Shooting RAW

[Greg]

I'm just curious about how many people out there actually shoot things in RAW format rather than JPEG?

If you don't know what the hell I'm talking about, no worries.   On an SLR camera, you can capture all an image's data at once and then manipulate it later rather than compressing it in the camera to a JPEG. The problem is that RAW files are BIG...some 12MB or more for each picture.

I have been planning to start shooting my landscapes in RAW and working on them later rather than taking lots of JPEGs with different exposure settings. Professionals let me know what you think!

[Simon]

Hola mi amigo!
To shoot RAW or not is a very difficult question to answer. I think it all depends on what you are going to do with your pics.
First for all of you who don't have a clue of what we are talking about here is a some info. Every time you take a picture your camera, which has some default settings, adjusts the photo in regards to Color Saturation, Sharpness, Temperature of the light and Contrast. Additionally it compresses the image and cuts out some information that the camera thinks it's not important, i.e. not relevant. The result, a photo that is ready to show/ upload / send or print, and a file with a average size of 3-4 Mb.

Now if you shoot in RAW, the camera will do: NOTHING. No adjustments, no compressions, no lost of information.
The result, a photo that you have to work on, let say develop. You can't send it straight away, nor can you upload it, print or show it. Besides most of the camera brands have their own extension for the file, so instead of JPEG, Canon users will have a file .CR and Nikon ones .NEF. Really a pain in the but.

So RAW sucks? NO!!!! I ONLY ONLY shoot in RAW because I take the time to go through my pics and develop in Photoshop/Lightroom/Aperture or any other image software the pictures that I like and that I will use in my blog.

The good thing is that you have ALL the information the camera considered irrelevant and you can use that info to get better results. The bad one is that is time consuming, that the files are way bigger and that if you are traveling this will mean time in a computer working on your pics, probably even your own computer because of the software you need and somewhere to archive all you pictures.

To finish, if you want pictures for your blog/flickr and that is it, then shoot JPEG. If you want to have the option to decide about all the settings (and have the time and will) shoot RAW.

Hey some cameras even allow you to take a JPEG and a RAW simultaneously! Why not?   

[Simon]

Here is a clear example of all that I said:

The first photo was taken in JPEG with no further development in any image software.
The second was taken in RAW and was developed for 3 minutes in Photoshop.

See the difference?

[Vhan]

=Vhan raises his hand= <(o.o)^

yep, I cee it.