Convince me to shoot in RAW

[MarkII]

By the way, I have four Mac's in the house. Not even the Mac Pro which is just a few years old can process a RAW image in milliseconds. Depending on JPG size 4 to 7 seconds is the norm. Well over an hour for 1000 images. Maybe I should be asking what Mac you have if it can process a full size RAW file from a 5D in a few milliseconds.

Well, ms is an exaggeration - but it is not seconds either. I can preview 5DII CR2 files in the finder at full-size without significant delay (C2Duo 17" 2.8GHz with a dual HDD configuration using a 7200RPM mechanical disk plus SSD; 8GB RAM). It is difficult to gauge performance in Lightroom directly because of its caching behaviour, but I don't see a whole lot of difference between large hi-resolution JPEGs and the equivalent RAW files.

I used to have serious problems with Lightroom catalogue performance, but these disappeared with LR4 and moving both the LR catalogue and cache files to the SSD. Perceived performance in Lightroom seems often down to it generating large preview files or paging. Another problem that will affect performance with imports is RAM size - even with 8GB it is possible for LR to trigger paging due to lack of memory if other apps are open (esp PS).

I might try benchmarking the Apple RAW converter, as I have written some software that uses it to batch process RAW files in the past.

[mb66energy]

In data acquisition I have one rule: NEVER ever throw away the original data.

RAW is original data with the full information of what the camera (sensor + lens) are capable to record.

1. More DR (at lower ISOs, depending on camera) so you are free to change contrast, black-point/white-point, color curves, color temperature without loss or with very little loss.
2. Think about the invention of a new algorithm to convert RAW files into other formats like JPEG with enhanced quality - with JPEGs only you loose.

That's why I love my 40D much over the 600D: clean 10MPix raws with reasonable size instead of 18MPix raws with 1.5 times the size but not substantially more information.

[Patrick]

... In my first year of shooting professionally I produced 12,000 photographs and in the end I kept 6,000 for my personal portfolio and passed maybe 1,000 on to clients. The rest were trash.

Ansel Adams said that producing 12 good images made a good year (his definition of a good image was most certainly different to that of most mere mortal photographers!). When you shoot 12,000 to 20,000 images in a year (ain't digital great!) the really difficult part can be finding the 12!

[PackLight]

By the way, I have four Mac's in the house. Not even the Mac Pro which is just a few years old can process a RAW image in milliseconds. Depending on JPG size 4 to 7 seconds is the norm. Well over an hour for 1000 images. Maybe I should be asking what Mac you have if it can process a full size RAW file from a 5D in a few milliseconds.

Well, ms is an exaggeration - but it is not seconds either. I can preview 5DII CR2 files in the finder at full-size without significant delay (C2Duo 17" 2.8GHz with a dual HDD configuration using a 7200RPM mechanical disk plus SSD; 8GB RAM). It is difficult to gauge performance in Lightroom directly because of its caching behaviour, but I don't see a whole lot of difference between large hi-resolution JPEGs and the equivalent RAW files.

I used to have serious problems with Lightroom catalogue performance, but these disappeared with LR4 and moving both the LR catalogue and cache files to the SSD. Perceived performance in Lightroom seems often down to it generating large preview files or paging. Another problem that will affect performance with imports is RAM size - even with 8GB it is possible for LR to trigger paging due to lack of memory if other apps are open (esp PS).

I might try benchmarking the Apple RAW converter, as I have written some software that uses it to batch process RAW files in the past.

Viewing is not a problem, unless I am opening hundreds of photos at once then any of my computers may slow down if I am opening enough. I was only referring to converting the RAW file to JPG.

I just tested the wife's laptop, it is the oldest and slowest computer we have. With DPP doing a full file conversion of a 1D IV file, doing JPG at full size with LR, I did 10 pictures and averaged 7 seconds a piece. With DPP it was averaging 15 seconds a piece. I tested on two different sets of pictures to see if the results were the same. I have tested the other computers, the iMac's I bought last year were the fastest at just over 4 seconds a piece. It is the latest shelf iMac version, I bought it the day they did the last upgrades.

If you save your files as smaller sizes the speed can increase dramatically.

[1255]

As for storage of RAW files. I always archive my original RAW files instead of converted JPEGS onto DVDs when I am done (What's the point of shooting in RAW when in the end you only having JPEGs to refer to?). Simply backing and organizing them onto discs solve the storage issue. You can also, as some have mentioned, buy external hard drives to store them. Remember though, archiving files onto DVDs is preferred as opposed to storing files onto hard drives which will corrupt files over time.

Sorry for the change of topic here, but Standard, or anyone else, can you tell me more about external hard drives corrupting files over time, or direct me to a good resource for more information? I actually wasn't aware of this. Any comments would be much appreciated. Thanks all. 

[1255]

As for the topic at hand, I say, to each, his or her own. Everyone knows how they work best, or what their clients do or do not want, and they should work accordingly.

To the OP, I say shoot in RAW and see how it impacts your workflow. If you like it, stick with it.
 
Personally, I shoot only in RAW and always will. In my own experience, RAW files contain more information, giving you more to work with when you need it.

I don't mind if it sometimes means more time spent in post. Photography is my passion, every single aspect of it, staging, shooting, PP, printing, all of it. The world melts away and I'm a happy person.

 

[1255]

In data acquisition I have one rule: NEVER ever throw away the original data.

RAW is original data with the full information of what the camera (sensor + lens) are capable to record.

1. More DR (at lower ISOs, depending on camera) so you are free to change contrast, black-point/white-point, color curves, color temperature without loss or with very little loss.
2. Think about the invention of a new algorithm to convert RAW files into other formats like JPEG with enhanced quality - with JPEGs only you loose.

+1

[1255]

Ansel Adams said that producing 12 good images made a good year

and finally, +1

[rpt]

In data acquisition I have one rule: NEVER ever throw away the original data.

+1

Unless you don't want the data...

[verysimplejason]

In data acquisition I have one rule: NEVER ever throw away the original data.

+1

Unless you don't want the data...

+1.  Also, no DATA is irrelevant.  You may not want or need it today, but you'll want it tomorrow.  (e.g., DLO in DPP, try it with your very old pictures).

[TexPhoto]

... I am so sick of hearing about RAW. 

....

Talk to one of my favorite photographers at the Arizona Republic and he'll tell you why he shoots raw and not jpg.  No other way than raw.

When I talk to other photographers I talk about photography, not about thier file choice.

[rpt]

... I am so sick of hearing about RAW. 

....

Talk to one of my favorite photographers at the Arizona Republic and he'll tell you why he shoots raw and not jpg.  No other way than raw.

When I talk to other photographers I talk about photography, not about thier file choice.

good use of time!

[verysimplejason]

... I am so sick of hearing about RAW. 

....

Talk to one of my favorite photographers at the Arizona Republic and he'll tell you why he shoots raw and not jpg.  No other way than raw.

When I talk to other photographers I talk about photography, not about thier file choice.

good use of time!

Shooting raw or jpeg doesn't really matter.  If that's what you want then go ahead but I'm shooting in raw.  Each to his own...  I just want to have more headroom in case I make a mistake because I know I'm not perfect but I aspire for a near perfect photograph.

[TexPhoto]

... I am so sick of hearing about RAW. 

....

Talk to one of my favorite photographers at the Arizona Republic and he'll tell you why he shoots raw and not jpg.  No other way than raw.

When I talk to other photographers I talk about photography, not about thier file choice.

good use of time!

Shooting raw or jpeg doesn't really matter.  If that's what you want then go ahead but I'm shooting in raw.  Each to his own...  I just want to have more headroom in case I make a mistake because I know I'm not perfect but I aspire for a near perfect photograph.

(In traditional internet forum style, I will take a contrary position but then paraphrase your statement) I completely disagree.  I think the photography is much more important than the file format.  I shoot RAW because I find the end product is better, but it is a small part of the big picture.  Bla, Bla, bla.... RAW is life... Bla

Actually I am just going for the record on embedded quotes.  It's like getting the last word in on a fight with your wife.

[pakosouthpark]

... I am so sick of hearing about RAW. 

....

Talk to one of my favorite photographers at the Arizona Republic and he'll tell you why he shoots raw and not jpg.  No other way than raw.

When I talk to other photographers I talk about photography, not about thier file choice.

that is because they shoot RAW already.. and know that everyone that has the passion for it will shoot raw