File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hi /p/, I have a question Iv been wondering for a while, not having been into digital photography for long. What's the difference between shooting in RAW compared to JPEG? I know with RAW you need to use your computer and software to, for lack of a better term, develop the pictures and I also know that RAW images are a larger file size.. but besides that, is there any advantage to shooting in RAW?

Pic kinda related
>> Anonymous
Essentially, RAW captures more bits of data per pixel. This includes both brightness and colour information.

Colour information aids in altering white balance & stuff, especially important when shooting colour night photography and balancing out orange streetlights and stuff.

You'll need the extra brightness information for raising or lowering the exposure, fiddling with contrast, etc etc. Photoshop CS3 (and possibly CS2 as well, upgraded from non-CS version so I dunno) includes a *GREAT* tool for editing RAW images. You'd know if you'd ever used the CS3 beta. Download it from mininova torrent site or something.
>> Anonymous
RAW is a direct dump of what the sensor sees. The camera does nothing else to it other than writing it to the card. Good things about this are that it can be treated like a 'digital negative', but they can be very, very large files so you'll get less per card and you'll need a fast computer to process them. And an awful lot of HD space.
>> Anonymous
If you're confident in your shooting abilities and don't need alot of post-processing, then RAW isn't necessary.
>> Anonymous
>>35771
Yes and no. There is a good deal of processing done on the sensor data before it's dumped. How and what is done is a minor trade secret (apparently), so we don't know exactly what it going on. However, the idea is exactly right. RAW is a dump of the image data before virtually all your user-defined settings are applied to them. You can go back and fix white balance and such later.

>>35777
Makes a good point. RAW is good for going back and taking care of things you may have missed while shooting, but it's no substitute for knowing what you're doing.

I shoot exclusively in raw just because every once in a while, I get a really nice shot that just wasn't set up quite right. RAW lets me lessen any such mistakes. That being said, though, for the most part I just dump all my raws through an automatic converter (of my own design) and export it all to JPEG anyways.

tl;dr if you need to ask, you don't need RAW.
>> Anonymous
>>35770
n00b question, sorta related:

I like the fact that with film I get a negative that is concrete, but I know they don't last forever. I'd love to go into digital, but I don't have the money and I need to improve my skills first (after all, the camera can't do everything... probably). Does it make sense to scan negatives, color or b&w? Pros and cons?
>> Anonymous
RAW is absolutely necessary if you're shooting indoors, especially if you're not a great photo, or aren't using off camera flashes.

You have much more control in correcting colors etc.

if you're shooting outdoors, or are overly confident in your skills, shoot in jpg, but real photogs shoot RAW.
>> Anonymous
>>35847

I shoot film still, and scan both color slide film and negative black and white (though with B&W, it's usually better to make an actual darkroom print). Using the right film and scanner, you can get a much higher resolution than you can with digital. Film has a really good life span as well, Fuju Velvia/Provia has an estimated 70 years before it begins to fade. Kodachrome is estimated at 120 years before a 20% loss in the yellow.

Remember that digital doesn't last forever, either. Film is still really good.
>> Anonymous
>>35809
One doesn't need RAW, but let's be direct: a JPEG file literally is a damaged image. There's no way around that. Whenever I can, I shoot in RAW, for no other reason than that I have the absolute best-quality image possible somewhere.

That said, my usual everyday carry camera is an S3IS, which only shoots in JPEG.

Whose boneheaded decision was it to keep with JPEG, now that there's other, better file formats and larger storage spaces? (Serious question is serious: why do we still use JPEG?)

>>35857
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't film last longer than digital?

Of course, the idea with digital is backups of backups... before the storage device spoils, copy it to another one. Another reason, BTW, for RAW: JPEG files degrade when continually copied, and if one wants them preserved for posterity, then a lossless format is what's needed.
>> Anonymous
I still shoot slides; Fuji Velvia 50 Speed, 100 and Provia 100. I do have a slide/negative scanner as well and store my portfolio on the web; I also had copies of the master slides made and put them safe and sound in the safety deposit box in the bank. Paranoid, i know, but in case of fire.. I like to have that extra caution.
>> eku
>>35860
> Another reason, BTW, for RAW: JPEG files degrade when continually copied, and if one wants them preserved for posterity, then a lossless format is what's needed.

No it doesn't, unless you open it and resave it. I've ever seen a file being degraded in quality when copied from one place to another.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
>> Anonymous
>>35860
yeah...what? we arent talking about copying VHS to other VHS here. if you copy a file then copy the copy and copy that copy's copy's copy's copy's copy its still the same file. unless of course one of the files in that chain become corrupt, but that's not the point.
>> Anonymous
>>35865
Isn't it? No one has experience yet in maintaining digital archives for 50+ year. How frequent are unnoticed file corruptions? If your hard disk crashes, do you have readable backups? If your house burns down, do you have off-site copies?
>> eku
>>35870

I keep my photos in two separate disk (altough in a same PC) plus one copy of each image on my other pc. And I'm also planning to copy my photos to my friends server automaticly. (Just don't know how do I do that yet.)

But in case of house burning, it doesn't matter do you shoot film or digital, either way your photos are gone. Except in the case of digital you can be prepaired much better.

But weren't we talking about JPG versus RAW, and not digital versus film?
>> Anonymous
>>35870
you don't keep offsite backups?
>>35874
you SHOULD keep offsite backups. Much easier to rsync some bits than snail mail some negatives

I still use film and love it, but only because of the unusual creativity it allows. I like being able to manipulate it physically, but for anything besides abstract shots digital is the way to go.
>> Anonymous
>>35870
if youre going to make backups then you would make multiple backups at once. so even if one in said chain of copyes of copys gets messed up, youll still have another copy somewhere.
>> Anonymous
>>35874

For automatic off-site backup, I like Mozy. 2GB free, updates automatically...pretty secure. http://mozy.com/

>>35863

That's exactly what I do. In my opinion, it's an ideal way of photography. You have the physical original, plus (depending on the scanner) a good digital version for prints. Also, what's the grain like on the Velvia 50?

>>35860Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't film last longer than digital?

That's what I said in >35857
>> Anonymous
>>35864
Ty for the link