What are your top reasons for shooting raw?

Different people seem to have different reasons for shooting raw.

My most to least important reasons:

1. Lossless edit "headroom" v. log compressed JPG.
2. Colour, contrast, brightness, etc. adjustments in raw import.
3. Fine tuning light source (aka white balance)
4. Recovery from exposure errors (exposure range)
5. CA correction with raw is less lossy than from the JPG
6. Proof of copyright in having the digital original.

Alan Browne wrote:
Different people seem to have different reasons for shooting raw.

My most to least important reasons:

1. Lossless edit "headroom" v. log compressed JPG.
2. Colour, contrast, brightness, etc. adjustments in raw import.
3. Fine tuning light source (aka white balance)
4. Recovery from exposure errors (exposure range)
5. CA correction with raw is less lossy than from the JPG
6. Proof of copyright in having the digital original.

All of the above, plus (not necessarily in order of importance):

7. Better control of ultimate jpg image production in Photoshop than
from the limited software in the camera
8. Option to save images without loss in tiff or dng formats if required
9. Able to save images in 16-bit mode, vs jpg's forced 8-bit.
10 Less chance of irrecoverable corrupted jpg image

--

Colin D.

Alan Browne wrote:

Different people seem to have different reasons for shooting raw.

1. Pose value - "Oh ya, I only shoot rawwww."
2. Control of white balance.
3. Exposure headroom.
4. Ability to produce "better" JPEGs than the camera.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Different people seem to have different reasons for shooting raw.

My most to least important reasons:

1. Lossless edit "headroom" v. log compressed JPG.
2. Colour, contrast, brightness, etc. adjustments in raw import.
3. Fine tuning light source (aka white balance)
4. Recovery from exposure errors (exposure range)
5. CA correction with raw is less lossy than from the JPG
6. Proof of copyright in having the digital original.

Colour space.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:50:36 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Different people seem to have different reasons for shooting raw.

My most to least important reasons:

1. Lossless edit "headroom" v. log compressed JPG.
2. Colour, contrast, brightness, etc. adjustments in raw import.
3. Fine tuning light source (aka white balance)
4. Recovery from exposure errors (exposure range)
5. CA correction with raw is less lossy than from the JPG
6. Proof of copyright in having the digital original.

I'd say I do for all those reasons, but most especially 2, 3, and 4.

Alan Browne wrote:
Different people seem to have different reasons for shooting raw.

My most to least important reasons:

1. Lossless edit "headroom" v. log compressed JPG.
2. Colour, contrast, brightness, etc. adjustments in raw import.
3. Fine tuning light source (aka white balance)
4. Recovery from exposure errors (exposure range)
5. CA correction with raw is less lossy than from the JPG
6. Proof of copyright in having the digital original.

To savage the world's hard drive supplies :-)

Main reason is exposure latitude, highlights *and* shadows. That can my
errors or the camera's or just more of an HDR effect.

I edit a lot anyways so might as well have it come out well.

I burn jpegs after editing and off-load the raw and seconds. Send me
your hard drives, I'll fill em up.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

I've never seen an in-camera Jpeg that could look as good as a good RAW
conversion outside the camera. Nikon is probably the best at it.

On 10/10/09 20:41 , Rich wrote:
I've never seen an in-camera Jpeg that could look as good as a good RAW
conversion outside the camera. Nikon is probably the best at it.




But generally, not as good as the export from a good conversion
program.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Different people seem to have different reasons for shooting raw.

My most to least important reasons:

1. Lossless edit "headroom" v. log compressed JPG.
2. Colour, contrast, brightness, etc. adjustments in raw import.
3. Fine tuning light source (aka white balance)
4. Recovery from exposure errors (exposure range)
5. CA correction with raw is less lossy than from the JPG
6. Proof of copyright in having the digital original.

I miss the smell of the chemicals in the morning....

So digital developers, fixers and washes have become my substitute and
I get to work in the lab for awhile.

Bob S.

On 2009-10-10 21:23:41 -0700, "BobS" said:


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Different people seem to have different reasons for shooting raw.

My most to least important reasons:

1. Lossless edit "headroom" v. log compressed JPG.
2. Colour, contrast, brightness, etc. adjustments in raw import.
3. Fine tuning light source (aka white balance)
4. Recovery from exposure errors (exposure range)
5. CA correction with raw is less lossy than from the JPG
6. Proof of copyright in having the digital original.

I miss the smell of the chemicals in the morning....

So digital developers, fixers and washes have become my substitute and
I get to work in the lab for awhile.

Bob S.

Just a dab of hypo behind the ear before sitting in front of that
monitor will work wonders in setting the atmosphere.
--
Regards,

Savageduck