uses". I dont, wont, and will never have to.

To be more precice, no higher rez, but more (actually all) data is retained for after shoot manipulation.
Click to expand...

Correct, but it is misleading. It implies that NON-raw discards information you will need.

Shooting JPG camera discards part of the data when applying presets.
Click to expand...

Again, true, but it implies that it discards data I want to retain.

Shooting RAW you can deside afterwards what settings you want to use converting RAW to TIFF or JPG or whatever.
Click to expand...

True again. However, you can decide BEFOREHAND what settings you want. Although I suggest you shoot flat and not apply in-camera processing such as saturation and sharpening, but really the only place RAW allows post latitude is in white balance. If you set that correctly beforehand, then no worries. If you think you might not be able to handle that, then use the fallback. It's much easier to set in-camera, though, than post-process a ton of images.

If your exposure and white balance are spot on and you shoot a low compression camera (such as the 1DsII, or any other Canon), then the JPEG is just as sharp as the RAW and you've nailed the photography in the camera (as opposed to trying to correct later) and you are not behind at all.

I have shot RAW vs JPEG and printed them in 8x10 and 20x30 from 4 different cameras I have owned and used professionally. (Olympus E-10, Canon 10D, Canon 20D, and Canon 1DsII) In no case was the Raw print better in any way than the JPEG print.

Or, if you dont mind the post processing, then shoot RAW. I dont want the added workflow and as a professional it doesnt make sense to my business to add the workflow.

RAW is a crutch. You might need a crutch - and that's fine. No judgements here. But if you need a pair of glasses or just want to wear them, dont tell those of us with 20/20 vision that we need them or that they are better.

To each his own and I dont intend to start a battle, but it just isnt needed if your photography is correct and your tool handles compression/othert formats well.

Now, as far as the RED is concerned, I have no knowledge. This is only as it pertains to still photography.

-GageFX
 
The real value of RAW comes apparent when you shoot in uncontrolled, mixed light conditions and have no time to "nail WB spot on". With a RAW file it is possible to experiment with different WB settings or tweak the WB exactly where you want. Shooting in controlled conditions (like GageFX apparently does) RAW does not give any extra quality like GageFX says. The final product is a JPG anyway, and if there is not much post-manipulation in several stages there is no need to go RAW-TIFF-JPG way.

Like I said in the other thread, I might shoot 1000 frames for an assignment, but give only 40 to the client. Shooting RAW does not really add much to the workflow, as I have to choose the good frames anyway. And as I work as a photojournalist I have most of the time no controll of lighting etc. GageFX tells he gives all shots to the client (fashion?), clearly he has no time or reason (with controlled lighting?) to go RAW way.

There is no right answer here even for professional, needing RAW depends on shooting conditions, subject, client, intented use, personal abilities, preferences.

So, if somebody is interested in RAW, try it and find out yourself if you need it, do you actually use the possibilites if offers and can you make better choices than the camera? If not or if it is too much trouble, shoot JPG, beats film anyway.

(30 years of professional press photography)
 
To say RAW is a crutch is just wrong in my opinion. As a professional photographer as well, and knowing plenty of professional photographers who shoot RAW all the time, I personally feel that in this day and age, with the tools available for RAW processing it is actually faster for me to work in the RAW format than jpg. So should I shoot jpg instead then? no.
Gage, you've made your opinion clear several times, and if a jpg workflow works great for you than that is fine, but other people are expressing their opinions as well so yours is not the only one that counts, no matter how many times you say it.
To say that if you "shoot" correctly you don't need RAW is just wrong as well. It's true that there will be some lighting situations that a jpg will look no different than a RAW, but remember DSLRs have much less latitude than film, and I have seen with my own eyes, and my own tests that I can pull out alot of information (especailly in highlights) that just aren't there in jpg format.
You say you don't want to start a war, but to imply that anyone who shoots RAW is using it as a crutch might just get you that war you so aptly want to stay out of.
I'm not mad, personally I think it's great that you are making a great living and have a great workflow as a photographer, but to put down anyone that doesn't shoot like you isn't going to get you much love my friend.
 
These RAW vs. JPG debates could go on for years.

Pure and simple:

RAW contains all the original information in the shot therefore it is a larger file.
JPG is a compressed file format, therefore some information is missing, but it is a smaller file.

Either format will work and they both offer their own pros and cons.

I guess since I make part of my living off photography I could be considered a pro also and I shoot JPG for weddings when I am shooting thousands of images and RAW for personal projects.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That all being said, this has been discussed before, opinions have been expressed, insults thrown. This thread just doesn't have flow, so please, everyone... let it go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top