How many shoot RAW?

[DrMoab]

I shoot in raw+Jpeg with the Jpeg settings closer to what I would usually change in PS. Things like boosting the saturation and such.

I find a lot of times if I'm not shooting anything important that the Jpegs are awful close to what I want anyway and it saves me a lot of time not messing with them. However I still have the raw images and can mess with them at will.

 

[john101477]

I shoot in raw+Jpeg with the Jpeg settings closer to what I would usually change in PS. Things like boosting the saturation and such.

I find a lot of times if I'm not shooting anything important that the Jpegs are awful close to what I want anyway and it saves me a lot of time not messing with them. However I still have the raw images and can mess with them at will.

LOL memory is cheap but not that cheap :coffeedrink:

Like I said there are times shooting RAW is an absolute must. As was stated earlier 12 bits is alot more forgiving that 8.
Nothing wrong with snap shots with a DSLR. anyone that claims to ALWAYS set up their tripod for every single shot I say is a liar. If your not on a tripod or monopod it was a snap shot regardless of intent.
There are also times when shooting JPEG is fine as well. sometimes needing room on a card during a weekend camping trip around the camp site would be one. absolutely no reason for having to have RAW in that situation.

Also to those that convert to TIFF - TIFF is great if you sell every single picture you take. highly unlikely. If you shoot RAW only save the absolute perfect pictures in TIFF and the rest in JPEG. other wise you will be buying hard drives pretty fast depending on how much you shoot. I shoot anywhere from 800 - 8,000 images a month depending on the month. About 50% of those end up in a file on my computer in a very organized system. If I saved all those to TIFF I would need a shelf for my external hard drives alone.

 

[JayGannon]

Hehe I shoot everything in RAW and backup everything to a 2nd hard drive. My archive is sitting at about 4 TB at the moment, the way I see it is its a helluva lot cheaper than film was So I'm still saving a fortune.

 

[C-Fish]

Thanks for the advise guys...

BTW, the aforementioned shop owner was in a shop in Albuquerque (don't remember the name).
I was working (in town for two days) and had time to stop in for a look-see.

 

[john101477]

Hehe I shoot everything in RAW and backup everything to a 2nd hard drive. My archive is sitting at about 4 TB at the moment, the way I see it is its a helluva lot cheaper than film was So I'm still saving a fortune.

haha yeah backup is always key. I used to shoot it all in RAW as well but I found myself in a bad spot with memory once on a trip Now even with plenty I tend to switch back and fourth between RAW and JPEG.

Know what you mean about film though. I still have 20 rolls that never got developed. thank god most of them are of my ex wife lol

 

[Overdrive]

Newbie question: After having taken a series of shots in RAW to be stitched together for a final panoramic, what would the production steps be?

 

[JayGannon]

In PS:

Open all the shots in photoshop and export them as TIFF files (JPEG if our not going to print the pano)

Create a new photoshop document with the dimensions of all of your panorama, it will be the normal height of your shots and then the width times the number of photos.

Copy and paste all of the photos into the new document and align them (This will take time)

Save document as a TIFF/JPEG.


Or alternatively there's panorama stitching software available which makes life easier..

 

[Every Miles A Memory]

If your not on a tripod or monopod it was a snap shot regardless of intent.

Are you kidding with that statement? (Shakes his head in disbelief)

Please tell this to any photographer who covers anything other than landscapes or long exposures.

So the last 10 photoshoots I've done, the last 5 weddings, the past 20 events I've shot were all just snap shots?? That's a very misleading statement and comical to say the least.

I'd love to be at a conference for Photojournalists, especially war photographers and hear you say that.

 

[AYIAPhoto]

I shoot RAW+JPEG as I'm always in questionable lighting. Not low light but constantly changing. Between Dj's and their strobe/effects light and "beer" mirrors on the walls, there is no way to get consistent results with just JPEG. Red, blue, white and everything else bouncing all over the place plus a mix of tungsten and fluorescent lighting makes trying to compensate in camera a moot point. The +JPEG just makes them easier to weed through when discarding pictures where some one sneezed or an idiot decided to flip off the camera in the background and you didn't notice it before pressing the shutter.
As most of the shots will be rather small on websites of the venues, after only minor adjustment(color correction/exposure compensation, no manipulation of the photos as far as content goes), most are saved as JPEG. Only really cool shots that may some day be used on fliers for the bar are saved as a TIFF.

 

[Every Miles A Memory]

I'm with you and Ryan as to shooting Jpeg+RAW, this is the way I do it and for the same reasons as you mentioned above

 

[goodtimes]

I shoot in RAW 100% of the time with the dSLR -- I never understood the need for shooting RAW + JPEG.

A few people have mentioned that it allows them to preview the images so they can delete the ones they don't like or want . . . but I can preview the RAW images on the camera's LCD, on the laptop (PC) via Lightroom, or on the iMac (without any additional software), deleting them at any step along the way . . . so what advantage does having that extra image file give you?

That's a serious question. I feel like I'm missing out on something . . .

 

[AYIAPhoto]

I can preview the RAW images on the camera's LCD, on the laptop (PC) via Lightroom, or on the iMac (without any additional software), deleting them at any step along the way . . . so what advantage does having that extra image file give you?

I cant really preview the pictures in camera, to tell is exposure is way off due to the mentioned questionable lighting. Noticing small errors is also a lot easier on a monitor than an LCD. Lastly my computer aint that fast, so opening the JPEGs is faster for weeding through a few hundred pics from a good weekend.

 

[Stan the Man]

Depends on the situation. If its a serious shoot or money is involved, its RAW only. If I'm just out with some friends or shooting some wheeling, JPEG is enough.

 

[J*C*M]

I shoot 100% RAW

Sometimes I like to play with the post processing a lot to produce more digital art then traditional photographs, but no matter what i am shooting i shoot in RAW, and use Lightroom to manage and do simple post processing, it works great with CS when i want to get in to heavy editing. With Lightroom it's a snap to export in to JPEG when you're all done.

 

[nwoods]

In PS:

Open all the shots in photoshop and export them as TIFF files (JPEG if our not going to print the pano)

Create a new photoshop document with the dimensions of all of your panorama, it will be the normal height of your shots and then the width times the number of photos.

Copy and paste all of the photos into the new document and align them (This will take time)

Save document as a TIFF/JPEG.


Or alternatively there's panorama stitching software available which makes life easier..

Jay I don't understand your directions to convert the image. You can just work directly with the RAW file and then save it to a PSD once the photomerge is done, and then export to whatever you need. You are crushing the memory of your system converting to TIFF up front. Are you used to creating banners for Times Square or something? LOL

To Overdrive: Depending on what software you have, the steps vary. I use Bridge, select the images I want to merge for a Pano, then click on the Photoshop tool menu in Bridge and select Photomerge (or something like that) and let it do its thing automagically. Once the image is stiched together, you can post process and clean it up to your hearts content.