RAW....is it really worth the hassle?

[Dave Wilkinson]

First I will point out that I still shoot film B+W and colour negative, but I do like the results from my two digital cameras - a pocket compact and a cheap DSLR. Since starting with digital, everything I've read or heard tells me that - for the best results I need to shoot in RAW and go through numerous tedious ( to me! ) procedures in Photoshop. Well, I usually shoot 'fine jpegs' with my D40, but every so often go the RAW way, mainly because that's what I think I am supposed to do!
Unlike most, I don't have 'Photoshop' but am quite happy with 'Paintshop Pro X1' which I believe is similar. If my jpegs are correctly exposed, they usually just need a little sharpening to give me the best looking prints I've ever made. Paintshop Pro has a facility called 'smart photo fix' which makes the correction decisions for you, and to my dismay using this gives just as good or even better results than I get from ten minutes messing around with curves and sliders on one of these massive RAW things that needs converting before anything will recognise it!
Maybe its just that I don't often need a big print these days, or the fact that I am not interested in spending lots of PC time on each picture - after fifty years of Photoshoping in the dark - with my fingers, and bits of card on wires! :)
So - I think RAW is overrated and overstated, how about you? (well - we have not had any controversy here for a while!) ;)
Dave

[aperture64]

I once worked in a pro equipment rental house in NYC. The head rental guy did a test with a Hasselblad and a digital back. He shot RAW and JPG. He took a close up of a wine bottle and some other stuff. No one could tell the difference. I did the same with my D90 when I got it. Same result.

I heard it's good to use in a tricky lighting situation as a back up. More information in the file for you to tweak in Photoshop later.

[mark-b]

Depends on what camera is churning out jpegs or raw for you, Dave. And if you nail the exposure, who needs raw?

When I owned an M8, raw was the only way to go, since its jpegs weren't acceptable to me.
On the other hand, my D90's jpegs are incredible.

[not_in_good_order]

For a while I shot RAW+JPEG with my D700 to see if the JPEGs would be adequate or if I really needed the RAW files. I found that with perfect exposures, the JPEGs were great. The problem was that if I needed to do any sort of highlight recovery, the JPEGs were useless. RAW processing can be a bit time consuming, but I simply find JPEGs to be too limiting.

[hans voralberg]

RAW is for rescuing highlights/shadow Dave, if you dont need it you dont need it. I hardly use raw except in tricky light and I bracket.

[mathomas]

I don't see shooting or processing RAW as being any sort of hassle. On the other hand, I've been using Aperture to retrieve and catalog my photos for years, and it makes RAW vs. JPEG (or whatever) completely transparent (Lightroom does the same). So, I shoot RAW, and when I need the extra adjustment latitude, I have it.

In that case I'd say it's "worth the hassle", but only if you have a workflow that includes it "for free".

[ferider]

I'm not shooting digital, Dave, but I love Paintshop Pro, therefore maybe this is relevant:

Mostly, when scanning I only use Photoshop to correct leveling/exposure, and reduce from 16bit to 8bit (corresponding to your raw/non-raw comparison). From there on I use PSP. In other words, I use 16bit to correct over/under exposure, if necessary. For good exposures, I don't need it.

Rland.

[peter_n]

I bought a dSLR on the basis of its well-earned reputation for only requiring JPEG output with minimal processing for excellent output. I've never used RAW on the camera, never needed to, the JPEGs are amazing. I have the cam for convenience, so it's automatic everything including a single medium range AF zoom, one setup, and all I have to do is turn it on, select a focal length and aperture and shoot. I love it.

[hipsterdufus]

There are many, many pieces of advice that other photographers will give you over the course of this hobby. I've found that I concern myself with how I "should" shoot (at least, according to the advice-givers), the less I actually enjoy shooting. Especially if I don't realize any real benefit from the advice. Don't get me wrong, there's some good advice out there. Feel free to give RAW shooting a try. But in the end, all that matters is that you are shooting pictures that make you happy.

Personally, I shoot in JPEG only.

[kshapero]

When I shoot Digital, I only shoot RAW. Might as well have all the PP I can get my hands on to help me.

[BillBingham2]

Dave,

I spent my formative years (10-18) in a darkroom doing B&W with little bits of wires with different shaped cards affixed to each end. Large pieces of card stock with holes cut in and all. Never got the hang of color printing but I loved B&W. I look at RAW as a way to get to TIFF. There is no standard for RAW but there is for TIFF. I have to agree that I really like the JPEGs out of some cameras, not as much from others. Convert your RAWs to TIFF now, beat the rush!

I'm pretty computer literate but have never got the hang of PhotoShop. I want something simple without all the bells and whistles to use. In my mind all I want to do is simple tweaking like I would years ago with my old 4x5 DeJour enlarger.

I changed to shooting slides because I never really liked the way the proof prints would always be adjusted. I want the shot mostly black if that's the way I shot it. Don't give me muddy prints so you can see everything.

I need to do some thinking, you bounced a good idea into my head.

Thanks.

B2

[kshapero]

Why TIFF Bill?

[f16sunshine]

I don't see shooting or processing RAW as being any sort of hassle. On the other hand, I've been using Aperture to retrieve and catalog my photos for years, and it makes RAW vs. JPEG (or whatever) completely transparent (Lightroom does the same). So, I shoot RAW, and when I need the extra adjustment latitude, I have it.

In that case I'd say it's "worth the hassle", but only if you have a workflow that includes it "for free".


+1
I can not tell the difference with A# or this Beta LR3 I'm trying out.
When I used CS3 I still shot Raw as it seemed that adjustments went much more smoothly.
Cameras are better now in regards to jpg output. That has not always been the case nor will it be in the future.
The M8 and RD1 for example. The RD1 has a nice B+W in camera Jpg. Color not so IMHO.

[mathomas]

One more point in favor of RAW, or, at least another way to think about it:

Let's start with a question: Do you shoot your camera at maximum resolution and minimum compression? I suspect the answer is "yes, of course I do, numb-nuts". OK, but why do you do that?

In my case, I do it because I want to save all destructive, irreversible decisions until the very end. JPEG file creation from RAW data is a (arguably) destructive and (certainly) irreversible decision. Therefore, even though I might get great results most of the time shooting JPEG, I shoot RAW instead.


(All that being said, put me down as someone that loves the B&W JPEG output from his M8. However, shooting RAW+JPEG is just too damn slow, so I shoot RAW and do my B&W conversions in Nik Silver Efex).

[MCTuomey]

RAW gives greater latitude in post-processing versus jpg. I see its use as a cushion for errors in exposure and white balance. Since I make more than my share of errors, I shoot RAW as much as possible.

As a practical matter, for example, I can get much better skin tones manually setting white balance as part of RAW conversion than trusting any of my cameras jpg engines.

A RAW file is the closest thing one has in digital capture to a negative. And who wouldn't keep one's negatives?

[filmtwit]

I used to shoot Jpeg's exclusivly, in part because using photoshop was a huge pain with dealing with RAW. These days I rarely use photoshop and only use it as a end filtering system. Here's why:

Jpeg's are mostly a digitally destructive medium. Every time you do any work with them and save you're compressing the original file and slowly losing information. This isn't good from an archivial stand point. Think of Jpeg's as prints. That's all they are good for.

In RAW format, you're never actually touching it and with modern ApertureII/Lightroom you're basically scripting changes that have no effect on your original file. What they effect are the out putted file.

[Rob-F]

I've been very happy since I started working in RAW. I don't find it to be a hassle; however I do the RAW conversion and adjustments with Aperture rather than Photoshop. The only Photoshop I have or use is Elements 6, which I will only use for specific tasks like perspective adjustment. So I wonder if it is RAW that you don't care for, or if it's the program you've been using to "develop" your pictures.

What I like about RAW is that, at least with Aperture (maybe with all or most RAW processing, I'm not sure) is that it's non-destructive. The original file is always preserved. With a JPEG, every time you bring it up and do something additional, the quality becomes more and more degraded. I also like being able to recover from over-exposed highlights and shadows. With RAW you can do that, within limits of course.

[Finder]

The definitive answer is yes and no.

Actually, one is not "better" than another, just as slides are not "better" than negatives. No matter what you do, you need to work within the process. That is all that counts.

[Finder]

With a JPEG, every time you bring it up and do something additional, the quality becomes more and more degraded.

You can convert a file to a TIFF or PSD when you open it. Then you don't lose anything.

[Bobfrance]

RAW gives greater latitude in post-processing versus jpg. I see its use as a cushion for errors in exposure and white balance. Since I make more than my share of errors, I shoot RAW as much as possible.

As a practical matter, for example, I can get much better skin tones manually setting white balance as part of RAW conversion than trusting any of my cameras jpg engines.

A RAW file is the closest thing one has in digital capture to a negative. And who wouldn't keep one's negatives?

My thoughts exactly. When I post-process I find working with a JPG frustratingly limiting. Imagine having only a print to work from as opposed to a neg.

Despite being a graphic designer by trade, I found Photoshop a pain to work with on lots of shots. Moving to Lightroom was a revelation. It has a much more natural controls for people with a photographic background. I'd recommend anyone new to digital getting to know Lightroom (or Aperture).

[250swb]

Well, speed aside (yes it could possibly take all of two seconds to press the right buttons to process a RAW file), you spend a shed load of money on a posh camera, you spend a whole load of time driving to and fro to make some photographs, you spend endless hours on the internet pontificating about photography, and then you let the camera do all the processing work to come up with a JPEG that is fixed for ever just the way Canon (et al) says it should be.

And yet all around software is moving on, its getting more out of the available data, but now and for ever more you can do sod all with your JPEG because thats that, the end. But with a RAW file the information is waiting to be processed with different RAW converters, it can take advantage of improvements in software we haven't yet seen, its all the data that the camera could get at the time with nothing thrown away in processing the JPEG. A case in point would be the new version of ACR that comes with CS5 or soon Lightroom 3. Its new algorithms reduce previous noise by maybe more than a stop, so a RAW image shot at 1600 ISO now looks like it was shot at 800 ISO or less. But a JPEG shot at 1600 ISO will still look like it was shot at 1600 ISO till the end of time. Of course there is nothing wrong with noisy high ISO images, but at least you can have more choice with RAW.

So RAW is a waste of time? It strikes me JPEG is the waste of time, effort, and money and you are kidding yourself into thinking its difficult or time consuming.

Steve

[Pablito]

I only shoot in RAW, I see the difference, and I could never shoot in jpg again.

[sojournerphoto]

RAW only - if you want simple processing use Lightroom or Aperture, often no need for photoshop et al. You can of course use it if you wish. Raw and Jpg look the same in lightroom, but there's more ability to work with raw files.

If you're happy with jpgs and it ain't broke though, I'm not telling you to fix it. You need to enjoy it affter all.

Mike

[Dave Wilkinson]

Well, speed aside (yes it could possibly take all of two seconds to press the right buttons to process a RAW file), you spend a shed load of money on a posh camera, you spend a whole load of time driving to and fro to make some photographs, you spend endless hours on the internet pontificating about photography, and then you let the camera do all the processing work to come up with a JPEG that is fixed for ever just the way Canon (et al) says it should be.

And yet all around software is moving on, its getting more out of the available data, but now and for ever more you can do sod all with your JPEG because thats that, the end. But with a RAW file the information is waiting to be processed with different RAW converters, it can take advantage of improvements in software we haven't yet seen, its all the data that the camera could get at the time with nothing thrown away in processing the JPEG. A case in point would be the new version of ACR that comes with CS5 or soon Lightroom 3. Its new algorithms reduce previous noise by maybe more than a stop, so a RAW image shot at 1600 ISO now looks like it was shot at 800 ISO or less. But a JPEG shot at 1600 ISO will still look like it was shot at 1600 ISO till the end of time. Of course there is nothing wrong with noisy high ISO images, but at least you can have more choice with RAW.

So RAW is a waste of time? It strikes me JPEG is the waste of time, effort, and money and you are kidding yourself into thinking its difficult or time consuming.

Steve Points taken Steve, but here is a guy that does not want to go back to pictures - to alter and play around. If I have a good picture to frame, put in my portfolio or occasionally hand to someone in exchange for cash - I'm happy, o.k. - I often need another copy from storage - but just a copy-and presently I can do this with jpegs YMMV. Re the speed issue - in a couple of weeks time, I shall spend two weeks in Turkey, and shoot hundreds of images, I know between jpeg and RAW -which will be the easier to handle when back home!....apart from the memory card aspect :)
Dave.

[DNG]

For me, I shoot JPG with minimal in camera settings. I haven't shot RAW for a while. I find that RAW can be an advantage in tricky lighting or WB cases. When I scan my negatives, I scan as TIFFs. There are much better than scanning to JPGs.

I use ACDsee Pro 3, so RAW and JPG editing uses the identical tools. and uses "Non-Destructive" editing. So Developing RAW is no different than developing JPGs. And, no file is changed until it is "saved as" an output file, in either format.

[sonofdanang]

I shoot RAW + jpeg fine. If the jpeg works, I use it.

Most cameras give a lot of control in terms of how the engine will tweak the RAW file for the resulting jpeg. Use that.

For those of you concerned with the jpeg + save = image degradation problem, why on earth aren't you making working copies? Or, as another poster put it, PSDs?

Oh, as to the original question, no, it's not worth it - as long as the jpeg is good. If the jpeg doesn't work, it's actually faster, for me, anyway, to use the RAW file (usually converted to DNG) and produce a working copy from that.

[emraphoto]

i pretty much only shoot raw. i often work quick and enjoy having all the highlight room and color balance help i can access.

it really isn't a whole lot more work with modern versions of CS etc.

for a B+W shooter it is a big plus!

[Nikon Bob]

I used to shot Jpeg when cards were expensive and thought that was good enough. Well, cards got cheaper and I started using RAW and still do. I need all the help I can get with exposures and the ability to save an image. I find it easy to work with and if I have been on a trip there is no going back to retake an ooops in a Jpeg. I don't see myself going back.

Bob

[BillBingham2]

Why TIFF Bill?

There are many industry standard image formats, some open, others not so much. Each standard has it's own purpose and goal when being developed. JPEG was focused on compression. You will find that zipping (compressing) JPEG files yields almost no additional compression. Every time you open a JPEG to edit it, as mentioned above, the software tries to compress it down further. Compression on top of compression the software tries to make things small.

The TIFF standard is not about compression, it's about image stability and quality. They are MUCH BIGGER than JPEGS so people don't use them too often but they are a well supported standard but just about all programs. I really like TIFF because there isn't another standard that I believe keeps the volume of information that has as high a probability of being supported 40 years from now. While I'm not 100% sure that CDs or DVD will be readable I am sure that stuff in the cloud will be accessible.

It's like democracy, it's not perfect, but it's the best we have so far.

B2 (;->

[Arjay]

I only shoot RAW when I'm shooting digital, and I have very good reasons to do so:
RAW files as a rule encode about 1.5 EV more exposure latitude than a JPG file.
This gives me much more freedom to correct any shooting mistakes I inevitably am making, like salvaging blown highlights or adjusting white balance (both of which are impossible or hery hard to do with JPGs).
RAW files encode their color channel data with 16 bits of resolution instead of in 8 bit resolution as with JPG. Compared to JPGs, this offers much more freedom for gradation curve adjustments before a processed image shows color banding (posterization).The exposure latitude argument is particularly important: Hardly any camera has a light metering system that can guarantee that there won't be any blown highlights in a picture. If you want to make sure you don't get blown highlights with JPGs, you have use a negative exposure correction factor (slight underexposure) - this will invariably cost you some shadow detail. Not so with RAW: On your computer, you can visualize any blown highlights and tweak the exposure down (generally about 1.5 EV max.) until the blown highlights are gone. You'll do that after the fact in PP, and you only tweak the exposure down far enough so that the highlights are retrieved, but still directly at the upper end of the tonality scale. This way, you can minimize shadow detail loss, effectively preserving much more shadow detail than with JPGs.

Consider this analogy: RAW files are just like film negatives that offer you ample potential for manipulation. JPGs are like paper prints directly from a photofinishing service that give you virtually no influence on the quality of the end product.

[Tuolumne]

I shoot a Leica Dlux-4 and a Panasonic G1, and have used many other digital cameras, including the Epson R-D1, before that. I admit that theoretically RAW is the way to go. As a practical matter, I get better and much faster results using jpgs and Picasa. I think you have to be a real expert with raw processing before your results will match the automatic corrections good SW can do with a jpg. Picasa even does a damn good job with poorly exposed jpgs. As a result, that's all I shoot now.

/T

[chrishayton]

I always shoot raw. I import the whole card into lightroom and then edit the ones I like. Delete the rubbish and keep the rest sat neatly in lightroom. Easy work flow and great picture quality

[rover]

What is the hassle shooting in RAW?

[semilog]

+1 for Lightroom. Everything gets saved as RAW+DNG. 80-90% of the time, the Olympus .jpg files are as good as or better than I would get myself, at least as a starting point. The other 10-20% of the time they're not. LR makes it very easy to quickly go through my shots and ditch the files that I don't need. Usually the files ditched are the RAWs.

I *always* scan film to .dng files in VueScan.

[gavinlg]

Jpeg on both my digitals (5d + e-p1) just bakes the file. By that I mean they always have overdone skin tones, lifeless shadows, yucky noise and processing, white balance errors etc. With lightroom or aperture it isn't any harder to shoot raw. You simply put your card in the card reader, auto-import into either program, and then if you don't want to edit them, you can export selects to jpegs for print. If you see things you want to fix, it takes a few seconds per file. With that sort of ease of workflow I don't understand why anyone would ever shoot jpeg.

Perfect.

[gshybrid]

I think too much is made of the difficulty of working with raw files. There are a lot of free video tutorials online and once you've seen the difference in the images that raw processing can reveal... you'll never turn back.

[andredossantos]

When I first delved into digital a couple years back I was totally new to it all and only shot JPG as I had no idea. I never really got along with it and ditched digital going back to film for another couple years. I'm getting back into digital now and only shooting in RAW.

Like others have said I view the raw file as my negative. It's more work, sure, but I don't find Processing the RAW files all that laborious or annoying.

I've NEVER been happy with Jpg's. JMHO.

[kbg32]

To get the most out of one's files, RAW is the way to go. I only use jpegs when I shoot events, and need an image quick and dirty. I don't get paid enough to process hundreds of RAW files!

RAW is definitely not a hassle. It is like being in the darkroom again.

[reala_fan]

Olympus = JPG's

Panasonic = RAW

I find that you gain almost nothing with Olympus by processing the RAW, they do such a good job on JPG.

Just the opposite with Panasonic G1 - RAW or else....or else the color balance won't be correct and all the other parameters, too. RAW is essential on the G1, not too much hassle with the SilkyPix software that comes with the G1...

.

[willie_901]

I spend hour after hour reading internet forums, reading reviews and looking at photos to figure out which sensor has the best performance.

I study DXO's camera performance data over and over again to make sure my camera will have the best sensor.

I spend lots of money to insure I own the highest performance camera/sensor I can afford.

Then I shoot jpegs and intentionally throw away 60% of the data collected by the sensor.


Think about it.

[gavinlg]

Olympus = JPG's

Panasonic = RAW

I find that you gain almost nothing with Olympus by processing the RAW, they do such a good job on JPG.

Just the opposite with Panasonic G1 - RAW or else....or else the color balance won't be correct and all the other parameters, too. RAW is essential on the G1, not too much hassle with the SilkyPix software that comes with the G1...

.

Olympus cameras do have a big rep for good jpegs, however I have to say that I wasn't happy with the jpegs from either my e-3 or my e-p1. They were loads better than the fried chicken yellow and grey nikon jpegs, and loads better than the canon 'flat as a cardboard sheet' canon jpegs, but I could still get significantly better tones/colors/skintones/high iso noise performance out of a raw file + ACR converter.

[shadowfox]

Olympus = JPG's

Panasonic = RAW

I find that you gain almost nothing with Olympus by processing the RAW, they do such a good job on JPG.



I agree that Olympus cranks out better-looking Jpegs (in general, not every time) than Canon or Nikon as long as they are within acceptable ISO performance. I think color-balance (don't confuse this with white-balance) is the key.

I shoot JPEG + Raw on my E-P2, it's rare that I have to tweak the RAW unless when I want a certain look or B&W.

Conversely, my wife shoots only RAW with her 5D (especially for clients), guess who gets to tweak most of them? :)

... In Canon's defense, full-frame + prime L glass is good, *very* good.

[Ronald M]

RAW is about preserving control over manipulation, any kind which is best done with the RAW file. One does not edit pixels until all that can be done with the RAW file has been done. Then you go into Photoshop and do pixels.

If you do not wish to manipulate, just tell the camera to give you a JPEG. You will be a happy camper. The downside is you may become more sophisticated and want the RAW data later and you will find the camera has trashed it. It can not be recreated. I did a Canon seminar years back and the rep did RAW + JPEG. She used the JPEG most always and trashed the RAW once she detirmined the JPEG was good enough., but once and a while she needed it.

Sharpening is a perfect example. It needs to be applied at final size so how do you make a 4x6 and a 16x20 from one file? A compromise has to be made either by reediting a JPEG which is a no no, or accepting improper sharpening.

[tom.w.bn]

With every digital camera I owned, I did a test the first days and shot RAW + JPG parallel. At home I imported them in Lightroom and compared. For every single camera, I didn't like the jpg-colours compared to the colours the raw-converter shows even without modification or calibration for that camera. Within Lightroom you don't even notice if you handle a jpg-file or a raw-file (one exception is the handling of the white-balance).

If someone uses special programs for raw-conversion like Canons DPP then I can understand that raw needs more time. With Lightroom or Aperture this argument is not valid.

[gavinlg]

If someone uses special programs for raw-conversion like Canons DPP then I can understand that raw needs more time. With Lightroom or Aperture this argument is not valid.

This needs to be quoted. Read it, and then read it again. And then read it again.

With the correct software,it isn't any harder to use a raw file than a jpeg. This whole "raw is more effort/hassle" thing is really very flawed. Get the free trial of adobe lightroom on the adobe site and be amazed.

[Roger Hicks]

Raw (DNG). Often, I don't need it. Sometimes -- usually, either to correct exposure or white balance -- I do. Yes, I could shoot DNG only when I needed it, but the hassle of toggling from DNG to JPEG is infinitely greater than the hassle of DNG in Lightroom.

In the studio, for pack shots and step by steps, I often shoot JPEG with the Nikon, but I'm in full control of lighting and the subject ain't going anywhere so I don't need the 'safety net' of DNG, nor do I need maximum quality. The Nikon has replaced Polaroids for this, and they were even more critical than JPEGs.

Cheers,

R.

[dexdog]

Similar to a couple of previous posters, I typically shoot both RAW and jpeg (after all, memory is cheap). The great majority of the time, the jpegs are just fine, but the RAW is very useful when adjusting white balance or fixing highlights.

[DNG]

What is the hassle shooting in RAW?

Good Question!
In ACDsee Pro 3, there are no extra tools for RAW files. It uses the same tools for RAW and JPG.. How easy is that!

I would think LightRoom is the same..Although I don't understand way there needs to separate program for RAW developing. I have used some free RAW developers before, but, once I used ACDsee Pro 3, I won't go back. If ACDsee can use the tools for RAW & JPG, why can't others follow suit?

rant:
Do I "really" need another $200 program "just" for RAW... Suckers they are. :p. I think RAW Software is over rated or over priced...
I guess PS has a build in RAW developer, but, why does it have to be a separate program (plug-in)? Technology is past that for some editing programs.

Do we "really" need dozens of tools over JPG tools?, Exposure, WB, Curves, Levels, Highlight recovery, Mid-tone Recovery, Shadow recovery, as far as exposure controls?

I found all those "raw tools" in some software, just plain un-necessary, because I found the changes to be marginal at best over the standard exposure stuff. But, that's me I guess. Keep it simple, but give me the tools I need, don't over-control the software please...
That's Why I like ADCsee Pro 3. Simple, but the right balance of control without over kill. Just because some geek/nerd can make a new control that is marginal at best, doesn't mean I need it, or should "buy" the upgrade either. Why, to keep a company's income revenue stream going... HUH! not me. !
rant over:

[DNG]

If someone uses special programs for raw-conversion like Canons DPP then I can understand that raw needs more time. With Lightroom or Aperture this argument is not valid.

This needs to be quoted. Read it, and then read it again. And then read it again.

With the correct software,it isn't any harder to use a raw file than a jpeg. This whole "raw is more effort/hassle" thing is really very flawed. Get the free trial of adobe lightroom on the adobe site and be amazed.

Same with ACDsee Pro 3..As Lightroom and Aperture. Just as easy as JPG. Try their free trial too.

[Dave Wilkinson]

[quote=DNG;1320008]Good Question!
In ACDsee Pro 3, there are no extra tools for RAW files. It uses the same tools for RAW and JPG.. How easy is that!

I would think LightRoom is the same..Although I don't understand way there needs to separate program for RAW developing. I have used some free RAW developers before, but, once I used ACDsee Pro 3, I won't go back. If ACDsee can use the tools for RAW & JPG, why can't others follow suit? [quote]....I love ACDsee!...does he still wear his schoolboy outfit? :o - sorry!

[wgerrard]

I think a reasonably accurate analogy can be drawn between jpegs versus RAW and farming out your developing and printing versus doing it at home. In both, it is a question of time and convenience versus the ability and the requirement to weak.

For me, digital is all about automation and convenience. The less I need to do, the better. So, I shoot JPEG's. I see very few I wished were RAW so I could feed them to Photoshop. Sometimes trading a bit of quality for time is a good deal.

[tom.w.bn]

This needs to be quoted. Read it, and then read it again. And then read it again.

With the correct software,it isn't any harder to use a raw file than a jpeg. This whole "raw is more effort/hassle" thing is really very flawed. Get the free trial of adobe lightroom on the adobe site and be amazed.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

You just quoted the 2nd paragraph I wrote. I assume you only read the 2nd paragraph.
In the first paragraph I wrote that I use lightroom. In the 2nd I wrote that it's more effort to use special programs like DPP. Isn't that true?

[gavinlg]

:confused: :confused: :confused:

You just quoted the 2nd paragraph I wrote. I assume you only read the 2nd paragraph.
In the first paragraph I wrote that I use lightroom. In the 2nd I wrote that it's more effort to use special programs like DPP. Isn't that true?

No I was quoting the part that said it's not any more effort to shoot raw than it is jpeg. We're on the same page :)

Also true that if someones using the proprietary software like DPP or capture NX it would be more effort.

[David_Manning]

When you shoot jpeg with a sophisticated camera, you're choosing your film and your look before you expose...just like in film days. You're also allowing the camera to do the sophisticated things you bought it for (matrix metering, exp compensation, etc). All those are thrown away when you choose to import a RAW file (unless you use the manufacturer's software which reads your camera settings).

On my D700, I can set saturation, sharpening, white balance, and a host of other things. The camera is so damned smart it'll correct for color fringing IF and WHEN it sees it, and even expand dynamic range. It also reduces noise at high ISO. If I shoot RAW, I get neutral everything...the good and the bad. So after the fact, I have to clean up the noise, correct color fringing, change saturation, etc. In fact, in RAW I'm letting my laptop's software "bake" the image instead of my camera manufacturer...which means I'll inevitably have to make corrections to my RAW converter's guesses.

So, set what you want, shoot what you need. If you have your settings right, jpeg is great...just like a color chrome. I spent a boatload of money on a camera which will help me get the look I want right out of the box...why do it twice and accept my image according to what Adobe or Apple thinks best?

I think fear (not knowing how to deal with technical shooting issues) and the lemming factor (Joe Blow in the studio shooting for Vogue uses RAW, so should I) factors into this RAW vs. jpeg decision tree. At the end of the day, most of us will send an 8-bit file to the printer anyway.

By the way...in Aperture, regardless of RAW or JPG...the original is the "master" and never touched. This is what non-destructive editing is. Every time you view your edited image, you see your original JPG or RAW file, plus a little list of your changes...so there is no "save-destroy" cycle going on.

Sorry to sound so practical...but it is what it is. I'd take mediocre, lossy, blown-out jpegs of immersive images anyday over technically perfect, boring subjects.

Rant over ;)

[gavinlg]

When you shoot jpeg with a sophisticated camera, you're choosing your film and your look before you expose...just like in film days. You're also allowing the camera to do the sophisticated things you bought it for (matrix metering, exp compensation, etc). All those are thrown away when you choose to import a RAW file (unless you use the manufacturer's software which reads your camera settings).

On my D700, I can set saturation, sharpening, white balance, and a host of other things. The camera is so damned smart it'll correct for color fringing IF and WHEN it sees it, and even expand dynamic range. It also reduces noise at high ISO. If I shoot RAW, I get neutral everything...the good and the bad. So after the fact, I have to clean up the noise, correct color fringing, change saturation, etc. In fact, in RAW I'm letting my laptop's software "bake" the image instead of my camera manufacturer...which means I'll inevitably have to make corrections to my RAW converter's guesses.

So, set what you want, shoot what you need. If you have your settings right, jpeg is great...just like a color chrome. I spent a boatload of money on a camera which will help me get the look I want right out of the box...why do it twice and accept my image according to what Adobe or Apple thinks best?

I think fear (not knowing how to deal with technical shooting issues) and the lemming factor (Joe Blow in the studio shooting for Vogue uses RAW, so should I) factors into this RAW vs. jpeg decision tree. At the end of the day, most of us will send an 8-bit file to the printer anyway.

By the way...in Aperture, regardless of RAW or JPG...the original is the "master" and never touched. This is what non-destructive editing is. Every time you view your edited image, you see your original JPG or RAW file, plus a little list of your changes...so there is no "save-destroy" cycle going on.

Sorry to sound so practical...but it is what it is. I'd take mediocre, lossy, blown-out jpegs of immersive images anyday over technically perfect, boring subjects.

Rant over ;)

Exposure compensation and matrix metering still apply to a raw file. Not arguing or anything, it's all about what works for each person of course.

But, the beauty of RAW is that it isn't a automated program choosing your colors/tones/saturation/sharpening/white balance as the camera does with JPEG. You yourself set all that stuff. If you don't want or need the control, then jpeg is great.

I do a lot of interior work for magazines and if I used JPEG files I'd be out of business within weeks. I try to get exposures right (balancing inside and outside light) in camera with the limited lighting equipment I have, but I always end up having to lift shadows and dull down highlights quite a bit in post. A Jpeg file would fall apart in that sort of situation.
Similarly, I did a light test 2 weeks ago with a girl on a property to try out some new reflectors. I accidentally left the camera in JPEG. Most of the files were near unusable. Skintones go greyish, sharpening is crude and tones are harsh.

So hardly a lemmings mentality there - I know a lot of people shoot their cat or their potplants with their expensive cameras and expensive software - "polishing a turd" with their gear if you will, but there are definitely advantages for some people, and considering it's not actually any harder or more time consuming to use than JPEG you can see why most people are now using it.

[payasam]

In three years with digital SLRs I haven't taken a single picture as a JPEG. Working with raw files is a way of life: and life itself is sometimes a hassle, sometimes not. I suspect I'm not being too helpful.

[semilog]

One other thing about Lightroom. With my Olympus files, the in-camera JPEGs were usually as good as or better than the first pass with Lightroom v.1 or v.2. With the Lightroom v.3 beta, the first-pass Lightroom files are better. It's just absolutely superb - particularly the way it deals with chroma noise. The base output now looks like a good Provia transparency (yes, this makes me happy).

I see no reason at all to upgrade from Photoshop CS3 to CS5, but I will buy LR3.0 the day it's available!

[shadowfox]

One other thing about Lightroom. With my Olympus files, the in-camera JPEGs were usually as good as or better than the first pass with Lightroom v.1 or v.2. With the Lightroom v.3 beta, the first-pass Lightroom files are better. It's just absolutely superb - particularly the way it deals with chroma noise. The base output now looks like a good Provia transparency (yes, this makes me happy).

I see no reason at all to upgrade from Photoshop CS3 to CS5, but I will buy LR3.0 the day it's available!

As both Olympus and LR user, I'm glad to hear this.
Similarly I don't find it necessary to upgrade beyond CS3.

[sacundim]

I think RAW's reputation for being a "hassle" comes from old, unfriendly RAW conversion software that forces you to spend time converting the RAWs before you can even view your images at full resolution. And then you have to load them into your image editor...

Half a million folks have already mentioned Aperture and Lightroom in this thread, and that's my answer too. With software designed to make your work easy, RAW is not at hassle at all. I personally shoot RAW-only on my G1, import the photos using LR 3, and do all the processing I want fairly quickly right there in LR (and often you don't need any!). I display my photos on Flickr, so I use an export plugin in LR to upload to Flickr—I just highlight the files I want to upload and export them straight to my galleries.

[ampguy]

I think RAW is only needed if you're a bad photographer. If you don't watch for accurate WB and exposure, yes, RAW can save you. Otherwise, it's a waste of time and space.

[exiled4979]

First I will point out that I still shoot film B+W and colour negative, but I do like the results from my two digital cameras - a pocket compact and a cheap DSLR. Since starting with digital, everything I've read or heard tells me that - for the best results I need to shoot in RAW and go through numerous tedious ( to me! ) procedures in Photoshop. Well, I usually shoot 'fine jpegs' with my D40, but every so often go the RAW way, mainly because that's what I think I am supposed to do!
Unlike most, I don't have 'Photoshop' but am quite happy with 'Paintshop Pro X1' which I believe is similar. If my jpegs are correctly exposed, they usually just need a little sharpening to give me the best looking prints I've ever made. Paintshop Pro has a facility called 'smart photo fix' which makes the correction decisions for you, and to my dismay using this gives just as good or even better results than I get from ten minutes messing around with curves and sliders on one of these massive RAW things that needs converting before anything will recognise it!
Maybe its just that I don't often need a big print these days, or the fact that I am not interested in spending lots of PC time on each picture - after fifty years of Photoshoping in the dark - with my fingers, and bits of card on wires! :)
So - I think RAW is overrated and overstated, how about you? (well - we have not had any controversy here for a while!) ;)
Dave

this is definitely personal choice, and need for RAW varies from camera to camera... Olympus have the best JPG processing in regards of color, tonality and over-all quality (noise reduction / sharpness / details), but highlights are still a problem... if you dial down contrast, JPGs don't look so good anymore, and they require some curve adjustments, and with contrast set to more pleasing level, you'll soon find yourself HDRing half of shots just to rescue some shadows and highlights, so...

RAW is not that much more work than normal processing of JPGs, just takes a bit more time to import/export... I always shoot RAW, it simply gives better results, but I agree that 80% of all shots on print would look pretty much the same, only if you get exposure just right and know your camera inside-out so you can actually judge how would something look printed based on your LCDs or histograms...

[Ronald M]

I don`t mess around with my raw files. They come out of my D40,200,700 & D3 just fine.

If you want more saturation, contrast, more sharpening, make a preset so all these these settings change in the raw converter with one click.

Nikon NX2 Raws will take on the camera JPEG settings automatically and is the only converter that will. Presets work in NX2 and Photoshop. Paintshop ?? NX2 can be had from Cameta camera for $119. That is where mine came from.

I did two Nikon D40 images in CS5 yesterday, 800 ISO by mistake. The noise reduction was left from a previous image and it worked so well I had to check the META Data to see the ISO. It is absolutely outstanding & stunning. I could hardly believe my eyes.

LR3 uses the same converter. Adobe has a 10% off sale good thru 11/30/2010 . Offer code CS510NOV. WWW.adobe.com/goCS5NovOffer. Apply the offer code at checkout.

[NickTrop]

Great thread, great question. Absolutely not. No - it's not worth the hassle. The only time it might be worth it is if you scew up. There's plenty of corrections and manipulation you can do at the JPEG level. Most jpeg processors do a fine job. Bigger files, more time per image - and if you're lucky you end up with a file that's almost as good as the in-camera jpeg would have been. Totally silly. They're not "digital negatives" the whole notion of a digital negative is absurd. I didn't read the whole thread, so pardon of this was already posted. Here's Rockewell on the silliness of RAW. Like him or not, he's often spot-on. He's spot-on here:

"I almost never shoot anything in raw, and when I do I never see any difference for all the effort I wasted anyway. (I can see differences if I blow things up to 100% or bigger on my computer, but not in prints.) That's about all there is to it. It's sad that some people actually get so excited by all this that they put up hate sites..."
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Wacky photographers - so incredibly silly, they put up hate sites for this bloke's honest, educated, and accurate opinion... I expect similar. RAW exists because photographers are the most anal of pseudo-artists. C'mon - lets zoom in 1600% and look at the pixels. Nonsense. RAW has been a windfall for comps like Nikon that charge hundreds for their "Capture One" sw that does the same thing that their cameras do in-camera, automatically. They're laughing at the silly photographers - thanking them for that unexxpected additional rev. stream.

[Mister E]

RAW is a complete waste of time on cameras like the 5D and D700 which have spectacular in camera processing, but I'm sure I'd be disappointed with the M9 JPGs.

[newsgrunt]

for jpeg shooters.... use SAVE AS. this does not overwrite the original file and leaves it intact so no further degradation of that file.

[ederek]

I shoot RAW because "every bit counts".

I shoot RAW because Highlight preservation and shadow details have become increasingly important.

Lightroom +1, RAW is no extra effort.

I also shoot JPEG (RAW + JPEG). As a reference. LR handles both files allowing various sort options for viewing.

There's a great example of using JPEG profiles in the "M9: Tool or Toy" article referenced in another THREAD (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97605). Here are the author's JPEG profiles provided in his REVIEW ARTICLE (http://invisiblephotographer.asia/2010/11/10/m9review-toolortoy/).

The M9 has 4 custom user profiles that you can set with various settings. A great feature in my books. The user profiles are easily retrieved via the info button.
In case you were curious, my user profiles are:
1) COLOR Low:
Compression – DNG & JPG Fine
Color Saturation – Low
Contrast – Medium low
Sharpening – Standard
Shutter Advance – Standard
ISO – 160.
2) BW LowCon:
Compression - DNG & JPG Fine
Color Saturation – Black & White
Contrast – Low
Sharpening – Low
Shutter Advance – Standard
ISO – 400.
3) BWLowLight:
Compression - DNG & JPG Fine
Color Saturation – Black & White
Contrast – Low
Sharpening – Low
Shutter Advance – Soft
ISO – Auto ISO 1/8s – 1/1250
4) BW Street:
Compression - DNG & JPG Fine
Color Saturation – Black & White
Contrast – Low
Sharpening – Low
Shutter Advance – Discreet
ISO – Auto ISO 1/30s – 1/1250.


and if you're lucky you end up with a file that's almost as good as the in-camera jpeg would have been. Totally silly. They're not "digital negatives" the whole notion of a digital negative is absurd.

Correct, they are in fact "Digital Positives". Also, it's silly not to learn how to properly use curves and the tools in modern image processing applications.

I like learning about actual color temperatures provided by RAW files.

I often shoot a color reference standard (X-Rite Passport, etc.).

RAW is "Future Ready" for improved algorithms. It was nice upgrading to LR3, and then allowing the software to re-process my entire raw library of thousands of photos - took the computer about 40 minutes to complete the entire library. See Steve's post, quoted below:

Well, speed aside (yes it could possibly take all of two seconds to press the right buttons to process a RAW file), you spend a shed load of money on a posh camera, you spend a whole load of time driving to and fro to make some photographs, you spend endless hours on the internet pontificating about photography, and then you let the camera do all the processing work to come up with a JPEG that is fixed for ever just the way Canon (et al) says it should be.

And yet all around software is moving on, its getting more out of the available data, but now and for ever more you can do sod all with your JPEG because thats that, the end. But with a RAW file the information is waiting to be processed with different RAW converters, it can take advantage of improvements in software we haven't yet seen, its all the data that the camera could get at the time with nothing thrown away in processing the JPEG. A case in point would be the new version of ACR that comes with CS5 or soon Lightroom 3. Its new algorithms reduce previous noise by maybe more than a stop, so a RAW image shot at 1600 ISO now looks like it was shot at 800 ISO or less. But a JPEG shot at 1600 ISO will still look like it was shot at 1600 ISO till the end of time. Of course there is nothing wrong with noisy high ISO images, but at least you can have more choice with RAW.

So RAW is a waste of time? It strikes me JPEG is the waste of time, effort, and money and you are kidding yourself into thinking its difficult or time consuming.

Steve

[Damaso]

Don't forget every time you open and save and close a jpeg it is recompressed. Do that enough and you will start to notice...

[tom.w.bn]

RAW is "Future Ready" for improved algorithms. It was nice upgrading to LR3, and then allowing the software to re-process my entire raw library of thousands of photos - took the computer about 40 minutes to complete the entire library. See Steve's post, quoted below:

LR3 + M8 DNGs looks so much better in my eyes than previous versions.

[OurManInTangier]

I tend to shoot RAW all the time unless there is a very tight deadline on getting the pictures sent out, but this is simply because I can convert them quickly and with little feeling of being hassled - it also means that you have some leeway in pulling a rescue job if you really have to. However, I recently had this same discussion some colleagues, one of whom simply couldn't see the point; to him it seems like alot of extra work for no benefit...especially when you should be getting the exposure bang on anyway.

Our discussion ended with pretty much everyone involved deciding that its more or case of how you work or what the potential uses are for the files. What impressed me most was that everyone wanted to gauge how well the various processes worked for each individual and whether we could each learn and take something from the others approach.

I'll be intrigued to see the overall verdict here too

[sper]

If you're not shooting raw you don't understand what a digital image is.

It would be like a musician recording straight to MP3.

[StaaleS]

Horses for courses. JPG is not, and was never meant to be, an image capture format. It was designed as a highly-compressed yet high visual quality distribution format for finished pictures, and as such it throws away vast amounts of data that was present in the image on the assumption that that particular information is irrelevant to how the human eye perceives the image. For finished images, this assumption holds true and a good JPG file can be a beauty to behold.

However, the assumption breaks down whenever you load a JPG into an image processing software and do, well, just about anything to it. White balance, exposure, contrast, brightness and shadow adjustments, sharpening - you name it. Information that was discarded as irrelevant when the image was originally saved suddenly becomes very nice to have indeed - but you no longer do. And even if you do routinely nail exposure and composition to perfection in camera, white balance at least is going to bite you under any kind of artificial lighting, all digital cameras I have used vary in their precise degree of AWB suckiness but they do all suck!

RAW converters being what they are these days, I personally can see absolutely no reason not to shoot RAW, except for the reporter on a tight deadline where minutes do matter.

[gavinlg]

RAW is "Future Ready" for improved algorithms. It was nice upgrading to LR3, and then allowing the software to re-process my entire raw library of thousands of photos - took the computer about 40 minutes to complete the entire library.

Yep, I was astonished at how much the upgrade from lightroom 2 to lightroom 3 improved my raw files, especially the high ISO ones. I got about 1-2 stops of better noise performance from my 5d - was like having a new camera! With the next version of lightroom I'm sure I'll have similar gains.

Unfortunately for the JPEG shooters, this doesn't apply for them. Their file was already 'baked' when it came out of the camera.

[ederek]

fdigital, I was pleased with the result as well as how hassle-free the update was. :)

I upgraded to LR3, then went to a high-iso file I knew had some noise in the night sky (even with my best raw editing). There was a box that indicated a new raw processor was available for this file, and did I want to reprocess the file? I answered Yes and LR then asked if I wanted to do this for all files. Yes again and 40 min later 10's of thousands of files were updated. :cool:

PRINTING is the other side of RAW => Future Ready.

Wouldn't we want to print the best in 10 or 20 years when we bring up the file for a nice wall hanging or wall-screen display?

Wouldn't you want to leave your children the RAW files of their precious first moments? Of Rover playing with his ball? Is JPEG good enough for your children? :D

[RFH]

RAW for me in 95% of all my digital photo situations. Why? JPGs are very limited as far as postprocessing goes. And with the current and future photo managing software, it's becoming easier to make adjustments without going into Photoshop or other editing programs. The adjustment brush and ND filters etc. in Bridge work very well and are easy to use.
My general philosophy is that it's better to have a need-not than to need a have-not. Hence RAW.

[not_in_good_order]

If you're not shooting raw you don't understand what a digital image is.

It would be like a musician recording straight to MP3.

This is a good analogy.

[Pablito]

RAW is a complete waste of time on cameras like the 5D and D700 which have spectacular in camera processing, but I'm sure I'd be disappointed with the M9 JPGs.

Now, we're not particularly opinionated, are we?
:D

[wgerrard]

Everything begins as a RAW file, i.e., a bunch of data. The guys who wrote the software that does the in-camera processing to create JPEG files from that data probably assumed a correct exposure. After all, it wouldn't be practical to assume a myriad of incorrect exposures.

[wgerrard]

RAW for me in 95% of all my digital photo situations. Why? JPGs are very limited as far as postprocessing goes. .

Data is data, and a picture is a picture. By the time you see a RAW file displayed in Photoshop. the data has already been significantly massaged.

[DNG]

NO hassle at all.....
Exactly the same tools and work-flow as JPG.....Literally !!!!

I use ACDSee Pro 3 as Main editor, and Coral PSP X3 for layers and other stuff.

[cliffpov]

Shooting a JPG from a Foveon sensor is a Cardinal Sin.:eek:

[ebino]

Photography itself is a hassle. Sitting in front of a monitor drinking coffee while clicking a mouse is just lazy fun.

Unless of course my understanding of whats hard work and whats just plain laziness is totally out of tune.

[NickTrop]

Another non-silly, pragmatic pro-photog, non "RAW snob" to join Ken Rockwell in telling it like it is about RAW:


The bottom line in this approach is... hardly worth the hassle. On the plus side, if you are unhappy with the default conversion, you may change the parameters and get things done your way, which may (but does not have to) bring better results than adjusting images already converted... While I believe that 95% of photographers will be perfectly happy storing their images as low-compression (1:4 or better) JPEGs, you may belong to the remaining 5%... As for myself, most of the time I convert my pictures to RGB in-camera, saving them as 1:2.7 or 1:4 JPEGs. While I do postprocess all my images, I find that even when starting from RGB I still have enough room left for the adjustments I need... Only in rare cases I do switch to the raw format; this usually happens in trickier WB situations.

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/tech/raw.html

Hardly worth the hassle...

[gavinlg]

The problem with that argument is that it isn't actually any extra hassle to begin with. Maybe 7-10 years ago (which is about how up to date wrotniak's website is) when raw converters were clumsy and terrible to use.

[NickTrop]

I really don't see any difference from a practical standpoint in the prints I've made between RAW and jpeg. In fact, PS affords me more options than any RAW converter that I'm aware of. I think the "RAW" people are overstating RAW advantages, understating jpeg advantages, understating RAW disadvantages, overstating jpeg disadvantages, overstating the importance of what they see when they pixel peep, and understating what the final product - the print, looks like. A low compression highest quality jpeg setting is just fine, way way more than merely adequate. It's not like these are 2 megapixel cameras and these 10-14 megapixel cameras are leaving you wanting for additional anything... the jpeg engines in modern cameras are refined and get it perfect nearly every time except for white balance on occasion. If your camera has a RAW setting, it also has a manual white balance setting. Use that - it's better than any correction in post and it's "real time".

[Creagerj]

I'm not a fan of the JPEG's my D200 creates so I always shoot raw. However, I save a lot of time by only editing and displaying the good ones, so usually it isn't much of a hassle. Control over color balance is very nice as well.

[sper]

Another non-silly, pragmatic pro-photog, non "RAW snob" to join Ken Rockwell in telling it like it is about RAW:


Hardly worth the hassle...

Is this the first time someone quotes Ken Rockwell without being ironic?

How is this thread actually this long in 2010? Come on people! This is not an open debate in professional photography and hasn't been in years.

Even iPhoto basically automatically processes your raw images immediately. Step up your game a little...

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I really don't see any difference from a practical standpoint in the prints I've made between RAW and jpeg. In fact, PS affords me more options than any RAW converter that I'm aware of. I think the "RAW" people are overstating RAW advantages, understating jpeg advantages, understating RAW disadvantages, overstating jpeg disadvantages, overstating the importance of what they see when they pixel peep, and understating what the final product - the print, looks like. A low compression highest quality jpeg setting is just fine, way way more than merely adequate. It's not like these are 2 megapixel cameras and these 10-14 megapixel cameras are leaving you wanting for additional anything... the jpeg engines in modern cameras are refined and get it perfect nearly every time except for white balance on occasion. If your camera has a RAW setting, it also has a manual white balance setting. Use that - it's better than any correction in post and it's "real time".

If you're doing critical work where color MUST match the original objects, as in art reproduction and most product photography then RAW not optional, it is required. I just did some photographs of paintings a couple weeks ago and they had to match the paintings PERFECTLY. You just cannot do that with JPEG. A JPEG is not like a negative that can be endlessly manipulated after scanning (or in the darkroom). Its an 8 bit image that VERY quickly loses quality as curves are adjusted and as you said white balance is baked in. Setting it in the camera is not easy to do accurately without a color temp meter. Yeah, I know the cameras have a way to automate that but in my experience doing critical work, it just doesn't work well.

[Peter S]

In my opinion it is about how much control you want. If you always had others developing your film then maybe jpeg's are fine. On the other hand if you worked hard at getting your film/developer combination give the results you wanted by tinkering with dilution/time/agitation then RAW in a digital workflow makes sense as it gives you way more manoeuvring space to tinker. Nowadays RAW conversion is so easy that I do not understand why people still shoot jpeg.

[Rob-F]

A note for Aperture users:

Earlier I commented that RAW enables us to make changes without degrading the file. That's true. But in my One-to-One session at the Apple store yesterday, my instructor reminded me that when we makes changes to an image using Aperture--even to a JPEG-- Aperture always assigns those changes to a copy of the original. The original (called the master in Aperture lingo) always remains untouched. So for Aperture users, one can use JPEGS if desired, without worry of harming the master file when making changes.

[Rob-F]

I really don't see any difference from a practical standpoint in the prints I've made between RAW and jpeg. In fact, PS affords me more options than any RAW converter that I'm aware of. I think the "RAW" people are overstating RAW advantages, understating jpeg advantages, understating RAW disadvantages, overstating jpeg disadvantages, overstating the importance of what they see when they pixel peep, and understating what the final product - the print, looks like.

Gee, that's a lot of stating. I kind of lost track. Well said, though, I'm sure!

[sig]

I never use raw files, but just to be sure I always use the Raw + Jpeg setting.......

[eddie1960]

I shoot raw almost exclusively and after moving up to lightroom 3.2 recently i revisited files I hadn't touched in 4 years (CS2 at the time) I was surprised how much better an image I could extract in post with much less effort than in the past. I'll likely go back and revisit a number of images now (great more time at the computer *snark*)

[tom.w.bn]

A note for Aperture users:

Earlier I commented that RAW enables us to make changes without degrading the file. That's true. But in my One-to-One session at the Apple store yesterday, my instructor reminded me that when we makes changes to an image using Aperture--even to a JPEG-- Aperture always assigns those changes to a copy of the original. The original (called the master in Aperture lingo) always remains untouched. So for Aperture users, one can use JPEGS if desired, without worry of harming the master file when making changes.

That's the year old behavior of Aperture, Lightroom, iPhoto, even an old Version of Picasa did this (shame on me that I even tried Picasa).

The nice thing in Lightroom is that you don't notice what kind of file you are working on. Except for the WB. The slider works differently with a jpg file. Another difference is the colour. I never liked the jpg colour output of the cameras I worked with. I like most of the standard profiles of lightroom for raw files much better. For me Raw means bigger files but less work compared to jpg-files.

[wgerrard]

Let me fix an earlier comment written with a tired brain after a day of air travel:

I said: By the time you see a RAW file displayed in Photoshop. the data has already been significantly massaged.

I was trying to say: By the time you see a RAW file displayed anywhere, the data has already been significantly massaged.

Or so I seem to remember.

The point was that a file of data is not a picture. Any and every time we see a RAW image, no matter what displays it, we are seeing an interpretation of data.

[tic]

I use Canon DPP raw software for raw-shots from my EOS 500D dslr and S90 compact. It is a bit of a hassle and I will start using Lightroom any time now... Apart from the increased exposure latitude, color fidelity etc I like to use the feature in Canon DPP that corrects lens distortion automatically. Its great to get really straight lines in shots with my EF-S 10-22 at 10mm and from my S90 at 28mm. In Canon DPP this can only be done with raw files. I understand the same features can be found in LR3.

[Danlo]

To get anywhere near the look and dynamic range of color print film you must shoot in raw and have good knowledge in raw-developement and postprocessing.

If you shot alot of slides before jpeg with high contrast and saturation is probably good enough..

But if you have shot bw film before, jpegs are truly a catastrophy! Its desecration to compare bw jpegs with a nice darkroom copy from a bw negative.

A scanned and postprocessed bw negative is nowhere near a true darkroom copy, but its still lightyears ahead an out of camera bw jpeg.

[Keyne]

I shoot in RAW and love it over JPEG. I like the whole workflow routine I have working now and I actually enjoy going through the selection and then "dark room" part of the process. However, I do use LR3 and it is very easy and fun to use the tool to process how I want and seemlessly publish via print or to Flikr. I am new to Lightroom and for me it makes a huge difference... I never got the hang of Photoshop Elements (processing JPEG) but over the past month I have my LR process down to the point where it is really just second nature. I would never shoot JPEG again.

[Benjamin Marks]

Comments in this thread seem to break down into "I absolutely need it," "I sometimes need it and its nice insurance," or "I never need it." Although this may be maddening, this may be a different strokes sort of topic. I personally like the flexibility that RAW gives me -- the only time I switch to JPG-only is when I have planned badly and am running out of space on a memory card.

Ben Marks

[Nikon Bob]

Ben

You hit the mark from where I sit. There are pros and cons to everything and individuals pick what works for them. Just another case of no single right way of doing things.

Bob

[ederek]

There is a scene I shoot on occasion, and it's the only time I switch to continuous mode (and always fill up the buffer). Shot it two days ago, frustrated with the buffer, and decided that when shooting this scene in the future, I'll be switching off the RAW+JPEG mode and going RAW only. If I only have room for one, the jpeg has to go...

[kuzano]

I did a couple of rolls of B/W in the early 60's. Forever cured my desire to process my own film. Hence, how do I feel about Post Processing. It sucks as bad as being in a wet darkroom, and I actually remember that experience all too well.

One of the reasons I did not buy an Olympus M4/3 until the E-PL1 came out. They installed a weaker Anti-Aliasing filter in that model, which greatly improved it's JPEG output.

Yes, I do download my images into my computer. However, hardly any of them ever see any time in an editing program. I can do all the image editing I can handle in Picasa or Windows Live Photo Gallery, which are both excellent image organizers.

[kuzano]

The story about the guy who wears three condoms.

A Sheepskin because he is allergic to Latex,
A Latex over the Sheepskin for safety
Another Sheepskin because his girlfriend is also allergic to Latex.

Very similar to shooting RAW.

Where is the thrill and/or the danger in that.

Jpeg only!! No protection at all.

[damien.murphy]

I was always in two minds about whether to shoot raw, jpeg, or both when I first shot digital. Returning now to shoot a little digital again, I am quite happy to shoot solely raw.

I agree with the comment that software like lightroom makes it very easy to manage a raw workflow, making it no different really from a jpeg workflow.

The other reason I shoot only raw now, is the appreciation of the limited dynamic range of digital compared to negative film, and the great benefit of shooting raw in getting as much information as possible in your image file, and sometimes an extra stop of dynamic range.

[Mcary]

The story about the guy who wears three condoms.

A Sheepskin because he is allergic to Latex,
A Latex over the Sheepskin for safety
Another Sheepskin because his girlfriend is also allergic to Latex.

Very similar to shooting RAW.

Where is the thrill and/or the danger in that.

Jpeg only!! No protection at all.

Agree! real photographer's never play it safe.

Can you believe that some photographers actually label the bottles their chemical are stored in so they'll know which is which? I mean come on developing film is so boring but when you don't know which bottle is which now that's thrilling :)

[igi]

RAW is only tedious when you don't have an idea of what you're doing... just like how B&W development is also tedious if you don't have an idea of what you're doing...