...that is the question. I have had the ability to shoot in RAW format since I got my camera, of course, but I never have, mostly because of space considerations on my card. I'm starting to reconsider it, though, after LinusMines asked me about it. It's been forever since I took enough pictures in one session to fill up the SD card, so why not up the format and see what happens?
I thought I'd try to talk myself into it here first. RAW is, of course the best format available, at least according to what I've read. The question is why, and whether using the format has any benefits to me, a slacker/amateur photographer with delusions of grandeur.
My first concern about the RAW format is the size of the files created. I can easily pick up another SD card or two, but I use an aging computer to process and store finished images, and one of the unfortunate side effects of taking more good pictures has been an insupportable increase in stored data. Using RAW would exacerbate the problem, since I would then have to store both the RAW file and the finished image. The only way around that would be to get an external storage device (probably a good idea anyway) or a new computer (probably a good idea anyway, but I'm putting it off until strictly necessary). I count this as a con.
Next, I wonder if the difference would be noticable, in terms of image quality. I really don't want to take the extra time to get the same results, and digital manipulation has been kept to a minimum since I started using a DSLR. However, I can definitely see that, in adverse lighting conditions, a RAW format picture could be salvaged where a pre-processed JPG could not (or at least not as easily).
Lastly, I think that shooting in RAW might be wasted on me, because I still do not use a decent photo editor to process my pictures. Yes, it's true, everything I process gets processed by Picasa, and nothing else. What can I say, it works for me and I'm lazy, so that's what I do. I've thought about spending the big bucks on Photoshop, but why would I do that instead of, say, buying a new lens and a really nice tripod? If I can get good results using the low-budget editor, it's hard for me to see why I should spend the big bucks. Same with RAW. It might make a difference, but I like what I'm doing now, so it's hard to get motivated to change. maybe once I get used to my hardware upgrades I can start thinking about upgrading software, including shooting in RAW. Or who knows, the new hardware might make it necessary.
Buy buy buy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
One reason I imagined RAW as a practical alternative to JPEG was the overall drop in storage media costs (when there's fewer space constrictions, my tendency is to take shots at higher resolution, as opposed to increasing quantity for lower-res). SD media, for example, is much more reasonable in price than it was three or four years ago. The days when CD and DVD blank media went for a dollar apiece are thankfully gone. And as for hard drives, 500GB @ $100 = 2 cents a gigabyte. Altogether, it's a friendlier path, if not always time-saving (organize collection, save to media, etc.). The big payoff there, of course, is peace of mind priceless pics aren't trapped on a gasping, sputtering hard drive.
As far as quality goes, if the sole reason to shoot in RAW is having lossless or near-lossless image data, I considered that of highest importance. However, I figure that it's still a subjective decision. Whether it's edited later or not, a high-res JPEG image may not suffer so much on its own that a RAW version is necessary. I imagine professionals will standardize on the "highest" format available, and prefer RAW as a result.
Re: editors, there are a lot of good ones out there (like Picasa) that aren't as pricey or arcane as Photoshop. I'd be surprised if there weren't RAW-capable utilities -- some freeware or open-source -- that were comparably functional without requiring industrial-strength computing power.
This all returns to my second paragraph, and your opening question...is RAW overkill for amateur use? I'll be looking for others' experiences with shooting between file formats.
Of course you meant 20 cents per gig, but still, I'll take it.
My camera came with all the software necessary to handle the RAW file, so no worries there. New K10Ds come with software to convert te RAW into an Adobe digital negative, which is trying to become a standard RAW format.
Really what's keeping me from shooting in RAW (and arguably from using my camera to its full potential) is my outdated computer and storage medium.
I imagine the real test would be to shoot some RAW images and see if I notice a difference, or (and here's the real test) whether or not it's more fun! Sheesh! I must have been in a fog this morning not to have thought of it.
I'll make it a weekend project and report back next Monday.
Of course you meant 20 cents per gig...
Moral:
a) Edit twice, post once.
b) Buy a cheap calculator.
c) Post-date this to 2009, when it probably will be $0.02/GB.
Post a Comment