RAW and/or JPEG

[kat]

What do you use? When for what? And what is the difference?

I tried using RAW and I couldn't get them up into my computer...do you need a certain something?

HMMMM..although my computer is ready to get thrown out the door and shattered to pieces with a bat...

[djKianoosh]

what camera do you use? Canon? Nikon? For Nikons, the raw file is a .NEF file. You'll need a raw converter to process the file. Photoshop can do it, so can Nikon's software, so can Lightroom or Aperture. But if it's an older computer you probably need an update. For example, for photoshop, you can use Adobe Camera Raw (ACR):

Windows: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloa...atform=Windows
Mac: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloa...form=Macintosh

[Travis]

There is a lot you can google on raw vs jpg and it's a hotly contested issue...

in short, your camera always records an image in raw format.... your cameras internal engine then converts the raw image to jpg using the settings in your menu (sharpness, contrast, colour saturation, white balance etc).

if you just shoot raw only, you become the cameras engine controlling these settings with software...

more bit information is preserved when you shoot raw. the cameras engine throws away information when compressing the jpeg

you have less latitude if you decide to edit a jpeg shot because this information has been discarded...

as for viewing raw, you should be able to view them using the software that came with camera. editing raw files might require more extensive software.

my advice, if your just starting out you may want to focus on shooting jpeg and getting comfortable with your camera and it's settings... move to raw after your comfortable with that....

[Marko]

Most advanced amateurs and pros shoot RAW because raw files contain more tonal information. But Raw files are larger than Jpegs and so if they are slowing down your computer and you are learning it may be best to start off in Jpeg. Many cameras also have the ability to shoot the same frame in both Raw and jpeg.
Hope that helps
Marko

[djKianoosh]

what he said.

though I recommend shooting in RAW+JPG. here's why. while Travis' suggestion is a very good one (you probably should concern yourself more with shooting jpg and trying to get the picture just right straight out of the camera) most probably in a year or two you'll be good enough with all of that where you can go back to the raw files you take now and re-process them with what you know then. follow me? in other words, you retain the digital 'negatives', the raw files, and later have the chance to go back to them.

you never know. I went back over some raw files that I took a couple years ago, and re-processing them with the latest raw converters makes a pretty big difference in some cases. that's only because the raw processing software keeps getting better. if you only shoot jpg, then you can't take too much advantage of that down the line. just another thought to consider.

[Travis]

what he said.

though I recommend shooting in RAW+JPG. here's why. while Travis' suggestion is a very good one (you probably should concern yourself more with shooting jpg and trying to get the picture just right straight out of the camera) most probably in a year or two you'll be good enough with all of that where you can go back to the raw files you take now and re-process them with what you know then. follow me? in other words, you retain the digital 'negatives', the raw files, and later have the chance to go back to them.

you never know. I went back over some raw files that I took a couple years ago, and re-processing them with the latest raw converters makes a pretty big difference in some cases. that's only because the raw processing software keeps getting better. if you only shoot jpg, then you can't take too much advantage of that down the line. just another thought to consider.

good idea! if you have a raw+jpg function you may want to house the raw's for later on when you are more tuned... raw allows you to better recover lost hightlights (blown skies etc) and lost shadows.... this maybe helpful if you shoot some good keepers early on....

[landon9720]

If you dig around online you'll find a lot of conflicting information. Many say RAW is the only serious way to shoot. Others say RAW is for amateurs who can't get the exposure right in-camera. I believe you should shoot JPG until you develop an intuitive understanding of what its limitations are. Then, when you do switch to RAW, you'll have an appreciation of what its advantages are, as well as the other trade offs involved, and you will be able to make an informed decision on which to shoot on a case by case basis.

[landon9720]

I'll also add that shooting RAW requires an investement in software and time spent post processing. Personally, I'd rather spend my money on gear and my time taking pictures.

[kat]

Hmmm.. I'm only in the learning stages of processing. I can't use photoshop at all..that's where I bring my hubby in. I have figured out Lightroom and can't wait to get Lightroom 2. I've recently lost everything from my computer do to a virus so a lot of programs I don't have anymore so until then..I don't think RAW would be an option.

Now here's a silly question. If I shot NEF + JPEG..would 2 files upload?

And how do you keep all your photos sorted? I'm not to sure but most places don't develop RAW files..so how does everyone sort their photos?

[djKianoosh]

no question is silly.. yes, two files are created.

I have a large hard drive for my photos and another couple to back them up. (hard drive space is relatively cheap these days) so I have a directory for each year, 2008, 2007, 2006.. and then under each, for every set of photos I create another directory, say "January - Puerto Rico" for the vacation I just took ;-) and I just throw all my pics in there... Then I import them in place in Lightroom. LR does the job most of the time, but sometimes i take a look at a shot in nikon's software or in photoshop. supposedly the next Nikon Capture NX will mimic the library functionality of lightroom. that would be good..

now, i heard a good suggestion (maybe it was in one of marko's podcasts) that once you settle in on a particular workflow, give it some time to see if it works for you. in other words, don't keep switching the workflow drastically all the time.