Grahamterris wrote:.

I was planning on taking all shots in rawformat. Discounting space issues, are there any reasons why I shouldnot do this?.

The other argument against using RAW is the need to post-process (to differing degrees) every image.Steve..

Steve Ives wrote:.

The other argument against using RAW is the need to post-process (todiffering degrees) every image..

Not true, you can batch convert RAW files without post-processing. If you use camera manufacturer's software it is very likely that without post-processing you'll get almost identical result as JPEGs from the camera..

Edvinas..

Graham.

Go with the RAW option, JPEG is great when you have full control of the enviroment you are shooting in, however by the sound of it you are going to be snapping shots in some pretty variable lighting..

Have a good trip.

Regards.

Steve..

Edvinas wrote:.

Steve Ives wrote:.

The other argument against using RAW is the need to post-process (todiffering degrees) every image..

Not true, you can batch convert RAW files without post-processing. Ifyou use camera manufacturer's software it is very likely that withoutpost-processing you'll get almost identical result as JPEGs from thecamera..

Errmmmm, yes, exactly. You'll have to do some work on each image before you can use it..

Thanks for reinforcing what I said..

Steve..

Steve, that's the main argument FOR raw. There's simply no reason to use raw if you plan to/want to do zero post processing. However, programs such as lightroom are incredibly useful for quickly developing and batch-processing raw files and are worth their weight in gold for anybody that wants to spend a bit more time with their images..

One reason not to shoot raw is that continuous shooting buffer fills up faster (meaning you can do fewer shots in a row while machine-gunning) and depending on camera might take fewer frames/second in this mode..

Hope this helps,.

Matt (I shoot everything in RAW, memory and storage is cheap)..

Steve Ives wrote:.

Grahamterris wrote:.

I was planning on taking all shots in rawformat. Discounting space issues, are there any reasons why I shouldnot do this?.

The other argument against using RAW is the need to post-process (todiffering degrees) every image.Steve.

Http://memoriesbymccarthy.com..

Thanks all, the variable lighting argument is a good one - I'll go with raw and see how we get on..

Graham.

PS Flying out of London tomorrow for the California adventure with the family. If I'm brave enough I'll post some pics when I get back...

Individually processing the plethora of files you will no doubt end up bringing home can take loads of time.You can of course batch process, but then what is the point?pbase Supporter..

Batch processing is useful for adding contrast curves, noise reduction, sometimes for fixing white balance. In lightroom, you can also add clarity and a bit of sharpening..

All things I'd much rather do in a dedicated image processing program rather than inside the camera. Not only is it more effective, it's also reversable as the original raw file stays in tact should one decide more advanced editing is needed..

Additionally, jpeg is lossy. If you want to edit your jpeg in photoshop, you're already starting a deficit and are losing data each time you re-save. With the raw file, you can create a .PSD or .TIFF copy and go to town on it (in 16-bit, mind you!) and only convert to .jpeg for when you're wanting to export to the web, minimizing data loss..

Matthttp://memoriesbymccarthy.com..

Infidelmatt wrote:.

Steve, that's the main argument FOR raw. There's simply no reason touse raw if you plan to/want to do zero post processing. However,programs such as lightroom are incredibly useful for quicklydeveloping and batch-processing raw files and are worth their weightin gold for anybody that wants to spend a bit more time with theirimages..

Hope this helps,.

Matt (I shoot everything in RAW, memory and storage is cheap)..

Not really Matt..

I was replying to Graham's question regarding reasons for not shooting RAW, and having to PP every image is one of them..

It is also one of the advantages..

Aperture (and presumeably Lightroom) make this post-processing a non-event, but are probably not used by most beginners..

Steve.

Steve Ives wrote:.

Grahamterris wrote:.

I was planning on taking all shots in rawformat. Discounting space issues, are there any reasons why I shouldnot do this?.

The other argument against using RAW is the need to post-process (todiffering degrees) every image.Steve.

Http://memoriesbymccarthy.com..

Yup. I'm just saying that if they don't plan to do ANY post work at all, there is really no advantage to shooting raw as it just makes their work more time consuming and the in-camera jpeg processing is probably better than no processing at all by converting directly from raw to jpeg..

Matthttp://memoriesbymccarthy.com..

You can't take the card out of your camera, put it in a machine at a local store, and in under an hour have nice prints to give the people you have met..

But there's no other reason not to do things the hard way..

Memory cards are cheap, and for careless photographers, it saves having to do lots of things right in the first place. Just blast away and fix it later..

BAK..

BAK wrote:.

You can't take the card out of your camera, put it in a machine at alocal store, and in under an hour have nice prints to give the peopleyou have met..

Unless that is if your camera allows in-camera raw processing. Mine does. I once shot a frisbee tournament and a guy from the local paper came to me saying he might want to use some of my shots for the next day's issue. I had only been taking raw shots so I almost said I could not help him - there was no way he would have or bother to download an Olympus raw converter - when I suddenly remembered my camera had this feature. I hear the Pentax K10D can do this too...

BAK wrote:.

You can't take the card out of your camera, put it in a machine at alocal store, and in under an hour have nice prints to give the peopleyou have met..

If you have a nikon camera that shoots both RAW and JPEG at the same time you can. Also this is a good way to shoot to see if you personally will benefit from RAW..

But there's no other reason not to do things the hard way..

It doesn't have to be "harder" and some people find it more fun and satisfying..

Memory cards are cheap, and for careless photographers, it saveshaving to do lots of things right in the first place. Just blast awayand fix it later..

The idea that RAW is only needed by a careless photographer who dosen't do things right in the first place is false. Its allways better to get the correct exposure even when using RAW, it will let you do more later...

Infidelmatt wrote:.

Additionally, jpeg is lossy. If you want to edit your jpeg inphotoshop, you're already starting a deficit and are losing data eachtime you re-save. With the raw file, you can create a .PSD or .TIFFcopy and go to town on it (in 16-bit, mind you!) and only convert to.jpeg for when you're wanting to export to the web, minimizing dataloss..

For the new guy who sarted this (not you Matt). You can also save a JPEG as a PSD or TIFF while editing to ensure that no more data lost beyond the initial compression. (just so you know)..

James..

James Arnold 1971 wrote:.

The idea that RAW is only needed by a careless photographer whodosen't do things right in the first place is false..

It also shows a general ignorance of what happens inside a camera. The raw data supplied from the sensor is pretty much non-viewable. This data has to be interpreted to what we see on screen, and this interpretation is an OPINION. There is no objective 'correct' way to interpret this data..

As such, one may find that you don't like the camera's opinion for a certain scene, and one may want to change it. RAW makes changing this OPINION easy...

It would have been best if you had time to practice before you go, but since you don't and you've decided to use RAW, just know that you'll have to spend a little time figuring out how to process RAW - even minimal post processing takes a bit of time to learn the first few go-rounds. But once you know how to do it, it's easy and it's worth it! Simply changing the white balance and increasing exposure a little has helped some of my photos a lot! (I'm outside a lot and not very experienced with picking the right exposure level for the light yet.).

Whatever you do, have fun!.

Grahamterris wrote:.

Thanks all, the variable lighting argument is a good one - I'll gowith raw and see how we get on..

Graham.

PS Flying out of London tomorrow for the California adventure withthe family. If I'm brave enough I'll post some pics when I get back...

I usually set the camera right and shoot jpg so I can publish my result with minimal post process..

If I intend a particular shot to be a fine art level, I will definitely shoot with RAW+JPG..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

- Pro freelancer taking assignments in sports, concert and any events, especially fun assignments.

- Daughter asked Mom: 'Is dad a full time photographer now? Does he still have his old job?'http://SoCalConcerts.PhotoReflect.com/http://AndreTorng.PhotoReflect.com/..

1. Are my post processing skills at the level where I can get the best out of RAW images? / Is this the first time I will be using RAW and do I want that first time to be an overseas trip?.

- If not, then do you want to develop those skills on your overseas holiday pics, and possibly take a lot of time and effort before you see anything worthwhile?.

- Or just shoot RAW+JPEG (assuming your camera has that capability) and get the best of both worlds..

2. Am I actually that advanced in my photographic skills that RAW (plus my post processing) will actually make a visible improvement in my photos?.

- Or am I kidding myself?  ..

Arrowman wrote:.

1. Are my post processing skills at the level where I can get thebest out of RAW images? / Is this the first time I will be using RAWand do I want that first time to be an overseas trip?.

- If not, then do you want to develop those skills on your overseasholiday pics, and possibly take a lot of time and effort before yousee anything worthwhile?.

- Or just shoot RAW+JPEG (assuming your camera has that capability)and get the best of both worlds..

2. Am I actually that advanced in my photographic skills that RAW(plus my post processing) will actually make a visible improvement inmy photos?.

- Or am I kidding myself?  .

The only thing I'd add is this:.

Are my processing skills likely to improve and will the photos I'm taking today be ones that I want to revisit in the future? If 'yes' to both, you should consider shooting RAW+JPEG. That really eats into your cards, but cards are cheap..

This is yet another emotive topic, with some people holding unnecessarily strong opinions about the utility of either RAW or JPEG. In the main, those who take their photography seriously and shoot RAW are not careless with their picture taking and those who shoot JPEG are not disinterested in the quality of their images. They are simply different approaches to the same ends..

I suppose no amount of level-headdedness will resolve this issue though. I was a member of a camera club in my teens and exactly the same battle lines were drawn back then, only with B&W and Kodachrome users replacing RAW and JPEG fans respectively..

Personally, I use both. I'm not sure if RAW offers any substantial advantage over a combination of in-camera JPEG and a touch of Photoshop, but I find myself preferring to perform basic adjustments in Lightroom (often just mild tweaks of the contrast and minute adjustments to clarity and - on my D2H - bulling back the magenta cast) than in photoshop. Which means I'm shooting RAW more these days..

You name it, I've broken it...

Arrowman wrote:.

1. Are my post processing skills at the level where I can get thebest out of RAW images? / Is this the first time I will be using RAWand do I want that first time to be an overseas trip?.

On the other hand: am I so good at post processing that I can easily fix WB and Exposure errors on JPEGs?.

- If not, then do you want to develop those skills on your overseasholiday pics, and possibly take a lot of time and effort before yousee anything worthwhile?.

Any RAW converter will give you as good quality as jpegs out of camera automatically. If you want get better quality than jpegs, then you need to post process..

2. Am I actually that advanced in my photographic skills that RAW(plus my post processing) will actually make a visible improvement inmy photos?.

Again: I am not so advanced in my photographic skills that I could shoot directly to jpegs. I make a lot of exposure and WB errors and those are much easier fixed with RAW .

So, after all it's all subjective. The best way to find out what is better is to try it yourself....

Edvinas..

Liliana wrote:.

It would have been best if you had time to practice before you go,.

One of the nice things about RAW is that you never need to overwrite the original files, so if you find you are better with your PP in 6 months time, then go back and squeeze a bit more out of your old pictures..

Trevorhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/trevor-dennis/..

And I think it illustrates perfectly that there are two, perfectly reasonable sides to this debate based on personal style and preference..

I wouldn't say "I'll never use RAW", I'm just getting into it, learning one thing at a time and so on. And it's not an "always RAW" or "always JPEG" choice either..

I think the opening poster could read both our posts and find their sympathies or preference lies with one or the other, and that would be fine..

My only real problem is when people argue that there is some sort of absolute, quantitative argument one way or the other that should be agreed with by all "proper photographers"...

If you are comfortable post processing then processing RAW files is not much different. On the other hand if are not comfortable then you might be as well to shoot JPEGs and auto bracket +-1 or +-2 EV. You can blend those or keep the one your prefer. This has draw backs ( e.g., things move during multiple exposures ), but it's simpler than full scale post processing..

I almost always shoot RAW because it means I get more information and power when I post process. Almost all the shots are batch processed and a few are hand processed, which is what most RAW shooters do ( it prevents total insanity  )..

If you need snaps quickly you can shoot RAW+JPEG on some cameras..

As some people have said you must still expose properly to make best use of RAW. This is another reason to consider exposure bracketing if your have trouble with exposure. In particular poor exposure will increase noise in shots regardless of whether you shoot JPEG or RAW..

Note some cameras let you do bracketing with RAW as well, but not all..

And to add my voice to others : RAW is NOT for correctly sloppy technique, it is for exploiting good technique. True, it can be (very) useful for rescuing disasters ( and we all have them ), but that is not the way to view RAW..

Shooting RAW is not mandatory to be a good photographer, it's just something some people find useful. Many people find it a nuisance. It's up to up which side of that line you fall..

StephenG.

Pentax K100DFuji S5200Fuji E900PCLinuxOS..

Raw is much more time consuming/much more space. Special software is needed and then enhancements can be made. I know it is a better form or photo, however, I am quite happy with JPEG. My photos are pretty much what I see. I don't tweak the colors , etc. however I will crop them.It's a matter of choice.With raw, you are saving the oringianl untouched photo.You can also shoot in Raw and Jpeg at the same time..

- Melissa.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://www.flickr.com/photos/melissa926http://picasaweb.google.com/michiganmelissa..

Many thanks to all for your opinions, knowledge and advice..

I have just got back from the holiday and in the end I decided against taking raw shots as I felt that a bit more experience and knowledge may be required. I took over 1,200 'snaps', most of the 'family on holiday' type, but there are a few that I'm quite proud of. Once I've finished the unpacking and settled down into the old routine I may find the know-how and courage to post a couple up here for your thoughts/criticism. I did visit the Ansel Adams Gallery whilst in Yosemite and I bought a filter there so I am hoping that a little of the Ansel magic had passed on. Like Billy's Boots..

Graham.

PS California is a wonderful experience with possibly the friendliest and most helpful people I have encountered (and I have seen a fair chunk of this world)...

But why the RAW looks more noisy than a JPG? especially when I look at the JPG converted from RAW?.

I am so frustrated about that.....

JPG has undergone noise reduction in camera. You will need to perform this action manually on the RAW data..

Some raw viewers will use the same algorithm as the camera, and will reduce the noise when it converts to JPG. Others will not...

My daughters taken at Yosemite National Park.....

Http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/...hoto?authkey=uIAyAg_XyUw#5097540358918717218"><img src=".

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Taken at Disney California.....

Http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/...hoto?authkey=uIAyAg_XyUw#5097536837045533890"><img src=".

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Pier and beach at Santa Barbara (with cloud from fire in hills drifting over)......

Http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/...hoto?authkey=uIAyAg_XyUw#5097525536986577234"><img src=".

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..