Any serious photographer ALWAYS shoots in RAW. When I meet people who say they don't know what RAW is or who do, and decide to do only JPEG I just shake my head and feel sorry for them. It's like throwing away your original slides or negatives. Makes me sad. - Robert Scoble

Ok. I am one of those JPEG photographers. I just got a new DLSR and don't know anything about RAW. Any good links on taking RAW photos and how to process them? Also, what do you use to manage your files? - Michael Carter

Michael: get Adobe Lightroom http://www.adobe.com/product... -- if you save in RAW you'll be able to much more widely manipulate your images, saving color temperature and exposure problems, among other things. Plus you'll get sharper images and know that you've actually saved all the data coming off of your DSLR's sensor. It takes more memory space, though. Need more hard drives and bigger memory cards, etc. - Robert Scoble

Thanks Robert! - Michael Carter

Michael: Aperture is a great option if you are on a Mac. It's absolutely brilliant for organization. Google This Week In Photography -- it's a great podcast about all things photography related. - Jeremy Brooks

Now storage is cheap, there's not much reason not to use RAW. - Rich

Generalizations like this don't make for a good argument, Robert. Most serious photographers do indeed shoot raw and I agree for most it is the way to go. But there are indeed good reasons for shooting JPEG. It all depends on the circumstances. News photographers who have to get their stuff out as quickly as possible are one example. Plus, DSLRs have become much better at in-camera JPEG processing. The newest Nikons produce exceptionally good JPEGs in most situations. - Ole Begemann

Ole: there's no reason anymore. Why? Pro DSLRs like my Canon 5D and the Nikon D3 I borrowed for a month shoot in BOTH RAW and JPEG so you get the benefits of each. News photographers should keep a historical record in as high a quality as they can. Also, RAW can actually be much easier to process and get a good professional image from. - Robert Scoble

What about sports photography where speed is necessary. You are wrong scoble for dissing on JPEG like that. Raw is great, but JPEG has its own needs and uses - Varun "Maverick" Pitale

I tested out the Nikon D3 and have the Canon 5D. I don't see any real-world speed difference between shooting both RAW and JPEG and JPEG only. Most sports photogs I know shoot RAW because they want the processing capabilities that come with RAW. Most sports photogs I know use many cameras anyway and use the most expensive equipment. - Robert Scoble

But, that's missing the point anyway. I don't mind a professional making a conscious choice. But most people don't really know what RAW does for them and they really are limiting themselves and their photography because of their lack of knowledge. - Robert Scoble

RAW images are not always noticably better in a side-by-side, unprocessed comparison. However, they have major advantages when you're doing a lot of correction afterwards, particularly to bad white balances. If you shoot hundreds of images a day, RAW is not a practical choice. - Ian Betteridge

Ian: that's bull. Thomas Hawk shoots hundreds of images a day and shoots in RAW. I'm shooting tons of pictures every day in both RAW and JPEG and I can see the difference. I upload my JPEG's to Flickr for speed's sake, though, but I wouldn't consider making an image without keeping the RAW around. - Robert Scoble

Robert, your point about "historical record" highlights the BIG issue with RAW: it's not a standard format as such, but simply the raw sensor data. This means that there are lots of kinds of RAW, and no future-proofing. A Nikon NEF which is supported today might not be supported in 10 years time. Keeping your archives as RAW files is basically gambling that the (proprietary) format will still be supported in ten years time, something that you're not doing with JPG. - Ian Betteridge

Oh, and not all RAW is created equal: some types use lossy compression anyway, so you might as well shoot in JPG. - Ian Betteridge

Ian ALL professional cameras shoot in both JPG and RAW. In fact, the Nikon D3 has two Compact Flash card slots. You can set the camera to shoot in RAW on one card and JPEG on the other. That way you have both formats to work with. Even if I shot in RAW only, though, I'd convert my photos to JPEG that I wanted to save and I keep both the RAW format and the JPEG. - Robert Scoble

Scoble, I agree with all the points you make, but I still would argue that if you need speed, JPEG beats RAW. Even the D3 takes RAW at only 2.5 fps - Varun "Maverick" Pitale

Robert, does Thomas shoot hundreds of images a day without access to a laptop? How long, exactly, does he spend processing afterwards? If all he's doing is shooting raw and creating JPGs, he's wasting his time. What's more, if you're really seeing a big difference between raw and JPG, then the issue is your camera's JPG compression algorithms, not the efficiency of RAW. - Ian Betteridge

And, of course, if all Thomas is doing is using RAW as an archive format, then he's gambling that his particular kind of RAW will be supported in ten, twenty years time. That's a big gamble to take if archive photos are important to you. - Ian Betteridge

Varun: the D3 sure seemed to take a lot faster photos than that. I'll have to look into that. Ian: yes. He carries many gigabyte cards. He spends hours processing images. We'll cover this topic a lot more in depth on our new PhotoCycle show that'll start in mid-June. - Robert Scoble

Always RAW. It's amazing how much more data you can get out of a RAW image; highlights/shadows especially. - Benjamin Golub

Robert, I know that all pro cameras shoot in both. However, the way you're talking about RAW here is as if you can just dispense with JPG - ie "news photographers should keep a historical record in as high a quality as they can." Well sorry, but as an archive format RAW is just not a good choice. - Ian Betteridge

Robert, your example of how Thomas works makes the point very well that RAW doesn't work for all. Could a news photographer afford to stop mid-shoot and change a card? - Ian Betteridge

Ian: have you ever watched a news journalist work? They change cards all the time. I'll tell you what, I'll interview some news journalists about this topic and we'll come back to it. Most of the ones I know shoot in RAW because they want the absolute best image to work with as possible. Most news photographers (I watched quite a few work right next to me at Davos) carry three to five bodies and a crapload of memory cards so switching isn't that big a deal for them. - Robert Scoble

It is extremely rare that anyone needs to shoot for an extended length of time without taking a breath. In such situations anyway the best photographers have assistants who rotate cameras in with fresh cards. I watched Sports Illustrated work a World Series game and that's just what they did. The assistant was taking images off of the cards, processing them, and uploading them while the action was going on on the field. - Robert Scoble

"If you shoot hundreds of images a day, RAW is not a practical choice." Sure it is. In Aperture I set the correct white balance for 1 RAW image and batch apply it to all othe others in the same photo shoot. Most of the time this doesn't need to change at all. You can even batch apply sharpening/noise reduction/anything else. RAW does not slow me down; it makes my photos the best they can be. - Benjamin Golub

Some links. Thomas Hawk on Adobe Bridge: http://thomashawk.com/2006... - Robert Scoble

Part I of Photoshop Lessons from Jan Kabili, where she talks about how to process RAW and other things that are important to making great images: http://www.podtech.net/scobles... - Robert Scoble

Part II of Photoshop Lessons from Jan Kabili: http://www.podtech.net/scobles... - Robert Scoble

Inside Photoshop CS3 with John Nack: http://www.podtech.net/scobles... - Robert Scoble

Robert, I used to be a news journalist - and I think you mean news photographer :) And yes, they change cards (and cameras) a lot. They'll be doing it a whole lot more if they shoot in RAW. Approximately 3-6x as often, in fact. That means you're much more likely to miss getting the best shot in busy circumstances. Don't get me wrong - RAW is great if the important thing is maximising your ability to post-process - but in some circumstances that's not what you're most interested in. - Ian Betteridge

I shot in RAW and do my post processing in Adobe Lightroom. Pics are saved on 2 external HDDs. - Marcel Janus

I shoot in RAW when I think post-processing of the image will improve it a lot. But the jpg's my DLSR creates are enough for me in 50-70% of the situations. This does depend on how much of a photoshopper you are. :) It helps if you know the limits of your camera. - roel

I just want to say that I love FriendFeed. This whole discussion started from a Tweet from a person that I don't follow. Now there are all these people adding to a new conversation on FF. This is good stuff. - Michael Carter

Great conversation. I shoot 100% in RAW. Every argument I've heard for shooting JPG above doesn't hold water in my opinion. You can fit hundreds of photos shot in RAW on an 8GB card -- even more on a 16GB. Swapping cards is no problem -- it can be done in seconds. I shoot 200-400 shots in a typical day. If I'm on an actual shoot typically over 1,000. Storage is cheap. You lose so much of your photo by shooting in JPG. There is no reason to only shoot in JPG for serious photographers. - Thomas Hawk

As soon as I get a RAW capable camera, I'm all over it. I'm waiting until CHDK supports my camera (SD 750) or I get a new one altogether. - Ha3rvey

Canon took RAW away from the Powershot S80, booo - Shey

Mac OS X supports most Canon & Nikon RAW formats natively so you can preview RAW images in the finder or use QuickLook, so it isn't any more difficult to work with than JPEG. The difference is most obvious when you open a RAW file in Aperture, since it gives you more adjustment options. - Mike Hussein Cohen

Not sure why everyone moved away from this thread. What I'm wondering, is when I'm at the point where I'll be buying a DSLR, what do I get? Is there a current "king" of the DSLRs? - Jordan Hofker

Jordan, best advice is to try out a lot of different ones. Also depends on your price range. My own thoughts are to seriously consider both Canon and Nikon due to the extensive line up of fine lenses that both offer. Canon should be coming out with a new 5D shortly. That will be a hot DSLR and probably run about $3,500. the Nikon D3 runs about $5,000. You don't need to spend this much though and there are many seriously good cheaper models from both Canon and Nikon. - Thomas Hawk

Jordan, I'm about to retire my first DSLR (a Canon 20D) and am looking at replacing it with the Canon 450D... it's a step down in the Canon product line, but feature-by-feature is actually an upgrade for me... :) and, it's squarely within my hobbyist's budget at around $800... - Kenneth LeFebvre

Jordan, one thing to keep in mind that is just as important to get good lenses/glass as it is to get a good body! So save some money in your budget for some quality starter lenses (you can get some good prime lenses) - Chris Lewis from Alert Thingy

I'm late to the party, I seem to get more noise/grain from RAW than from JPG - in Adobe RAW and Aperture 2. Not enough to make me go back though. - Avelino Maestas

I sure wish I knew why this conversation is not being bumped up in FriendFeed when people post to it. Annoying. - Thomas Hawk

testing bump. - Thomas Hawk

I'm testing the bump also (with a like and a comment), but I have a question - what is the shelf life of a typical RAW image? Certainly you have more processing capabilities in the short term, but what about 5-10 years from now? I grant that JPEG won't be supported forever either, but if you're thinking long-term preservation, I would think that JPEG would offer a longer life. - Ontario Emperor

Testing bump Sat 3:10 AM JST (Fri 11:10 AM PDT). This article bumps in my "Comments" and "See both" pages, but is invisible in my "Friends" and "Likes" pages. - Mitchell Tsai

Ontario Emperor: That's precisely the impetus behind Adobe's DNG standard. It will provide a standard RAW format that will be more likely to last longer than individual manufacturer's formats... - Kenneth LeFebvre

I tried bumping another thread from Wednesday (Scott Kveton's Russian coke can from 2 days ago) with "no comments" and it wouldn't appear in my "Friends" page either. http://friendfeed.com/e... So it's not just looong threads. Maybe a FriendFeed algorithm/cache/etc... issue. - Mitchell Tsai

I'd have to say that it all boils down to what you're going to use it for, which is part of the visualization process that Ansel Adams so heavily stresses. I look at the final use of the photo and make all of my decisions based on that, just like in the darkroom days. - Marc Silber

...love the flexibility of RAW to save your bacon when you forget a WB setting or the like. A sharper image is generally available to you as well. - JA Castillo (جاسون)

100% RAW. Why is this even a question? - TranceMist

I shoot RAW only and it is a noticeable difference (for me) between shooting JPG and RAW. However, I'm not too keen on the current crop of RAW processors. I am still a big fan of RawShooter which unfortunately does not handle UTF8 or GPS EXIF. - jh