Quick Tip: Shoot in RAW Format
This week's quick-tip is going to be a little different. Jim Kammin, a proud new owner of a Nikon D40, sent me a message asking about RAW format and why should/would a photographer use this option. It's a huge topic, and it's been covered very well, so I thought I'd lay out a few key points and link out to some great RAW articles.
RAW formats have many benefits over JPEG. Here are a few of them:
- No loss of data from compression
- Wider dynamic range
- More colors available
- Better processing options
Keep in mind, though, not all photographers really have a need to use RAW format. JPEGs have their strong point too:
- Smaller file size
- Standard format
- Don't NEED to be processed
So if you're undecided on which format is right for you, take a look at the following articles. These should give you a pretty good idea of the pros and cons of RAW versus JPEG formats.
- RAW vs JPEG: Is Shooting RAW Format For Me?
JMG-Galleries
Shoot in RAW or JPEG format? In this article learn more about why one format may be better suited to your photographic style than the other. - HowTo: Start Shooting RAW
Sublime Light
Learn how to process RAW image files from start to finish. What software is available, what you can do, and what you end up with is all covered. - RAW vs JPEG: three reasons to shoot JPEG
RAW vs JPEG: Why I shoot RAW
Your camera can’t shoot in JPEG
AlphaTracks
A 3 part mini-series covering both sides of the format wars and an explanation of how your camera records information. - Benefits Of Working With 16-Bit Images In Photoshop
PhotoshopEssentials.com
There is a MAJOR difference between 8-bit images versus 16-bit images when it comes to photo editing. Find out why it's important to utilize those RAW files. - Adjusting Exposure in Adobe Camera Raw CS3
PhotoshopSupport.com
Photoshop expert Mark Galer has sent us a sample chapter from his new book, Photoshop CS3 Essential Skills. The tutorial deals with exposure in Adobe Camera Raw CS3. - Adjusting your RAW files in Black & White
Inside Aperture
Here's an interesting photo processing technique: convert to b/w, adjust tones, remove b/w filter. It really makes sense because it allows you to focus on the tones and contrast. - 100 Photo Presets for ACR
onOne Software
A collection of presets for use with Adobe Camera RAW to help you speed up your photo editing when dealing with RAW files.
What's your preference? RAW or JPEG?
Neil Creek
October 18, 2007Shooting JPEG is like shooting polaroid. What you’re given is all you get. Sure you can make great photos on a polaroid, but that’s despite the technology, not because of it.
When you shoot RAW, it’s like you’re shooting a negative. You have more information, more options, and better quality. With storage the price it is, I see no reason to shoot JPEG except for laziness.
Brian Auer
October 18, 2007Nice Polaroid comparison Neil. It’s mostly true, since the JPEG from your camera has already been processed based on the settings you shot at (white balance, saturation, sharpness, etc). Though, JPEGs have a little more versatility than a Polaroid photo because you can still process them in the digital darkroom.
Personally, I shoot both JPEG and RAW — at the same time. I like the ability to quickly view and organize my JPEGs, and decide which RAW files I’d like to process. This way, I don’t get stuck doing a bunch of quick-processing on a ton of RAW files just to make them easily viewable. I don’t know if that’s a feature on all dSLRs, but I know that my Minolta 7D and the Sony Alpha have the capability to capture RAW+JPEG. Do other cameras have this feature? And does anybody use it?
Jenni
October 18, 2007I know that the Canon Rebels also have that feature. That being said: since I switched to using Aperture for my photo processing and as my photo library I’m shooting exclusively in RAW.
For the reasons that Neil laid out quite nicely.
libeco
October 18, 2007I don’t know where I read it, but somehwere, sometime, someone said something like: “when you spend a couple of hundred euro (or whatever currency) for a camera, it seems kind of strange to just use for snapshots of 3 Mb or larger.”
Ofcourse everybody will have their own view on the whole RAW vs. jpeg, but I agree with the above statement. Besides, with todays prices does it really matter if you have a 3Mb jpeg or a 8 Mb (Canon 400D) or even a 18 Mb (Fuji S9500) picture? I bought a 500 Gb external harddisk for 100 euro, I think that’s a pretty nice price if you also spend so much on a camera which supports RAW. Who knows how you might feel about RAW in 0 years time, maybe you’ll regret it you chose for jpeg back than and you can hardly do any processing without huge quality loss.
Niels Henriksen
October 18, 2007I only shoot uncompressed RAW (15MB), and yes that does take up a lot of storage, but then when my Photoshop files easily reach 250 to 1,000MB in size. I do need lots of storage any way
The main reason I like to shoot RAW is that with Photoshop CS, I almost always for the prints that are to be sold, embed as ‘smart Objects’ different version of RAW file into the layers.
This permits me at any point in time to go back and fine tune each RAW layer with the all the functionality Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) settings without changing the other RAW settings for the other layers.
There may be other benefit in the future when the software applications develop new algorithms to better determine colour rendition from the standard Bayer pattern I will then be able to use this feature as the RAW format (behind the scenes) contains the original luminous sensor data.
Niels Henriksen
Tim Solley
October 18, 2007My 20D has the ability to shoot RAW+JPEG, but my older D30 doesn’t. Since I use Lightroom I just shoot RAW only and don’t even bother with the JPEGs. It seems just as easy to me to just import everything into LR, then process what I want to keep.
Thanks for the link to Sublime Light Brian!
dawn
October 18, 2007I used to shoot both RAW and JPG at the same time but I found that I use the RAW so much more than JPG so I stopped doing that. Plus, it was getting a bit unwieldy in my storage: I save my RAW, my PSD, and my resized (for blog) sizes. One more large file (especially from a D200) is a bit of overkill for me.
Brian Auer
October 18, 2007So it sounds like we have a lot of RAW fans here. It’s interesting that most of you shoot RAW exclusively rather than RAW+JPEG. I suppose that software like Lightroom and Aperture have made working with RAW files a bit easier. I have yet to jump on the Lightroom bandwagon — since I keep my Photoshop license up to date with the most current version, I can’t justify spending extra money on software that has less processing options than Photoshop. If I want to do batch processing of RAW files, I’ll use Bridge… but that doesn’t happen very often. I know, I know, I’m going to hear it from the Lightroom fanclub now.
exnihiloman
October 18, 2007Hey, I’m the guy with the new D40. After not using an slr for about 5-6 years I’m REALLY digging this toy. I’m back to doing a lot of what I did in the first place like macro and nature photography. I’m soaking up all this info on the RAW files. Don’t know what side of the fence I’ll end up on.
Brian Auer
October 18, 2007Well, take your time with it and try to make an informed decision. Thanks for the topic question, by the way. It’s something I haven’t really covered yet, so I’m sure a few others will find it useful.
Jim Goldstein
October 19, 2007Brian thanks for referencing my article. I have to confess since I wrote the article I’ve upgraded my desktop computer and that has made a world of difference in how fast I can review my RAW files. As a result I’ve been shooting only only RAW. When I do shoot RAW+JPEG I review the JPEGs, rate and then sort my files and then discard the JPEGs to archive only the RAW files. One other contributing factor is that my laptop which was slower than my desktop died. When in the field with the laptop it was faster to review the JPEGs. Now that I’m laptop free I save space and only shoot RAW. I may revert back to RAW+JPEG when I replace my laptop if its still slower than my desktop machine.
Neil Creek
October 19, 2007Fascinating discussion and great to see the majority of folks are shooting RAW. Upon reading back, my comment seemed a bit abrupt and arrogant. I apologise if I gave that impression.
The excellent and very relevent point which I missed was made, that processor speed on your raw processing system is critical. I used to have a slow machine that chugged processing raws, and that made the process painful. I still did it for the reasons I gave above, but a faster cpu has made all the difference with the ease of culling/cleaning/exporting. That and the brilliance which is Lightroom.
Brian, I think you miss the point of Lightroom 🙂 It’s not so much a “raw processing program” which overlaps a small part of Photoshop’s features. It’s more like a virtual light table, in that it makes viewing, sorting, culling and organising gigabytes of raw files as painless as possible. It has an outstanding interface for processing raw files, but it would be a mistake to assume that’s all it is.
Regarding the RAW+JPEG option when shooting, aside from the fact I don’t shoot jpeg above, I find the in-camera performance hit too great. The buffer fills up noticably faster, as does the memory card.
Neil Creek
October 19, 2007I don’t want to derail the topic too much, but you wanna know how much time I spend processing a photo “on average”? Probably less than a minute 🙂
There are many photos I spend an hour or two on, but many many more that I gett looking good in a minute or so, then if there’s lots of similar shots from a shoot, I “sync” the settings on lightroom and just tweak the photos that didn’t work with those settings.
Maybe I should do a tutorial of my workflow 🙂
Brian Auer
October 19, 2007I’m so stubborn when it comes to software. I shouldn’t be, but I am. One of these days, I promise I’ll check out Lightroom. Honestly though, I can hardly find the time to sit down and process a couple photos per week. I need to adjust my priorities — I keep adding photos on the “to-do” pile and I never get to them. I seriously have 300 or 400 images that need some attention. I think my problem is that I’m not satisfied with a photo until I tinker with it for a couple of hours first.
Tim Solley
October 19, 2007Brian, that’s where Lightroom really shines in my opinion. If I let myself become bogged down by 300-400 photos, I’d never get anything done. As someone who shoots a lot of newborn babies, I have to take a LOT of photos in a portrait session to make sure there are some keepers. Lightroom let’s me chew through 300 photos from a shoot in no time and be done with the processing. If I was doing the same with Camera Raw, I’d have hanged myself long ago.
Adam Parker
December 6, 2008Thanks for the collection of links. Shooting RAW is the way to go, there are downsides, but the benefits far outweigh them all (in most circumstances). If you want to get the most out of your camera and want to be more content with your shots, please, please shoot RAW.
And one more link to add to the long list of sites explaining why you should shoot RAW:
https://blogs.adamparkerphotography.com/blog/Make-your-pictures-happy-shoot-in-RAW/18/