How do you like yours Raw,lightly poached or well done?

[AllanNP]

Having just got my Pani G1 I am amazed at all the options. Maybe too many to know where to start. I could shoot in RAW which makes most of the choices redundant. Or is the software better than I am in producing the best images?


Any thoughts?

 

[LisaO]

RAW gives you the most options in post processing, if you shoot only JPG and choose a stylized effect that's what you get. That could be good but maybe not. I always shoot RAW + JPG and can quickly process the RAW images I want I just kind of have the JPG as an extra.

 

[flash]

You'll get more from a Panny RAW if you know what you're doing. DP Review stses that it's a significant enough difference that it's noticable in most shooting situations. In m4/3 I always shoot RAW and jpeg. Often jpeg is all you need but sometimes it's nice to have the RAW files for those difficult ones.

Gordon

 

[adam]

RAW vs JPEG is a holy war. There are those who only shoot RAW and claim that you're not using your camera to its full potential if you don't shoot RAW. And there are those who only shoot JPEG and claim that anyone who edits RAW shots is wasting one's time. And they're both wrong.

RAW does give you some extra flexibility in post-processing. JPEG does some in-camera processing, which on modern cameras is often very powerful and can save you a lot of work.

Me? I shoot RAW...I can't live without the white balance slider in Adobe Camera Raw...

 

[bilzmale]

If you are not into PP and like your jpgs straight from the camera go that way. I have switched back to RAW after trialling jpgs on the new cameras - I am happy with the workflow in ACR.

 

[grebeman]

Allan,
I use RAW only. My experience with both the G1 and the GF1 is that the white balance setting often needs altering in post processing. I feel that the in camera auto white balance does not do a very good job, also the white balance setting is too easily accidentally altered and shooting in RAW has saved some of my photographs with the ability to alter white balance in post processing, probably the most important facility in RAW.

Barrie

 

[Bullfrog]

RAW vs JPEG is a holy war. There are those who only shoot RAW and claim that you're not using your camera to its full potential if you don't shoot RAW. And there are those who only shoot JPEG and claim that anyone who edits RAW shots is wasting one's time. And they're both wrong.

RAW does give you some extra flexibility in post-processing. JPEG does some in-camera processing, which on modern cameras is often very powerful and can save you a lot of work.

Me? I shoot RAW...I can't live without the white balance slider in Adobe Camera Raw...

Like the man says...

 

[pete_t]

This may make me sound old (I am) but here goes anyway... When I first got a digital SLR I couldn't figure out what all this RAW stuff was about, so set the camera for high quality JPEG. Took thousands of pictures, some were even OK.

Then I figured out what this RAW stuff was about and started using Adobe RAW Converter and PhotoShop with the RAW images and was quite surprised what I managed to achieve after some playing about. Once I learned to not overdo the processing I managed to create what I thought decent pictures.

Then I started to try to work on the older JPEGs and realised what an ass I'd been by not using RAW in the first place. JPEGs just do not withstand the same processing and I soon realised just how much detail was captured in the RAWs that I hadn't seen. It's just not there in JPEGs.

Dont make the same mistake - use RAW + JPEG, just keep the RAWs until you realise you need them.

Modern software is good at processing RAWs straight off the memory card - if you don't already use them have a good look at Apple Aperture (Mac only) or Adobe Lightroom (Mac and PC). Both of these make light work of RAW processing and (for me) largely remove the need for PhotoShop.

 

[AllanNP]

Ummm sounds like RAW is still the way to go ... more money for another software upgrade I guess as my PS CS3 dosnt support GI Raw

Is the Silkypix worth persisting with? seems a little strange to me

 

[Malo1961]

I have been reading this thread with great interest. I am not taking a stand on the Raw vs Jpeg discussion. Whatever works for you....stick to it.
I will however make one point in favour of Raw processing. Nobody mentioned it before so here it is. I was pointed to it by MR of the Luminous landscape. Watching a tutorial on LR. He said something among the lines: As Raw conversion software evolves it allows you to make your raw file better with each software upgrade. and he is right. I started using raw with my first Dslr, a Nikon D70S. At that time RSE (Raw Shooter Essential) was a free and very highly regarded piece of software. (Two years later Adobe bought them and implemented a lot of their techniques into the development of LR 1) If I compare the D70S NEF files processed in Raw Shooter to the same files re-processed in LR3 after about 7 years I look in AWE at the difference in quality the latter is able to pull out of them.
So remember this when you start using Raw as your processing work flow.
In about 5-8 years from now, you can witness the re-birth of your favourite old files. So like good wine........The older the raw files, the better they get.

 

[Auntiepode]

FWIW, I shoot RAW + jpeg. In addition to the reasons mentioned, on my MAC the RAW images don't display as thumbnails and the associated jpeg thumbnail allows me to browse the images easily with Finder.