I, like a lot of people, shoot in .raw, however I'm wondering if I really need to. I'm not all that good with post processing images apart from tweaking the contrast and saturation, so bearing that in mind, would I be better sticking to .Jpeg fine? What does everyone else think??
Terry
cheers Terry
my photo's here
Personally I'd give it a go and see what differences you find. I tend to shoot in jpeg and limit my post-production to brightness/contrast/shadows/highlights. It's fine for what I want my photos for, either on screen or printed professionally at A4.
"Let loose the Kraken!"
Hi Terry, its a coincidence that you mention this as I was also thinking myself to go back to Jpeg for a while as the size of files and the editing of the RAW images is taking far too long for the quality i am getting. The hard drive gets full and the external storage drive is clogging up but I guess the day I switch back to Jpeg will be the day I get the best photo ever and wish I had the extra options to play with the editing lol
_________________________________________________________________________
Regards, Hazel
Why not shoot RAW & Jpeg for a while? Many cameras will save both. That way you can use the jpegs for a time and still have the RAW file if you need it. If you find you're not touching the RAWs after a while, stop saving them
___
Find me on Flickr / All about your camera - The Getting off Auto Index
Thanks guys and Gal! I think I'll go for the .Raw/.Jpeg option for now and see what I get, as Hazel says, the .Raw files are huge and soon eat up what hd space you have, then you've got the .Jpeg conversions lol...and to think, my first computer had the biggest hd at the time IGB !!
If you shoot in both you'll see a massive difference in image quality in RAW compared to camera produced jpeg. It's a much bigger file for a reason. You can very simply just convert to jpeg and get a large increase in image resolution straight off - no complicated processing required. If you're rapidly filling up the HDD then simply delete the files you don't want, and of course you can also delete the original RAW files once you've done the processing.
Since shooting in RAW I would never go back to shooting in jpeg, I feel my image quality and the potential I have to process my images is better.
A friend of mine called George Wheelhouse wrote a great blog about this, it puts it into simple terms so even I could understand, it might be worth having a read: www.georgewheelhouse.com/.../digital-photo-processing
Kind Regards,
Ben
A lot of good advice above. My thoughts on this. Raw files are best suited to folk who need large prints, or submitting to librarys, of for those who want the best detail to play with post processing. The conversion from Raw to jpeg, done in computer programmes, is less destructive than the camera jpeg, therefor retaining more detail. If you only ever keep photos on compurer, or just use for website, it is never worth using Raw (imho) as most websites dont deal in Raw files anyway. It is also, as has been mentioned, heavy on storage. Huge storage is necessary to keep, and back up Raw in comparison to jpeg. If, like me, you take lots of photos, storage has to be considered. 44k plus photos on my computer would probably not fit if they were all Raw. I shoot wildlife in jpeg, and if I really want to do serious landscape, Raw is best. Like has been said, shoot both together, you have the choice which to keep. Order a couple of terrabite hard drives though, you will need them. Regards, Steve.
Take care all, Stich.
My gallery Here Flickr Here
Because of the extra info / detail in RAW you can get away with long, smaller shots and enlarge with a far lesser loss of detail than in JPEG. If you're serious about taking photographs then use RAW. If you just want snaps then jpeg is fine. Like I said delete old poor images and storage space isn't really an issue. You just need to get into the habit each time you upload pictures off the camera.
Mmmm, jpeg just for snaps? I think a lot of folk might disagree with that comment. A lot depends on what you do with your photos. I have had jpeg photos published, and used on t v, neither asked for Raw files. The quality of jpeg files will never match Raw after the Raw file is properly processed, but is generally pretty good 'straight out of the box' with todays megapixel cameras. Raw, 'straight out of the box' are less than desireable. It kinda depends how 'good' , and how much time you want to spend post processing. I prefer to keep post processing to a minimum, crop, levels, and a little sharpening if required. Each to their own. I also never delete a keeper Raw file, as you can convert it in many different ways, should you desire to do so.