Shooting in RAW

Since i got my Nikon D300 i saw this option RAW+JPEG Fine.

My Question, What are you guys shooting on?
Do you use the RAW files in Lightroom or Photoshop to edit your pictures?
Is it really that much better?

Thanks for you advice!

I use Raw and use Bridge and then photoshop.

I use RAW and use Lightroom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vinny Ohare

I use Raw and use Bridge and then photoshop.

---

Same here.

I used to shoot Jpeg Fine + Raw (I shoot Canon) but ultimately realized that I could save some Buffer space and get more shots per card by shooting raw exclusively. Have never gone back, and never have missed the Jpegs.

Raw + LR

Depends on what I'm shooting. I shot the 787 and the Space Shuttle Discovery on top of the SCA in RAW+jpeg. Just to 'make sure I got it'.

The 1st Hawaiian Airlines flight into JFK, 1st Singapore A380 into JFK, and 1st Alaska flight into PHL were shot in RAW.

The Jones Beach and McGuire Airshows were shot in RAW.

My D90 made excellent jpegs of everything else this year so far

in the end, everything goes through Paint Shop Pro X2

RAW baby RAW! I use Photoshop.

I was at the city tonight to make some night shots.. shot only in RAW.
Even if they take a lot of space on the memory card is it better ;)

Thanks for your advice!

I like two things raw....my photos, and my...well...I probably shouldn't say that on a forum.

RAW files have more options for post processing vs the compressed and in camer adjusted JPEG. For static displays or taxiing RAW is the setting, but if you want to fire off 10-20 images in a burst RAW snarls the buffer, then I switch to fine JPEG to keep the buffer open. Fast cards such as class 10 or equivalent CFs speeds will help some. RAWs are large so make sure you have plenty of memory cards on you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by threeholerglory

I like two things raw....my photos, and my...well...I probably shouldn't say that on a forum.

---

...your Men? :tongue:

Dennis,

You have to make the decision on your own. There are some who believe, even when they know the full facts, that they are OK with just JPGs. That's a completely personal decision, it does NOT change the facts.

One analogy I like is comparing a Paper Print to a Slide or Negative. If you, in the past, would shoot a roll of film, give it to the developer and get back 4x5s or even 8x10s, would you be OK with just that and throw away the film?

The RAW file is the output from your sensor before the JPG engine deletes all the information that does not fit into a JPG file which is designed, on purpose, to be very economic on bandwidth and storage space. This is done by playing tricks with visual perception, not with ultimate fidelity in mind. A JPG usually results in the best possible view of an original and that's it. Once it's burned in, it's done. Anything you do to it after that is destructive and there isn't much DIGITAL data in it for you to play with.

If you have JPGs shot in good light and saved at maximum quality, you will usually be satisfied with editing these and not having much trouble. However if you shoot in difficult conditions, or, you'd like to extract more detail out of your photos, both in color and sharpness but also in exposure and dynamic range, you will miss the RAW files if you did not keep them. :-)

Here is one example I just put together real quick that shows another way to visualize the lack of data in a JPG. In the image below, the camera was set to shoot both RAW+JPG highest quality.

I attempted to recover details in the shadows. The area in the crop is well underexposed. The levels tool was used to push the shadows (move the data around) to a higher level. Notice the posterization in the JPG file as opposed to the raw file. This is the result of not having enough data in the JPG file.

Granted this is an extreme example, but even with minor adjustments, it can show up in areas of your image in a negative way. The RAW file will give you the most latitude to edit your images now or in the future.

http://pictures.mannyphoto.com/photo...x7QJsmF-X3.jpg

Thanks for bringing this up Dennis, the information from everyone is useful to me. I have never shot RAW always jpeg but I'm going to try RAW and see it I like it
Gene

For me, more times than not, I use RAW to make it easier to adjust white balance in very precise and calculated amounts without worrying about posterization (missing data) For example, if a JPG is burned with the wrong WB, trying to adjust it means you will likely introduce posterization because the data you need to do that with is likely gone, discarded when the JPG was produced.

I pretty much used RAW ever since I discovered it a few years back. My editing process had been the Fuji camera software then on to GIMP, but lately it's from Lightroom, then Photoshop.

I shoot RAW+JPEG Fine. I like the JPEGS for my collection, it has given me the ability to see the picture in my windows files and I can rename them quickly and add to my excel spreadsheet (I am very organized and a bit OCD when it comes to how things look). Anyways I use my RAW photos for uploading to airliners/jetphotos, that way I can extract color, exposure, etc that I wouldnt get from JPEGs. My 2 cents.

Matt, you really must try Lightroom :smile: It is therapeutic to [my] OCD

Manny, my only concern is if I could have the same excel spreadsheet database that I currently update with lightroom, I did receive a 30 day trial with my purchase of Photoshop Elements 10. Maybe you could pm me and enlighten me about Lightroom.