digital cameras
- Thread starter pontifex
- Start date
From what I have heard/read, yes. But the raw format is far too large, unless you are using it for professional photography reasons.
Well are you comparing your pictures to SLR cameras? What camera are you using? AF (Focus assist) would probably be a feature you should get. Canon cameras have this feature IIRC.
IMO, if you have decent RAW editing software such as ACR or PhaseOne, workflow becomes a lot easier using RAW. At this point, the argument that using jpg is easier only holds true if you intend to perform no post-processing.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,369
- 8,492
- 126
what camera do you have and do you know how to use it?
raw isn't going to make much difference over a super-fine jpg in terms of clarity and sharpness, imho, as just a storage method (the camera does post processing when you capture a jpg, so you get variables there). where raw really improves upon is the ability to change things like exposure and white balance.
funboy6942
Lifer
- Nov 13, 2001
- 15,309
- 393
- 126
thirdeye
Platinum Member
I shoot all in RAW. It makes a HUGE difference when working with the pics. I'm by no means a good photographer, but I'm slowly learning. The lens makes a big difference also when it comes to sharpness.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,369
- 8,492
- 126
ok, what lenses are you using? are you using a tripod or some other method of support? is the shutter speed set to a fast enough speed? are you leaving enough depth of field to keep the subject in focus? is the subject in focus?
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
What lens(es) are you using? That's step one. A tripod and an external flash are also pretty much essential.
Choosing the right settings to take photos at is a big step as well. Check out Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson for a really good illustrated guide.
The bottom line for quality is what are you going to do with the pictures you take?
If you are going to post them on a webpage or just email, RAW is Overkill! If you decide you want to print them larger than an 8 x 10 Raw is the way to go. (Remeber Raw fills the memory card fast, so not good while on vacations) BTW - nice :camera:
If you are going to post them on a webpage or just email, RAW is Overkill! If you decide you want to print them larger than an 8 x 10 Raw is the way to go. (Remeber Raw fills the memory card fast, so not good while on vacations) BTW - nice :camera:
- Dec 5, 2000
- 43,804
- 46
- 91
i recently got access to a tripod.
i'm using a tamron 70-300mm, the 18-55 kit lens, and a 28-70mm (not sure what brand). the 2 lenses other than the kit one i got used.
i read that understanding exposure book but i'm still confused on fstops, shutter speed, and iso. my camera has a little inidcator to let you know when the exposure is good so i go by that, but i still don't totally understand those 3 settings and it seems like i never will.
i guess the subject is in focus. the camera seems to take care of that pretty well. it won't focus if i'm too close to the subject.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,369
- 8,492
- 126
zooms are never particularly sharp lenses in comparison to primes, and you're not running low dispersion glass. if you're examining images on the monitor at full resolution then it's probably going to look poor. on a 19" LCD a 6 MP image is far larger than you would ever make a print of. what matters is how it looks like when you've printed it off.
No you won't see much of a difference if any however if you plan to edit it, take RAW because you want your source image to be as original as it gets.
- Jan 2, 2006
- 10,455
- 35
- 91
RAW RAW RAW RAW RAW RAW
As stated above, straight out of the camera JPEG and RAW don't have much of a difference. It's the RAW processing in RAW software that can make your RAW photos stand out from JPEG. RAW is just so much more flexible than JPEG to edit because it contains more image data, which is unseen superficially, and this means you can eak out more of this data in processing than JPEG. As for size of RAW files, just get larger memory cards. On a vacation? Bring a laptop or purchase a photo tank like a Hyperdrive HD80. I go backpacking with my camera and I have no issues with RAWs taking up too much space.
Pontifex, if you have photo questions you can always ask me
As stated above, straight out of the camera JPEG and RAW don't have much of a difference. It's the RAW processing in RAW software that can make your RAW photos stand out from JPEG. RAW is just so much more flexible than JPEG to edit because it contains more image data, which is unseen superficially, and this means you can eak out more of this data in processing than JPEG. As for size of RAW files, just get larger memory cards. On a vacation? Bring a laptop or purchase a photo tank like a Hyperdrive HD80. I go backpacking with my camera and I have no issues with RAWs taking up too much space.
Pontifex, if you have photo questions you can always ask me
Kelemvor
Lifer
- May 23, 2002
- 16,928
- 8
- 81
Yes you should use Raw whenever possible unless you are short on memory card space. THat way you get a bigger/better image that you can crop down if you need to or blow it up for a bigger print. THen if you want to save it to JPG you can do that.
I wish my camera had RAW but it only does JPG. It's the only thing I don't like about it.
I wish my camera had RAW but it only does JPG. It's the only thing I don't like about it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 17K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter