Convince me to shoot in RAW

[RobT]

Now, I had always known there were distinct advantages to RAW, but hadn't thought about it much until recently since I was only a hobbyist on a Rebel XT for five years. I upgraded to a 50D two years ago and tried RAW once or twice but still didn't have much knowledge about photography.

Now, I've been doing photography professionally for several months, have learned a crazy amount, and am pushing to get the absolute best out of my 50D until I can save up for the MkIII.

This article: http://digital-photography-school.com/should-you-be-shooting-raw
Finally made it stupidly obvious to me why RAW will always be a higher quality then the camera-JPEG equivalent. Somehow I didn't realize until now that there is quite a bit more tonal data in a RAW file.

So I would really like to be shooting in RAW, but a few things are holding me back:

1) Data management.
I don't have the budget for a bunch of HDD's, especially while saving every penny for the MkIII. This is not my biggest concern, but it will be a greater task trying to back up 800 RAW files instead of JPEGs. I know there has got to be a way to delete all images in a folder not chosen for import when using lightroom. If someone could explain that to me or if anyone knows of a workaround, data management wouldn't concern me as much. I always import more than I truly end up with, and I don't want to add to my workflow time by deleting all the out of focus images outside of lightroom before starting the import process.

2) Workflow time with only RAW files.
I know I'll figure out the speediest way for me once I actually start taking on the beast, but some advice on getting started would be greatly appreciated. I advertise a photo-journalistic style for weddings, so I often come home with over a thousand images expecting to choose about half of them to process. Part of this is needing to be more selective in shooting, but I still feel much safer taking three shots of the same pose using the 50D and shallow DoF as there is such a razor thin margin for getting critical areas in focus.

Does lightroom handle RAW files in an efficient manner? With so many images per session, I'd prefer to keep all my work within lightroom. I'm just worried that processing RAW and then processing all the produced images will prove to be too time consuming. It may not be a problem if I did photography full time, but it is currently a weekend job on top of my normal full time job. Business is starting to pick up for me, and time management is starting to become a real issue.

Help please ;D

 

[florianbieler.de]

If you are doing "photography professionally for several months", you should have figured the advantages of RAW out by yourself a long time ago.

I will try to wrap it up anyway, it's not very hard to understand. There is a reason why RAW files are that big. They simply hold much, much more information than your standard compressed JPEG Image, thus allowing you to cover wider ranges of possibilities in post-processing. For example, is your picture too dark? No problem, brighten it to levels where your JPEG would throw out artifacts already. Wedding sounds like often indoors to me, so light would be a thing to keep in mind here and a RAW just grants you more space to get the picture you want later.

If you use Lightroom, then you probably know that it's not only an editing, but also an archiving tool. I don't really see why it would consume more time to look through RAW files instead of JPEGs, except if you got a low class computer that cannot access these files in an acceptable timespan.

When it's coming to backups, I also don't see a problem. I only shoot in raw, which grants me about 300 pictures on my 16GB SD Card in the 5D Mark III, and when processed, I save them as high quality JPEG. You probably wouldn't keep backups in RAW anyway, as it would eat your harddrive like crazy. When I am on vacation, I process the pics worth processing from RAW, the rest gets converted to JPEG via IrfanView without any processing at all.

Another problem for you would be the data speed of your camera. 1000 pics on one wedding? Sounds like burst mode to me. Your 50D won't be able to shoot more than 8 to 10 pics in a row without some room to breathe to save them first.

If you are going to switch to a 5D Mark III sometime in the future, the backup question would already be clear. Because it has got a CF and a SD card slot, you can shoot RAW and JPEG simultaneously and save RAW on the CF, and JPEG on the SD, that even crosses out the need to convert them later but allows you to process the much better RAWs in the first place.

 

[SwissBear]

For Lightroom: after the import (actually after the first 10-20 images have loaded), i check in the "previous import" every pic and use pick [ p ] and reject [ x ] while having a first look at the pictures. everything that is obviously bad gets trashed.
then i select via attributes (top middle in the catalogue window) either all rejected pic or, depending on the projet, all that are not picked and the rejected. Then its easy: selet all, delete (also from disk).

Woosh, and you have only the pictures left on your drive that are "good".

Then make a new collection and put everything that i wanna keep in it and then the real work begins and however so often another pic gets an [ x ] and sooner, but normally later (that point when only 50GB are left on the drive) it gets cleaned

I work on a 2 year old mid-class notebook, previewing is normally fast (1sec per picture to get full resolution, 2sec max to change to develop).
On my desktop (which catches dust at my parents home), a 3 year old i7-920 then-high-end-gaming machine, there is no visible delay.
So your computer should be able to cope quite well with RAWs, as also jpegs need to be decoded.

 

[sanj]

In all practicality, if you do not feel the need for RAW, you do not need it.
If you are happy with JPEG, no need for RAW. It is generally an overkill and time consuming.

 

[SwissBear]

RAW is that back-up mechanism that lets you correct the missed manual EV stteing to compensate the black tux or that bright window behind your subject.

Oh, and dont hesitate to underexpose 1-2 stops to get a more reasonable shutterspeed 8)

 

[canonball93]

The only person that will convince you to shoot RAW is YOU. As a "professional", you should realize the pros and cons of RAW and JPG files. If you determine you really don't need to devote time to process RAW images, then use JPG. It's your decision...you are the only one who knows what you are trying to achieve in your shots!
In my opinion, a true professional photographer wouldn't be asking this question.
Regards,
Gordon
5DMkIII, T3i with L-glass up the ying-yang!

 

[Crapking]

Good advice on LR data management is readily available (Scott Kelby, adobe tutorials, etc) as well as the brief outline above.

One word of caution - pick a strategy and stay with it.

For example, you COULD use a separate catalog for every shoot, and keep each shoot / catalog / files together on an inexpensive and separate HDD.

Or you could use only 1 catalog and organize each shoot into collections as noted above. Eventually your catalog will become large and require more computing power, but this allows searching to be limited to only 1 catalog.

The real question is how long do you want / need to keep your archives. Getting rid of the non-keepers is the easy part, but staying organized is better done in 'real-time'.

Learn to consistently use keywords or a rating system as you go through your shots! This will make it easier to later find YOUR favorites (to post here, enter contests, compare techniques, settings, etc).

As to RAW file management, it is critical to use LR file management and not move the files outside of LR or else you will have hard time using LR fully to its' capability. Once you post-process the RAW, EXPORT the JPG to use as both a backup and for commercial / personal use. The RAW will always remain within the LR catalog you are working in.

If completely satisfied, after exporting the JPG, you COULD delete the RAW files to clear space, but then you lose the ability to make future changes. It all depends on how much you anticipate returning to the project files.

Another time-saver - during import, apply basic camera/LR presets and render 1:1 preivews - and go to sleep/eat, etc. Come back and then pick/choose/rate as noted above. You won't have to wait to see each picture. Takes more time initially, but helps speed up the rating process. Also, if you can, learn to use 2 monitors during your selection/rating. On the second monitor, use GRID view and you can see what shots are coming next, use your eyes to move back and forth and you are not stuck trying to pick out keepers based on the thumbnails.

Good luck...

 

[Dylan777]

My 2 cents:

Out of 100 pictures I took, I usually end up around 10-15. Those 10-15 will get PP through lightroom and save as JPEG + RAW.

My backup will always be RAW. I have 2 of 5T external HD. I usually wait for them to be on sale at Frys Electronic. Sometime you can get them for couple hundred dollars for 5T HD.

 

[Swphoto]

For Lightroom: after the import (actually after the first 10-20 images have loaded), i check in the "previous import" every pic and use pick [ p ] and reject [ x ] while having a first look at the pictures. everything that is obviously bad gets trashed.
then i select via attributes (top middle in the catalogue window) either all rejected pic or, depending on the projet, all that are not picked and the rejected. Then its easy: selet all, delete (also from disk).

FYI, once you've flagged the non-keepers via x (or shift+x - flags and then moves to the next pic) you can then hit ctrl+backspace to delete the rejected photos - saves a bit of time.

 

[rpt]

If you nail exposure and WB every time (when it counts) and do not need to edit your jpegs forget about RAW. If you need to edit, you are much better off shooting RAW... My 2c...

 

[kubelik]

since you're now shooting photography professionally, then it's important to think of photography as a business. and in business your back-of-house / logistics is just as important as your front-of-house product. to get 4 or 6 TB of storage nowadays should set you back about half a grand. that's not an unreasonable investment (no different than purchasing a 50 f/1.4). storage & backups are not really an "optional" part of running a serious photography business.

if you do have the time for it, you can go through and delete RAWs that will not be used for final p/p work. but at the end of the day, there's a cost-benefit to that as well, you need to look at what your time is worth. if you come back from a wedding shoot with three 16 GB cards full of photos each weekend in the summer, you may soon find that purchasing several RAID drives is in fact much cheaper than wasting time individually checking off photos from your cards as you download them.

 

[awinphoto]

For what it's worth... while RAW WILL give you more information, many of the top pros do not, ever, shoot raw... too much workflow... Pro's such as doug gordon, joe bussink, and many more do not shoot raw... I do not shoot raw for most my work... We can get hard drives... but seriously... saving raws, saving final production outputs, etc... In the end, unless I start charging storage fee's for my pictures, it's just not worth it... Dont let anyone tell you otherwise... In the situation you find the loss in quality affecting your business or if you print a large 20x30 and become underwhelmed... dont sweat it.

 

[RLPhoto]

Once I started shooting RAW, I found JPEG's to be absolute garbage. I use Small Jpeg + Raw so i can deliver the little jpeg file if needed ASAP but the RAW for real processing.

 

[awinphoto]

This is the same argument as those who say to be a pro, you must shoot with 1dx's and such... I've heard these arguments all my career and likely will see them 20 years in the future, assuming jpegs and raws are still around. Dont let anyone disparage your shooting style... only you can judge your final quality... Only you can judge how you want your quality to represent your business and your brand... if your cool with what you get by jpeg, dont sweat it... but if your underwhelmed and wish you had more information... By all means... Do what you need to do.

 

[Jay Khaos]

One misconception that I hear people mention a lot is that it requires a RAW file to edit in adobe raw (changing shadows, fill light, exposure, etc). You can do that with any image type... the difference is that raw is uncompressed so that the effects work more cleanly when done before compressed to jpeg, in general.

One advantage of full frame over cropped is the better quality bokeh... isnt it? Buying a 5D mkiii would kind of be like buying a top of the line HDTV just to watch VHS tapes.

Although it depends on your work mainly. If your work is purely used for digital or relatively small print and time is more of a concern than nitpicking on IQ... maybe staying in jpeg is more valuable. Although if that were the case, I would DEFINITELY not waste the money on the 5D mkiii.

 

[DavidB]

since you're now shooting photography professionally, then it's important to think of photography as a business. and in business your back-of-house / logistics is just as important as your front-of-house product. to get 4 or 6 TB of storage nowadays should set you back about half a grand. that's not an unreasonable investment (no different than purchasing a 50 f/1.4). storage & backups are not really an "optional" part of running a serious photography business.

if you do have the time for it, you can go through and delete RAWs that will not be used for final p/p work. but at the end of the day, there's a cost-benefit to that as well, you need to look at what your time is worth. if you come back from a wedding shoot with three 16 GB cards full of photos each weekend in the summer, you may soon find that purchasing several RAID drives is in fact much cheaper than wasting time individually checking off photos from your cards as you download them.

+1

www.studiojada.com
www.studiojada.com/blog

 

[DavidB]

JPG may as well not even be an option for me, I always always shoot RAW. Storage space and external hard drives are SO CHEAP nowadays the extra space is basically a non-issue. Lightroom is VERY efficient at processing raws so there is no noticeable extra processing time. I shoot a lot of low light weddings and sometimes need to underexpose to get shutter speed fast enough, and then push exposure in PP, forget doing this if you shoot in JPG. I also tweak white balance in PP, and RAW is much more flexible for that. Why would you want to throw out all the extra information and settle with JPG? The RAW file also serves as the "Digital Negative" giving you, the copyright owner, the end all proof that your picture is your picture.

www.studiojada.com
www.studiojada.com/blog

 

[Marsu42]

Once I started shooting RAW, I found JPEG's to be absolute garbage. I use Small Jpeg + Raw so i can deliver the little jpeg file if needed ASAP but the RAW for real processing.

I'm using this small jpg sidecar, too - but just to see what the camera would have done and to be able to quickly browse though the collection outside Lightroom.

Does lightroom handle RAW files in an efficient manner?

My 2 cents:

a) Convert .cr2 to .dng in Lightroom which will save a few mb per shot

b) for less-than-stellar shots use lossy dng compression which about halves the file size, is virtually indistinguishable from the uncompressed raw and way better than 100% jpeg + it retains the raw advantages

c) it's not like you cannot convert the raw files to jpeg later on to further save hd space

 

[Loswr]

Two words: white balance. Most Canon bodies don't do Auto WB all that well, and shooting RAW lets you alter WB with no IQ penalty.

Basically, you're trading time and storage space for better IQ. Plus, the edits that you'd probably be doing (cropping, etc.), you'd be doing to the JPG as well, so most of the time is the computer doing the RAW conversions, and you just batch those and let them run while you do something else.

 

[magic koala]

I am not a professional but when I was starting I only shot in jpeg. In the beginning, you learn a lot of things and my problem was that my keeper rate was very poor. Maybe I'd keep 3/10 shots. To get more good pics, I'd just shoot more which was the wrong thing to do. As my skills improved, I got to about 70% and 80% keeper rate and could shoot less. I also realized I could further increase the rate by shooting RAW and "saving" pics by adjusting exposure and other dimensions. I find shooting RAW+jpeg works for me. Most of my shots are nice enough to share unprocessed (jpeg) and if I find I need to work on it, I've got the RAW files.

As for disk space, that should not be an issue if you are a "pro". As others have pointed out, external hard drives with TB capacity are quite affordable. I picked up a 3TB hard drive for 130 bucks and it was not on sale. I download RAW+jpeg onto my PC. I process what I need to do on RAW and save those as my final jpegs. I then copy everything to the external hard drive, but keep the jpegs for quick access on my PC.

I shot a wedding a several weeks ago as a favor a few weeks ago and one of my stipulations was that I was NOT (too much work since this was free) going to do the post process on them. Even though I thought my jpegs looked fine, I still supplied the original RAW to the photoshop expert. Having RAW gives you more options and if you are in this to make money and be successful, you need to have the best options available to you. I'm pretty sure the photoshop expert would have considered me quite unprofessional if I had given him jpeg only.