I shoot strictly in JPEG fomat but have been tinkering with the idea of shooting in RAW,...I have read a few articles on RAW (still don't know much, lol), but would like some opinions from you guys! Which is better? How do you go about storing such large files? Do you shoot in RAW and JPEG or just RAW? What are the pros and cons of RAW? Any feed back would be a help at this point and much appreciated!
RAWs are miles better once you get used to processing them in something capable of doing so, such as Adode Lightroom or Photardshop. Technically speaking, they store more information direct from the sensor for each pixel, and some overall image data, so if you need to say, change the white balance after the fact, you can do it with no loss of data, unlike with JPEG. You also get a lot of flexibility with sharpening and noise reduction, adjusting the levels, a whole host of things that you can do that you can't (easily, or as cleanly) with a JPEG.
You eventually then export a JPEG from your RAW processing software, with all your tweaks included, so you can view it anywhere.
@eyebrows do you have any idea if paint shop pro will handle RAW images? I'd really like to start shooting in RAW as well, especially for portrait session, but want to make sure I can processes them well before I go doing so.
@rebcastillo77 Paint Shop Pro will handle RAW images. I have been playing around with RAW photos from someone else's camera and have not had any difficulty. These RAW photos were from a Canon camera.
Yeah that's another thing worth mentioning; there's no single common "raw" format, every manufacturer, and even camera, takes and stores different information in mildly differing ways inside these files which collectively get called "raw". So if your camera's something exotic, or unusual, it may not be possible to open its RAW images in every "raw editor", so if this is the case do a RAW+JPEG first until you're certain.
I've been shooting only RAW for about the last year. I did shoot in RAW +JPG for quite a while but once I got comfortable with the RAW format I dropped the JPG. There is just so much more information in a RAW photo to work with.
@rebcastillo77 also, the software that came with your dslr should be able to edit your raw images and convert them to jpeg, if need be. if that helps. i only have picnik, so i do my contrasting/brightening/and other minor tweaks in raw on my camera's software, then convert and edit to picnik. the quality is still better than just shooting in jpeg format.
i wanna shoot raw... but errmmmm i dunno how it goes... well my friends told me it's larger than jpeg and it's real good... but i don't have even a single idea how it works...
Hmm I don`t know. I shoot in RAW now,but only because the photo comes out much more crisp and detailed. It`s kind of like the difference between a video tape and DvD.
But after I photoshop it and save my end result in Jpeg,I delete the original RAW. I wonder if others do the same. Hmm.
@spaceman - Just wondering what your reason for deleting it is? I happen to keep many of the original files (of photos I really like, at least). But thats mostly because I'm afraid I will want to tinker with it again in the future. I guess it depends on all sorts of considerations (ie - storage capacity, will you ever need it again, etc).
Thanks for bringing that up. Others have said they delete their PSD files after flattening their images. I'm interesting in hearing your thoughts.
I never delete an original file, unless there's something glaringly wrong with it (like the lens cap was on). That file remains unaltered. I also never delete the file containing my alterations to it, be it the RAW file or the Photoshop (PSD) file (or whatever software you're using).
A JPEG shouldn't be a necessary part of the process, unless I'm specifically putting it online, emailing it, or doing something which specifically needs it to be slimmer. Should that need arise, I return to the RAW or manipulated file and save a copy as a JPEG.
Storage is cheap.
Since I started using RAW processing, I've not needed to make use of Photoshop's specific editing features anywhere near as much. So many of those things can be achieved in RAW processing and are non-destructive by nature. I can't speak for other applications, but with Adobe Camera Raw, Alterations made to a RAW file are actually saved in a separate file and applied dynamically.
@crappysailor
I guess I can say I`m just an amateur,a beginner.Yes,storage space is definately the major reason I do so.A RAW file is twice the size of a JPEG,or more.
And once I`m done editing and saving it,the way I intended to,the source file isn`t much use to me no more.It`s like when moviemaking.You shoot hours and hours of footage,but in the end,after you`re done with editing and post-production,you only release the final footage,wich is maybe even half the size of the source material,but better.
Okay,I`m probably talking nonsense.I`m new to this.I don`t even know what you mean by "flattening". Heck,I still can`t wrap my head around the use of layers in Photoshop...
@spaceman - No, your answer is appreciated. It makes sense. I probably don't need to save any of the large files. Its just something I do.
@bink - I try and save mine as well. For exactly the reason you've given. Its the original unaltered version. Thanks for the response. I'm always of the mindset that I might want the original for something else. But at the very least, I like having the original file.
Think of the RAW file as the negative to your photo. If you want to re-develop one of your old photos, you should go back to the RAW file, not the JPEG, which deteriorates the more you copy and edit it.
I would suggest a middle-ground, where if it's a photo you really like and may perhaps actually develop keep the RAW file, but if you're not that bothered about it delete the RAW file.
Thanks to everyone who has joined in on the conversation!
Storage has to be my number one concern to shooting in RAW. I have an external hard drive but it's almost full, as well as my laptop and desktop! I have sooo many pictures to begin with that I am concerned about keeping up with large RAW files.
Storage is pretty cheap these days, and I'm rather anal (no, really), so I never delete source files. Being a web developer has also enforced an appreciation of "non-flat" image formats on me, hehe. Once that *.psd or *.psp is flattened and gone there's no going back and making easy changes if you had transparent layers and such, so everything gets kept. Same with RAW files.
I was running out of space a few weeks back, so uninstalled World of Warcraft. 20GB free. Feels good man.
@eyebrows - LOL! I guess I could do without a few things on each of my computers to make room! I am starting to wonder why I haven't been shooting in RAW all this time!?! The only negative things that I have found so far about photographing in RAW has been the size of the files and post processing. I think I can work around the size issues knowing that I am going to gain a crisper image of greater quality and I actually love editing as much as I love capturing a good photo, I think they are both a creative process, so I think I have my answers!
Yup, I'm a huge fan of editing them too, now. Been sat here for about 2 hours now, doing a batch from a snow walk last night. 42 photos and I've only done just under half so far. I loves it!
Also worth noting, RAWs get much bigger as the megapixelage of your camera does. My 550D (aka Rebel T2i) typically spits them out at around 22MB each...
But with out hi jacking the thread, RAW is the way forward. I posted the same thread just before I started shooting RAW, but if you don't have any decent software to develop/process RAW stick with jpeg.
I have been doing photography for the past three years but haven't really been taking pics everyday like I have been recently with 365 and now I am learning everyday .. and have noticed a big improvement.. still I don't know how to do everything!
I would really like to learn how to create the effect of those beautiful circles on the portraits... some look like the glare of very little light or no light at all and those circles just make the portrait stand out!!! I have PS and I tried it with cloning and I am not sure thats how.. because those comes out round when other pics I have noticed kind of look not so round! If anyone knows how to create these in photoshop .. would you please be kind enough to share!
Roaslinda,"I would really like to learn how to create the effect of those beautiful circles on the portraits.." Do you mean catch lights in the eyes?
You could conceivable recreate catchlights but creating a white patch, then using the photo effects filter and a displacement map to arch them over the eye, or the liquify tool or something. But if you mean catch lights, then its easier to just create them with the lighting in the portraits.
As to the original post.
I almost ALWAYS shoot raw. The only time I shoot jpg is if I am just taking snaps of my kid . Then I usually forget to switch to jpg still shoot raw.
There is NO comparison in quality of final product, unless you get it perfect SOOC. You will have to so some final sharpening and levels adjustment, but you are working on a better quality image to begin with, so why not? Well, ROOM, thats why now. The jpg files my camera creates are about 3 mg and the raw is 10
@roserg If you're talking about catchlights, like Stephanie said (and has shown with that adorable portrait), it's pretty easy. Just, do it when you take the photo instead of in Photoshop - it takes quite a bit of effort to make a fake catchlight, as opposed to a real one, and the fake ones rarely look "right". Just get your subject to face a window if they are indoors, and you'll get lovely window-shaped catchlights! :)
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
You eventually then export a JPEG from your RAW processing software, with all your tweaks included, so you can view it anywhere.
Thanks for all the in put guys!
thanks for the info.. i might try it hihihi
But after I photoshop it and save my end result in Jpeg,I delete the original RAW. I wonder if others do the same. Hmm.
Thanks for bringing that up. Others have said they delete their PSD files after flattening their images. I'm interesting in hearing your thoughts.
A JPEG shouldn't be a necessary part of the process, unless I'm specifically putting it online, emailing it, or doing something which specifically needs it to be slimmer. Should that need arise, I return to the RAW or manipulated file and save a copy as a JPEG.
Storage is cheap.
Since I started using RAW processing, I've not needed to make use of Photoshop's specific editing features anywhere near as much. So many of those things can be achieved in RAW processing and are non-destructive by nature. I can't speak for other applications, but with Adobe Camera Raw, Alterations made to a RAW file are actually saved in a separate file and applied dynamically.
I guess I can say I`m just an amateur,a beginner.Yes,storage space is definately the major reason I do so.A RAW file is twice the size of a JPEG,or more.
And once I`m done editing and saving it,the way I intended to,the source file isn`t much use to me no more.It`s like when moviemaking.You shoot hours and hours of footage,but in the end,after you`re done with editing and post-production,you only release the final footage,wich is maybe even half the size of the source material,but better.
Okay,I`m probably talking nonsense.I`m new to this.I don`t even know what you mean by "flattening". Heck,I still can`t wrap my head around the use of layers in Photoshop...
@bink - I try and save mine as well. For exactly the reason you've given. Its the original unaltered version. Thanks for the response. I'm always of the mindset that I might want the original for something else. But at the very least, I like having the original file.
I would suggest a middle-ground, where if it's a photo you really like and may perhaps actually develop keep the RAW file, but if you're not that bothered about it delete the RAW file.
Storage has to be my number one concern to shooting in RAW. I have an external hard drive but it's almost full, as well as my laptop and desktop! I have sooo many pictures to begin with that I am concerned about keeping up with large RAW files.
I was running out of space a few weeks back, so uninstalled World of Warcraft. 20GB free. Feels good man.
Also worth noting, RAWs get much bigger as the megapixelage of your camera does. My 550D (aka Rebel T2i) typically spits them out at around 22MB each...
But with out hi jacking the thread, RAW is the way forward. I posted the same thread just before I started shooting RAW, but if you don't have any decent software to develop/process RAW stick with jpeg.
I would really like to learn how to create the effect of those beautiful circles on the portraits... some look like the glare of very little light or no light at all and those circles just make the portrait stand out!!! I have PS and I tried it with cloning and I am not sure thats how.. because those comes out round when other pics I have noticed kind of look not so round! If anyone knows how to create these in photoshop .. would you please be kind enough to share!
You could conceivable recreate catchlights but creating a white patch, then using the photo effects filter and a displacement map to arch them over the eye, or the liquify tool or something. But if you mean catch lights, then its easier to just create them with the lighting in the portraits.
I almost ALWAYS shoot raw. The only time I shoot jpg is if I am just taking snaps of my kid . Then I usually forget to switch to jpg still shoot raw.
There is NO comparison in quality of final product, unless you get it perfect SOOC. You will have to so some final sharpening and levels adjustment, but you are working on a better quality image to begin with, so why not? Well, ROOM, thats why now. The jpg files my camera creates are about 3 mg and the raw is 10
raw vs jpg
This shot was BLOWN. I pulled exposure down, -3 in both images. You can see the difference in the quality that was left
@steve tnx for the reply very informative.