Is RAW really worth it?

[Larry C]

I'm popping the card into a built in card reader on my computer. It's a couple of years old and not fancy. HP Pavilion, AMD 64 Athlon 978 mhz 960 MB RAM.

Each RAW file is 15.3 meg

If you don't have USB 2.0, get it. Get a new reader. Then open up your box and find out what kind of RAM you have and add two gigs of it. You might want to buy 3 or 4 gigs of RAM and discard what you have now. RAM has gotten ridiculously cheap. My wife paid $96/megabyte on our first computer. Now you can get the stuff for $15/gig. It makes a huge difference in processing speed because the computer can buffer the information while it continues to process.

I had an older computer and ended up buying a new one when I started doing digital editing because the old one just crawled along. It would take half an hour just to open the programs with the pictures and it would be 2-3 minutes for an image to open. It was taking me all day to process my RAW images.

 

[fisheyeview]

To OP - Yes!

To Kev - Dude, that is way too slow for downloading. Let me know if you want to try my external card reader to see the difference. It takes me 8 - 10 minutes max when downloading a 4 or 8 gig card.

 

[Bubbletrubble]

So, what you are saying is that your Imedion Powerex 2100s last longer than a regular brand (Energizer/Duracell) 2700s? How is that possible?

Remember that I don't need a battery that I can use a week from now, I need a battery that I can charge today and use tomorrow on my 2 tank dives, and that lasts about 2.5 hours worth of taking pictures and video while diving. I could do that with my old camera, I'm not sure if I can do that with my new A590 IS while shooting RAW.

I don't care about a low-discharge battery, I want a long life battery. Now if you tell me that low-discharge batteries are manufactured better and thus holds the charge and delivers actually better than an Energizer 2700, I can understand that. Is that what you are saying?

@xaveri: I hear what you're saying. You're fixated on the mAh rating of the batteries. Don't overthink the battery issue. Alcina has a ton of experience with the Canon Point & Shoots. The low-discharge type batteries will work great in your camera. Try them. You won't be disappointed.

Dave Etchells of Imaging Resource wrote a nice review of rechargeable batteries a few years back. In his article he discusses the problems with basing your AA battery purchases solely on mAh. For one thing, manufacturers advertise an optimistic assessment of the battery's mAh rating. Further, watt-hours are more important than the current only definition of mAh. One needs to multiply the power (voltage * current) by the duration of time in order to come up with the true energy of the battery. Perhaps most importantly, real-world performance of the AA batteries is load-dependent, and finicky digital cameras can create a significant voltage drop in a battery.

Although Dave did not address the low-discharge type AA batteries in the above review, he did make a few comments specifically about Eneloops in a subsequent Imaging Resource article. The low-discharge type batteries have a lower internal resistance which translates into a smaller drop in output voltage when placed under a sudden current load.

Whether you go with the Sanyo Eneloops or the Imedions, you can't go wrong. They conveniently hold a charge for a long time, perform well in digital cameras, and are advertised to withstand 1000 charge cycles. They are a great value for the money.

 

[alcina]

Yes, my Imedions 2100s last longer and recycle in my strobe/flash faster than my other batteries that are rated at 2700.

To be honest, I don't really know why that is, and frankly I couldn't possibly care less They work, I use them

 

[Scubakevdm]

I just test shot a Canon G-10 in RAW and 205 images only took 9 minutes to upload straight from the camera with a USB.

 

[danclem]

Interesting thread. Couple of comments:

1.) If you are a photographer, look at purchasing laptops/desktops that have internal card readers. They are faster and there are fewer peripherals to carry around.

2.) If you shoot RAW (and it is superior for many reasons), look at using PhotoMechanic as your browser. It reads the imbedded jpg image contained in all RAW files very rapidly, so you can zap unwanted pics from the card prior to transferring images. It works seamlessly with LightRoom and Photoshop. There are free demo versions available.

3.) Take a look at LightRoom for processing images. We recently ran a side by side comparison of Photoshop CS4, LightRoom, Elements, Picassa, and Aperture, and folks using Elements, Picassa, and Aperture went out and purchased LightRoom. I am using Photoshop less and less, as LightRoom is really designed for photographers. Once again, there is a free demo version available so you can compare different products.

Like a lot of people, I really resisted RAW for quite a time, then took RAW + JPG images for a brief period. The software has improved so much that it is really easy to work with RAW, and the results are generally much, much better.

Have Fun!

Dan

 

[Dan Weidert]

<<edit>>

As I said, I'm a graphic artist and underwater photography is my hobbie, but I want to take the best picture possible in all possible ways. Sometimes I spend 3-4 hours just looking at my pictures from a dive, tweeking them, color correcting them and making them look better.

<<edit>>

Eee gads! I'm surprised you even asked. Being able to tweak the color temp, white balance, highlights, fill and exposure before you even open the image is right up your alley. You want THE picture more than a ton of pics and RAW will help you get there. By the Way - I believe there is an add on for CS3 that functions as a filter for underwater stills.

Dan

 

[Scubakevdm]

Sorry to hijack the thread, before... it was inadvertent though. Just an update on my slow RAW file transfer:

I'm taking them straight off the camera via USB and writing to a new external hard drive and getting a couple hundred shots off in about 9 minutes. Thanks for letting me know I had a problem!

 

[wildoceanphoto-dotcom]

In my opinion, RAW is far superior to JPEG...hands down. At the end of the day, the biggest advantage is that you have the more creative freedom overall, including the ability to change image processing settings (exposure, white balance, color, sharpening, etc.) during post-processing. Also, the bit depth of RAW files is generally higher. The tradeoff is additional cost for additional storage space (don't forget the backups), processor speed that you'll need on your computer, plus most of the software that handles RAW is usually very hungry for RAM as well. Cost is obviously a consideration for most, but if you want the most creative freedom possible, go RAW and don't look back.

FYI, I disagree with posters above on needing to reduce the number of shots taken - I find that even once I've composed my photo, fish are moving subjects, and it behooves you to get many of the same shot, then you can pick "the one" when you get home, and delete the rest to save on storage space.

 

[danclem]

Just returned from an extended trip to the Bahamas and Keys, and thought I would offer the following relating to CS4.

Until recently my work flow has been PhotoMechanic to LightRoom, with Photoshop being used less and less. Well, with CS4 Adobe brought most all of the LightRoom tools into Camera RAW. There are also dramatic improvements to Adobe Bridge, so I am not sure the other tools are any where near as important.

It looks to me like RAW is going to wind up being the preferred standard for all digital photographers. The tools are getting easier and easier to work, and you wind up "printing" different versions depending on your final use (web, slide show on high def TV for family and friends, prints, publications, etc).

Cheers,

Dan