Should I always shoot in "RAW" mode?

[sputnik]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
I use RAW when I think I'll need to do a lot of adjustment later (ie using multiple lights in the dead of night), other than that JPEG is perfectly acceptable. I rarely need to adjust WB or exposure, I prefer to get that right when I take the shot.

Thats nice if your lighting conditions are 100% perfect. Say for instance you are shooting inside of a room lit with tungsten, flourescent and natural light sources. The walls are painted beige and the floor is a dark red wood.

In this scenario you have no way that you can accurately do a white balance and you are bound to get incorrect colour casts on your subject matter. These adjustments must be done in post production. This is where RAW excels.

Even in the film world you would have special films for certain lighting conditions, however there is still quite a bit of work done in the lab once it comes time to printing the image.

[TurboMedic]

RAW def. slows down the workflow when post processing. I use it every now and then, but if I'm concerned about the quality of my image being degraded, I'll convert to TIFF right away anyhow before working on the photos. I don't think there is anything wrong with any of the photos I've posted, and they've all been JPEG's out of camera.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by sputnik


Thats nice if your lighting conditions are 100% perfect. Say for instance you are shooting inside of a room lit with tungsten, flourescent and natural light sources. The walls are painted beige and the floor is a dark red wood.

In this scenario you have no way that you can accurately do a white balance and you are bound to get incorrect colour casts on your subject matter. These adjustments must be done in post production. This is where RAW excels.

Even in the film world you would have special films for certain lighting conditions, however there is still quite a bit of work done in the lab once it comes time to printing the image.

That is one example of where I would certainly use RAW, yes. However, that sort of oddball example is no reason for anyone to shoot RAW exclusively when they don't need to. RAW is a tool to be used when needed, not a blanket "better" way to shoot. I find it also slows down the editing process.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
That is one example of where I would certainly use RAW, yes. However, that sort of oddball example is no reason for anyone to shoot RAW exclusively when they don't need to. RAW is a tool to be used when needed, not a blanket "better" way to shoot. I find it also slows down the editing process.

I understand it's an extreme situation.

However with the exception of shooting in pure daylight and in the most controlled studios most shots will have light and colour casts that should be corrected.

Anyways. Lets revert back to the original post.

Originally posted by canadianx
I was just wondering how the masters at beyond.ca approach the files they set their camera to.

Over the last couple weeks I have done my best to educate myself a lot more and practice too! This is helping out a great deal and I am actually happy with a couple shots I have done lately.

On to the topic: I think shooting in RAW mode is excellent because of the work that can be done afterward with software. This completely helps me in learning to tackle some of the basics like saturation, contrast and colour. It allows me to see the effects the settings will have on a shot.

Drawback is I only get 212 pics on my card in RAW.

Some things to consider.

The difference in RAW and JPEG in terms of work required is no difference than that time a photographer takes setting up each shot. Some photographers will shoot quickly and hope for the best and some will spend literally hours setting up shots.

In the same manner. Some are happy with JPEG results and will spend little time in post production and some take the RAW images and spend considerable time making it "perfect".

That being said some people shoot 100 images for a shoot and some shoot 5 and they both get the same results on their best image.

[canadianx]

Originally posted by seer_claw

BerserkerCatSplat has a point, if you konw how to use your camera half decently its easier to get the settings correct when you are shooting as opposed to when you open the shot in PS. Its easier to see what the colours are when you see them as opposed to editing for them later when you forget the actual tones and hues.

Therein lies my dilemma... I like post editing but I fear I might miss out on learning how to "see" things by way of trying to set up the shot rather than shooting with the notion I will fix it later.

I guess I can just pretend to shoot in jpeg but leave it in RAW haha. I guess I want to make sure I do not cheat myself out of the learning I am doing by simply using technology

By the way how come my jpeg files from the camera say 24 bit and not 8 bit..

Thanks for the input guys

[Davan]

Originally posted by sputnik



In this scenario you have no way that you can accurately do a white balance and you are bound to get incorrect colour casts on your subject matter. These adjustments must be done in post production.

Not true. You could always take a custom white balance shot off a gray or white card.

That said, I exclusively shoot RAW.

[AccentAE86]

I used to always shoot jpg. It got me the results I wanted, and results clients were thrilled with. I think there is NOTHING wrong with shooting JPG.

I now shoot raw + small JPG... but my workflow is optimized for weddings. Batch editing using programs like ACR, Bibble, Breeze can make RAW worker easier. Some think RAW is faster and easier, some think JPG is. I like both.

For personal photos, I shoot in JPG normal quality with contrast and saturation bumped up. This is what I'd do in a RAW converter anyways, so I just let the camera do it.

Get to know one workflow or the other, and you will be able to produce excellent work from either. I'd say it doesn't really matter.