[Closed] Getting into digital photography - RAW files

A simple answer.

1. Shoot in raw

2. Shoot in raw

3. Get Adobe Lightroom. Process images with it.

RAW is simply a copy of the image that hit the sensor in your camera, whilst with JPGs the camera takes that image, applies processing and then compresses it. You will generally want to apply a bit of processing with each file that you want to share/keep/display ( rather than every image you take ).

Lightroom has great facilities for cataloging photos and helping you select those from a batch taken that you want to keep/process/publish. I am sure someone else will give you ( and I ) a run down of how to go about that in a productive fashion.

Yes you need to process them or they will look very dull.
When you shoot in jpeg there is processing done in the camera as it saves the jpeg.
I have had a DSRL for 10 years and regret not having started wit RAW straight away.

When I first got into proper digital photography, I wondered what the RAW files were for; they took up more disk space, and I couldn't access them with the software I had. And I could do plenty with the jpegs in Photoshop, so what was the big deal?

Then, I looked at other photographers work, and wondered how on earth they managed to get such fantastic pictures, so sharp, such rich colour depth, so much shadow detail. My pictures looked so mediocre, and insipid by comparison. I resorted to bashing up the contrast and saturation, which achieved nothing like what I really wanted.

Then I discovered Lightroom, and RAW. And then, I realised why others got such amazing results with exactly the same equipment. 😉

Bottom line is; if you just want to snap away, and take a few pics for Facebook etc, then jpegs are probably fine. If you want to unleash the true potential of your photography, then you're going to have to embrace the power of RAW! Processing RAW files can give you results never possible with the jpegs, because you have so much more digital information to work with; much greater [url= http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm ]dynamic range[/url], much more detail in shadow areas, much more potential to correct under/overexposure.

If you want a laugh, then Jared Polin will not dissapoint:

(Don't take it too seriously though! 😆 )

jools182

I don't know if I want to have to process every image I take as I don't want to spend hours staring at a screen as I already do that for 8 hours a day.

Just looking for some advice and pros and cons

If you don't know if you want to process then check if your camera has the facility to shoot RAW and JPEG together. That way if you've shot mostly duds but there's one that really stands out you have the freedom to play with the raw file, and you still have pre-processed jpegs of the average or okay shots.

If your camera doesn't offer that facility then my advice would be to shoot jpeg until you reach a level of comfort and technical proficiency that you feel you're reached the point you want to get into post processing in a meaningful way. The obvious caveat to that would be if you were shooting a one-off event or paid work.

JPEG can still deliver decent results in most situations, certainly adequate for most part time or recreational photographers. Where it might struggle, or where you might benefit from the increased dynamic range and colour info offered by raw would be low light situations or where there's a big disparity between brightest and darkest.

What jimjam said.

Is there much effort you have to put in to processing raw images in lightroom or can it be as simple as importing all the raw files and clicking process? Obviously I imagine that you are able to get better results individually tailoring each one but if done in bulk are the results still noticeably better then camera jpeg processing?

I'm grateful for Jools starting this thread as he as asked a question that I too could easily have asked. My new DMC-FZ1000 has untold abilities that I have yet to explore, but Ive seen comments about shooting RAW images and have been interested, but not had the time to explore further.

This weekend I'm going to California for a fortnight and will be taking shitloads of photos at places like Yosemite National Park, so really want to get the best possible shots. What is the cost of Lightroom and how easy is it to use.

"Is there much effort you have to put in to processing raw images in lightroom or can it be as simple as importing all the raw files and clicking process? Obviously I imagine that you are able to get better results individually tailoring each one but if done in bulk are the results still noticeably better then camera jpeg processing?"

A bit of practice, and you can learn how to create your own custom processes which you can apply to whole batches. But even doing it individually, doesn't take long once you get the knack. I did a batch of 25 photos yesterday, took me half an hour or so. They were then exported as Jpegs, but the resulting images were much better than the jpegs the camera can produce. The camera is not an advanced image processing device like a proper computer, it doesn't have anything approaching the power of a desktop/laptop machine. It's not designed to be.

"This weekend I'm going to California for a fortnight and will be taking shitloads of photos at places like Yosemite National Park, so really want to get the best possible shots. What is the cost of Lightroom and how easy is it to use."

Then you simply must shoot in RAW. Lightroom is relatively cheap, compared to other bits of photographic equipment, and worth every single penny imo.

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-adobe-photoshop-lightroom-6-full-version/p1572286?mkwid=sbhf2ede5_dc&pcrid=89741467859&kword=&match=&plid=&product=1572286&gclid=cjwkeajwltc9brdrvmfd2n66nlisjacq8591e1dy6l-wwvpkmkibib_wnvsojdd-mgvgintgtp_qxhocgnpw_wcb

can it be as simple as importing all the raw files and clicking process?

Yup, you can do batch processing on import and on groups of images already imported into Lightroom.

I think it will depend on the camera used as to whether the results are better than JPEGs straight out of the camera.

EDIT: See above, Clodhopper has it

The photos I get when using raw look a little odd to me. Do all raw photos need some kind of processing afterwards?

Pick the default profile for you camera and you'll get the same output (more or less) as you'd have got from the in-camera jpeg engine. Then play around with the other inbuilt settings (landscape, high dynamic range etc etc). Plenty of youtube tutorials available.

Then you simply must shoot in RAW. Lightroom is relatively cheap, compared to other bits of photographic equipment, and worth every single penny imo.

Okay, I'll take your advice and give it a go. I'm a bit apprehensive about how long its going to take though! 😕

What about flash photography, I expect you'll suggest jpeg for that? (it will only be using the inbuilt flash for close range stuff)

RAW for everything. You can always create jpeg files later (if your camera doesn't do parallel RAW and jpeg files of the same image).

RAW is a file format with a dump of the sensor output in it, it's not a picture as such. You can get the camera to create the jpeg and discard the RAW or get it to just save the RAW and use some software later to create the image.

If you look at a RAW on your computer you're actually seeing a low resolution thumbnail jpeg that is embedded in the RAW for preview use (same if you look at RAW files on the camera).

As clodhopper says, just use RAW for everything.

my advice would be to shoot jpeg until you reach a level of comfort and technical proficiency that you feel you're reached the point you want to get into post processing in a meaningful way

I can't say that I agree with this.

The only cost to shooting RAW and JPG is disk space, which is a very low cost indeed.

At some point the OP is going to be happy using Lightroom - when that time comes, is it better for him to look back through his previous photos all taken in JPG with regret that he cannot change them or to look at them and know that he can improve them considerably ?

Going against the grain somewhat - I hardly ever use RAW. When I do, I have the intention of processing the images & then hardly ever do.

I would shoot RAW+JPEG for the sort of thing you are intending to do & see how you get on. You will have the best of both worlds.
Only downsides is saving 2 images takes a bit longer & you'll chew through memory a bit quicker. But, unless you are shooting fast action on continuous it probably won't be an issue.

I would shoot RAW+JPEG for the sort of thing you are intending to do & see how you get on. You will have the best of both worlds.

So it really depends...

5thElefant - Member

It's down to your workflow

I don't know about that.....I'm probably not into photography enough to have a 'workflow'.

My reasoning is that if you take only RAW files, then you have to process them or they look dull, soft & washed out.
If you take RAW & JPEG, then you have the option to process the RAW files if you want.
But, if you find that you can't be arsed to fiddle about with RAW files or you don't feel it makes enough difference to be worth the effort, then you have an already processed JPEG that will broadly speaking be the sort of thing you are after.

My reasoning is that if you take only RAW files, then you have to process them or they look dull, soft & washed out.

At the simplest level just pick the default for your camera and you'll get a very similar image to the one out of the camera (but probably less noise and distortion corrected depending on software). Fire up the software click process and that's it.

If that's an overhead for how you do things (which is all workflow is) then don't. That's entirely valid for you.

I haven't used it as much as I'd like due to lack of time or bad weather when I have got the time

What jimjam said.

x2

Just shoot both. If you are not that into photography, having an extra process is unlikely to encourage you to shoot more.

If you start getting into it, great, dive into processing and tweaking your Raw files with lightroom and then photoshop. If you don't then you have the JPEG which is half decent for someone not that fussed with devoting much time to photography.

It's a bit like the quote " the best camera is the one you have with you"

It's all good and well having an SLR, but if you never use it you are better off with an iphone.

If you're not sure raw and jpg is the way forward.

For me my basic lightroom process is as follows
(Below copied from a previous thread)
"After much faffing over the years most of my post processing is:
Select many similar images in lightroom,
auto-sync on,
change colour temp if necessary,
fix exposure, white and black point (make histogram go all the way across.. generalisation but works for most images),
maybe poke vibrance and noise,
crop if required, and
done.
(Revisit best images later for tweaking, Sharpen later for export)."

Other useful things I wish I'd learned earlier:
0. Use "Ctrl-apostrophe" to create virtual copies, and try different edits on the same picture.
1. Learn how to use "compare" and arrow keys to compare similar images quickly and choose the best.
2. Ctrl-Alt-V pastes settings from previous picture to the current one.
3. Sync as mentioned above (can be used after the fact as well as while editing)
4. Lightroom noise removal is brilliant.
5. Now that I've started, theres so much, but even if you don't do a lot of editing, lightroom is worth it for the keywording and organisation tools.

Just in case people are interested, and don't want to pay for Lr, the Efex collection is now free:

https://www.google.com/nikcollection/

I mostly use Lr - but Silver Efex Pro is much more powerful for B&W image processing.

That's not raw processing software (just to avoid further confusions about RAW).

If your camera doesn't offer that facility then my advice would be to shoot jpeg until you reach a level of comfort and technical proficiency that you feel you're reached the point you want to get into post processing in a meaningful way.

I also disagree with this. Shoot raw*, always. Until you get used to Lightroom - which, by the way, is, fundamentally at least, a very simple process - just import raw files and click 'Auto' in the Basic Develop module. You could also use LR's own presets for a bit of variation until you start to get to grips with the Dev. panel.

Adobe do great instructional videos. I'd recommend starting out there to get an overview of importing/cataloging, maybe even also some developing/workflow tips.

*it's just raw, not RAW.

Three_Fish - Member

If your camera doesn't offer that facility then my advice would be to shoot jpeg until you reach a level of comfort and technical proficiency that you feel you're reached the point you want to get into post processing in a meaningful way.

I also disagree with this. Shoot raw*, always.

Whatever. You're entitled to your opinion as much as the next guy. If someone's just starting out with a dslr time spent shooting is going to be of more value than fiddling with LR, (especially when they've already expressed their distaste at the idea of extra post processing). In my opinion.

A bad photograph is a bad photograph, there's only so much you can rescue with LR. Going out and practicing with the camera is probably going to improve someone's photography skills more quickly than mastering post processing. Learn to take a good shot first.

Most cameras have displays these days so we can immediately review the image, in addition they can shoot bracketed or multiple exposures. This feels not unlike someone who's just bought a film slr being told they need to develop their own prints as a matter of fact.

It's worth mentioning that shooting raw can reduce frame rate and buffer size (in terms of shots in buffer before the camera grinds to a hault). Depending on camera.

A bad photograph is a bad photograph, there's only so much you can rescue with LR. Going out and practicing with the camera is probably going to improve someone's photography skills more quickly than mastering post processing.

Who has said anything to contrary?

Three_Fish

Who has said anything to contrary?

jools182
I bought a DSLR earlier this year

I haven't used it as much as I'd like due to lack of time or bad weather when I have got the time

I don't know if I want to have to process every image I take as I don't want to spend hours staring at a screen as I already do that for 8 hours a day.

Three_Fish -

Shoot raw*, always.

That's not contradictory.

I don't know if I want to have to process every image I take as I don't want to spend hours staring at a screen as I already do that for 8 hours a day.

You can process all your images with 2 or 3 mouse clicks in less than a minute of your time. There is no requirement to spend hours staring at a screen, unless you want to.

5thElefant - Member

That's not contradictory.

You can process all your images with 2 or 3 mouse clicks in less than a minute of your time. There is no requirement to spend hours staring at a screen, unless you want to.

Find software. Buy software. Install software. Read manual / watch tutorial videos to learn relevant functions of software. Use software every.single.time.you.take.a.photo.... Etc etc.

It is or it isn't more work. It can't be both.

It's absolutely unnecessary for beginners. Is it better - yes. Is it essential - no.

It's absolutely unnecessary for beginners.

But there are a lot of misconceptions about what raws are and what's involved with processing them.

It is or it isn't more work. It can't be both.

If you print* every shot regardless of dodgy white balance, wonky horizons, less than perfect framing etc etc then RAW is most definitely an unnecessary overhead.

* or whatever

5thElefant

Back to it depends. For me it's the less work as I review and tweak every photo. If I was using jpegs I'd be using PS to do it and that would be harder (or I'd have less keepers, one or the other).

That being the case I would hazard a guess that you don't take a lot crap shots then. Or to put it another way you know what you're doing and what you want to achieve.

my advice would be to shoot jpeg until you reach a level of comfort and technical proficiency that you feel you're reached the point you want to get into post processing in a meaningful way

what an odd thing to do? better to always shoot in raw, learn the ins and outs of raw processing and get proficient at getting the best out of your raw files then revisit those images you shot in the early stages.
storage is cheap. you cant magic up the information stored in a raw file with just the jpeg.

That being the case I would hazard a guess that you don't take a lot crap shots then. Or to put it another way you know what you're doing and what you want to achieve.

I take maybe a dozen good photos a year if I'm lucky, in a good year. That's ones I think are good. A lot less that you (or anyone else) would think are any good.

MrSmith

what an odd thing to do? better to always shoot in raw, learn the ins and outs of raw processing and get proficient at getting the best out of your raw files then revisit those images you shot in the early stages.
storage is cheap. you cant magic up the information stored in a raw file with just the jpeg.

I just bought a race car. Should I learn how to set up the suspension and understand how to get the most from it or should I go to the track and learn to drive?

And as for revisiting those images you shot in the early stages, there's a good chance your photography will have progressed beyond that point and the image will not seem worth working on, or the likelihood of being able to fix it with LR will be slim. Or indeed if there's potential you might want to go back at a different time of day, or improve your composition or use a different lens.

A bad photograph is a bad photograph, there's only so much you can rescue with LR. Going out and practicing with the camera is probably going to improve someone's photography skills more quickly than mastering post processing. Learn to take a good shot first.

I like to think I am a good photographer, have always had a decent camera and always taken loads of photos for near on 40 years. However, I do a lot of things and never found the time to get into it properly, maybe as I get older I'll find a bit more.

And as for revisiting those images you shot in the early stages, there's a good chance your photography will have progressed beyond that point and the image will not seem worth working on.

and at least the same chance that if you wanted to work on the photo the composition/subject is already good and you want to give it a polish and make it sparkle.

you might want to go back at a different time of day, or improve your composition or use a different lens.

and it could be that you were on a trip you can't repeat because it is too far away/it was a special day/etc/etc.

If you have the raw file you can go back in time and make a better image, without you can't.

cranberry

and at least the same chance that if you wanted to work on the photo the composition/subject is already good and you want to give it a polish and make it sparkle.

Potato potato.

and it could be that you were on a trip you can't repeat because it is too far away/it was a special day/etc/etc.

If you have the raw file you can go back in time and make a better image, without you can't.

Yep, I did add that caveat to my first post.

I just bought a race car. Should I learn how to set up the suspension and understand how to get the most from it or should I go to the track and learn to drive?

Do you need help with the question or are you just being contrary? You've a very strange way of discussing things, almost like you're totally convinced of the superiority of your own opinion/experience. Quite fascinating...

Three_Fish

Do you need help with the question or are you just being contrary?

Obviously I'm just being contrary (or making an appropriate analogy as I saw it). The point was about getting proficient with the tool as opposed to getting bogged down worrying about ancillary details.

You've a very strange way of discussing things, almost like you're totally convinced of the superiority of your own opinion/experience. Quite fascinating...

I've found that I am not alone in this regard when it comes to online discussions.

RAW is a ballache, IMO.

It is extra work, there's no question about that. You can use defaults in LR or whatever, but then your camera can use defaults to make JPEGs automatically even more easily.

Shooting RAW and JPEG is ok, I used to do this at first, but it does take extra memory card space (I used to get about 400 shots on an 8GB card doing this, but I can get 550 or so using only RAW). It also raises the question of how to automatically delete the RAW files from the pics that are only snaps, and the JPEGs from the good ones. I never found a particularly good way of doing this. I was using Photoshop Elements Organiser, I went through all the RAW images and gave them a star rating, then wrote a script to find all the 1-3 star rated RAW files and delete the corresponding JPEG.

I would not recommend it for starting out. For me, a good photograph is made by the subject. Composition comes second, and technical expertise third. So I would concentrate on taking good photos rather than tweaking mediocre ones. Most of the stuff on my walls is taken in JPEG and some of it is even take on a compact. My dad even has *gasp* phone pictures on his walls, and they look brilliant.

Editing images, even a select few, is technical and time consuming (in my experience). I think that photography is different for different people. For some it's a technical hobby, for others an artistic one. I'm a technically minded person but whilst I enjoy capturing images whilst I'm out doing something or at a particular place, I struggle to find the time and motivation to fine tune them afterwards.

a 14 bit RAW contains more information than
an 8 bit JPEG
obviously
whether those extra bits are
important
is a matter for you

Sorry, a little confused here. No way I can afford LR currently, even if it is considered a bargin. Is the Efex collection a suitable replacement or not? If not, what bargin basement program would you suggest?

I like to think I am a good photographer, have always had a decent camera and always taken loads of photos for near on 40 years

owning a dslr and being trigger happy doesn't automatically make you a good photographer.

owning a dslr and being trigger happy doesn't automatically make you a good photographer.

Who's that aimed at? I think owning a Ferrari doesn't make you a good driver either, so whats yer point?

Anyway, I watched that whole series of youtube vids posted by Clodhopper and found it very interesting. Will defo go raw and invest in Lightroom.

mechanicaldope - Member
Sorry, a little confused here. No way I can afford LR currently, even if it is considered a bargin. Is the Efex collection a suitable replacement or not? If not, what bargin basement program would you suggest?

Not sure whether the free 'light' version of LR for Android is still available?

IIRC Snapseed is free and now includes RAW processing too?

Raw therapee is a free option. Your camera vendor probably provides something free too. Generally the free ones are hard work and the paid for ones are easy to use though.

No way I can afford LR currently, even if it is considered a bargin

Then I would suggest that the first port of call for you should be your camera manufacturer's website - they will have a free program for raw conversion.

Alternatively you can get other suites, or use Lightroom on subscription.

Anyway, the sooner you start capturing the raw images from your camera, the better. Even if you don't start to process them yet.

used to get about 400 shots on an 8GB card doing this, but I can get 550 or so using only RAW

A 16Gb card can be found for €7,70 so that is a cheap issue to solve.

It still makes it harder to work with. I filled up 500GB in about a year or so, some of which was pre-pruning admittedly. But much of that was holiday type snaps I wanted to keep, so that's quite a lot of work to prune, and still a non-trivial amount of storage to keep in the meantime.

Then there's uploading it all to cloud storage if you want off-site backup. I don't have fast upload speed, so I can't simply copy the whole lot to a computer and sync it and be done. It requires work and planning and consideration, imo.

What I would like is software that recognises that the RAW and the JPEG of the same image are actually the same image, and once copied over and given star ratings you could instruct it to automatically delete all the RAW files for the low star-rated ones.

I just don't do that kind of housekeeping. When I filled up my terabyte nas (after several years)* I bought a new 4 terabyte one for half what I paid for the old one.

I don't backup raws to the cloud as rural Wales is decades away from that kind of broadband speed, but if I did lose my local storage it's not like I'd be worse off than had I only had jpegs in the first place.

*I can't remember how full it was as I was more concerned about its age than anything else.

if I did lose my local storage it's not like I'd be worse off than had I only had jpegs in the first place

Really? You'd rather have nothing than JPEGs?

The majority of my pictures are documenting family holidays and my kids growing up. That is valuable enough for me to make the effort to keep them.

Who's that aimed at?

The "I" that you selectively missed off my quote. It can't have been that difficult to work out.

Really? You'd rather have nothing than JPEGs?

The majority of my pictures are documenting family holidays and my kids growing up. That is valuable enough for me to make the effort to keep them.

When I said I don't back up raws to the cloud I mean just raws, I do backup jpegs to the cloud (every raw I keep is processed), which as you point out is easy. To two different vendors...

Shoot in RAW. Import into whatever RAW-compatible photo management software you prefer. Photos on the Mac is fine. Lightroom is darn good - despite its awful interface.

Storage space is neither here nor there unless you are indiscriminate with the exposure button.

RAW won't help you make a great photo out of something awful. It will give you more options with recovering detail in the shadows or highlights if your exposure was not perfect.

And backup, backup, backup.

If you render JPEGs of your photos you can also store them on Flickr & Google Photos.

When I said I don't back up raws to the cloud I mean just raws, I do backup jpegs to the cloud (every raw I keep is processed), which as you point out is easy.

OIC yes.. I have only just accquired LR and not spent much time on it, but I would like to be able to set a default for my camera and just select all starred images and develop, which I think I can do. But then can I automatically delete the RAWs?

It will give you more options with recovering detail in the shadows or highlights if your exposure was not perfect.

Some pictures I took on holiday were slightly under - but I didn't bother re-taking because I reckon I can lighten it up later. But then, as I said that's extra time and effort... bugger.. I dunno..

I did briefly delete the raw files after processing when I first started using raw. When I came to print a large canvas from one of those jpegs I realised some of it was blown out so I went back to reprocess it with more care... I stopped deleting raws at that point.

That canvas is on the wall opposite me and I bet nobody else will ever notice, but I have. It bugs me. You can get 50,000+ odd raw files on a 1tb drive costing 50 quid. I'd happily pay that just for that one file.

[i]Who's that aimed at?[/i]

The "I" that you selectively missed off my quote. It can't have been that difficult to work out.

Think you've lost the plot pal.......there was no 'I' in your quote!

Anyway....Was looking through my (seriously in depth) Instruction Manual and see that I can actually process raw photos on the camera itself, as well as Panasonic including a CD with processing software on it, for using on the computer. Clearly trying to do it on a small lcd screen wouldn't be very easy, but wondering if anyone has used the Panasonic silky pics software and how it might compare to LR?

silkypics is absolutely
dire

[b]I [/b]like to think I am a good photographer, have always had a decent camera and always taken loads of photos for near on 40 years

There you go, if you can't work out who I was referring to then maybe leave the raw processing for next week and brush up on your reading first. 🙄

And silkypics is not easy to use, Lightroom or for better image quality Capture One.

silkypics is absolutely
dire

Oh 🙁

There you go, if you can't work out who I was referring to then maybe leave the raw processing for next week and brush up on your reading first.

Well 10/10 for that remarkable series of posts.....you are indeed a master of sarcasm and also a [s]complete tool[/s] person with in depth knowledge of my photograhic ability.......well done!

I use a fairly old Pentax DSLR. I pretty much always set it to save both RAW and JPG. The exception is in burst mode (for sports, etc). The camera can't save the RAW files fast enough to sustain more than a few shots so I only save JPGs. Don't know if it's an issue with newer models, but that's the only downside to saving both. I can save about 2000 RAW files to the SD card. Space isn't an issue.

It's worth mentioning that shooting raw can reduce frame rate and buffer size (in terms of shots in buffer before the camera grinds to a hault). Depending on camera.

Yep, even with extremely fast CF cards (£200+ each), my D4S's buffer fills up very quickly shooting RAW or RAW+JPEG (a few secs at 10fps), whereas with just JPEG it can buffer something like 90secs at 10fps high res JPEGS (longer than I've ever needed shooting sports).

I very rarely use RAW, as the built in JPEG conversion is good enough for me.

My dad even has *gasp* phone pictures on his walls, and they look brilliant.

Mate of mine's an amateur photographer, far better than I'll ever be. They've got a large canvas over their fireplace of one of his landscapes, maybe 3' by 2'. I asked him how he'd shot it; "oh, iPhone."

All comes back to a conversation I regularly have with other photography teachers and my A level students. What is it about photography that interests you?

I trained as a painter, so my focus is always composition, image and mood. I'm not that fussed about the technicalities most of the time and tend to process the hell out of my photos anyway (I'm quite interested in using digital artifacts as part of the image making process) so just use .jpg most of the time as it fits my needs. If 'working' for someone else or for print, etc. then I'll do raw and .jpg together just in case.

Other photographers love the tech stuff and so taking and processing 'correct' photos becomes the obsession for them - loads of gear, raw all the way, and hours spent staring at LR is their thing.

Of course, most photographers sit somewhere between the two extremes and so the questions are what works for what you want to do and what investment are you willing to make in terms of money and time to get those results?

Mate of mine's an amateur photographer, far better than I'll ever be. They've got a large canvas over their fireplace of one of his landscapes, maybe 3' by 2'. I asked him how he'd shot it; "oh, iPhone."

That's a really cool story.

using raw gives you
the chance
to make the best photo
you possibly could
at that moment
maybe the time and disk space
are not worth it
to you

Again, depends on your definition of 'best'...

possibility
is the key word
jpg removes possibility

Depends. For me (and admittedly I'm probably not typical for photographer in coming from a process driven 'fine art' background rather than an outcome driven technical one) .jpg compression artifacts and loss of dynamic range actually add creative possibilities rather than remove them.

Horses for courses...

It's easy to remove dynamic range and compression artifacts when you start with a raw. 😉

but I would like to be able to set a default for my camera and just select all starred images and develop, which I think I can do.

you can, but what's the point...? Every photo needs tweaks to a different extent to get the most out of them.

FWIW on my DSLR I only ever shoot raw. The downside is it sometimes takes me 6 months to get round to processing them...!

"Mate of mine's an amateur photographer, far better than I'll ever be. They've got a large canvas over their fireplace of one of his landscapes, maybe 3' by 2'. I asked him how he'd shot it; "oh, iPhone.""

Did anyone see the iPhone advert that was on during the recent football tournament? Some stunning pictures, proving it's not always about the equipment:

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2016/06/09/apple-euro-2016-iphone-ad/

Of course, they'd have all been even better if they'd been shot on a 'proper' camera. 😉

"FWIW on my DSLR I only ever shoot raw. The downside is it sometimes takes me 6 months to get round to processing them...!"

I'm currently going through some stuff I shot in 2013. 😳 But the thing is, I can go back and improve the technical quality those images, now that I'm more familiar with RAW processing. I can't do very much wit the jpegs.

"my D4S's....
I very rarely use RAW, as the built in JPEG conversion is good enough for me."

Really? You have a camera like that, and you don't shoot in RAW? 😯

Really? You have a camera like that, and you don't shoot in RAW?

5thElefant - Member
It's easy to remove dynamic range and compression artifacts when you start with a raw.

but I would like to be able to set a default for my camera and just select all starred images and develop, which I think I can do.
you can, but what's the point...?

To save hours and hours of work - as I said most of these are simply holiday snaps, only a few are worth the effort. But the snaps will want to go on facebook or be printed out to share with family etc.

"Pretty normal with users of sports oriented cameras as raw slows them down. Raw doesn't help when you missed the shot."

I appreciate this, and I noticed my D610 needing to slow down the shooting rate recently, as the relatively small buffer size compared to the file size (shooting RAW+ Fine Jpeg to separate SD cards, which aren't exactly the fastest of their type) was being overrun. Another photographer next to me with a D4s was shooting away like a machine-gunner! I thought the smaller file size and much larger buffer on the D4S was capable of fast RAW shooting, even for extended periods?

For a lot of what I do I want them there.

do you
want
exactly and precisely
the
amount of dr and artefacts
you get
or
do you just want random results?

Yep, even with extremely fast CF cards (£200+ each), my D4S's buffer fills up very quickly shooting RAW or RAW+JPEG (a few secs at 10fps)

Undoubtedly true, however if you want to make a video then it has a mode for that, what would you ever need 4 seconds of 10fps for?

Pretty normal with users of sports oriented cameras as raw slows them down. Raw doesn't help when you missed the shot.

I'd argue but for the most part I agree with this guy (he specifically covers sports and motor drive a couple of episodes into the series). Although TBH the sharpness point alone is enough to convince me. A .jpg is never going to look equally good on facebook on a phone, fullscreen on a PC or printed, so why would you rely on your camera to try and come out with something average?