Is shooting in RAW really worth the trouble?

Question

I have been taking pictures for a while now. As I begin to get serious with the art, I have to get serious with the software as well. Last night I did my first photoshoot consisting of entirely RAW photos. However, I find that RAW is a major pain to work with. I cant see thumbnails, the files are huge, and I'm not sure whether to use the RAW editing window that opens up when I open a RAW (.ORF) in photoshop cs3 or just using the normal editing workspace. So my question to you is: Is RAW really worth the extra hassle and memory? After all, I don't really see any noticeable differences between my RAW's and my JPEG's...

Answer 1

Yes it is. But with the right software, it can get easier.

Here is a snapshot taken indoor, at night, available light only, at ISO 3,200 (Canon 5D with Canon 24-70 mm f 2.8). You note the ugly yellow cast.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c317/wtin/9366a620.jpg

It's so much easier to correct the white balance in RAW. Using the white balance tool (in Photoshop CS3 and Lightroom 1.31), click on something "natural" color (I tend to click on something white, like a piece of paper on the table. And it's fixed.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c317/wtin/1c1423f6.jpg

Here is another snapshot. Same camera, Canon 16-35 mm f 2.8 lens.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c317/wtin/1ba7e4f7.jpg

The lightlights are blown (white dress).

Using Adobe Lightroom, (or Photoshop CS3), there is a little slider called "recovery" (below "exposure"). Move it to the right a little.. and here is the result.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c317/wtin/c2dbc90f.jpg

And this one was taken a couple of years ago. You should have seen what it looked like orginally. (That disk is somewhere in a box so I can't upload this photo to show you).

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c317/wtin/2ddc0e64.jpg

This one below, had I taken it in JPG, I wouldn't know what to do. It was so yellowish (and I hardly think setting the white balance to tuntsten would have helped much)

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c317/wtin/87532fb4.jpg

I was also able to adjust the exposure, too. I didn't want the lights from the city (Los Angeles) to be too dark, nor too bright.

And last sample:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c317/wtin/e7f39fe1.jpg

It was pitched dark at night. The color was awful. I think it would have been much worse than this had I not taken it in RAW.

Others have made very good arguments about using RAW over JPG, but I hope these samples show you a little more visually.

Lastly, think of it this way, if it's one of the life time photo (of your overseas trip, of your new born brother / sister, I can go on, etc.) that you can't go back and shoot again--why would you shoot it in JPG if you could do it in RAW.

I use both Photoshop CS3 and Lightroom. Lightroom is made for RAW actually. It's much easier to convert a whole bunch of them using LR than using Photoshop's Bridge, which is a pain in the rear if you want to convert a whole bunch of them at once.

Hope this helps a little.

Answer 2

The best advice: If you can shoot an acceptable image in jpeg, there's no reason you can't shoot in RAW and then post process to get your image. In fact, your camera has a quality setting that allows you to shoot RAW + jpeg. Thus, my suggestion would be to get a good sized memory card and shoot in RAW + jpeg. Then, you can work with the jpegs just like you always do, but you'll also have a RAW file that you can play with, experiment on converting, and adjust as you will before outputting to a converted jpeg file. From that, you can compare the camera jpeg to your RAW to jpeg output. So, you won't have to worry about the images coming out horrible. You will have to worry about memory card space. I do disagree with the other posters who say to forget it; if you want the most out of your camera--the ultimate resolution, detail, sharpness, color, contrast, etc., then shooting RAW is the only way to maximize your results. Shooting RAW + jpeg is the way to get the best of all worlds--a jpeg for e-mailing (and because it's what you're used to) while getting a RAW for maximum flexibility and maximum quality. P.S. I don't find that Rockwell quote at all helpful. People learn by asking questions. Essentially, he's saying that if you are trying to learn, you shouldn't even try. That's baloney in my book.

Answer 3

I would say this all depends on what you are doing with these photos. When I shoot in studio a head and shoulder shot or family portrait, I use large fine .jpeg. Since my lighting is fine tuned prior to the shooting, I really don't need the raw. On a wedding, where lighting is always changing I always use raw.

Answer 4

Absolutely.

Think of a .RAW file as a film negative. It is what your camera saw.

A .RAW file can bail you out of some tough situations.

Also a .RAW can be converted to a non-compressed .TIFF...much better looking printed than a .JPG

Set your camera so it captures a .JPG and .RAW of the same frame. If you are doing stuff for online exhibition then manipulate the .JPG. If you are doing something important, like making a print, use the .RAW file. That is what I do.

Answer 5

Well, its your first time. It sounds like you don't have a good work flow set up. With a good work flow, RAW is not much more time consuming then JPG. especially if you have some bad white balance, slaving over the color balance sliders in JPG for an hour leads to crummier results then the "WB slider" in RAW. Anyway, get adobe lightroom and be done with it.

Answer 6

Shooting RAW requires lots of computer time to get acceptable images. When you shoot .jpg you camera makes many of the adjustments for you. It is much easier to get better pics shooting .jpg.
You can do more with RAW if you are willing to put in the time and effort to learn. Try to find a RAW workshop in your area.