It has been a while, and advice re. raw format.

[Stan Hesketh]

Hi
Sorry it has been ages since I posted, following health problems but fit again. We now live on our inland waterways boat and have lots of photo opportunities. For convenience and no other reason, I have finally switched to digital photography and have an EOS outfit with which I am very pleased (sill got an EOS 35mm body though )
My current photography is part of the experience, rather than photography for its own sake, so would there be any benefit for me using RAW format? Would images take longer to edit, bearing in mind that I only have a laptop? I have a lot of storage space.
Many thanks.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Nothing wrong with jpgs for memories, computer use. Raw is great for big prints, exposing detail in shadows, etc, but often jpgs look better...

 

[Chris Bennett]

I've never heard an non-photography geek say "I can see the photographer used jpg - shame they didn't do it in RAW"

 

[Pete Askew]

Nice to see you back again, Stan.

As I'm sure you know, saving images in a raw format retains as much information as possible and allows you to choose their final look etc. If you plan to do some editing anyway then you may as well use raw and then create a standard look to ally to all and then perform any additional edits that you choose rather than using the 'baked in' transformation performed in-camera to create the JPEG.

Which editing software are you using at present? With LR you can create a basic 'transform' during the import and so, aside from working out what that should be, it has no impact on the time taken to edit files. You can of course also use pre-created presets and also but some that simulate the look of classic films etc. Once edited you can then export as JPEG for use online, create slideshows and print the files as required.

 

[Brian Moore]

When I shoot digital I almost always shoot RAW + JPEG. I almost always later discard the JPEGs because I only want to have them in case I want to send one to someone or upload one to somewhere before I process the RAW images. JPEG is fine but you're accepting your camera's built in "look" as well as compression of the image. Nothing wrong with that if you like what you're seeing. However as Pete said, RAW has much information, so the RAW images can be manipulated to a much greater extent and potentially more to your satisfaction.

 

[Stan Hesketh]

Thanks all for your useful comments, and sorry I am a bit slow replying, don't always have internet when moving.
Given the useful advice, I will start to save in both JPEG and RAW on the card, then should I wish to further experiment, then I have the option (a good thing for winter nights when not moving so much!)
Thanks again and will try and post more

 

[Beth Carter]

if you want to set the sharpness, contrast, saturation settings and manually set your white balance with every shot and dot it all in camera then jpg is the way to go. if you want to concentrate only on exposure and comp. then shoot raw and you can adjust the rest in software without any image degradation later. nothing wrong with either way, it just depends on how you want to shoot. for now shooting both and figuring it out later is probably your best bet.

 

[Brian Moore]

Plus,...some people equate the RAW image with the photographic negative. Who would deliberately discard their negatives?

 

[Stan Hesketh]

Thanks for further comments. All makes more sense now. Thinking of RAW as a negative works for me, a dinosaur

 

[Shaun Haselden]

I shoot using a Nikon D600 FX camera and with JPEG files have no problem printing to 20x16. Larger than that and there are some artifacts visible but I rarely do larger than 20x16. Shooting RAW is good but in my opinion not essential. Also, shooting RAW requires more care with post manipulation especially if using plug ins such as Silver Efex Pro. Obviously they have to be converted to TIFF's but these can react badly to the plug in mentioned. Just my own findings using Nikon Capture NX, Photoshop CS2 and Silver Efex Pro.