# Should I be Using RAW



## yustr (Sep 27, 2004)

All the books say I should be taking my pics in RAW format versus jpg, then editing in photoshop.

I'm pretty much just an amateur; took some photo classes once; know a little about photoshop but am far from expert; take mostly sports and events – maybe a little scenic.

Does it make sense for me to use RAW? If so, what software will I need?

Equipment: Pentax 6.1 MP *istDS


----------



## DonaldG (Aug 23, 2007)

Congratulations on having the first post in the Photographer's Corner. :wave:

RAW...this could be a contentious subject. It very much depends on personal choice and how much you want to get involved.

Unless you are seriously into enhancing images AND you have the right software AND you have the time, then I would recommend that you use JPG.

Reasons:

RAW
Much bigger files so can place a strain on the storage capacity of the camera.
RAW images hold far more data and info about the photograph, but it can take time (and some skill & experience) to extract the best tonal and colour range from the data.
Once you have the software/knowledge on manipulating RAW images you will get better quality.

Therefore RAW needs a commitment of time and software.

JPG:
This is a 'lossy' format that compresses the image data into a smaller file. This means more images per given size of storage card/media.
The JPG image is usually manipulated within the camera (unsharp mask, colour & contrast enhancement) and produces a quicker end result. The JPG image can be very high quality and is usually more than acceptable for the finished photo.

Some cameras can be set to take save the photograph in both formats at the same time. EG you could have img001.nef (Nikon RAW) and img001.jpg

Software for RAW: Photoshop can handle most RAW especially with the appropriate RAW plug-ins. I am not sure about Paintshop Pro, but I imagine that it will.

EDIT:
On a personal side, I never use RAW, even though my cameras are capable.

The two photos below were taken as high quality JPGs and processed through Photoshop CS3. I am more than happy with this quality!


----------



## IanSavage (Feb 18, 2009)

yustr said:


> All the books say I should be taking my pics in RAW format versus jpg, then editing in photoshop.
> 
> I'm pretty much just an amateur; took some photo classes once; know a little about photoshop but am far from expert; take mostly sports and events – maybe a little scenic.
> 
> ...



If you're serious about photography and quality, then you should definately use RAW. To process the images you will software that can manipulate RAW, did anything come with your camera. The latest versions of Photoshop or Photoshop Elements should be able to handle your RAW images, as RAW formats from different manufacturers are completely different.

Once you get into RAW, you just don't look back!

Ian


----------



## DonaldG (Aug 23, 2007)

In re reading my first reply, it looks like I was advocating only JPG. Far from it, however jpg format IS capable of high quality but not as high as a skilled RAW manipulation.

There is a lot to be said for both formats. 

For the casual amateur photographer, using JPG is probably the best option. Keen amateurs and semi-pros then depending on the facilities available, RAW could be the way to go.


----------



## IanSavage (Feb 18, 2009)

RAW images contain alot more information than jpegs, hence there is more information to be processed.

This is more noticeable, when you need to 'rescue' an image due to e.g. under or over exposure. However, an overexposed image is all but lost, if severly over exposed. But not all is lost with underexposed images.

With the extra information stored in a RAW image, an underexposed image can tolerate more manipulation than a jpeg, hence you maybe able to produce an acceptable result.


----------



## kodi (Jun 30, 2004)

Jpeg is a lossy format and every time you save it the quality degrades more.
If your camera can shoot raw use it and save a raw version then save a jpeg as well for print and web.
Downside is that it uses more memory on the camera but memory is getting cheaper by the minute.


----------



## DonaldG (Aug 23, 2007)

It is fully agreed that RAW will undoubtedly produce a better quality image in the hands of keen enthusiast who has the time and knowledge on how to manipulate RAW. I am not knocking RAW, just being pragmatic and practical.

Not everybody has the time and inclination to use it. 

I tried, unsuccessfully, to be a realist and explain the pros & cons of both sides.

1) If you have the time and software and want to get the thrill of extracting the absolute best five star quality out of each photo, then RAW is the way to go. With RAW, you have to do 'post shooting' processing on all RAW images before they can be seen by the majority of other folks.

There is more that one RAW format. Nikon and Canon RAW formats are proprietary and need their own RAW processing. For example: Nikon = .NEF Canon = .CR2 as their respective RAW formats.

2) If you want good four star quality from the photo and have not the time to do all the post shooting processing that RAW needs, then JPG is the answer. You can still do much enhancing via the imaging software to enrich the photo. With JPG format, the photo can be shared with others without any processing at all. 

For the vast majority of amateur photographers, they want a sharp, bright and colourful picture without having to go on to do extra processing. If that is the case. JPG is the way.

3) There is a third option. Many cameras will allow a photo to be stored as both RAW and JPG at the same time. This gives the user the choice of RAW and JPG. JPGs can be used for the vast majority of 'snaps' but when there is that special '1 in 100' shot, then RAW processing can take place.

There is, however, a trade off on storage capacity. These are typical file size figures taken from my Canon 20D 8.2Mp camera set for max quality JPG and RAW at same time:
JPG = 2.9Mb
RAW = 8.2Mb
Both together = 11.1 MB per photo

If you have the camera storage capacity available and want to explore the creative world of RAW, the use both RAW & JPG setting if your camera allows...

A final point to reiterate about JPG being lossy, just compare the difference in file size. Raw has the unadulterated data on the photo whereas JPG is processed in camera and compressed before being saved on the camera's storage card.


----------



## SABL (Jul 4, 2008)

Hi Donald,

Nice place you have there.... how's the heating bill?? JK

I think with your camera in the jpg mode you have some real nice photos there. I only have a Sony DSC-V1 so I won't even bother to look for a RAW mode...lol


----------



## kodi (Jun 30, 2004)

Donald, I will have to disagree with what you have written here but in the interest of the forum i will let it go.
I will not be posting here again


----------



## yustr (Sep 27, 2004)

I think the answer, for me anyway, is: I'll shoot in jpg for snap shots and learn RAW for when I'm trying to be creative.


----------



## Horse (Oct 30, 2003)

kodi said:


> Donald, I will have to disagree with what you have written here but in the interest of the forum i will let it go.
> I will not be posting here again



???? A PM please Brian


----------



## Done_Fishin (Oct 10, 2006)

Kodi, It's fine that you should disagree, however to state that fact without giving yuour reasons is rather like being at school when the kid who owns the ball refuses to let anyone play since no-one picked him to be on the team. 

Since we are a discussion forum , and most gf us want to learn, shouldn't you express your reasons as to why you disagree so that others who are in "no mans land" can read someone else's ideas and form their own opinions? 

I read a lot of what is said .. up to now it makes sense .. however you say you know different , so can we have your point of view please rather than leave us with the understanding that there is a better way yet not know what that might be .

My own views to now were to use Tiff format (I have a Nikon Coolpix 4300) since this is the best resolution that my camera supports , however it requires 10MB or more per picture a a resolution of 2272 by something I don't remember.
I prefer to use a jpg format that I think is adequate though which uses only uses ~1MB per picture unless the photo is something that I want to use later as an enlargement.

As has been said earlier, jpg is a lossy format, and when you want to take a chunk out of the original to use elsewhere then it's quite important that the photo is taken with the best resolution possible. If you want to use your picture as a poster to stick on your wall, again the original resolution is very important, since a photo taken with too little resolution can only be used to a certain size, before it starts to lose resolution, looking digital or blotchy.

so the end result of your photo must determine the method of capture.


----------



## SABL (Jul 4, 2008)

WHAT??

I thought Donald's explaination was clear and valid. I do concede that I do not have a camera.... I have an optical recording device. I take snapshots. SLRs/DSLRs are cameras. They are tools of the trade that I do not own... I can only wish. 

I do hope Kodi returns and adds input to this forum... that is what the forum is for. For my degree of expertise and equipment, Donald makes a good point. BUT, there are others that may wish to take their level of proficiency a few steps higher. 

Depending on intent, it is the photographers choice as to storage formats. Are you documenting a moment in time or are you creating art?? Depending on circumstance a choice is to be made.


----------



## SABL (Jul 4, 2008)

OK.... I missed 2 posts while composing my own post.

I agree that Kodi should offer an explaination so others may benefit.


----------



## Done_Fishin (Oct 10, 2006)

SABL said:


> Depending on intent, it is the photographers choice as to storage formats. Are you documenting a moment in time or are you creating art?? Depending on circumstance a choice is to be made.


It's rumoured that Professional Photographers still use Film .. and I understand that since I gather if you use a fast ASA film you get a far better picture than using a Digital camera .. for me as an amateur the advantage of Digital over Film is Time & Cost .. instant viewing of the end product and a vast reduction in the cost of lost photo's due to some forgotten adjustment or tweak.

I would love to replace my SLR with a good DSLR. I would love to have sufficient spare cash and resources that would allow me to use my SLR daily or rather nightly since it's the night shots that attract me most to taking photographs these days.


----------



## SABL (Jul 4, 2008)

Hey DF!!

Now you have gone back to a time when photography was truly an art form. There are still many photogs that insist film is the ultimate. Today it is a matter of convenience and time. The results are available in a heartbeat and manipulation is done with ease. I am far from pro but follow with an interest. My main goal is to capture family moments that my children can enjoy. I did not have the resources and lost many cherished moments that can be preserved today. 

All I can say is that regardless of format, keep the camera at your side and use it often. The digital age gives quite a big advantage that I did not have. Results are quick and blunders are easily corrected or deleted. Enhancement is an advantage... moments can be captured and rescued from error or bad shots. 

I will not argue the point as to format....what I will argue is that whatever device or medium is used, the camera should be kept busy. Life passes by very quickly and looking back in time can make the difference between a good or bad day. I have scanned what pics I have and if my day turns bad I can pull up a happy time that brings a smile to my face.

Technology has made things very easy... keep clicking and saving. Just do it!! Whether you are pro or am, save the moments!! Special times should be entrusted to the pro.... any other time can be preserved by yourself. The pro will more than likely use the RAW format which will yield greater clarity and allow for greater enhancement. I have been to events where the photog uses both film and digital.... the film is used as a backup. 

Regardless.... use your camera and be happy. Just make the documentation!!


----------



## Done_Fishin (Oct 10, 2006)

Film has one major advantage over digital .. speed .. whip off the lens cap and click ... with a Digital Camera (unless things have changed since I last looked) by the time you switch it on ... the event has passed .. also you have no chance of spanning a moving target like you do with a Film camera with motor drive .. as yet .. or have I been left far behind ..

Please don't misunderstand .. I am not knocking either media .. both have their place in the photographers bag and when I travel I try to take both my Nikon and my Praktika B500 of 30 years standing, with me. It's just that I cannot always afford to take my films for processing (one of the reasons at one time I only took slides , prepaid so no problems getting them processed immediately) and quite frequently the films would eventually be sent to the bin after years of patience waiting for that extra cash to be found ...


----------



## Wrench97 (May 10, 2008)

A lot of Pro's are gong back to film there is a place for both, but the feeling is that film gives more control, better detail, and a different overall feeling in the hands of a Pro.


----------



## -=Rousseau=- (Jun 10, 2006)

If what you mean by spanning is to take a rapid series of shots of a moving target, then yes, dSLRs are capable of it. They use burst modes to do this. Mine can take around 3 shots / second for a total of around 14 shots. Not that great, but others are better. Some get about 10 per second and last 110 shots...


----------



## DonaldG (Aug 23, 2007)

@yustr:
Does your camera allow you to set it to store a photo in RAW and JPG at the same time? If it does and you have the storage capacity, then set it that way for a while. Take the camera for a walk, especially during the 'golden hour' (See the Tips sticky). Take a variety of shots - buildings, landscapes, closeups of flowers etc...That way you can collect quite a good selection of photographs to practise on. The JPGs will give you a standard to judge your experimentation with the RAW.

When you transfer the photos from the camera to the computer, copy all the photographs, un-retouched onto a separate hard drive or CD/DVD. Keep the copies as archive images. You will end up with two sets of everything; a working set and an archive set.

Never work, experiment or enhance the archive images, always do that on the working copies. You can always copy the archive photo again if you make a mistake.


----------



## Done_Fishin (Oct 10, 2006)

Sorry If I hijacked the thread .. didn't mean to!


----------



## DonaldG (Aug 23, 2007)

Done_Fishin said:


> Sorry If I hijacked the thread .. didn't mean to!


We are all guilty of that D_F! :grin:


----------



## jamiemac2005 (Jul 5, 2007)

Personally i shoot in RAW 24/7 then post-process like mad. Jpeg is alright for certain things but if you're not going to blow your space in the amount of images you intend to take then i'd suggest raw. The quality is soo much better.

Personally i think i'd use film if i had the money. but i definately have a love for digital raw.

Cheers,
Jamey


----------

