Raw

[sandymere]

Hello all
since getting my D40 i've only used fine jpeg images but recently ive noticed most of the photography mags have articles about using RAW and not so much Jpeg.

If i did use RAW what are the pros and cons?
what do most people use to photograph wildlife?
Do you need a RAW convertor?

Being a complete newbie and advice/ guidance will be greatfully recieved.

Many thanks Sandymere.

[galanthus]

Sandy if you do a forum search there are quite a few 'raw v jpeg' threads which should be quite useful. I switched to raw a few months ago from fine jpegs and haven't looked back. I've saved shots i would normally have lost. Bit more of a potch post-processing but worth it for me anyway. Here's a link to the thread i put up a few months ago, gives you an idea of some issues around raw, but as I said there are a lot more threads here.

Help with RAW format

[RoyW]

I always use raw because of the advantages in 'processing', which you have more control of when you use raw. Some people may consider altering the image after the picture has been taken to be cheating, but as far as I'm concerned it's just part of the technique of using digital.
For example - if you are photographing white/ pale subjects in bright sunlight you can prevent loss of detail by deliberately underexposing slightly and then correcting this on PC, with film this sort of manipulation isn't possible.

When you take JPegs the camera has already done some processing so there isn't as much data in the image file (although taking JPegs can be useful if you want to maintain a fast processing speed in the camera, and don't want to 'mess around' with images on your PC).

As for needing a Raw Converter - most imaging software should already have this, but if yours hasn't got one that is compatible with your camera then you can find free converters online.

Roy.

[Cellarman]

One of the important aspects of RAW is that the colour temperature can be set after the pic has been taken, so there's no need to keep remembering to change the setting on the camera - I lost some landscape shots because I forgot to change back from flourescent once, when I was using JPEG! Now I shoot eclusively in RAW

[Mike Jackson]

I moved over to RAW when I got my new camera. I'm now getting the shots that I saw because I can tweak the settings after I've uploaded them to the PC.

Mike

[Jim Ford]

For a couple of years I've been shooting raw, but have become fed up with the slowness of the raw converters.

I've gone back to shooting JPEGs more recently and I have to admit it's refreshing not to have to do the extra stage of conversion.

I'm going to upgrade my PC and go back to raw eventually.

BTW: It's raw, nor RAW. It's conventional to capitalise acronyms like JPEG, but raw is not an acronym and therefore shouldn't be capitalised.

Jim

[badger426]

Yes I agree, I had some pics taken at a party under tungsten lights which came out orange, a quick adjustment in raw saved them. It's not that difficult.
Dafydd.

[eeyore]

its not really a question of which is best - its like arguing that a porsche is "better" than a landrover - on the motorway maybe , but you try driving one up a byway.

likewise with JPEG vs raw - If i'm photographing a wedding, portraits or static wildlife then raw is generally the way to go - but for high action (wildlife or sport) or editorial work where the 1st person to get his images to the picture desk wins , then jpeg is the only realistic option.

Theres a lot of rubbish talked about one being better than the other - just like the canon vs nikon, film vs digital, hoya vs cokin etc etc arguments , at the end of a day the camera is a tool and you use whatever settings and equipment will get the best results - and it is the pictures that matter at the end of the day not what gear or settings were used to get them.

[Ollie]

Originally Posted by eeyore

Theres a lot of rubbish talked about one being better than the other - just like the canon vs nikon, film vs digital, hoya vs cokin etc etc arguments , at the end of a day the camera is a tool and you use whatever settings and equipment will get the best results - and it is the pictures that matter at the end of the day not what gear or settings were used to get them.

Couldn't agree more. I always shoot JPEG and am very happy with the results I get. I just do not have the time to do the editing with raw files.

If the time ever comes that I don't get the results I want by shooting JPEG then I may switch to raw until then I will stick with JPEG

[ron1863]

One disadvantage of shooting in raw is the disc space it uses, much, much more than a JPEG.