RailRoadFan.com

Hello everyone!

After a conversation with Gregg yesterday I was wondering how many people shot JPEG vs RAW on here. I just made the jump to RAW and I absolutely love it, even though I don't understand the full potential yet. For those who shoot JPEG why not shoot RAW? Camera doesn't have RAW capabilities? Space? Lack of understanding? Just curious.

-Jim

Lack of understanding

Don, maybe this will help: viewtopic.php?t=8541&highlight=


I shoot RAW. Much more exposure latitude in case I should happen to mess the shot up some how. Adjustments in color, lighting, and WB are much easier.

Not so much important in railroad photography, VERY important in wedding or portrait photography.

EDIT: I guess I shouldn't say that it's not important in railroad photography and is in the other. It's actually important in any photography you do, including railroads.

Thanks conrailmike

How do I know if i'm shooting in RAW? I got a Xsi.

Mike- on the Rebel XT the option to shoot jpegs or raw is under the quality section of the menu. I can shoot S, M, L or RAW. I'm not sure how the Xsi is set up, but my guess is it's similar.

As far as shooting JPG vs. RAW, I like to shoot both. I'm a bit of a freight car nut and take lots of car shots. With my current software, I've found it to be a major PIA to sit down and process the 200-300 car shots I take on a good day, if I shot 'em in RAW format. Since I don't share the vast majority of the shots I take, my car shots don't have to be "perfect", at least not as much as most of the carshot websites require (i.e. railcarphotos.net). Therefore, as long as the shot is reasonably sharp (not related to format) and the colors are reasonably accurate, I'm almost always satisfied.

When I'm thinking about it, I usually try to shoot locomotives in RAW, as these are (for the most part) the shots I share online. The downside to shooting these shots in RAW is that I don't have the software to look at these pictures in anything other than the resource-hogging software that came with the camera. Recently, what with several lifestyle changes I've gone through (life after college sure is different than life in college), I've pretty much given up on shooting RAWs, shooting JPGs instead simply because it's so much easier to actually see my work. I don't have to spend the time adjusting the colors on each shot and screw around with giving names to the processed files before starting work on leveling the shot, cropping the shot and tweaking the colors.

Anyway, it would have been nice if there was an option for both...

Charles W wrote: Anyway, it would have been nice if there was an option for both...

If you're talking about shooting a JPEG and RAW file at the same time, my Rebel XT allows for that. Under the quality setting there's an option for RAW+L.

BB wrote:

Charles W wrote: Anyway, it would have been nice if there was an option for both...

If you're talking about shooting a JPEG and RAW file at the same time, my Rebel XT allows for that. Under the quality setting there's an option for RAW+L.

I think he means in the poll.

Charles W wrote:I don't have to spend the time adjusting the colors on each shot and worry about naming the processed file before starting work on leveling the shot, cropping the shot and tweaking the colors.

What's to worry about?

J T wrote:

Charles W wrote:I don't have to spend the time adjusting the colors on each shot and worry about naming the processed file before starting work on leveling the shot, cropping the shot and tweaking the colors.

What's to worry about?

Worry? Who's worried?

Sorry, I didn't mean it like that. My software gives me the option of renaming my files after processing the RAWs, but doesn't exactly number them consecutively. I get to choose how many digits I want to use, and the preceding number. The end result is I have to be careful not to have two images with the same number as I don't like using very many digits in the file names and don't always realize where I am in the numbering sequence...

I currently shoot JPEG only although I've experimented with RAW. When I first experimented, I was still shooting in full auto and the Rebel XTi would not record RAW while in full Auto mode (only in the semi-auto or manual modes) - so it was somewhat of a moot point then. I shoot full manual now for the most part but still don't shoot RAW or RAW+L because:

1) Time. Biggest reason for me, I barely have time to process the JPEG's I shoot let alone starting with RAW.

2) High quality JPEG's are about as good unless you have to do major adjustments. I have no problem getting publishable quality JPEG's.

3) Space. My JPEG's are already 3-8 MB depending on which camera (XTi or G9) and the corresponding RAW files would be much bigger - and redundant if I shot both for convenience. Space is cheap, but it's also not free. I've already bought an external hard drive for back up and won't be far away from having to wipe stuff off the computer to free up space and probably buy another external hard drive as things are now - let alone if I were burning through the MB's at triple the rate I am now...

Now I do tend to buy the RAW arguments on the plus side that you're getting all the data the sensor captures and have much enhanced ability to correct images. However, for me this is a hobby, not a profession. I find that if I blow an exposure it's usually not a good enough picture anyway that even if it were in RAW it would be worth correcting. Generally, my best pictures typically require the least amount of 'post processing'. The only time I've ever really cared about improving poor original images was when the UP MP Heritage unit came through on Q132. It was a nasty, overcast, rainy January day and no amount of post processing was going to make those pictures beautiful - all I cared about was "good enough for my album" - which I got with JPEG + Photoshop.

Just my 2 cents - the way the market's going today it might be worth a penny...

Regards,
Michael

Charles W wrote:

J T wrote:

Charles W wrote:I don't have to spend the time adjusting the colors on each shot and worry about naming the processed file before starting work on leveling the shot, cropping the shot and tweaking the colors.

What's to worry about?

Worry? Who's worried?

Sorry, I didn't mean it like that. My software gives me the option of renaming my files after processing the RAWs, but doesn't exactly number them consecutively. I get to choose how many digits I want to use, and the preceding number. The end result is I have to be careful not to have two images with the same number as I don't like using very many digits in the file names and don't always realize where I am in the numbering sequence...

Ah, ok. When I convert a RAW to JPG, it already has the .RAW suffix and automatically changes that to .JPG. No renaming necessary.

By the way, I guess I should have added a to that question.

I shoot JPG because thats all my point and clck can produce.
Also I am starting WMCAT, aka West Michigan Center for Arts and Technology, and i might get a digital photography class. Meaning better camera like the pros!!! WOOT!

Two reasons I don't shoot RAW

1. My camera doesn't time stamp the images. I know its a lame reason but I sort by date taken sue me.

2. My processing software doesn't know what a Minolta RAW file is and I need a second program to convert it to something it does recognize.

I tried RAW+JPEG briefly when I first got my Digital Rebel XT. I wasn't sure what to expect, but I found out quickly that I could not open the file and view the photo in a window as I could with a JPEG. I also found out that my version of photoshop (Elements 2) would not support it. I think I still have the CD with the Canon software that will support it, but I've decided not to look for it and install it for a few reasons:
1. Time. From what I understand, RAW takes more time to edit than JPEG. I already have next to no time to edit the current JPEGs that I take, so I certainly would not have the time to edit RAW shots.
2. Space. In addition to shooting trains, I also MANY pictures of other subjects, especially sports and events at my school. In the three years that I've been in the photography hobby, I have taken so many photos that my dad has had to get an external hard drive just to keep them off the main C:/ drive on the computer. I have a feeling that we're going to need a second one by the end of the year, as this one is filling up very fast. If I shot in RAW, it would DRASTICALLY reduce the amount of space I have available and would clutter up my computer even more. It would also limit the amont of photos I could take in the field. On the current JPEG settings that I have, my main 2GB CF card will hold just over 500 pictures, while my secondary 1GB card will hold just under 300. I like having so much space to work with and I would loose it if I shot in RAW.
3. It's just easier. The quality is decent enough for what I want, it's easier to sort through and easier to edit and store. I'm sure that one day, if I ever make it to be a career level photographer, I'll start shooting RAW and realize how stupid I was not to try it earlier. For now though, I have no regrets about my choice. It suits me just fine.

1. My camera doesn't time stamp the images. I know its a lame reason but I sort by date taken sue me.

That's not a lame reason. I sort by date as well, for the specific reason that I often can't remember exact dates unless I specifically document them. If not for time stamps, I would have no idea of exactly when my photos were taken...

Sorry for the confusion guys... I should have put what do you shoot more often. As for myself I just got into RAW and I love it. I currently shoot RAW + Large JPEG (in case I screwed up the RAW files)...but I'll go fully over to Raw only soon. I just like shooting RAW for trains. Space really isn't an issue for me. I have a 4gb memory card. Shooting RAW + Large JPEG I can still fit over 400 photos on my card. I have a 500gb external hard drive for photos with only like 5gb of photos on it.

JPEG for now.

Once I am proficient enough with my camera I will experiment with RAW + JPEG.

Most of what I do is rolling stock, and I try to find them sitting, so RAW wont give me too much for that. However, I will want to have the knowledge for other subjects where it will help.

Im in the same catagory, with the computer wont edit it, with out the Nikon stuff installed on the computer, and the space is a big thing.

If you really want to do it the "right" way, JPG is the way to go. However, this involves shooting and setting a custom white balance before you shoot and making sure that your exposure is dead nuts or pretty darn close. Correct exposure is a basic essential of photography anyways. Remember, expose for the highlights and that your camera's light meter can be fooled!

I don't want to take the time and sometimes I don't have time to do this (cwb) which is why I said I shoot in RAW.

conrailmike wrote:If you really want to do it the "right" way, JPG is the way to go.

That's the first time I've ever heard that.