Taking RAW photographs - is it worth it

Marty_J

Fifer wrote: »

That's a tad misleading. The only difference is that with the JPEG, the processing has already been done in the camera. As a minimum, both finished images will have received similar amounts of processing (the JPEG automatically under control of the camera).

I don't think it's misleading. My point was that with JPEG, the person doing the photographing doesn't have to do any processing unless they want to.

chickmug

Marty_J wrote: »

I don't think it's misleading. My point was that with JPEG, the person doing the photographing doesn't have to do any processing unless they want to.

I am no expert compared with some of you guys on here but feel confident in saying there I have never known any camera where you can't enhance the shots in the photographic software. Some shots staright out of the camera are very poor but most of the users seem content

nearlyrich

I take Raw + Jpeg with my DSLR all of the time, I have lots of storage available and I like the choice it offers after the event.

Marty_J

chickmug wrote: »

I am no expert compared with some of you guys on here but feel confident in saying there I have never known any camera where you can't enhance the shots in the photographic software. Some shots staright out of the camera are very poor but most of the users seem content

I'm afraid I don't get you. Care to elaborate?

chickmug

Marty_J wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't get you. Care to elaborate?

Not sure which bit you dont get

isofa

chickmug wrote: »

I am no expert compared with some of you guys on here but feel confident in saying there I have never known any camera where you can't enhance the shots in the photographic software. Some shots staright out of the camera are very poor but most of the users seem content

Absolutely you can edit and adjust any image, the format isn't that relevant, be it TIFF, JPEG, BMP etc.

But RAW is a very different concept, any software more than a few years old can't open and use RAW at all, it needs specific software, Photoshop can only deal with RAW using a standard Plug-In called Adobe Camera Raw.

You can think of it in this way, a RAW file isn't a "image" as such, it's just the full data from the cameras sensor "a memory dump", it's only an image file after it's exported into a image file of your choosing (JPEG, TIFF etc). However whilst it's in the RAW state, you can change the exposure by several stops +/-, white balance (probably the most useful tool ever) and many other attributes - essentially retaking the shot as if you'd make all the adjustments in camera and press the shutter again - then export the image file with these new adjustments made, so the end JPEG (or file you choose to output) is as if these settings had been applied in camera.

Also the changes you make are saved in a "recipe" so you can open the RAW file at any time in the future and unchange, change, clear all your adjustments, by a single click.

If you do this with any other type of file (JPEG, TIFF etc) on a computer you aren't getting the same result, as you are destructively change the image forever, and many of the adjustments available in RAW, aren't available in standard image processing.

To be fair to a general consumer, unfamiliar with the technicalities, it's a new concept and most will never use it (indeed most compact models and even many "bridge" cameras don't have the function), but to a keen amateur and above, it's a fantastic technology.

Marty_J

chickmug wrote: »

Not sure which bit you dont get

I just wasn't sure what your point was in relation to my post you quoted.

chickmug

Marty_J wrote: »

I just wasn't sure what your point was in relation to my post you quoted.

I must be thick as I really don't know why my post didn't make sense? Can you or anyone else explain, in an alternative way, so I can perhaps see what point you are making. Sorry?

Marty_J

lol....I was just asking what you meant, but it doesn't really matter. It's no big deal.

chickmug

Marty_J wrote: »

lol....I was just asking what you meant, but it doesn't really matter. It's no big deal.

Unless I misread earlier posts I thought I was saying I have never known a photo taken with a digi camera that can't be enhanced on the PC using software. I have used a number of digi cameras, in my career as an estate agent (now retried), and felt I had achieved a major step forward when I took the time to learn how to use software.

It is obvious that many agents do not have a clue yet photography is a very important aspect of their marketing. A look through Rightmove shows the ones that could with a night school course on the whole subject?