Is RAW really worth it?

[xaveri]

I recently purchased a Canon A590 IS and I've been playing with CHDK and its RAW capabilities. I have Photoshop CS3 so Im able to handle RAW camera files just fine and I've seen the difference between having RAW and a processed JPEG. I agree that the possibilities for "fixing" and editing a photo are greater when you have the RAW version, im not disputing that.

The problem is that, since I cant use an SD Card larger than 4GB (CHDK restriction), when I activate the RAW feature, I can only take 280 photos max in comparison to more than 1000 photos if I'm using JPEG. Usually I take more than 300 photos on a 2 tank dive, so I would have to limit myself and take no video at all. Topside is no problem, but for underwater purposes I don't what to open my housing in between dives to put in a new SD card, it's not practical.

My question is, is RAW worth all of those limitations? I know that a properly exposed, properly lit photo really doesn't need to have a RAW since the JPEG version is ok. But, to those of you who have used RAW some time, is all the hassle worth it for those problematic picture that require tweaking?

 

[diver 85]

I would take fewer pics----140 per dive is alot IMO, are your batteries going to last ??.....

 

[fppf]

As you dive more you will take less and less photo's.

 

[parzdiver]

You will only get benefit from the RAW format if you are using an editing software (PhotoShop, GIMP) that can use all of the data. JPG compresses the image and you lose much of the data in the processing. If you are a good hand with the editing software, you can get a much better "developed" image out of a RAW format than if you started with a JPG.

 

[xaveri]

I would take fewer pics----140 per dive is alot IMO, are your batteries going to last ??.....

As you dive more you will take less and less photo's.

I've beeen thinking about that. I've been diving for almost a year now, what can I say I'm kind of trigger happy. I guess I could restrain a bit, more quality, less quantity?

My record so far is 350 pictures for a 2 tank dive and batteries last nicely. However since I've changed the camera I'm not sure if that would be the case. Also, shooting in RAW consumes more battery life because of the bigger sizes, so I'll have to check on that.

You will only get benefit from the RAW format if you are using an editing software (PhotoShop, GIMP) that can use all of the data. JPG compresses the image and you lose much of the data in the processing. If you are a good hand with the editing software, you can get a much better "developed" image out of a RAW format than if you started with a JPG.

I'm a graphic artist by profession so I have tools and the skills to use RAW photos. That is one of the main reasons I'm interested in RAW. I'm just uncomfortable with having to limit myself to be able to use it.

 

[Larry C]

Too many pictures!! Take your time, compose, adjust, concentrate on a few subjects and get the best shots. Try different angles, lighting, settings. RAW is a great feature, but taking good pictures to begin with will make you better in RAW or JPEG.

 

[Scubakevdm]

DISCAIMER: I am not an expert. These are just observations from my own personal experience.

I used to be kinda anti RAW when I was shooting an Oly5050 because it was so friggin' slow to write, it ate up so much card, and then it was a PITA to do anything with the RAW files that I ended up with, which to me didn't seem worth the trouble when I compared them to the jpeg's I got otherwise. I realize that cameras are writing quite a bit faster these days, but this was the path I started out on.

I am now shooting a Nikon and a friend who knows an awful lot about cameras said "Kevin, I know you don't like shooting RAW, but just do it.". So I did. The RAW files I get with the Nikon are very different than the jpegs it produces (there is a setting that shoots in both RAW and jpeg so I got to see the same photos shot in both formats side by side and the RAW hands down blasted the jpeg. It held much much more detail and way less contrasty than the jpeg. I could reallly get a much more realistic representation with the RAW. I don't know alot about this kind of stuff, so I don't know if there have been advances in the RAW formats, and I don't know if there is any difference between .NEF's or the Oly or Canon RAW formats but with the Nikon, there is a big difference. FWIW I don't do much tinkering with my photos. The RAWs I get now are pretty good right out of the can. I sometimes push or pull them a hair with Picasa, but I don't have any editing software that handles RAW files outside of that.


I guess the best advice would be to try it for a few dives and see what you think.

 

[WetEar]

Take a look at this thread for a pretty good discussion of the topic:

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/underwater-photography/272648-how-useful-raw-lazy-unskilled.html

In short, yes, RAW is definitely worth doing. It gives you the ability to correct colours significantly more accurately than you could achieve if you're only shooting JPGs. In addition, it frees you from the burden of constantly needing to white-balance underwater. With RAW, the only time you need an underwater whitebalance is if you're going to shoot a movie. For the still photos, you just shoot the photos & do your white balancing later, at the comfort of your computer topside.

 

[Codiak]

Without a doubt shoot RAW!

With the size of memory cards today your more likely deplete your battery before filling the card.

More detail is always better then less

In the worst case you can just convert to JPG later.

As for software needed, picasa.goggle.com is one of the simpliest free programs available, using it for white balance from RAW images is a real treat.

 

[Doubler]

Buy another 4 Gig SD card, change between dives and continue to shoot RAW.