Shooting raw often gives you a wide scope of editing options when you get down to processing the photos. When you adjust your photo settings too much when taking a photo it will limit your options in the end. Plus some raw shots are just too epic to edit since they only require a light touch up to bring out the best features.
> @grandmaR said: > I have spare batteries and a spare card, and a water bottle and a hat. The essentials. > > Wouldn't I have to downsize RAW photos to get them under the 8MB limit?
RAW files are somewhat like film negatives, you wouldn't normally share them, instead using them to create the best possible JPEG. If these are saved at top quality they will often still exceed a 8MB limit. (I rarely share anything much longer than 1000pixels in any dimension)
Personally I usually find my camera does a better job of processing my raw data than I can. I tend to shoot JPG & tweak the images with FastStone.
RAW supposedly gives more latitude for correcting due to it's greater dynamic range (each color typically spread over 4000 values instead of just 256). But most of the time I can't see any difference in the result from this.
I shoot a lot of infra red, and have often seen claims that this MUST be done via RAW, but I also see claims that everyone should use manual all the time, must always use a tripod or shouldn't bother with anything that isn't full frame... In the right situation each of these might give improved image quality - but I've taken loads of shots where manual or a tripod would make matters much worse. I'd almost go so far as to say if someone claims ALWAYS for anything about photography, they're wrong!
> @grandmaR said: > What would I use to post process? I don't have Photoshop
You could try Gimp, I never have but Gimp is free and open source. IMHO, RAW is where it is at. As others have said, you can do some serious editing right in the RAW file and finish up in Photoshop or Lightroom. However, that is moot because you don't have either.
Personally, I don't think it matters if you shoot raw, particularly if you are in a hurry. I used to shoot raw, but the time involved in post process was too prohibitive for what I wanted to do. I found that if I get the camera setting closer to correct before I take the shot, then a quick edit one time on the jpeg is enough. What did I accomplish with this decision? I don't have to save a larger file or convert it later. To each his own.
Comments
Wow thank you Alan for mentioning the search term here. I have just checked it out, its a huge list indeed!
PathEdits.com - Product Photo Editing
> I have spare batteries and a spare card, and a water bottle and a hat. The essentials.
>
> Wouldn't I have to downsize RAW photos to get them under the 8MB limit?
RAW files are somewhat like film negatives, you wouldn't normally share them, instead using them to create the best possible JPEG. If these are saved at top quality they will often still exceed a 8MB limit. (I rarely share anything much longer than 1000pixels in any dimension)
Personally I usually find my camera does a better job of processing my raw data than I can. I tend to shoot JPG & tweak the images with FastStone.
RAW supposedly gives more latitude for correcting due to it's greater dynamic range (each color typically spread over 4000 values instead of just 256). But most of the time I can't see any difference in the result from this.
I shoot a lot of infra red, and have often seen claims that this MUST be done via RAW, but I also see claims that everyone should use manual all the time, must always use a tripod or shouldn't bother with anything that isn't full frame...
In the right situation each of these might give improved image quality - but I've taken loads of shots where manual or a tripod would make matters much worse. I'd almost go so far as to say if someone claims ALWAYS for anything about photography, they're wrong!
> What would I use to post process? I don't have Photoshop
You could try Gimp, I never have but Gimp is free and open source. IMHO, RAW is where it is at. As others have said, you can do some serious editing right in the RAW file and finish up in Photoshop or Lightroom. However, that is moot because you don't have either.
https://500px.com/william_doyle
https://www.flickr.com/photos/william_doyle/
And of course, http://www.photosbywilliam.net/
I used to shoot raw, but the time involved in post process was too prohibitive for what I wanted to do.
I found that if I get the camera setting closer to correct before I take the shot, then a quick edit one time on the jpeg is enough.
What did I accomplish with this decision? I don't have to save a larger file or convert it later.
To each his own.