[Squirsier]

Greetings

Back in December, I bought myself a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28. I wanted something with more options than my old Lumix DMC-LZ5 but not a DSLR (I can't, for the life of me, LEARN to use those).

Now I have the option to shoot a RAW file instead of a JPG (or both if I need to). I've been reading on the subject a bit and RAW looks like it requires a bit of post-processing to "finish" the image, especially in regards to contrast.

Frankly, I printed a few pictures this weekend that I took from the company picnic and they all turned out really great. All JPGs.

Now my main issue with this is... Considering that I'll probably never know how the colors of my LCD monitor are calibrated anyway (it's a TV first with VGA input), should I really bother using RAW?

I have a funny "lossless vs lossy" feeling when I think of RAW vs JPG, but if it means heavy post-processing... I'm not sure.

What do you guys think? How many of you use RAW?

 

[TedwardRoberts]

RAW really lets you get the image the way you originally intended it to be, via post-processing. There's not much in a RAW image you can't change. If your images are turning out great, and you like them, I don't see a need to use RAW, other than to experiment.

SOME photogs consider RAW to be cheating anyway

 

[Squirsier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedwardRoberts /img/forum/go_quote.gif RAW really lets you get the image the way you originally intended it to be, via post-processing. There's not much in a RAW image you can't change. If your images are turning out great, and you like them, I don't see a need to use RAW, other than to experiment. SOME photogs consider RAW to be cheating anyway

Interesting. I guess because you can "cheat" and make the picture look "better" or completely different from what you were aiming for, thus compensating for poor picture taking skills?

Thanks for your thoughts on the subject, brings another side to the discussion

 

[limpidglitch]

I find RAW to be just too much fuss. If I was shooting professionally I probably would take me the time to the extra fiddling, but on a completely amateur level I don't see the point.

 

[wanderman]

I always and only shoot raw, and Itreat it like a digital negative. The convesion of raw to jpg is pretty painless when you have lightroom2.

 

[Squirsier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wanderman /img/forum/go_quote.gif I always and only shoot raw, and Itreat it like a digital negative. The convesion of raw to jpg is pretty painless when you have lightroom2.

Does Lightroom 2 requires CS4 to edit RAW images or can it be used on its own?

 

[TheMarchingMule]

Oh, I always thought RAW meant the picture was "lossless." Thus, I always shoot in the RAW + JPG option. Two formats for the price of one shot!

 

[iriverdude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by limpidglitch /img/forum/go_quote.gif I find RAW to be just too much fuss. If I was shooting professionally I probably would take me the time to the extra fiddling, but on a completely amateur level I don't see the point.

But if you edit it after shooting, re-crop and save as a new image no recompression going on.

As to the OP saying "not enough contrast" probably need to learn how to take a shot. The best image shouldn't need any post-processing at all.

 

[Squirsier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif But if you edit it after shooting, re-crop and save as a new image no recompression going on. As to the OP saying "not enough contrast" probably need to learn how to take a shot. The best image shouldn't need any post-processing at all.

I did not say "not enough contrast". I said "I've been reading on the subject a bit and RAW looks like it requires a bit of post-processing to "finish" the image, especially in regards to contrast". I never post-process any image that I take (if they're not good, hello Recycle Bin) because of the nature of JPGs.

From what I could understand is that both RAW and JPG version of the same shot would be somehow different looking, the JPG being post-processed on the camera and the RAW file would not be.

I also said that the pictures I take usually end up being great. I'm just wondering if I am losing anything by using JPG over RAW (same over losless vs lossy audio) and if post-processing is worth the time.

 

[limpidglitch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif But if you edit it after shooting, re-crop and save as a new image no recompression going on. As to the OP saying "not enough contrast" probably need to learn how to take a shot. The best image shouldn't need any post-processing at all.

I'm so lazy I usually don't even touch the the file after it is extracted from the camera. If I must work on it after the picture is taken to make it look decent, I consider it a failed shot.

 

[iriverdude]

If you have a take a dozen photos to get a good one, perhaps you should go on a photography course. I think digital cameras have made people lazy and sloppy, compared to film cameras.

 

[Squirsier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you have a take a dozen photos to get a good one, perhaps you should go on a photography course. I think digital cameras have made people lazy and sloppy, compared to film cameras.

Better edit this before this thread derails.

Anyway, it's funny that you mention this, because that's what professional photographers do. Take dozens and dozens to get the "right" one. And by professional, I mean, of course, paid ones. I know (or knew, I should say, since last I heard he resigned) the main photographer for the Porterville Recorder in California, and that's what he told me, just point and shoot and shoot and shoot and get the right one.

Now, being paid to do this, I can agree, but I frankly can't be bothered to take dozens of pictures of one subject, where editing can be useful, more so with RAW than JPG.

I'm still torned between both format. I guess the best way to go for the moment is what TheMarchingMule said. Shoot for both. Then I'll see what's the differences.

 

[krmathis]

I always shoot in RAW. Since that allow me full flexibility to fine tune and optimize the picture within Aperture.
Quite a big hit size wise (average ~22MB per picture), but I can manage so far.

 

[Squirsier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif I always shoot in RAW. Since that allow me full flexibility to fine tune and optimize the picture within Aperture. Quite a big hit size wise (average ~22MB per picture), but I can manage so far.

Would you say that the post processing from Aperture is better than the hardware post processing of your camera then?

That's kind of what I am basically wondering...

Edit : Also to link to my original post... How to calibrate your monitor? How to know what you're looking at on the screen is what would come out as print?

 

[Mr. B]

I always shoot RAW, partly because I can (disk space no problem) and partly because I frequently get the exposure a little off which is easily corrected with a RAW file.