The advantages of RAW shooting for bad weather

Antonio Correia

The photos on our left are those who have been treated for pop-up and to be nice ones.
But, as I wanted to translate the bad whether, the photos on the right are much better.
It was not raining, but it was a grey and overcast.
I started with the RAW files which allowed me to do so.
I sincerely think it would not be so as easy as if I had only JPGs.
I would like you to tell me what you think IYP.
Thank you.

Swartzy

Antonio.....yes
Working with RAW affords us so many more choices without question. Color balance and exposure alone provide more options than JPeg. There are other benefits as well which I'm certain you've discovered but WB & Exposure alone are enough for me to shoot RAW all the time.

The only time's I'll shoot JPeg, is in a fast shoot situation (like birding) to where I need the shots written to the card so the camera keeps up. I've lost some good opportunities for eagle shots due to the camera refusing to fire as it was writing information to the card.

Antonio Correia

Swartzy wrote:

... The only time's I'll shoot JPeg, is in a fast shoot situation (like birding) to where I need the shots written to the card so the camera keeps up. I've lost some good opportunities for eagle shots due to the camera refusing to fire as it was writing information to the card.

Swartzy,
That depends on the card you using.
I have a Sandisk Extreme III which goes very fast with the 20 D
BUT, to do it faster don't leave the finger on the shutter for a long time. Do it by small portions ...
Do I make myself clear ?
This way the camera has time to write in the card.
It works great for me who doesn't shoot birds or sports that often ...


Look here the speed of the SE III IYP...

Awais Yaqub

Yeah really cool improvement

Richard

Swartzy wrote:

The only time's I'll shoot JPeg, is in a fast shoot situation (like birding) to where I need the shots written to the card so the camera keeps up. I've lost some good opportunities for eagle shots due to the camera refusing to fire as it was writing information to the card.

Is jpg really faster? The basic capture is always raw, and the camera needs to do additional processing to create the jpg. I suppose if you are using a slow card, the additional write time of the larger raw file could exceed the processing time. scratch I guess I never noticed the difference. Of course, raw has many other advantages, as we all know.

Antonio Correia

Awais Yaqub wrote:

Yeah really cool improvement

Thank you Awais...

mercphoto

Antonio Correia wrote:

The photos on our left are those who have been treated for pop-up and to be nice ones.
But, as I wanted to translate the bad whether, the photos on the right are much better.
It was not raining, but it was a grey and overcast.
I started with the RAW files which allowed me to do so.
I sincerely think it would not be so as easy as if I had only JPGs.
I would like you to tell me what you think IYP.
Thank you.

The only way you can really answer this question is to shoot RAW + JPG and then work over each file and see what happens. But taking a RAW file that needs work, seeing an improvement, and then concluding "this could not be done with JPG" is a bit of a stretch.

Also note that not all in-camera JPG's are the same. Some cameras produce JPG's that are rather large, detailed, and stand up to editing whereas others do not.

Personally, I don't think your posted examples are severe enough that a JPG could not be fixed, maybe even with something as simple as an auto-levels. You might be surprised with what I have done with JPG motocross shots under dim lighting and with dust.

DavidTO

mercphoto wrote:

The only way you can really answer this question is to shoot RAW + JPG and then work over each file and see what happens. But taking a RAW file that needs work, seeing an improvement, and then concluding "this could not be done with JPG" is a bit of a stretch.

Also note that not all in-camera JPG's are the same. Some cameras produce JPG's that are rather large, detailed, and stand up to editing whereas others do not.

Personally, I don't think your posted examples are severe enough that a JPG could not be fixed, maybe even with something as simple as an auto-levels. You might be surprised with what I have done with JPG motocross shots under dim lighting and with dust.

, but I'm too lazy to type that much.

Antonio Correia

[quote=

mercphoto

]The only way you can really answer this question is to shoot RAW + JPG and then work over each file and see what happens. But taking a RAW file that needs work, seeing an improvement, and then concluding "this could not be done with JPG" is a bit of a stretch.

Also note that not all in-camera

JPG's

are the same. Some cameras produce

JPG's

that are rather large, detailed, and stand up to editing whereas others do not.

Personally, I don't think your posted examples are severe enough that a JPG could not be fixed, maybe even with something as simple as an auto-levels. You might be surprised with what I have done with JPG motocross shots under dim lighting and with dust.[/quote]
Bill. What can I tell you ?
That you are probably right.
Or that the issue is controversial.

You made a good point anyway.
Another day I shot RAW and JPG at the same time.
And again I did it and posted in a thread.

Well, I prefer RAW.
Now I go and have a look at your pics !
Regards and thank you for the contribution !