PhotoBanter.com - View Single Post - Could you actually see photos made from RAW files?

**Savageduck[_2_]** · May 31st 09, 03:06 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc

On 2009-05-30 18:24:19 -0700, said:

Thanks for the overwhelming replies. I appreciate this very much. I
also like the analogy of building a house vs. renovate the house.
Perhaps in the future I will try to keep both RAW and JPEG files,
particularly when taking photos for important events.

Always save the RAW files they are your "digital negatives" working
JPGs are the ultimately disposable files.

I do, however, wonder that by working on raw format, one will end up
spending much more time post processing after the photos are taken.
This sometimes I do not have the luxury to do it. Therefore, I also
look around with interest on what camera is doing better than the
others (in terms of generating JPEG photos), or at least the
processing that this particular camera is suit to your likings in
colour, contrast, tones, etc.

That is one of the reasons to shoot RAW + JPG. That way you can have
quick access to the JPGs and make adjustments to select RAW files as
you choose. ...but you can only do that if you have the RAW file. Just
remember, any incamera adjustments are not going to effect the RAW
files, only the JPGs. So if a JPG is turns out not to your liking, the
RAW should be there to bail you out.
Also, as you develop a work flow you are comfortable with you will find
working with RAW will become quicker & quicker.

I just have one question - if you take a photo which was out of focus,
could you actually make it in focus when you have the raw files?

No. The RAW file is the record of the image captured in its purest
form, and if it is out of focus that lack of focus is part of the
permanant data for that image.
There is only so much you can fix.

One more time, I thank you very much to all responders for the very
useful discussion on this topic!
Regards

--
Regards,
Savageduck