RAW image format tips

Good morning.

I have been shooting JPEG my whole life, and I guess that makes me a bad person. I am going to Mexico in a few weeks and am gonna give RAW a try. Does anybody have any advice for a new RAW shooter? I really have no idea what I'm doing. And if you loved me at all, you would help.

Thank you.

Hello Ryan,

RAW is a great format when shooting with a DSLR that has a large buffer. This means that you can shoot while the camera records, without having to wait.

Unlike DSLR, most consumer cameras do not have sufficient buffer to store even 1 RAW file, meaning you're stuck after each shot waiting for your camera to record the RAW file. This means potentially lost photo opportunities, and a lot of frustration.

So if you're using the S40 as shown in your profile, I'd suggest you stick to JPEG and enjoy your holidays.

Mat

Hello Ryan,

Mat is correct. Unless you have a camera that can write raw files fast, it might be best to shoot JPG. I shoot with the D100 and still only shoot RAW in special circumstances. When I am shooting scenics, I'll shoot RAW. However, if I am shooting a series of shots I have to stay in JPG mode because the camera will lock up and you can miss some good opportunities.

If you are new to RAW and going on vacation, and don't have a fast writing camera (like D2X, 5D) I'd stick with what you are most comfortable with.

Joe

I disagree. I shoot RAW with my Fuji F810 almost exclusively UW. I am able to improve most shots later and not rely on the camera's s/w.

Yes, for action shots the 5-10 sec lag time can be an issue, but for most shots it's not a big problem.

Jack

Bring your laptop, shoot one day of RAW, and check out the results with Adobe CS2. See what you think. RAW is definitely much worse than shooting JPEG on the scene, with the interminable waits and missed shots. But the final results are much better, and the workflow is also easier and faster (most image adjustments can be done quickly and losslessly in the RAW converter).

Hey Ryan

You may have started - or re-started - quite a debate. I had a Coolpix 5000 system and shot RAW and now have D100s and shoot RAW. There is no doubt that the frustrations of missing shots while waiting for the RAW file to write to the card was one of the reasons I moved to DSLRs.

Why shoot RAW? Well its better, isn't it? It has all the data and is lossless. So it has to be better. However I recently attended a very good workshop organised by Oceanoptics in London where Charles Hood argued very persuasively that shooting JPG was just fine - even for commercial purposes. (You can always switch it to TIFF before handing it to the agency/user and they'll never know the difference)

Charles argued that you could shoot JPG and then use a JPG copy of your original JPG file (which you never modify or re-save) to create a TIFF and work on that. He also argued that you could save a JPG many times (20 I think he said) before the image shows degradation. So provided you are not going to do major work, it is perfectly possible to work entirely on JPG.

The advantages: speed of processing, less memory used up, less hard disk space, unlikely to have camera buffer filling-up issues.

I may not be quoting Charles perfectly bu this was the gist; and he was very convincing.

And I'm still shooting RAW. Well it has to be better, right?

Funnily enough, I too had a CP5000 too before my D100 and D1X, and love the buffer in the both camera as compared to the CP5000... But I would contest what Charles put forward with regards to JPEG v/s RAW quality.

Sure, I've actually used pictures taken in JPEG with the CP5000 and converted to TIFF for numerous articles in dive magazines, but if you look at WA photos taken with your CP5000 in JPEG as compared to those taken in RAW, you'll notice that the shades of water are seggregated on the JPEG photos (only 4 or 5 distinct shades), but show smooth transitions on the RAW files. This is due to the JPEG compression algorithm, and often results in a "layered" sort of feel on most wide angle pictures shot in JPEG...

Interesting, thanks for that, Matt. I'll stick with RAW

So it has to be better. However I recently attended a very good workshop organised by Oceanoptics in London where Charles Hood argued very persuasively that shooting JPG was just fine - even for commercial purposes. (You can always switch it to TIFF before handing it to the agency/user and they'll never know the difference)

 

Charles argued that you could shoot JPG and then use a JPG copy of your original JPG file (which you never modify or re-save) to create a TIFF and work on that. He also argued that you could save a JPG many times (20 I think he said) before the image shows degradation. So provided you are not going to do major work, it is perfectly possible to work entirely on JPG.

Well I'm a commercial designer and I know for a fact that Jpegs don't have near the image quality of tiff or Photoshop files. They are smaller for a reason, the camera has interpreted the information downwards. Re-saving them as Jpegs makes it worse.

I'm trying to get photographers that I hire to understand this and send me RAW files to work with. I think many magazines are doing the same.

Quite frankly the above information is wrong, he doesn't understand the files.

Jack

Jack