RAW Procesing

Are there any negatives to shooting in Raw?

Ive been shooting in raw for a few years now and use lightroom to process everything.

I was reading a thread where something like dynamic range got mentioned and it got me thinking. I dont loose anything by shooting in raw do i?

Are things like auto lens corrections / noise reduction etc only applied to the processed jpegs?

Larger files, more post processing needed, many in-camera adjustments only available when shooting JPEG.

There's considerable pressure in the media generally to shoot RAW, but unless we know why we're doing it and need to for our images, then there's an equally valid argument for shooting JPEG.

Pentax cameras produce very good JPEG output, this is not necessarily true of all other marques.

That seems a very fair assessment for the pro - JPEG camp Of course we don't speak for the other makes, but I've certainly been pleased with the results of my camera JPEGs. The thing about it is this - its all going to end up as an 8bit file at some point, assuming you want to see your images on the web or send them to an online printer. Its a question of when in the chain is the best time to make that 'conversion'.

The camera will always offer a more limited and therefore 'tighter' range of processing options, so there will be more uniformity from the output within each of the key custom setting presets. You can make fine tuning adjustments, but within a smaller range than in a RAW converter software. So its less likely to go very wrong!

You need to be careful with the custom settings, especially saturation and contrast, to make sure the style is suitable for your image, as its much better to have this stuff right on the camera at capture than have to make significant changes on the computer. Also white balance is important to have accurate at capture. There is some argument with all this in favour of RAW, as there is no need with RAW to worry about the custom image settings, and if you need to keep changing them in dynamic shooting situations then that will slow you down. But equally, some JPEG shooters may tell us that they just keep to a fixed array of settings and make any needed adjustments in Photoshop

When do I use RAW and JPEG? Well, for my 'considered' shots, landscapes, architecture etc, the sort of things I show on ther forums for critical discussion, then I always use RAW. I have an 'optimised' workflow, working on each image independently until it is as perfect as I can get. RAW gives me the maximum quality from the camera that I can then extract in the processing.

But if I'm out with the kids, then I'll set the camera up for JPEGs, choose the custom settings that are best suited, and blast away! This is suited to action and burst style capture, when many images will be similar. Then I just choose the best and make minor adjustments. This is far quicker than RAW processing for this type of photography, and I end up with more nice shots ready to view and print more quickly - thats my JPEG advantage.

But sometimes I will find some quality issues that concern me - especially lighting needed better balanacing in a scene and say, for example, a sky needed to be reduced a lot, or shadows pulled up - then I might regret the JPEGs and wished I had shot RAW. But generally we can make the right decision before starting based on the subject matter and style we are capturing.

Fair enough Nigel, you've thought about it and arrived at a good solution based on your needs.

For the OP, why not set the camera to RAW + JPEG for a while and compare the results?

It's also useful that for JPEG shooters a quick button press after the shot and before the next one will save the RAW capture for that one image. You can do this as extra insurance for any shot that you think may be tricky to process.

I always shoot both, but very rarely do I use the JPEG other than for a quick look when I first load them onto the PC.

A couple of reasons - you can do so much more with the RAW file and editing software is so good now that basic processing is both quick and easy. Secondly, memory is cheap, but going back to get the picture because you've got the exposure wrong may not be.

Finally, as I very rarely shoot in burst mode (or 'Uzi' mode as Simon refers to it!) the greater time taken to write RAW files to the memory is not an issue.

Phil

i may try raw + jpeg as suggested and see what the camera jpeg compares like to the processed ones.

i do find myself changing most of my images, usually white balance, exposure, some noise reduction if not outside etc.