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]

Originally Posted by 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".

+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]

Originally Posted by Rob-F

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.