Copyright © 2005-2013
Stephen T Batson Jr
(Repost from Forum - April 2007)And no, not talking about shooting in the nude! ;)
Note: This article may not apply to you if you are taking pictures with a camera phone or point & shoot camera which typically only save the images as JPEG files. However, if you are using a Digital SLR or other professional quality digital camera this probably does apply to you.
I'm going to stir things up a bit here. The reason I feel this will stir things up is that many advanced level photographers or professionals will point out that how they do their photography works perfectly fine for them. Hey, if that's the case more power to them. I just want to state for the record, that there is a reason that the camera makers provided the RAW file format. One can argue as much as they want about why they don't want to use camera RAW mode, but the bottom line is, the Camera RAW file is highly superior to JPEG files. So regardless of you level of expertise as a photographer and what your current reasoning is if you don't shoot in RAW mode, read this article and give it some thought, better yet, give it a shot!
Come on, admit it! If you aren't using RAW files with your Digital camera and it supports them, you are afraid, you missed something or you are simply making excuses. You know it's true. And no I'm not trying to be rude or mean. I'm trying to get you to think about a few things and maybe, just maybe, convince you to make the switch.
Here's some of excuses I've heard:
- I don't know how to use RAW files, I've never done it before
- They take up to much space
- They slow the camera down
And here's a biggie that mostly experienced photographers and professionals will throw around.
- It complicates the workflow too much and slows me down.
Now here's my repsonse to each of these concerns.
"I don't know how to use RAW files, I've never done it before"
Spend 5 minutes with your camera's manual and a few minutes with the help in your imaging program such as photoshop that supports RAW files. Or worst case, a few minutes with the free software that came with your camera that supports RAW files
"They take up to much space"
Ok, you just spent at least $1000 (several hundred on a decent consumer point and shoot digital) and probably a lot more on your camera to take great pictures and you want to skimp on your memory cards? Come on!!! Memory is cheap when you consider how much it saves you over film. You can get 32 gig cards for under $100 today. With RAW files, that's still equivalent several rolls of film on many cameras and you can use it over and over and over. If you are a professional or avid shooter, buy enough cards hold you until you can download to computer or storage device.
"They slow the camera down"
Maybe in some cases, but with most of the Digital SLRs you have a buffer that lets you shoot from about 6 to 9 images before you have to wait for the camera to finishing saving to the card, so this becomes less of an issue. So unless you are shooting sports or doing a lot of rapid fire shooting that RAW files are truly slowing you down or preventing you from getting the shots you need, shooting RAW may still be the better way to go.
"It complicates the workflow too much and slows me down"
Ok, I'll say that it "Changes" the work flow slightly, but it doesn't have to slow us down. As serious photographers, our goal should always be to get the best image we can both in camera and after the fact. Most of the cameras that can shoot raw files also came with software that will allow us to work on them, and/or convert the images to jpegs which is where they will usually end up before they go to the lab. If we do our job right to begin with, and get the images as close to what they should be in camera, we can do a batch convert to jpeg and be ready to crop and print. Go get a cup of coffee or do something else you need to be doing anyway while the computer does the batch convert. It doesn't take that long and let's face it, we always have something else productive that can be done while running a batch convert that is going to take several minutes. Once we have the jpegs, our workflow doesn't change. And better yet, many of the newer cameras allow us to shoot RAW+JPEG. That means you can just copy the RAW files off to to a storage area and only work with JPEG files unless a RAW file is needed.
Ok now that I've addressed the concerns and excuses, I'm going to promote the benefits a bit more.
When you a need to correct exposure, white balance, contrast and a host of other typical post processing tasks, doing so in a RAW file lets you do a better job since you have all of the original information in the image. In fact with white balance, which can be a biggie if you shot with the wrong settings or the camera just didn't get it quite right, you can correct with absolutely no loss in image quality. When we do major tweaking a non-raw file, the more we tweak, the more we risk loosing quality in the image. It may not be a lot in some cases, but it may be bad in others. We want to be able to go back to what the camera actually captured, instead of a jpeg that was converted in camera and a lot of information tossed out.
What if the one shot that needs serious correction is a jpeg and is the money making shot, you just know it. But it's just too far off in one or more areas to adjust and really get the quality you need? Yeah, maybe you can do some magic in photoshop, but if you are striving for excellence, you'd have a much better chance of getting the best if you had a RAW file to work with and it would take much less time. Think about that when your concerns of slowing the workflow down come up.
Some labs are even starting to process from RAW files. Come on, you know it. You know you have been avoiding it because of what others have said, or because you are afraid. Just take a few hours, do some tests of your own. Shoot a daylight image with white balance set for tungsten as a jpeg and another as a raw image. Shoot the same subject so you can compare. Now, take 30 seconds to correct the raw image to daylight. Now see how long it takes to do on the jpeg, if you can even get close. And don't even think about telling me that you would never, ever shoot with the white balance or other setting set incorrectly. Don't even go there!!! We all make mistakes and so do you. The point is, shooting raw is much more forgiving than jpeg and there's nothing wrong with that, especially when our images are important to us. Using JPEG compared to RAW is like throwing away your negatives on film. You figure what the heck, you can always make a copy of your print if you need to fix something. It just isn't the same.
A final note about RAW files. Since they contain all of the information captured by the camera, when you make common adjustments to the RAW file before outputting to JPEG or other format to be used for printing or other purpose requiring high resolution, you getting a much higher quality. This can make a huge difference.
The choice is yours.
