A question about shooting pictures with RAW format.

[igmolinav]

Hi,

I own at the moment a Nikon D50. The camera camera is six megapixels.

At the beginning I made pics. with a lower resolution than RAW. Eventually a friend persuaded me to shoot only with RAW.

He said, if there is something you don't like in the picture you made, (let's say overexposure or underexposure, etc.), it´ll be hard to do any change to the picture if your resolution is not RAW.

Now, I usually shoot RAW plus jpeg. However, the main drawback is that RAW takes up a lot of space in your HD.

Moreover, I was thinking about changing my camera for a 12 megapixel. So RAW this time will take up twice as much space.

Like I mentioned, the only reason for me to use RAW is because I may do some work on the picture afterwards.

Thank you very much,

igmolinav

 

[Hmac]

What's the question?

 

[seany916]

use RAW if you plan on working on the pictures in post

if not, then just shoot JPEGs and enjoy the memories!

 

[Abstract]

Firstly, "RAW" isn't the resolution. Without going into details, the only difference you need to worry about is whether you want to "play with" (ie: edit) your photos afterwards. You can edit a JPEG, but if you want to edit the photo a lot (or know your White Balance will be off), I find it better to use RAW.

If I were you, I'd shoot JPEG Fine.

I wouldn't recommend shooting RAW + JPEG because the Nikon D50 can only record a RAW file + JPEG (Basic quality, not Fine). If your camera could record RAW + JPEG (Fine), then it might be a good idea to do so. That way, you can look at the JPEG, and if you like it (or you can edit it a bit in iPhoto, Photoshop, etc), then delete the RAW file to save space on your HDD. If you want to make huge adjustments to the exposure and such, then use the RAW file and delete the JPEG.

 

[igmolinav]

Thank you for your answers to all of you, it is very kind : ) !!!

igmolinav

 

[ChrisA]

First off, don't worry about disk space. The last two disk drives I bought worked out to 20 cents per gigabyte. Prices are going down too. SO don't worry abou space.

Raw format is for those people who intend to make large adjustments to their photos in post processing. Do you ever do that or plan to? If not you don'r need raw format.

Wy are you upgrading the camera body? Are you not happy with the quality of the images? Need to make larger prints?

 

[Hmac]

Raw format is for those people who intend to make large adjustments to their photos in post processing. Do you ever do that or plan to? If not you don'r need raw format.

Boy, I really disagree. Changes in exposure value or white balance after-the-fact are a HUGE benefit, and those are two areas where people relatively new to digital photography often get tripped up. Trying to work around such errors in a JPEG isn't nearly so accurate nor as simple as it is in working with the RAW file.

Now, if we're talking snapshots...that's different - in-camera processing in JPEG may cover up a lot of errors that might make the image look pretty good to most casual observers. But, the more important the photograph is to the photographer, the more he/she will want the more accurate control they can get from editing a RAW file rather than a JPEG.

 

[vtimagemaker]

I agree with Hmac. Once you discover the absolute magic of Aperture or Lightroom to post process RAW files, you'll ask yourself why you would ever shoot in anything but RAW.

I do make exceptions of course. If I'm at a family gathering or a party, I usually shoot JPEG, and just upload them to Picasa so everyone can share and print, etc.

Guess it all depends on how you intend to use your images in the future.

The fact is that if you want to shoot digital, you need to be prepared to learn about and understand the technology that goes with it.

I'm currently shooting with a Nikon D300 and you're right...you can fill up a 2gig card pretty damn quick. The high speed 4gig card works great though and with a couple of 500gig HD's it's plenty of room (for now) to store everything after the fact.

Happy Shooting!

Steve

 

[Evangelion]

I went to RAW, and I never looked back. RAW just gives you so much more flexibility in post-processing. I see no benefit in shooting RAW + JPEG.

I noticed that you are planning to move to 12 megapixels. Any reason why? Is there something you can do in 12 megapixels that you can't do today?

 

[phiberglass]

I've been debating between this. I have about 2500 pictures in iPhoto all jpeg. If I start shooing raw i'd have to use Aperture 2 and it doesn't exactly run well on my 1.33 GHZ 1.25 gb of RAM Powerbook G4, and would be a hassle to transfer all my pictures over. The only time I use RAW is if I'm shooting something important. But if I'm shooting the weekly car show in my city or b-day or w.e I'll just shoot JPEG. Once I upgrade my computer to a MBP this summer I'll transfer everything over the Aperture and use that as my default.

 

[Hmac]

I've been debating between this. I have about 2500 pictures in iPhoto all jpeg. If I start shooing raw i'd have to use Aperture 2 and it doesn't exactly run well on my 1.33 GHZ 1.25 gb of RAM Powerbook G4, and would be a hassle to transfer all my pictures over. The only time I use RAW is if I'm shooting something important. But if I'm shooting the weekly car show in my city or b-day or w.e I'll just shoot JPEG. Once I upgrade my computer to a MBP this summer I'll transfer everything over the Aperture and use that as my default.

It's very easy to batch convert a CF card full of RAW to JPEG, if one just has to use iPhoto. Personally, I don' use it, nor have I found Aperture particularly useful for the stuff I do. I'm strictly a Nikon Capture NX and Photoshop kind of guy.

 

[vtimagemaker]

I've been debating between this. I have about 2500 pictures in iPhoto all jpeg. If I start shooing raw i'd have to use Aperture 2 and it doesn't exactly run well on my 1.33 GHZ 1.25 gb of RAM Powerbook G4, and would be a hassle to transfer all my pictures over. The only time I use RAW is if I'm shooting something important. But if I'm shooting the weekly car show in my city or b-day or w.e I'll just shoot JPEG. Once I upgrade my computer to a MBP this summer I'll transfer everything over the Aperture and use that as my default.

I think your current method makes sense given the restraints you have for a system. Aperture and Lightroom are huge memory hogs. I started with Lightroom (for no particular reason) and only now am really enjoying it as I moved up to a better computer.

I was using a G4 laptop previously and it was really slow. I haven't used NX yet, but since I got a copy with my D300, I'm going to load it up and give it a look when I have a chance.

You might consider shooting in RAW and at least burning a DVD of the RAW files just to have them in the future.

Steve

 

[bocomo]

Boy, I really disagree. Changes in exposure value or white balance after-the-fact are a HUGE benefit, and those are two areas where people relatively new to digital photography often get tripped up. Trying to work around such errors in a JPEG isn't nearly so accurate nor as simple as it is in working with the RAW file.

i absolutely agree! this is something that helps all of my students and i have been raw only for quite a while. many programs can batch convert the raw files to web-sized jpegs after adjustments, so there isn't much of a need to shoot raw+jpeg these days. heck, white balance flexibility of raw is worth it all by itself

as others have said, storage is cheap

 

[scotty96LSC]

Lots of good info in this thread.