Raw,is it a waste of space?

[Zed one]

Just like to know is raw a waste of space to the common man?

I dont print any of my pictures or put them in magazines,I sometimes post pictures on web sites but thats about it so I cant think of a reason why I would want Raw images or am I missing the raw point?

When posting on the web I have to reduce them in size anyway so I dont need 9.9 mega pixals anyway

[Canon-Fodder!]

Re: Raw,is it a waste of space?

Just like to know is raw a waste of space to the common man?

Absolutely NOT!

RAW files are the equivalent of digital negatives.

In-camera converted JPEGs lose masses of data; and you have no control over the processing. You are relying entirely on Canon to get it right in-camera! And if you've set the wrong parameters - you're hosed! With a RAW file in that scenario, you can recover a great deal...

RAW files have saved my shots on many an occassion; you can just extract so much more than you can from working on a processed JPEG... And for that "once in a lifetime" shot - RAW just can't be beaten!

Do a simple test. Take a few shots using the RAW+L-JPEG setting on your camera, and then work on both files; RAW in DPP and JPEG in Photoshop, then print them! You will be amazed at the quality improvement and detail enhancement from the RAW image!

I shoot ONLY RAW!

[carregwen]

Re: Raw,is it a waste of space?

I don't think so. Have you seen this. I presume not. http://www.eos-magazine-forum.com/showthread.php?t=616

[Espen]

Re: Raw,is it a waste of space?

In the beginning after going digital, I only used the jpeg setting in the Camera. After a while I tried out the RAW format, and was stunned about the improvement of image quality, beside all the options I got to adjust the image without.

Since then I have inly used the RAW format, even if this means editing and adjusting 1500-2000 images, after for example a vacation.

Like the other guys say, try for yourself, and you will be convinced.

[Disco]

Re: Raw,is it a waste of space?

Bit of both.

If you nail the settings, a JPEG can be used/posted quickly and will take less processing time, if it needs fixing.

If like me you do not get it all right, often/at all I am very greatful to have the DIGITAL NEGATIVE.

Graham

[Rob.Richards]

Re: Raw,is it a waste of space?

I always shoot RAW. If I saved JPEG's each time you open them up and close them down you lose data and therefore quality. I find it gives you much more flexibility in terms of editing in things like DPP or Photoshop (as I still dont get it right in camera every time!). That said plenty of people shoot JPEG, gives you longer bursts of images ie sports, aviation etc

[Martin]

Re: Raw,is it a waste of space?

Based on the OP, then in that particular case you are probably right.

You need to consider your subject matter, why you want or need the images, and how you want to output.

You can then buy the right type of kit, and take the right type of photos.

There is a lot of inverted snobbery around RAW.

I don't "always shoot RAW"

Because I don't need to.

Recently, I did a shoot at a family function for my mothers 70th birthday, of her friends. She needs images that she can see on screen, email to friends, and maybe, but probably not print to A4.

So, I set the appropriate pic stytle, and shot in jpeg in SRGB.

They were all on her PC for her, before the end of the party - with no faffing around!!

I have done the same for some shoots at my work.

For my own personal shooting of the subjects, that I take for me, then yes I do shoot in RAW - but then I want to prepare images for digital projection for talks, and exhibitions, and also print out quite a lot to A3, at the best possible quality.

So you need to think about what you want to do

One size does NOT fit all.

Martin

[Woolley]

Re: Raw,is it a waste of space?

If I need to get a shot for some reason, I'll shoot RAW because if I don't get it right I might (probably will) be able to recover it.

If I think I want to do something in processing - generally B&W - I'll also shoot RAW.

The rest of time, I get better satisfaction from getting it right (hopefully) in the first place, or I need the speed, so I shoot JPEG. On the whole I want to enjoy my photography without needing to spend an age sat at the computer afterwards.

Like everything else in photography, RAW is an option to be used when necessary, and if you feel that's always or never is down to what you're shooting and what you want out of it.

[Paulc]

Re: Raw,is it a waste of space?

I always shoot RAW now - having done a comparison a few years ago there really was only one way to go for me. I shoot aviation stuff and the few that I have had published have always been originally shot in RAW and then processed. Space is not really an issue these days as cards are a lot cheaper and a lot larger plus an external storage device is always an option. Mine has a 160GB hard drive and has some 7000+ RAW images on it.

[Zed one]

Re: Raw,is it a waste of space?

Thanks for all your replys.
Just to add I have posted on this site a picture I took of Sir Nigel Gresley and after loads of revisiting Photoshop with it I find its not looking its best if I had taken it in raw this would not have happend,but as I have a 400d with a fps of about 3 would I have got the shot in raw?as I know it takes a little longer in raw.



Note to self:Go out and try raw

[eeyore]

Re: Raw,is it a waste of space?

Based on the OP, then in that particular case you are probably right.

You need to consider your subject matter, why you want or need the images, and how you want to output...There is a lot of inverted snobbery around RAW.

I don't "always shoot RAW"

Because I don't need to.

Recently, I did a shoot at a family function for my mothers 70th birthday, of her friends. She needs images that she can see on screen, email to friends, and maybe, but probably not print to A4.

So, I set the appropriate pic stytle, and shot in jpeg in SRGB.

They were all on her PC for her, before the end of the party - with no faffing around!!

I have done the same for some shoots at my work.

For my own personal shooting of the subjects, that I take for me, then yes I do shoot in RAW - but then I want to prepare images for digital projection for talks, and exhibitions, and also print out quite a lot to A3, at the best possible quality.

So you need to think about what you want to do

One size does NOT fit all.

Martin

Glad to see that there are some people who make sense!

Zed one, I used to shoot jpg, then after reading about using raw, I did find I could do a little more - that, I mean in using DPP as in using picture style-the 350D doesn't have this option-(and altering the white balance helps sometimes) which is just fine for me - but on the other hand it takes a little more time. If you know your camera and understand the art of photography - then you can indeed get a lot from using jpg - don't underestimate its uses!!! Again it is not the camera in itself, but the person pushing the shutter button. A tool is only as good as the workman/woman who uses it! :-)

[Undercrank]

Re: Raw, is it a waste of space?

There is a lot of inverted snobbery around RAW.

I don't "always shoot RAW"

Because I don't need to.

Wise words, in my opinion. I used to debate this on forums, but there's no point. I shoot to please myself based on my knowledge of what I know I can accomplish in software. It turns out I rarely shoot RAW.

With practice, exposure choices can dovetail into editing techniques. But if, for example, I'm doing B&W I'd rather start with RAW data. My camera can be set to record both JPEG and RAW.

[Bob Everick]

Re: Raw,is it a waste of space?

I always shoot raw although for most 'point and shoot' images JPEG is more than adequate. However for bringing back lost detail, in over exposed areas such as grey sky for example, or adjusting colour more effectively RAW is what you need.

Bob

[sinisterpictures]

Re: Raw,is it a waste of space?

Absolutely NOT!

RAW files are the equivalent of digital negatives.

I concur, though I'm biased against jpegs from my years in print. Complete pain in the backside with the compression screwing up going through various rips.