Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
anthonymerto

Shooting Raw?

Recommended Posts

Petrus

As long as I get better results more to my liking from RAWs I do not care if I have sold my soul to aliens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisPeterson

I don't know of any free programs, but it mifht be worthwhile to download a free trial of Lightroom (or something else) and see how you like processing RAW vs. JPEG. You may find that it's not worth the effort. Disclosure: It is extremely rare that I shoot JPEG, so I find processing RAW to be worth thebextra time. (I was always better at making prints than shooting chromes) The only thing that really matters is that the final output is to your liking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Petrus

Considering what cameras cost getting a latest version of Lightroom (or something similar, there are others) costing about $100-150 is a bargain. With RAW processing the end result is so much better (or more to one's liking) that the investment is minimal compared to trying to get better and more expensive cameras, for example, with minimal changes in picture quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmward

In my view, raw offers me maximum control over the image. JPG, similar to transparency film, is baked image that interprets the scene based on predetermined characteristics.

With raw I have available a file with greater data per photo site that I can then manipulate using software to create the picture I envisioned or want to interpret from the scene as recorded by the camera sensor.

When shooting film I had options for processing the negative to control the tonal curve. Then other options when making the print. Between Lightroom and Photoshop I have much more control than was possible with film. And, its for both B&W and color for each image. With Film I would have had to make two negatives or a negative and transparency to have both. (It was possible to make B&W prints from color negatives but it was a significant tonal compromise.)

When shooting landscape, or architecture I routinely have my camera set for bracketing. That offers an option to combine the images into a 32 bit floating point file that offers greater dynamic range than a single file. I've done some testing and found that a 32 bit file offers more processing control than a single exposure even when a single exposure can accommodate the dynamic range of the scene.

Even though I am a staunch advocate for raw processing, I have set my X system cameras to raw plus JPG. I rarely use, or even look at the JPGs but have found them a better option for the LCD review on the back of the camera. That suggestion, if I recall correctly, came from @flysurfer in one of his posts on another forum. Memory, either cards or drives is so inexpensive its just a nice additional resource. It also means that I have a nice "proof" immediately available if someone wants it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
enghell

I've been shooting exlusively in RAW for about 10 years. Earlier Canon and lately since I bought an X-T1, both Canon and Fujifilm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raglan

I have always shot RAW for clients with NIKON and now shoot RAW with the X20 when I know I will be post processing, for all the above reasons. For family snaps, facebook etc, I shoot jpeg, as the X20 does a fine job of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recommended Discussions



×
×
  • Create New...