U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-05-2008, 12:26 AM
 
Location: Beautiful Buffalo :-)
2,988 posts, read 5,581,405 times
Reputation: 1348

Advertisements

I was talking with a pro (a friend of a good friend) who said he only shoots in RAW. Having a "limited" camera, I only know of taking JPG pics.

What's the difference? Is there a difference?

I've not heard of RAW until I began reading in this CD forum. Any and all info is accepted (comparing pics encouraged). "technical text" confuses me....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-05-2008, 07:53 AM
 
Location: Swamps of Florida
3,423 posts, read 6,671,254 times
Reputation: 1867
RAW means uncooked, unprocessed, untouched, unedited, un(insert whatever here)the way nature intended.... if ya know what i mean.

Good reading here:

Raw image format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RAW vs. JPEG
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2008, 08:06 AM
 
Location: Moon Over Palmettos
5,971 posts, read 12,279,270 times
Reputation: 4772
Quote:
Originally Posted by FedupWNY View Post
I've not heard of RAW until I began reading in this CD forum. Any and all info is accepted (comparing pics encouraged). "technical text" confuses me....
RAW like TIFF files are very large (about 13 gig or so). No hosting website I know has the bandwidth to allow for uploading (therefore sharing) RAW files. I wish there was. Maybe somebody knows of one that does not require a membership fee.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2008, 08:34 AM
 
Location: Beautiful Buffalo :-)
2,988 posts, read 5,581,405 times
Reputation: 1348
Thanks ShepsMom and bibit612. The links were good information.

Is RAW best for photographing people, since it is the closest to viewing from the natural eye?

I knew that RAW is a much larger file, can RAW images be sized-down?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2008, 09:14 AM
 
4,175 posts, read 4,054,574 times
Reputation: 1182
There is no better mode than RAW. However, it tends to be the most time consuming, needs a lot of storage, and on many pics (where the needs are not very stringent), you may be hard pressed to tell the difference between JPG and RAW formats. Many P&S users have gone back to JPGs because of this. If you have the time, or use software that has a "batch" mode to process all your files (and you are happy with the settings), use RAW.A photographer friend of mine has a good rule of thumb - if you use P&Soot cameras, use jpg etc; for bridge cameras, most times jpgs will do but for more difficult pics, use the RAW option; for DSLRs, use RAW most of the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2008, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Beautiful Buffalo :-)
2,988 posts, read 5,581,405 times
Reputation: 1348
Thanks calmdude, I just read in one of the links from shepsmom about RAW being time consuming. When I was helped in learning how to shoot macro, being patient was my biggest challenge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2008, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Swamps of Florida
3,423 posts, read 6,671,254 times
Reputation: 1867
Quote:
Originally Posted by calmdude View Post
There is no better mode than RAW. However, it tends to be the most time consuming, needs a lot of storage, and on many pics (where the needs are not very stringent), you may be hard pressed to tell the difference between JPG and RAW formats. Many P&S users have gone back to JPGs because of this. If you have the time, or use software that has a "batch" mode to process all your files (and you are happy with the settings), use RAW.A photographer friend of mine has a good rule of thumb - if you use P&Soot cameras, use jpg etc; for bridge cameras, most times jpgs will do but for more difficult pics, use the RAW option; for DSLRs, use RAW most of the time.

I only use RAW for serious work, for paid clients, or if i spot something that worth my effort to make an exceptional image.
Otherwise, there is no reason to use raw for me, it is indeed time consuming to adjust/edit/convert back to JPEG via CS
So, for anything less then pro image, i shoot fine JPEG and happy with that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2008, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Moon Over Palmettos
5,971 posts, read 12,279,270 times
Reputation: 4772
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShepsMom View Post
I only use RAW for serious work, for paid clients, or if i spot something that worth my effort to make an exceptional image.
Otherwise, there is no reason to use raw for me, it is indeed time consuming to adjust/edit/convert back to JPEG via CS
So, for anything less then pro image, i shoot fine JPEG and happy with that.
I agree with both. My camera has the ability to shoot RAW but it fixes the file size to 8.5MP. When I reduce resolution, it expands my zoom capabilities. Last night I tried to shoot the crescent moon. I had my zoom on at full 420mm with a 1.7x teleconverter on top of that, changed my pic to 3:2 to get it larger on the frame, and there was a big difference in shooting it at 8.5MP to almost down to 3. RAW would have prevented me from reducing my resolution which will sacrifice my ability to zoom in closer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2008, 09:41 AM
 
Location: Swamps of Florida
3,423 posts, read 6,671,254 times
Reputation: 1867
Another thing, i will shoot raw under challenging lighting conditions, because raw lets me adjust white balance to perfection!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2008, 09:42 AM
 
4,175 posts, read 4,054,574 times
Reputation: 1182
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShepsMom View Post
I only use RAW for serious work, for paid clients, or if i spot something that worth my effort to make an exceptional image.
Otherwise, there is no reason to use raw for me, it is indeed time consuming to adjust/edit/convert back to JPEG via CS
So, for anything less then pro image, i shoot fine JPEG and happy with that.
I have a bridge camera (FZ50). 2 yrs ago, I got excited about raw - did some work with Silkypix, then went back to shooting in jpeg most of the time. RAW does give you a lot of options - if you have the time to play around. I am sure RAW will be useful when I upgrade to a DSLR - it is a worthwhile learning experience.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:21 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top