Shooting RAW

[mrSHEiK124]

I've got a T2i and I'm starting to realize that with a 16 GB SD card, I can shoot RAW all the time if I so desire. I'm wondering if I need to though, so help me decide.

The ONLY reason I'd shoot RAW are the lens aberration correction options in DPP - if there's any way at all I can easily correct lens distortion (DPP does a great job dealing with the weird ass bending and curving the 18-55 kit lens creates) in a JPEG, can someone point me in the right direction?

RAW files are just RAW sensor data, right? Well, I can set (in-camera) all the little adjustments I'd make to a RAW file in DPP, and the results in-camera vs. DPP seem to be the same. Anyone able to clarify for a noob?

 

[jpeyton]

The most important reasons to shoot RAW are white balance and dynamic range.

Your camera's Auto White Balance can often be fooled (especially under artificial light). Unless you plan on setting perfect custom white balance in every lighting situation, it's much easier to adjust during post processing if you shoot RAW.

Likewise, unless you nail the exposure every time without clipping highlights and/or shadows, a RAW file will allow you to recover much more detail when you process your photos.

 

[Munky]

Depends on whether you can get correct exposure on the shot, and how well your camera retains detail in jpegs. White balance can be adjusted in jpegs also. Ultimately, raw files have more detail and dynamic range to play around with in post processing if you need to.

 

[speedy2]

Both are correct. You've got way more information in a RAW file, which gives you a lot of flexibility. You can even adjust exposure quiet a bit. Even create and HDR'ish image with pretty good results.(Not the wacky Fake HDR crap you see everywhere.) Also, if you have the hard drive space and are an image pack rat like I am, you'll like having a RAW file vs. a JPEG. Why not store the best possible version of a shot?

 

[rivan]

The only down side to RAW is it mandates processing to another format for printing. If you're just shooting quick family snapshots, it might be overkill.

If you're shooting in a more serious way, RAW is the way to go.

For clarity, RAW is the sensor's data dump, more or less unprocessed by the camera. It (in most dSLR designs) contains an extra G subpixel of data for each image pixel: each final RGB pixel is made of a 2x2 grid of R, G1, G2, B subpixels that are processed and composited into the final RGB color value. By saving the RAW, you're delaying that processing, and controlling it manually rather than depending on the camera to do it right.

You're also avoiding JPG compression which, while almost impossible to notice at high print resolutions (a typical jpg 8-pixel compression grid at 300ppi is, uh, 0.027"), some people avoid as a matter of principle since it's a lossy compression.

Edit: Another benefit of RAW is that if you need to upsample, the results from upsmapling RAW can be noticeably superior, over upsampling the processed file. The 4th subpixel of data helps.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Thanks! I guess I'll use it when I need it then (definitely not full time).

 

[JimKiler]

I know a lot of Prosumers with great cameras that shoot JPEG and get great photos. I shoot RAW and from what i understand under RAW all the camera settings are more like software filters so you can easily switch white balance or contrast. I used to convert all RAW to JPEG but now I only convert the quality pictures I like to JPEG because I no longer have the time and as I learn more i post process more and more pictures.

 

[themisfit610]

RAW doesn't let you change EVERYTHING during developing work. It gives you more dynamic range to work with, and lets you adjust the white balance.

You can't change focal length, focus, ISO setting, or exposure obviously

@JimKiller - contrast is usually just the white point. When shooting RAW you get more latitude in adjusting this, but you can't just set it arbitrarily with RAW and expect it to be perfect!

I've shot 99% RAW on all cameras I've owned that were capable of it. The difference in quality is simply night and day to me!

Not to say you can't shoot amazing looking JPEGs, but who the hell buys a nice camera that can shoot RAW and just wants to print the pictures as-is?!

Derek

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Forget all the adjustments and tweaks you can do. Forget all the "extra" data that's there.

If you just look at JPEG straight out of camera versus RAW straight out of camera with Lightroom using camera profiles to do minor processing, you will get FAR MORE DETAIL out of a RAW image.

Just look at DPreview's camera reviews. When they do JPEG shots and then look at their RAW shots. One looks like it has way more detail.

Even if you have your exposure nailed down and your WB and every other setting, you're getting far more detail from a RAW image. It's like getting a better lens.

I shoot a T1i and while I have a pitiful 9 frame buffer that takes forever to clear, I shoot in RAW still. I shot in JPEG my first 2 days with my camera and I switched to RAW when my 16gb card arrived. I never looked back again (except the one time I wanted to dump photos onto a forum to show people my BIOS and I didnt want to waste time importing in lightroom so I shot in JPEG small)

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I shoot RAW 100% of the time. If I needed to shoot long bursts then I would switch to JPEG, but I usually don't, so I shoot RAW. RAW files have 14 bits of info per color. JPEG has only 8 bits. That is a ton of dynamic range that you're throwing away by not shooting RAW. The sensors in modern DSLR's are actually quite amazing and can pick up more info than can readily be displayed, either on an LCD or on a print. You can really screw up the exposure (1.5 to 2 stops), make an exposure adjustment in post, and get a perfectly acceptable looking photo out of it. Same with white balance. Basically it has proven itself to me multiple times as a saving grace. I've got 8GB memory cards and 1.5TB hard drives, so why not go with the best possible image quality?

 

[Munky]

The 8-bit jpeg vs 12-bit RAW comparison is not valid. Your RAW image data is stored in linear 12 or 14 bit color space. Jpeg's use a compressed gamma curve, so you actually compress the 12-bit linear range of colors into an 8-bit logarithmic range. That's a lot different than simply chopping off the extra bits as the simple comparison implies.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

I've compared some "R+J" files out of my camera - the T2i doesn't exactly make ugly JPEGs by any means, but after playing around with DPP and Lightroom, I can see the point. "Fixing" a picture is almost effortless.

 

[ASTOCADDIDS]

In most case raw will look the same as jpeg. It is very hard to tell the difference in a small print, but if you zoom at 100 crop you will notice that raw is a little bit sharper then jpeg.

You may not notice any difference in WB from raw and jpeg if you are shooting outside. Try taking a picture indoors using a light that is not from the sun. With auto WB, most camera have a hard time getting the right color temperature so the color could be off.

Myself, I hardly shoot raw mainly because I never really print out any of my pictures. Out of the 2,000 shots that Ive taken with my Pentax DS, I think I printed like 5 of them only and all of them were test shots to see how big I can print.

 

[finbarqs]

when you shoot raw on your camera, the images on the LCD screen on the back of your camera are displaying JPEGs. When you dump the images, they are RAW files, giving you a different look. RAW files are usually unaltered (depending on camera to camera) no matter what settings you have, except for exposure.