RAW?
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 2:36 pm
I would like to let all the photographers chime in on whether you shoot RAW when imaging Vermont's glorious scenery.
Scenes of Vermont Forums
Vermont visitor guide with information about lodging, foliage color, skiing conditions, snowmobiling, bread and puppet theater, living in Vermont, Vermont Photography, Vermont wildlife, hunting and fishing
http://www.scenesofvermont.com/phpbb2/
RAW?
http://www.scenesofvermont.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2309
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:51 pm
I shoot raw. I like having the maximum flexibility while editing, often to admittedly fix mistakes I've made such exposure and especially white balance. And once you get into a certain workflow (Lightroom for me) it's no more work than shooting jpg. If you only make minor tweaks to your photos, shooting raw may not make a noticeable difference.
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 6:39 am
Memory is cheap; memories are priceless. Shoot RAW.
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:20 am
I bought my first DSLR (Nikon D100) in 2000. I am an avid reader of all things about photography and digital imaging and have read some pretty heavy reading on this issue. All the gurus urged shooting in raw format and I bought larger memory cards and did so from the "get go." I drank the kool aid and never looked back.
A year ago I Blogged about this issue http://lightcentric.wordpress.com/2009/ ... rejudices/. I am convinced a lot of shooters don't really understand what raw is and if they did, would always shoot raw. Now that CS 5, ACR 6.0 and the newest iteration of LightRoom is out, there are even more reasons to shoot raw (I need to do a followup on that blog).
As others have noted, the primary reason to shoot raw is its considerable dynamic range. If properly exposed, you can have several stops of exposure to work with.
A second good reason is the ability to work with major adjustments to the image. As FAX points out, you can correct white balance. Even more interesting to me, you can change white balance to suit your taste. For my everyday, outdoor photography, I don't even think about the white balance setting on camera.
Third, it gives you a much deeper (pixels and bit depth) image to work with than a jpeg (some cameras will render TIFF, but they are generally huge files -- larger than raw). This means you can do editing of the image (both pre-photoshop and in photoshop, "destructive" and "non-destructive") with much less penalty.
I think of raw as my "negative." I agree with Charles 100%. Memory is cheap!!
BTW, even a "know-it-all" like me learns something really fundamental from time to time. As some of you know, the changeover from CS3 to CS4 and 5 made major changes to the look and feel of PS. After upgrading first to 4 and recently to 5, I decided it was time to find another book on the A-Z of the program. I learned, while reading about the changes and upgrades to ACR (adobe camera raw), in a sidebar, that it is raw (and is not an acronym, but really is like it sounds and is a description of the state of the file). I have probably written it out as "RAW" a hundred times
A year ago I Blogged about this issue http://lightcentric.wordpress.com/2009/ ... rejudices/. I am convinced a lot of shooters don't really understand what raw is and if they did, would always shoot raw. Now that CS 5, ACR 6.0 and the newest iteration of LightRoom is out, there are even more reasons to shoot raw (I need to do a followup on that blog).
As others have noted, the primary reason to shoot raw is its considerable dynamic range. If properly exposed, you can have several stops of exposure to work with.
A second good reason is the ability to work with major adjustments to the image. As FAX points out, you can correct white balance. Even more interesting to me, you can change white balance to suit your taste. For my everyday, outdoor photography, I don't even think about the white balance setting on camera.
Third, it gives you a much deeper (pixels and bit depth) image to work with than a jpeg (some cameras will render TIFF, but they are generally huge files -- larger than raw). This means you can do editing of the image (both pre-photoshop and in photoshop, "destructive" and "non-destructive") with much less penalty.
I think of raw as my "negative." I agree with Charles 100%. Memory is cheap!!
BTW, even a "know-it-all" like me learns something really fundamental from time to time. As some of you know, the changeover from CS3 to CS4 and 5 made major changes to the look and feel of PS. After upgrading first to 4 and recently to 5, I decided it was time to find another book on the A-Z of the program. I learned, while reading about the changes and upgrades to ACR (adobe camera raw), in a sidebar, that it is raw (and is not an acronym, but really is like it sounds and is a description of the state of the file). I have probably written it out as "RAW" a hundred times
My jpeg Near-Catastrophe
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:42 am
Tim: I may have posted this elsewhere already. As I noted above, I have shot raw for all the years I have owned digital cameras. I even have had several P&S cameras capable of shooting raw. I am a full convert to the benefits of raw.
I had a moment of abject terror about a month ago. I joined our compatriot, Al Utzig and a mutual friend, Rich in Minnesota to shoot the North Shore of MN. My primary interest was the Split Rock Light (our photos were posted here on the forum). We got a beautiful, clear blue sky afternoon on Saturday and I happily shot away from many different perspectives. After we felt we had exhausted it, we went up to the little canteen to grab a sandwich and wait for the evening light. I was changing out the battery in my camera and I noticed a funny thing on the frame counter. I use 8G cards and that will usually yield several hundred shots. But the frame counter said 14k in small letters. I couldn't figure out what was going on. My buddy Rich was fiddling with it and he suddently looked at me and said, I thought you were an "only raw" guy. I said of course. He then showed my where my camera was set on the LOWEST QUALITY JPEG. I went from ephoria to shear panic in a nanosecond
Luckily, the light had not gone and I was able to head back down to the beach area and re-shoot my important shots. To me, spending a few hundred $ on airline and a couple days off from my business to shoot what could be a once in a lifetime photo op, meant I wanted to capture those memories in raw.
I had a moment of abject terror about a month ago. I joined our compatriot, Al Utzig and a mutual friend, Rich in Minnesota to shoot the North Shore of MN. My primary interest was the Split Rock Light (our photos were posted here on the forum). We got a beautiful, clear blue sky afternoon on Saturday and I happily shot away from many different perspectives. After we felt we had exhausted it, we went up to the little canteen to grab a sandwich and wait for the evening light. I was changing out the battery in my camera and I noticed a funny thing on the frame counter. I use 8G cards and that will usually yield several hundred shots. But the frame counter said 14k in small letters. I couldn't figure out what was going on. My buddy Rich was fiddling with it and he suddently looked at me and said, I thought you were an "only raw" guy. I said of course. He then showed my where my camera was set on the LOWEST QUALITY JPEG. I went from ephoria to shear panic in a nanosecond
Luckily, the light had not gone and I was able to head back down to the beach area and re-shoot my important shots. To me, spending a few hundred $ on airline and a couple days off from my business to shoot what could be a once in a lifetime photo op, meant I wanted to capture those memories in raw.