# RAW or nothing?



## Rick58 (Sep 11, 2012)

I've read the importance of RAW for editing. But what of all the camera's out there that don't have that capibility? Are they not even worth considering? Are there average and above cameras made today that DON'T offer it? I mean, beautiful photo's were made back when people said RAW they were talking about meat.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

I don't know of a DSLR that doesn't offer raw. 
As for the point and shoots and higher end point and shoots-IMO it really doesn't matter much. The average point and shoot user doesn't know or care. They can take a good picture and the camera does it all. That's all they want. The higher end point and shoots that we are looking at for pocket cameras are all offering it. 
If I were buying one I'd be looking for one with raw.


----------



## sm4him (Sep 11, 2012)

I really can't answer the question about the quality of cameras out there that don't have the option to shoot raw, but I can tell you that I am a fairly recent convert to the awesomeness of shooting raw.

I bought my first DSLR last August, but kept shooting jpegs until about April. I just didn't *really* see the point of raw--it seemed like a big waste of space and it meant that I HAD to process every single picture I wanted to do anything with; I couldn't just look at the jpeg and decide to leave it the way it was.  And honestly, I figured raw was really just for professionals; amateur hacks like me didn't need to bother.

But people here kept saying "shoot raw," "shoot raw," "shoot raw" and giving reasons why.  So, I decided to try shooting raw. I will never go back to just jpegs again. The control it gives me over things like wb and exposure alone are well worth any extra processing time.  I've still got a LOT to learn about processing--how to batch process to save time, how to achieve better results, and all that--but it's just like learning how to develop your own photos in a darkroom, it takes some time to learn, but it's definitely better than sending them off to a lab and letting someone ELSE control the end result of YOUR photos.

And yes, people were producing beautiful photos back when raw just referred to meat--but they had those little things called "negatives" to work with!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 11, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> I've read the importance of RAW for editing. *But what of all the camera's out there that don't have that capability?* Are they not even worth considering? Are there average and above cameras made today that DON'T offer it? I mean, beautiful photo's were made back when people said RAW they were talking about meat.



nice snapshots


----------



## Overread (Sep 11, 2012)

RAW is not the be all and the end all. It is a great feature and the ability to refine and control the specific editing applied to a photo is very empowering for photographers to have at their finger tips. Certainly there are many situations where RAW can improve significantly over what was possible with just a JPEG.

That said there are some applications where RAW isn't used - even on the big cameras that support RAW. Such would be sports and journalist photography - where the photographer often has to have the photos sent to the editor for selection and then print within moments of them being taken (esp in todays world with online publishing). In that situation there isn't a need for RAW since the photographer and the editor won't be making much if any  changes outside of a crop - and thus the advantages of a RAW go to the wayside in favour of the decent instant JPEG.

Indeed auto JPEG processing can do a decent job. It will give you a "decent shot" under most conditions just like auto mode can give you a decent shot. It may lack some refinement that you could have got with a RAW - but for most printed applications and online publishing it will be more than suitable. 


As for cameras that don't have RAW mode that is a more tricky question to answer. This is mostly because RAW mode tends to be something "good" cameras have whilst the lack of it tends to be something that the "weaker" cameras have. Weaker in this context generally meaning that they are marketed and designed more for the point and shoot crowed as opposed to the photographers. So they will likely be point and shoot cameras with all the inherent limitations that point and shoots have when compared against DSLRs and the like. 
Of course sometimes what you need is a small, simple to use camera to get the shot - and if its what you've got you can make it work. That said many, if given the choice, will want to shift to the better quality cameras most times.


----------



## JerseyJules (Sep 11, 2012)

I was considering shooting with RAW but what program would be needed to edit RAW files? Would Gimp work? or do I need Photoshop?


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 11, 2012)

JerseyJules said:


> I was considering shooting with RAW but what program would be needed to edit RAW files? Would Gimp work? or do I need Photoshop?



I use Photo Pro x3
It's cheap, but it works


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 11, 2012)

JerseyJules said:


> I was considering shooting with RAW but what program would be needed to edit RAW files? Would Gimp work? or do I need Photoshop?



Google Adobe Lightroom 4 and download the free trial.  You'll love it.


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 11, 2012)

What prompted the question was my dad was looking to buy a low-end digital and he was looking at a Sony HX200V. I started doing some reading on the camera and found it didn't offer RAW when even my bottom of the line A230 does, which is several years old. Both made by Sony, it didn't make any sense to me why a $400 camera today wouldn't offer it. 
Don't jump on me, $400 is nothing for a quality Digital. In fact one can easily pay much more for just a lens, but 400 bucks is still 400 bucks, especially when the same company's offered RAW years ago on their botton of the line machine.

BTW, he eventually bought it and didn't care about RAW. I'm going to do some side by side tests to see if there is any difference between his and mine, both on JPG to be fair. 

I mentioned in another thread that the 200v uses a Ziess Sonnar lens. There was a day when you couldn't buy a better lens, but as mentioned, a mass produced Sonnar won't be the same Sonnar found on a Hasselblad.

What I'm really curious about is the x30 zoom???


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 11, 2012)

JerseyJules said:


> I was considering shooting with RAW but what program would be needed to edit RAW files? Would Gimp work? or do I need Photoshop?



In it's native format, GIMP will not.  But you can install UFRAW and make it work.

But if you camera saves raw (it's *raw*, people, not *RAW*.  There's no acronym here!), it will have software with it.


----------



## KenC (Sep 11, 2012)

The zoom is probably partly digital, which means the camera is just enlarging the image the same way you could in processing.  The quality won't be as good, naturally.

As for raw, the best analogy to film is that shooting directly in jpg is like having someone else develop your bw negatives for you, or even produce prints for you.  They don't know under what conditions you exposed the film or how you like your images to look, so they won't come up with something as good as you would by doing it yourself.


----------



## Overread (Sep 11, 2012)

Rick - I suspect the reason its missing is because whilst the camera is not by any mean cheap, its still being marketed toward the casual user. That is a user who wants a simple to use camera that they can point - shoot and get a print ready file from. They've no demand in that market segment for RAW mode and indeed the idea of RAW mode would confuse most of them (esp since they would never see the gains unless they first learnt to edit - which is going beyond what most of that user group really wants from their camera).


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

I think it was overread who said its not the end all to beat all. She's right. Raw is awesome and all that but its not absolutely necessary to produce top notch photographs. 
Someone else said photos taken in JPEG are just snapshots and that's not true either. There are plenty of great photographers who do not shoot in raw and they produce beautiful, quality work. Its just a matter of if you are going to USE all of that data or not. Some studios are shooting for volume and shooting raw is a waste of disc space and time. It works for them.


----------



## TheLost (Sep 11, 2012)

JPEG (.jpg) is a lossy compression format.  This means you are loosing data to reduce file size.   Most cameras let you adjust the level of compression so you can pick the quality of the image.  However, you'll never get back the full data of the image.  Camera's will also apply their image and color correction to the file (tone, white balance, sharpening.. etc) making it almost impossible to undo later.

'Raw' is a generic term meaning a file containing 'unprocessed' data directly from the cameras sensors.  Most manufactures include the camera settings inside the raw file (tone, white balance, sharpening.. etc) but it doesn't modify the 'raw' data.  This lets you change and adjust the image much like developing/processing your own film did back in the film days.  Having the raw data lets you bring out detail in shadows, correct white balance and in general have more control.  Most raw formats will still compress the data... Nikon's NEF raw format gives you the ability to use a lossless (larger files.. no loss of data) or lossy (smaller files... loosing a small amount of data) compression.

Shooting 'raw' adds more work to the process since you have to convert the final image yourself... but you get more control over that final image.  Most software will let you use presets that speed up workflow.

If you want to shoot raw... I would recommend downloading Adobe's Lightroom beta and having a go at it.  For most people, once you go raw you never go back


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 11, 2012)

Thanks for the input everyone. I've been reading that shooting RAW is the only way to get acceptable B&W conversions. Any comments on this?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 11, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> Thanks for the input everyone. I've been reading that shooting RAW is the only way to get acceptable B&W conversions. Any comments on this?



Raw (it's *raw*, folks, not *RAW*.  It's not an acronym!) will give you the most colors to work with when doing a conversion.  Either 4,096 for each channel if you're shooting 12-bit, or 16,384 for 14-bit , as opposed to a measly 256 when you shoot JPEG.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 11, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> Thanks for the input everyone. I've been reading that shooting RAW is the only way to get acceptable B&W conversions. Any comments on this?



If the goal is B&W final images, it's best to light, compose, and shoot FOR BLACK AND WHITE. To me, that means shooting in RAW + JPEG, Large, Fine-Quality JPEG compression mode. If the camera offers it, I like to use a Yellow filter effect, and Sepia Toning effect, with the camera set to Monochrome. (I am specifically referring to the Canon 5D camera, and Canon's "Filter Effects" and image tone options.). This produces B&W images that can be reviewed on the camera's LCD and the lighting or composition adjusted FOR  maximum BLACK AND WHITE impact. The in-camera settings I adjust, with sharpness adjusted upward a bit, and the tone curve option set as appropriate. Setting the camera up to capture in RAW + JPEG, Monochrome, with sharpening sewt, and contrast set as-needed for the subject matter at hand, creates an in-camera JPEG file that looks a lot like the final image: it has sharpening boosted a bit, it has the sepia toning I like, a yellow filter effect to help with light-toned objects like clouds, and it allows me to evaluate lighting and the overall "look" of the images based on a B&W LCD screen image...not a color image, which is ENTIRELY different under some circumstances.

This approach is fundamentally different than shooting in all-color, and reviewing in all-color, and mentally winging it. Again....if I really want B&W, I will NOT light it or shoot it as if it were to be seen as full-color. Many people utterly fail to appreciate the reasoning behind this. And, few of them have actually tried this method, let alone gotten good at it.

The upside? THe RAW files are truly RAW, and have full RGB color and full bit depth....but I have ready-to-go SOOC B&W JPEGS, and a decent representation of the scene in B&W, from the get-go. TO me, the difference in B&W and color is the way you LIGHT B&W is VERY different than color....B&W needs MORE shadowing to reveal textures and shapes, which can be conveyed easily by color even under flat or overcast light. B&W benefits from a somewhat more-specular umbrella, so I will shoot with SMALLER umbrellas, or more sparkle-producing umbrellas for B&W, like silver metallized Speedotron Super Silver or other brand of silvered, metallized umbrellas if I want B&W final images.

Motion picture directors/cinematographers/lighting directors/director's of photography, for example, light B&W films very,very differently than they light color. Think of the film noir films of the 1940's and 1950's, and the extreme lighting ratios many of those pictures were built around....then think what that would have looked like in technicolor. Uh....nooooo!!!!!!!


----------



## amolitor (Sep 11, 2012)

Raw can help with b&w conversions if you're fussy about b&w conversion (and now that we HAVE raw which allows you to be fussy -- every nerd is fussy!). Raw gives you, surprise surprise, more control. You can take the reds from 1 stop down, and the greens from a stop up, tweak their levels individually, and then turn the results into a tonal value. You can also do this with JPEG, but there's less control.

As with everything else raw gives you, it lets you push a lot of the work of "photography" in to post. Rather than selecting a gel filter to shoot through, and a b&w film that responds to specific colors on specific curves, you can do it all in post, and make up combinations of "filters" and "film" that never existed.

Me? I mostly do b&w and I mostly don't sweat it. I may be the only photographer on earth who doesn't give much of a damn about the details of the b&w conversion.

I do shoot raw, but basically because it gives me a good comfortable stop either way of exposure range, so I can be sloppy when I am shooting.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 11, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> Thanks for the input everyone. I've been reading that shooting RAW is the only way to get acceptable B&W conversions. Any comments on this?


I rarely convert my black and whites in raw form. I use the color adjustments in photoshop to convert to raw-which is the same thing you'd do in raw. 
Theoretically I guess you could get even MORE from the colors by converting in raw and therefore more in changing it to black and white. 
I won't say my black and whites are perfect, but I've gotten fairly decent at it. I have black, white and everything in between that includes depth and dimension. I might could get more in raw, but it's not something I have time to experiment with right now. Maybe someday during the down parts of the year. If I get really bored and remember to experiment with it.... Kind of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it..."


----------



## JohnTrav (Sep 11, 2012)

I always shoot raw+jpeg. I wouldn't say it's a necessity though. You can still edit jpegs. Raw can be a little easier at times but it's not a deal breaker. If your cards write fast enough and you large enough I would recommend it.


----------



## f4780y (Sep 11, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> Thanks for the input everyone. I've been reading that shooting RAW is the only way to get acceptable B&W conversions. Any comments on this?



Personally, I wouldn't agree that it is the "only way to get acceptable B&W", but post-processing a raw file to create a B&W result should give you more latitude in the conversion, just as a raw should provide some additional latitude to recover highlights when compared to processing a JPEG. In particular, you may find having full white balance control in post-processing of raw is helpful for some B&W conversions, something you wouldn't get with a JPEG.

Having agonised over raw/JPEG several years ago, and for the last 3 I've been a "raw only" shooter, I still very firmly sit in the camp of folks choosing the workflow which suits them best. Some folks like a workflow which includes significant post-processing (and would usually plump for raw), whilst others trust their in camera JPEG engine and skills to shoot JPEG exclusively and like to post-process as little as possible. I personally don't believe that either one (or anywhere in between) is more correct than the other  Sorry if that's a bit non-committal!


----------

