Photography: shooting RAW? - Page 2

I shoot RAW almost exclusively. It's a PITA to process just a couple of pics at a time, but for extended shootings, the quality is worth it. I use Lightroom for post-processing and cataloging. But, if you don't want to spend money on Lightroom, Google's Picasa software also processes RAW -- and it's free.

What? RAW captures more data. More data is what you want in a digital photo, b/c more data allows you more freedom to manipulate the image in post processing. It also means the image will be of higher quality at least data wise, b/c theres more info in the image.

Shoot RAW + Jpeg. Then if you want to really play with an image you can with the RAW, but if you take a picture and want a quick version of it to send to someone or whatever, you have the jpeg already there. And Hard Drive space is relatively cheap, so space shouldn't be too much of a concern.

that's a generalization that must be assessed on an individual basis. raw has to be converted into another format before you can print or display it, such as a tiff or a jpeg, and some raw converters will do a better job with a particular camera than others. jpeg engines are just built-in raw converters, and sometimes their output is sharper than what current versions of raw converters can produce. generally speaking, most cameras have very good jpeg engines, and only a few are not as good. it's a messy issue, and there are no simple, one-size-fits-all answers. the main difference that always applies is that shooting jpeg only throws out the original raw file. there are reasons to do this throughout the spectrum of photographers. if you're a photojournalist, sports photographer, or wedding photographer, there are practical reasons to shoot jpeg only (smaller file sizes and faster write times), and with good shooting practice there's little to no disadvantage. if you're just sharing photos with family and friends on the internet, or making small album sized prints, there is very little reason to shoot raw. there are no resolution or file manipulation issues at these sizes. on the other hand, if you're making large fine prints, you'll probably want to shoot raw. i doubt that is the case here. but if you're worried about missing out on raw, there's little penalty for the casual photographer to shoot in raw+jpeg mode. you'll probably use up much more hard disk space than you actually need to, but memory is cheap.

Yes, if you're trying to get pictures of your kids, you should take the time to change white balance settings. I'm sure they won't have changed position or stopped paying attention while you were doing so.

right, cuz your kid is running from room to room and you're chasing them with your camera. incandescent in the den, fluorescent in the garage, mixed in the living room, daylight in the backyard. let's stay in the realm of reality.

And that reality is that RAW is useful, and in no way traumatic to use. When you fire up Lightroom, they don't cut off a pinky or anything, dude.

uh huh...

raw is useful, and preferable in certain situations, but it doesn't make your c*** longer (as long as we're using colorful phrases).

raw and jpeg are not bandwagons. they're file formats.

Yes, that's why everyone is recommending RAW - photo machismo.

You're a moron.

milosz, if you were having problems setting white balance on your camera, maybe you weren't ready to shoot raw. shut yer gob, already!