Shoot raw and auto convert or stick with Hi-Res JPG

Hello, I am shooting for a family wedding later this week and would like a little advice. I have no idea how to use Pentax, Gimp or any other raw editing software, I generally use Picasa to adjust my jpeg's. Would there be any advantage in shooting raw and using the auto processing button to process and save them as jpg's? I don't want to shoot raw and then find I am left with loads of photos which I cant adjust like I do with jpg. Your opinions would be much appreciated.

Thanks, James

[url]http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/[url]
[url]http://www.phaseone.com/Content/Downloads/Software%20Archive%203/COArchiveWin.aspx[url]

Try anyone of these excellent raw editing programs you wont look back.
Shooting raw is the best option in my opinion.
Both these programs have limited trial usage.

if you have enough memeory cards, do shoot raw or (raw + jpeg on the 10d).
from experience I can tell you this: It's ok to shoot jpegs if you're real good, and theres little chance of blowing the shots. Raw is like shooting print film and jpeg is like shooting slide film in terms of exposure lattitude....you get more to work with when things need fixing.

you can always get some advice or help in processing a raw file here, later, whereas you know what happens if you need to repair a jpeg.....

I had to wait for a good raw workflow tool to fully switch from jpeg to raw, but since Aperture, I'd never shoot an important shot, without hitting the raw button on the 10d. (the tools by the way work on jpegs too, but when you take a "bad" raw shot and work it hard to make it look good, then try the same amount of corrections on the same image shot in jpeg, (lift and stamp tool) the limits of jpeg become obvious.).

I can only advise you to shoot RAW.
I use the combination of Silkypix and Photoshop. and if needed I can throw in Artizen HDR for some HDR work and PT lens for some lens correction if needed.

RAW allso allows you to use higher ISO settings because you can remove noise more effectively in a RAW converter.

I really like Silkypix, the interface can be better but it works for me. I tried Adobe Lightroom but it is to slow on my PC (4,5 years old now) and I don't like all the flashy movements on screen....

And another thing which is nice to Silkypix, it can treat a JPEG or TIFF in the same way (allmost) as a RAW image. I have salvaged a shoot I did in JPEG this way where the whitebalance was completely off. Normally this can be very difficult to correct (it was a mix of fluorescent and filament lightbulbs). Silkypix managed to get reasonable results.

Use RAW every time

Even ignoring the other benifits
JPEG only gives 8bit colour depth where as RAW gives 12bit (on K10D)

On the DS as well to my knowledge.

Hi Jim,

shoot RAW. The two most crucial adjustments that you will get a lot more leeway on are white balance and exposure. Even if you only use those two (if necessary of course) before converting to jpeg, you'll save plenty of shots that you may have thrown away. All the apps listed will give you a simple slider that you can drag left or right whilst watching the effect in real time.

The biggest advantage is that you'll have a digital negative, so as you get better at using whichever app you choose, you can go back and have another go. As new apps become available with more tools etc, you can again go back.

Take RAW, and however stuck you get with processing, there's plenty of people here that'll talk you through it.

http://www.photo-freeware.net/raw-shooter-essentials.php

The above is what I use, although there won't be support for any of the K series DSLRs (ASAIK).

Cheers

Liam

I have used PT lens but since using SilkyPix I find that it does allow enough corrections in most cases. I love the CA correction of SilkyPix as well.

I would suggest to shoot RAW as well. You always can convert to JPG in Picasa (even so it is not the best of convertors) if the shots are spot on. If they are not your buggered with JPGs alone.

I must pay more attention and read the whole post
I downloaded the program you mentioned and then realised it doesn't support my K100D only the IST series

one more vote for Raw

if you auto convert your raws you get back to what you would have had if you'd shot JPEG in the first place

If you take some time to get your head around Raw processing you get more options. you can't loose.

It's my view that the best accessory you can buy for your camera is a good RAW converter.

And the best RAW converter is probably Silkypix. I don't really do any post-processing to speak of, after the RAW conversion, because Silkypix does everything that I need to do with a whole image (full or cropped).

It won't allow me to work on selected areas of an image, so for that, or for serious image manipulation, I use Picture Window Pro. But I avoid doing so if I can possibly help it.

G

OK, so there are arguments for and against RAW, and JPG, but if I want both RAW (DNG) to JPG formats would I be better saving "in camera" both formats or converting from RAW to JPG in batch mode in computer?

I have just run a batch conversion using Photoshop and note that the resultant files are bigger if converted in computer, but does that mean better?

There seem to be a lot of votes for Silkypix. Would that be an even better approach for batch conversion.

I am feeling that given the limitations of JPG, it probably does not matter which approach I take.

There is no point in shooting both RAW and JPG at once, unless you urgently need to print off some pictures before you have time to process them properly.

There are actually no arguments in favour of shooting JPEG except file size, unless you have a point and shoot and are happy to do no post-processing.

It's just as quick to process a batch of RAW files in a proper converter as it is to process JPEGs (though you do need to go off and have a coffee while the computer does the conversion).

The paid-for version of Silkypix does batch conversions of all supported RAW files (including all varieties of PEF) and DNG.

G

Or, bizarrely, unless you use Picasa, which, although in its current version, displays and allows you to work with PEFs, seems not to be able to read the EXIF data in them.

I know, I know... you get what you pay for...

That, I think, is an argument favoured by many. Certainly it is for me but then I am more of an amatuerish amateur than a pro pro