or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Photography: shooting RAW?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Photography: shooting RAW?

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
I am thinking to make the switch from shooting in jpg to RAW and getting some post-processing software to up the quality of my pics. I am considering Aperture as I am a Mac user and assume it will integrate well with my other software.

I am just taking pics of my kid and some travel shots...is it worth the effort?
post #2 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alter View Post
I am just taking pics of my kid and some travel shots...is it worth the effort?

Nope.
post #3 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by celery View Post
Nope.

Well, I should add that I do care about quality and I am also hoping to have an easier way to compare pics and do some touch-ups. My library is now over 50 gigabites and with three members in my family with cameras (2 dslr and 1 point 'n'shoot) the number of pics is getting unwieldy.
post #4 of 25
I say go for it. On the opposite side, you can try Lightroom. I've heard great things about it. Aperture's good too, but many I know tend to lean toward Lightroom. And yes, shooting in RAW gives you so much more options in post-processing. You never know what you can do 'til you try!
post #5 of 25
I use RAW for any challenging exposure, or ultra-high concern work. Otherwise, I do not find it necessary anymore. ~H
post #6 of 25
I only shoot RAW. I don't really consider space an issue. Hard drives are always growing. Think how much less it costs per picture now that you don't have to get film developed. It's like a fraction of a cent, even in RAW.
post #7 of 25
I use a Mac and just started experimenting with Lightroom (free Beta 3 version). Aperture doesn't support my new camera. I find Lightroom to be a pretty nice app that allows for good file organizing and excellent color/level/balance controls. The RAW format has much more resolution/data so you can push and pull things while holding detail.

However, if you're just taking snapshots and want to save/send JPGs quickly, it's not really worth the hassle. JPG and iPhoto is a hard combo to beat.
post #8 of 25
Lightroom is much easier to understand and use than Aperture, IMO.

Yes, shooting RAW will be worth it - if your camera will allow you, shoot RAW+the highest quality JPG. Any images that need tweaking, go the RAW, if they look fine straight away you already have the JPG.
post #9 of 25
in this case, i'd say it's probably more trouble than its worth. if you can't get great looking jpegs right out of your camera, you're doing something wrong. just pay more attention to exposure, white balance, and tweak your custom jpg settings. then you won't have to sit in front of the computer needlessly.
post #10 of 25
I use RAW for everything I do. Even the most regular pictures I take have some photoshop work done to them (however slight), and RAW makes those adjustments look that much better. I've never used anything besides Photoshop, but it doesn't everything I could ever want.
post #11 of 25
Which camera do you have ? I have a 5DII and only shoot RAW. The ability to shoot RAW is one of the major advantages of DSLR in my view.
post #12 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
Lightroom is much easier to understand and use than Aperture, IMO.

Ya lightroom is awesome. It makes it so easy to get very good results. 3 is even awesomer. The ability to upload to flickr is really nice. And it's so easy to do things in batches.
post #13 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by aizan View Post
in this case, i'd say it's probably more trouble than its worth. if you can't get great looking jpegs right out of your camera, you're doing something wrong. just pay more attention to exposure, white balance, and tweak your custom jpg settings. then you won't have to sit in front of the computer needlessly.

It's far easier to alter white balance in LR than to change it every time conditions change.
post #14 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
Lightroom is much easier to understand and use than Aperture, IMO.

Yes, shooting RAW will be worth it - if your camera will allow you, shoot RAW+the highest quality JPG. Any images that need tweaking, go the RAW, if they look fine straight away you already have the JPG.

This. Just make sure you have a large and fast memory card.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aj_del View Post
Which camera do you have ? I have a 5DII and only shoot RAW. The ability to shoot RAW is one of the major advantages of DSLR in my view.

5DII...
post #15 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosz View Post
It's far easier to alter white balance in LR than to change it every time conditions change.
there's only one situation where you always have to fine tune white balance in post: under fluorescent lighting. the rest of the time, you're better off changing as you go. if you don't have a whibal card, i suggest you buy one immediately. it's so easy to use, there's no excuse not to. plus, you don't have to worry about unknowingly clipping channels while you shoot, since the histogram is based on the camera's jpeg, not raw. raw is not better than jpeg. it's just different. as they say, horses for courses.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Photography: shooting RAW?