|
RAW
Mar 5, 2009 23:35:11 GMT -5
Post by John Parry on Mar 5, 2009 23:35:11 GMT -5
On another board I'm a member of, they were getting excited about a Canon Ixus with a RAW capability. I posted the following:
"Do you shoot much in RAW? I've read up on it, but the conclusions seem to be that good RAW shooting carries cost overheads. Photoshop needs a plug-in, which of course is extra, and the Pentax software that came with my K200D didn't get too good a write-up. That's probably because the Pentax package couldn't be expected to have the same capabilities as Photoshop.
There doesn't seem to be much point in putting it into the Pentax package to export it into Photoshop as a JPG to process, it seemed more sensible to me just to use the highest resolution JPG settings on the camera and work directly in Photoshop with those. Any thoughts?"
Any thoughts on here?
Regards - John
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
RAW
Mar 6, 2009 10:20:06 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2009 10:20:06 GMT -5
John:
I shoot just about everything RAW. When you shoot jpeg there's only a certain amount you can improve the photo with a Photoshop-type program. A RAW image is like a negative. It contains ALL the information the camera recorded. It gives you a lot more control over shadows and highlights. RAW is more time consuming because you have to convert the image to jpeg or tif to make much use of it. But you always have that "negative" to fall back on it needed.
Plus, if you shoot jpeg you lose quality every time you change the file. So if you ever modify that original image it is compromised forever. With Nikon, if you use their software to process RAW files, you can always revert back to the original. I suspect Pentax and the other companies have similar programs.
I should amend my post a little. If I'm shooting pictures at some company function or just casual shots of the family, I often shoot jpeg. But If I'm shooting travel photos or landscapes or photos where I probably not get a second chance, I shoot RAW.
Wayne
|
|
|
RAW
Mar 6, 2009 11:21:54 GMT -5
Post by GeneW on Mar 6, 2009 11:21:54 GMT -5
John, I agree with everything Wayne says about RAW. If you're after the best quality you can get, it's the only way to go.
Having said that, I only shoot Jpeg! :-)
The RAW files are just too damned big for the kind of casual shooting I do. I have lots of storage, but I also shoot a lot and RAW files just take up too much room.
If I'm doing something special for someone, I shoot in RAW. Otherwise, it's Jpeg all the way for this shooter :-)
Gene
|
|
|
RAW
Mar 6, 2009 11:31:49 GMT -5
Post by nikonbob on Mar 6, 2009 11:31:49 GMT -5
John
I agree with Wayne as far as the benefits of RAW go. There is a bit of a cost overhead with shooting RAW such as larger files using more memory but flash memory is so cheap today that it should not present a problem. For storing these larger files high capacity HDs are also cheap. You don't even need PS to work the file as Picasa 8 is free and will open D700 files for me but not as NEFFs. I did pop for the Nikon NX2 package so that was a cost but I would have had to upgrade my PS anyway. No it is not entirely without cost but can be worth it. OTH a JPEG shot at the highest quality level and saved as a copy in TIFF for processing can be very good too. I used that work flow for years and was very happy with it but after working in RAW I was amazed at what could be done. If you never tried you would not miss it sort of thing.
Bob
|
|