Raw - Why should I bother?
In another photography forum, someone stated that people should be shooting raw. I tried it once but I couldn't figure out what to do with the pictures. I don't have Photoshop and think it would be a waste of money to buy and figure out how to use it given my age and stage in life and what I normally do with my photos.
What am I taking pictures of, you ask.
I am doing photo-documentation of cemeteries where I want the photo to show the state of the gravestones as they are in life, and hopefully if the inscriptions are readable, I'd like to be able to read them.
I travel, and when I travel, I am often shooting photos from a moving vehicle as Bob doesn't stop for me to take photos.
If I am not in a car, I am usually on a scooter - I am either driving with one hand and taking photos with the other (and trying not to run over other people) or I am taking a photo of something at a distance because I physically cannot get closer. If possible I will change to a longer lens, but sometimes I can't do that.
Sometimes if there is very rapid action I will take a short video or do the rapid fire pictures of the movement.
I also take photos of food - when traveling, and we go out to eat at least once a week when we are home.
And of course I take photos of my family.
Since the Out of My Comfort Zone instructional series stopped, I am not really taking photos for Digigrins - I am mostly looking back to see what photos I have already taken that are appropriate for the mini-series.
Now, which of those activities would be suitable and appropriate for me to shoot raw and which will it make no difference and which would not be suitable?
Keep in mind that I am almost 80 years old and I'm pretty happy with what I have been doing. I know I'm not professional grade, and have no desire to become a professional (although I have actually sold some of my pictures). How much time would it take me to learn a new technique? Would it really be worth it? Or should I just say - I come from the film era and I have enough to do with figuring out digital jpeg so respect your elders and lay off the 'people should shoot raw' stuff. 
Comments
Do you do any digital processing at all on your pics, or do you use straight out of the camera JPGs? If you are used to adjusting things like color balance and exposure, starting from raw gives you much greater control, but it will take some effort to learn and may require software you don't have. If you don't do much processing now, I'd just spend the time taking more pics and not worry about what other people are recommending. The previous sentence was not a recommendation
.
Thank you for taking the time to answer and giving me a guideline.
I crop and straighten and sometimes lighten or increase contrast but that is about it. What I'd really like to be able to do better is remove things like power lines and telephone poles. but I don't think raw would help me much there.
There are occasions when I would like to adjust the color a bit, but it doesn't happen that often - mostly it is because I've got the camera set wrong.
No, raw won't help much with removing stuff. You need a good pixel editor like Photoshop for that. OTOH, raw makes it much easier to correct color, as camera color settings no longer matter.
Even when I have the camera settings wrong and when all the colors turn out wrong, I can fix what I have - if necessary, I can just go to b&w. For gravestone photography, mostly color doesn't matter that much. The speed that I can work at is more important. I want to take as many photos as I can in the shortest amount of time. I have a limited amount of energy and when I am taking photos someplace, I don't want to waste that energy fiddling with the camera. As it is, it takes me many hours to catalog and post the photos. I don't need to add another layer of editing.
For example, in September, we were up in upstate NY for our grandson's wedding. The morning before the wedding, my sister, my husband and I went to a big cemetery and photographed three sections. We came back with 1400 photos, each of which has to be read, straightened, cropped and posted. It took me over a month to do that. By contrast, at the wedding itself, we only had about 200 photos. This is my sister's photo of me at the wedding with my great grandson (and what I should do with this photo is crop and straighten it. - I also can't figure out how to put a photo into this forum)
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/3SR4X1ZEudUVDtMngU8FyGn1iOrwp8XvB04kzpWnBd8muLU2YOza27si3ei3AigrGALIqKQgEbqNk8A=w581-h389
The mistakes that I can't fix (and I don't think raw would help there either) is when I have accidentally flipped to manual focus without realizing it, or because I have something that I wanted to use manual focus for and forgot to switch back.
The camera does what it is told to do. The faults are all with the person behind the camera.
Another area photographers sometimes screw up (notice or pro) that raw helps with is exposure. The camera is easily fooled by bright lights around your subject, or dark clothing, etc. With JPG you can make a bit of a change, but it is very limited. With raw, depending on the camera, you often can go +/- 2 stops, which can be a huge difference. A bit more complex but even more important if you have an editor that facilitates it is to adjust to raise shadows and deaden highlights, and you can turn a bright sun, simultaneously over/under exposed shot into something usable.
I shoot sports a lot, and the white balance adjustability of raw is important, but especially for sunny day sports (where you have limited ability to chose your direction of shooting) this is a huge advantage.
When I was developing and printing my own photos, I could "push" the exposure, and I could dodge and burn. (black and white - I didn't do my own color processing, but sometimes for underwater pictures I could ask them to adjust the red)
I don't do much sports anymore and when I did it was usually horse jumping. But for that I could set up because I could tell where the jumps were and the jumps were not going to move. But I haven't shot any horse events since I went digital in 2000. I do sometimes take photos at my granddaughter's soccer games, or at a baseball game. Baseball is really pretty static comparatively speaking.
I do the thing where you press the button half way and I put the little light where I want it to set the exposure and focus, and that usually works for me. Sometimes if it is really dark, I have to take a flash picture first so the camera can figure out what is there. (Or I might use manual focus in that case).
The primary advantage of shooting RAW is that changes from the trivial to the significant
can be made in post processing. In your case, an underexposed shot of a gravestone can
be adjusted to what you want. Highlights can be reduced. Steps like crop and straighten can
be done in the RAW processor. Clarity (detail) can be increased.
But, there's the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule. If your results using your current method
are satisfactory, you may not want to bother with a new method of post-processing.
Your camera probably has a setting to shoot RAW+.jpg. Try that setting and experiment
with the RAW version to see if the improvements using RAW are beneficial.
I shoot RAW only. I'm about to post a photo to "Other Cool Shots" of a hunt seat rider jumping over a bar.
I boosted Clarity a little, and straightened the horizon in the RAW processor, but that shot
wouldn't have needed much if I had shot just a .jpg.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
What would I use to post process? I don't have Photoshop
What are you using now for processing? What camera are you using? It probably came with software to convert raw.
Your camera, if it has a RAW setting, probably came with some program to use it.
However, this is free: http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/41454/how-to-process-camera-raw-without-paying-for-adobe-photoshop/
This is not a link to the download site, but does provide with some information about using RawTherapee.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
And you will find most up to date list ever created. There are all free and paid apps listed.
I would post the link but I won't let me until I have 15 contributions to this forum.
Best regards,
Alan
I have a Canon EOS Rebel T3
It does have a RAW setting, but I don't use the camera software for anything, because my previous camera was a Kodak and I hated that software so MUCH.
Originally I had a very nice program that I got with my first digital camera (a Toshiba) called Image Expert. Unfortunately it no longer works on this WIndows 10 computer.
So now I use Picasa3. I like it because I can make the horizon straight, so I don't have the ocean going uphill.
I'm always interested in the "why" of some photographers belief in one thing or another and the raw vs jpeg used to be a major discussion a couple of years back. Although it never quite got as much attention as the Nikon vs Canon debates. I personally love the reply from TonyCooper, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
So much about photography is what you are doing. What works best for someone else may not be the best for you.
Given enough time you will learn and grow your own photography. Don't worry about pleasing other photographers.
Website
I really like TonyCooper's reply too.
And I really appreciate that you are telling me about raw without pressuring me to do it.
The answer I got in the other forum was that people who should shoot jpeg would be photojournalists who need quick turn around and exact feeling in images as it was took with zero editing or people who need to shoot a lot of photos in a burst for things like timelapse, star trails, or a long series of quick images that a buffer wouldn't keep up with in raw.
And I'm not doing star trails. But I really can't spend a lot of time editing.
So while increasing clarity and reducing highlights would be helpful, about the only time I think that extensive editing would be something I would do would be for entering photo contests like here.
And most of those photos have already been taken and are already jpeg.
Thank you all very much. I'll keep those websites in mind in case I decide to give it a try
I think an issue is, grandmaR, that you came here posting "why should I use raw" and you got lots of feedback but you didn't want feedback, you appear to want validation that it's OK to shoot jpg.
So shoot jpg.
Photography, for most people, is about having fun. If you're having fun, great. JPG is just fine.
If you wanted to do something more, something different - raw may help, a new camera may help, a new technique may help, different software may help. But if you don't want to change, and are satisfied. Great. Why ask why?
No - I really wanted to know whether I should go to the trouble of shooting raw - that is what it would do for my photos to make them enough better to be worth the trouble. I wanted to be able to assess the topic.
And what I have heard is - it will enable me to correct exposure and increase clarity. If I got the camera set on P and all the pictures turn out blue, that wouldn't happen if I shot raw. And I could also do what in the past I did in the enlargement process by dodging and burning - I could take out or enhance highlights or hot spots. (Is that more or less correct?) It won't take out telephone poles or electric lines. But there are times when I wish I could emphasize the main point of the photo a bit more.
But I would have to get additional software and learn additional editing techniques. I did try raw once, but without the proper preparation for it, and I just didn't know what to do with the pictures after I shot them. I don't think I am so old that I couldn't shoot raw if there were a good reason for me to do it but I would want to know what it was that I was going to be doing. My first attempt was not successful because I did not know that I needed additional software or how to use it. I didn't understand exactly what raw was. (I do tend to just go and try things. Once in 1965, I wanted a photo of the field of airplanes at an antique fly-in, so I begged a ride in a bi-plane (a 1929 Waco). After we landed, I found out that the pilot had just bought the plane and had never flown it before. But I got my photo)
And you are correct that I'm pretty much satisfied with what I am doing. I do have occasional photos that are just so bad that I can't do anything with them, but if I could tell in advance that would be the problem, then they wouldn't be that bad because I would have corrected it before I shot the photo. None of what I am doing is life or death. And I am having fun taking photos. So I will keep raw in mind and if something comes up that I think it will be useful, I might try again.
Here is the simple truth. Shooting in raw allows you to adjust more or fix things easier than shooting in jpeg. Neither will save a bad image. There is not a hard rule that anyone has to use raw or jpeg. Yes it tends to help depending on what type of photography you do, but there are plenty of photographers in every genre that will use one or the other.
Here is the secret. Look at any image in any magazine, on any billboard, or on any website and try to determine if the photographer shot that image in raw or jpeg. Then ask yourself if it really matters one way or the other.
It is entirely too easy to get caught up in and drive yourself nuts with the whole details thing, but in the end no one else cares. Either the image will move people or it won't.
Website
Assuming your Rebel T3 came with all it should have done (dunno if you bought it used?) ... then you should already have the necessary Raw conversion software ... DPP (Digital Photo Professional)
Btw, I happen to shoot both Raw + Jpg, since my 7Dm2 has two card slots ... and I can't read the Raws on my main (pic editing) pc because it's too old to run the appropriate version of DPP.
I edit / cull by viewing the Jpgs, then dump both the Raw and Jpg versions of the junk.
pp
Flickr
I bought the camera new 3 or 4 years ago. My husband has a T5 that he got more recently. I did not ever install the software from either camera on my PC because most of those programs take up a huge amount of room. I can probably get the CD from Bob's camera stuff, should I want it.
The biggest advantage with raw is exposure latitude (eg. fixing highlights and shadows in high contrast scenes or fixing exposure mistakes) and fixing the wrong white balance in post processing without image degradation.
Reading what and how you take pictures these are not your problems, for straightening and cropping there is no real difference between raw and jpg.
So I agree with Tony Cooper, if it ain't broken there's no need to fix it.
Once you get the hang of it adjusting a raw image to your liking is as fast as correcting a jpg image, but you will need to invest a lot of practice time to get to that level of proficiency.
So in your case I'd spend that time taking pictures, much more fun anyway!
My SmugMug
Thank you. I call myself a snapshot photographer. That term can be used in a derogatory way, but I think in my case it is accurate. I am more interested in what I am taking photos of than the process. I want to know about the process, but as much as possible I want the camera to take care of the process and free me up to see things to take photos of.
I've always taken a lot of photos. For 15 years, I worked in a regulatory field where I had to document the supporting evidence for citations with photographs. For each photograph we had to describe what it showed in detail. I did not mind doing that. My boss once commented that I took more photos than a wedding photographer. Of course he had to read all the descriptions I wrote, so this was not entirely a compliment, but I chose to see it as one.
And of course those photos could not be doctored in any way. We could not even write on them. They were right out of the camera.
A practical example is often a good way to demonstrate the benefits of RAW files vs JPG files.
For this recent case I was shooting a ceremony at my church. I had been taking 1 and 2 individuals' images when Pastor called everyone up to the front of the church for a collective gift presentation for someone who had experienced a stroke. (Fortunately that individual is making an excellent recovery.)
I did not open the flash modifier I was using and the church lights were not on due to the type of presentation. The result was far to little "feathering" of light for the scene.
Oh bother; what to do? Fortunately I used a pretty good camera with reasonable RAW recovery capabilities, a Canon 5D Mark III. I also have pretty good software and I've developed some skills to deal with this sort of problem. So ..., after some time and several pieces of software with very careful processing I achieved:
If anyone wishes they can try to recover the first JPG to approximate the results of the second JPG.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I think I have discovered one of the reasons that I resist using raw - It is a residue of 15 years of working compliance work where photos were not allowed to be edited.
But if I had that particularly problem, this is what I would have done.
It isn't as complete or elegant a solution, but it might do in a pinch.
Couldn't get quite as much detail out, but it is usable
Website
Thanks both!
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
> No - I really wanted to know whether I should go to the trouble of shooting raw - that is what it would do for my photos to make them enough better to be worth the trouble. I wanted to be able to assess the topic.
>
> And what I have heard is - it will enable me to correct exposure and increase clarity. If I got the camera set on P and all the pictures turn out blue, that wouldn't happen if I shot raw. And I could also do what in the past I did in the enlargement process by dodging and burning - I could take out or enhance highlights or hot spots. (Is that more or less correct?) It won't take out telephone poles or electric lines. But there are times when I wish I could emphasize the main point of the photo a bit more.
>
> But I would have to get additional software and learn additional editing techniques. I did try raw once, but without the proper preparation for it, and I just didn't know what to do with the pictures after I shot them. I don't think I am so old that I couldn't shoot raw if there were a good reason for me to do it but I would want to know what it was that I was going to be doing. My first attempt was not successful because I did not know that I needed additional software or how to use it. I didn't understand exactly what raw was. (I do tend to just go and try things. Once in 1965, I wanted a photo of the field of airplanes at an antique fly-in, so I begged a ride in a bi-plane (a 1929 Waco). After we landed, I found out that the pilot had just bought the plane and had never flown it before. But I got my photo)
>
> And you are correct that I'm pretty much satisfied with what I am doing. I do have occasional photos that are just so bad that I can't do anything with them, but if I could tell in advance that would be the problem, then they wouldn't be that bad because I would have corrected it before I shot the photo. None of what I am doing is life or death. And I am having fun taking photos. So I will keep raw in mind and if something comes up that I think it will be useful, I might try again.
My two cents. It does not matter depending on your expectations and needs. For most people, know how to use the camera more important than file format. JPGs allow for seeing and posting pictures faster , take less memory and that satisfies most people. But I shoot RAW only. I shoot car racing and need to be able to post process, Camera doing JPG vs a PC software doing JPG is a big difference. Camera cant compare. But, RAW allows fine tuneing for details and light that you cannot do in JPG. But using the Canon DPP software is a great FREE thing to use for RAW. Also look at ON1 for JPGs Does allow with JPGs for free or low cost alternative to Lightroom. Lots of filters for help do adjustments automatically to lots of pictures at 1 time. Good luck
For the most part I agree with you, but with the right editing skills anything can be done regardless of what format you use.
Raw has not been around all that long. I get that those who came along after it was available think that it is the best thing ever, but cgi has already removed the "need" for shooting in any format.
Yes, getting the shot right before post editing has a major effect and that is what every photographer should strive for.
Our studio shoots all our catalog shots in jpeg. Any post editing will be super easy because the shots are simple to begin with. All of the hero shots are done in the format that the client wants if they are farming out the post editing.
If we are contracting the post editing, we shoot in raw because that is what the people who do our post editing wish.
In the end, the only thing that matters is the opinion of the buyer. They don't care about any of the photographer arguments.
The buyer wants an image that they love, that's it.
Whether you shot that image in raw, jpeg, created it with cgi, or crossed your arms and blinked (I dream of Jeannie style)) no one but a photographer cares. Heck, most normal people don't even know what any of that means.
They don't care if you shot it on Nikon, Sony, Canon, Hasselblad or on a Kodak disposable.
They don't care if you post edited the image or not. So whether you use photoshop or lightroom or elements or gimp or whatever, no buyer cares.
Everyone needs to stop worrying about what other photographers think (unless of course those photographers are buying your images).
Website
While I agree with some of what you said, that statement is simply, factually, mathematically not true. JPG does not offer the data to do the same things that can be done in raw, it is already "baked in" and data has been discarded relative to raw.
...
Absolutely. One CAN shoot in JPG and make people happy. But Raw gives you more flexibility (i.e. more ability to make up for oversights when shooting) than JPG.
It is not necessary to shoot in RAW, and almost any given image could have been captured SOOC in JPG by someone who knew what they were doing (or accidentally got it right).
Yes raw gives more flexibility than jpeg, but cgi gives more flexibility than anything, but you are missing my point. All the photographer arguments are irrelevant to everyone who isn't into photography.
Some people take images for their own use. They should not feel obligated to use a format that others like to use. Same with camera manufacturer, editing program, or camera strap or type of lens or anything else. They should use what they like. That was the original point made by the original poster. Others were telling them that they should be using raw.
Photography has been around a heck of a lot longer than raw and photoshop and everything else that is possible today. Yet somehow photographers managed to get by and still create amazing images.
Now before someone says, "but they had a dark room", as someone who did work in a darkroom, there is far more that I can do with a jpeg (today) than it was ever possible for me to do in the darkroom. With photoshop I don't even need a photograph to create an image. Or I can take thousands upon thousands of jpegs and stack them all together to make something odd. The power of photoshop is only limited by the imagination.
Plus, you need to take into consideration that Photoshop wasn't created for photographers. Photographers just happened to stumble across it and found that it also worked for us.
If someone were to google "most iconic photographs ever" there is no way to tell what camera was used, what editing happened after the image was taken, and the simple fact is, none of that matters. The image isn't iconic because of the camera or the post editing. It is amazing because someone used their imagination and talent or maybe even luck to do it.
Instead of wasting time arguing over things that 100% of the non photographers care nothing about, everyone should be focusing on making what makes them or their clients happy.
Website
...
All true.
One thought though -- if someone asks a question, seems to express an interest in knowing why raw will help, should we then say "none of it matters, be happy"?