is RAW worth it?

[IslandFrog]

2 quick questions;
How much larger, and slower to write are RAW files? Recycle time is important.
I've never even seen Lightroom, but how does it do with jpeg edits?
Thanks - Eric

I've used Lightroom since the first version, on both RAW and jpeg images. The jpeg's do ok in Lightroom, but take the same image captured in both RAW and jpeg and work with them both in Lightroom and you will quickly see the advantages of RAW in giving you much finer control. The question then becomes do you really need that level of control? A lot of time I shoot with a setting that saves both a RAW and jpeg at the same time giving me the best of both, although this does take up some room on the card. Write time is not an issue due to the buffer on my cameras, and the way that I shoot.

Here is a link to an interesting blog post from a working pro travel photographer that talks about some of the advantages of the jpeg for him, as well as why he still always shoots in RAW + jpeg:

Don’t Ask, I’ll Tell… Photo Traveler

 

[AggieDiver]

My experience with the two is that if you shoot perfect shots every time, and never try to recover shots where the exposure was off by a bit or where your white balance was just a bit off, then you will gain nothing by shooting in RAW. For those of us who don't live underwater with our cameras and for whom a shot with the exposure off by an fstop or more is just as common as the shots with perfect exposure, RAW will save many photos that you would throw away as unrecoverable.

With JPEGs, trying to adjust a picture with too dark or too light of an exposure is very much a hit or miss proposition...sometimes you can make it look they way you saw it underwater, sometimes you can't. With RAW, as long as I didn't totally peg the sensor with totally white or totally black, I can likely adjust the exposure on the shot to be very close to what I saw underwater.

Just to be clear, I am not trying to win photo competitions and I am not trying to show off what a great photographer I am by claiming to have unretouched photos. I have lots of friends and family who don't dive, so our photos are taken to show them the world we see underwater. Anything that helps me make the pictures we take (however good or bad our skills are) look like what we see underwater is a good thing. Shooting in RAW helps us immensely.

 

[Nemrod]

RAW might be good for some things, less good for other things. N

 

[vondo]

The next version of Lightroom is said to have very impressive noise reduction, so assuming that's the case, I can go back and improve six year old photos that I had to take under less than ideal situations.

Now that I've been using Lightroom 3 for all of four hours, I already have results I'm quite pleased with, exactly as I surmised above:

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/underwater-photography/338776-lightroom-3-awesome-p-s.html

 

[beautybelow]

Here is what you gain by shooting in raw... If you are underwater and the perfect picture situation comes upon you...a once in a lifetime chance at that one shot...and you have your camera set on JPEG you will always have only that JPEG file of that once in a lifetime shot. Trust me, you will seriously regret it one day. If you think you are only an "average photographer" today that may change in the future and if you limit yourself you will always only be an average photographer. Trust me...plan for the future. Just in case. Today you have no excuse with limited storage or work flow issues. It is so easy with all of the editing softwares mentioned so far to do the right thing...start with RAW and work from there.
Why would you do anything less than your absolute best when going through all of the trouble to go underwater and take photographs? If you don't, one day it will haunt you.
Hypothetically speaking of course

 

[HerraduraDivers]

It seems to me that some people don't understand the difference between JPG and RAW so i link the extensive article from Wiki here:
Raw image format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a few words:
RAW is the raw data coming from the sensor while he record a picture.
JPG is the RAW data, processed by the cameras onboard processor and influenced by manufacturers "style" and various settings (like d-lighting @ Nikon or other image "enhancement" settings like underwater mode) of the camera.

Now the difference is that a JPG image has limited possibilities to be modified as for example the 3 RGB portions of the RAW file are already merged together during the transformation to JPG. This will avoid that whitebalance or colour can be adjusted without degrading the other colours.

I agree fully with dhaas that pictures should be taken as much "perfect" as possible so that they are good without any editing. Unfortunatly this "old fashioned" -but absolutly right- way of thinking and acting is often quite difficult to achive while photographing underwater.

Editing RAW files is usually 100% non-destructive as the modified picture has to be saved in a other file format like TIFF, DNG, JPG.
The same can be done copying the JPG file and working on the copy, but often in a moment of distraction somebody may overwrite the original file with the edited file and so the original file is lost.
Adobe Lightroom is certainly one of (or the most) advanced software to correct, collect display and export RAW files and it's 100% non-destructive.

I see absolutly no reasonable argument why somebody seriously interested in underwater photograpy should not record his pictures in RAW.

Chris

 

[eelnoraa]

The ultimate is YES, that is why all professional photographers shoot RAW. But doing so require additional post processing step, potentially increase the requirement of computer hardware and software.

However, the difference is NOT night and day. What the camera capture in the first place is still the most important. So improve the skill or improve the the camera will make bigger difference than switching from JPEG to RAW.

Worth it to you, you call. My guess is if you have to ask, probably not. Why don't you give a try.

 

[beautybelow]

I see absolutly no reasonable argument why somebody seriously interested in underwater photograpy should not record his pictures in RAW.

Chris

Or any other form of photography for that matter...It's just you stand the chance of capturing an image that would be impossible to re create underwater more so than above I suppose.

 

[vondo]

The ultimate is YES, that is why all professional photographers shoot RAW. But doing so require additional post processing step, potentially increase the requirement of computer hardware and software.

I shoot RAW all the time, but it is a pure and simple fact that many professionals do not. Some have such tight control over their environments that they don't gain any benefit. Some (e.g. journalists) need such quick turn around there is no time for post-processing. And some just don't like to. They feel they are good enough at getting it right the first time around that there's no benefit to them.

Sadly, I am not in those groups, so for me RAW is an important thing.

 

[beautybelow]

I don't know whether all professionals capture in raw but I could not imagine one not doing so if they ever planned on selling the image to anyone other than low end consumers for print. If there is no time for post processing and you are a professional then I suppose you are shooting raw+jpeg. Professionals find time, that's their job. I can take a batch of raw files and make them presentable depending upon how much "control" over the environment I had very quickly, even if it's just with lightroom.

I still think the only argument though for the average person is "are you absolutely positive without a shadow of a doubt that you will never ever ever need that image you just took in RAW format". I personally regret not having over half the images I have spent long hours, days and even years working on capturing in RAW format, because when I first started out you really did have a "workflow" excuse. Now I don't think you do...just my opinion.