Taking RAW photographs - is it worth it

Marty_J

Ah, I see what you're saying now. Yes, you can generally edit images, but as isofa points out above, RAW files aren't really like normal image files. They just contain the sensor data captured by your camera. Your software has to be compatible with the RAW image from your particular model of camera, and then you generally have to process them some before you can do anything useful with them.

As for photography night courses for estate agents, I think it's a fantastic idea. I've seen countless photos that make the property look terrible. Going to an empty house at night and taking photos with the flash isn't exactly flattering, even to the most beautiful home.

chickmug

RAW is probably well over the top for me but I fancy giving it a try even with a bridge cameras output. A friend did try to offer agents courses a few years ago and followed up with a phone call but he met with absolute apathy.

Marty_J

By all means try it out, you've got nothing to lose, and you might very well like it.

chickmug

Marty_J wrote: »

By all means try it out, you've got nothing to lose, and you might very well like it.

I also intend to brush up on the software and who knows I may fall in love and then decide I need a DSLR:eek:

mr_fishbulb

Sunday was the first day I went out shoot RAW after learning about how to post-process the pictures etc. I came back with about 50 pictures taking up 400 megs of space!

However if any of them were a good shot I wanted to frame or had messed up the exposure, white balance, etc then I would have been glad I shot in RAW.

What to do about the space issue? I found this free tool http://www.rawworkflow.com/instant-jpeg-from-raw-utility/ Now I copy all the raw files to my hard drive and immediately make a jpeg from them (takes a couple of seconds for the 50 pics I had).

Any special pictures I keep the RAWs, and any photos I know I won't need to do anything with or print out large, I keep just the jpeg.

isofa

mr_fishbulb wrote: »

What to do about the space issue? I found this free tool http://www.rawworkflow.com/instant-jpeg-from-raw-utility/ Now I copy all the raw files to my hard drive and immediately make a jpeg from them (takes a couple of seconds for the 50 pics I had).

Any special pictures I keep the RAWs, and any photos I know I won't need to do anything with or print out large, I keep just the jpeg.

If you shoot in RAW + JPEG, then this is already done for you - and saves another step - although naturally your memory card will fill up a bit quicker. Then you can sift through the JPEGs, and if there are anything special, or ones that could do with some attention, keep the RAWs, else I just delete or archive them

greenoak

I think you will find professionals shoot in RAW hobbist keep to jpegs

i would rather let photoshop do the conversion with all the data than the camera convert it and then work with what is in effect corrupted data.

Marty_J

greenoak wrote: »

I think you will find professionals shoot in RAW hobbist keep to jpegs

I think that's a pretty artificial distinction. I know of pros who shoot JPEG, and hobbyists who shoot RAW.

ben_at_War_Child

Hi chickmug,

Lots of well informed arguments on both sides and most of them from better photographers than me. I can only offer my own experience from a very amateur point of view. I've got a bridge camera (a Panasonic FZ18) that can shoot in RAW.

When I was on holiday I did shoot some pics in JPG+RAW but my own experience is that I don't ever use that feature anymore. The RAW pics do take a fair bit of tweaking in my (limited) experience and you have to have a decent PC. All the photos on my wall are blown up from JPGs.

For what it's worth, I'd forget RAW for the time being as I prefer to spend my time improving my photo taking rather than in editing them on the computer.

(Disclaimer: I am colourblind though so editing the curves/colour balance in the RAW software never proved very successful!)

chickmug

ben_at_War_Child wrote: »

Hi chickmug,

Lots of well informed arguments on both sides and most of them from better photographers than me. I can only offer my own experience from a very amateur point of view. I've got a bridge camera (a Panasonic FZ18) that can shoot in RAW.

When I was on holiday I did shoot some pics in JPG+RAW but my own experience is that I don't ever use that feature anymore. The RAW pics do take a fair bit of tweaking in my (limited) experience and you have to have a decent PC. All the photos on my wall are blown up from JPGs.

For what it's worth, I'd forget RAW for the time being as I prefer to spend my time improving my photo taking rather than in editing them on the computer.

(Disclaimer: I am colourblind though so editing the curves/colour balance in the RAW software never proved very successful!)

I bought my son the Panasonic FZ18 last year but he may as well have been bought a £5 disposable camera and there's me thinking he enyjoyed photography. A really good camera but I have yet to see a good shot from it as he will insist on trying to use the manual controls which he does NOT understand. But there you go.

I doubt I will use RAW much but I will try it and see what I make of it.

Are you happy with the FZ18 as I am dithering but aim to get the FZ28. Any negative aspects or would you buy the same again?