RAW file format

[Pea-n-Me]

Same camera.

RAW

Pick up another CF card. I have a 4GB card (and a netbook) and a couple of times I had to move to the second card.

 

[disneygirlinnj]

I always shoot in RAW and bring my laptop with me to dump photos every night

 

[Groucho]

Memory cards are ridiculously cheap nowadays... if you spent the money for the DSLR, there's not much excuse to not buy a few nice big fast cards.

I switched to RAW not long before going on my first WDW trip with my first DSLR, and I am extremely happy that I did. I initially did very little manipulation of the photos... then as I learned more, I went through the photos again and improved things and went through them all again when I started using Lightroom. It's amazing what you can do with a raw. When I look back at my first photos with my "more trained" eyes now, I almost cringe - brown skies in my night photos, etc. If I had shot jpg, I would not be able to tweak them as much as I have.

With raw, as long as the focus is right, you can fix almost anything (within limits) - exposure, color, etc. Control of white balance after the fact is the most obvious improvement IMHO but the extra headroom and detail is very nice, too. Plus if you have an "archivist" mindset like I do, you'll know that you have the best possible original image to start with.

 

[pdmedic]

Well planning to pick up a 8 gig card then have the 4 gig and a 1 gig for a total of 13 gigs in cards figure that will at least get me through a day of pictures then dump them onto the external drive at night. Probably do a secondary storage on them as well haven't decided how I want to do that yet. Picked up a second battery for the camera as well. RAW it is may do RAW and .jpg so I have some easy ones to send out without having to do as much processing for web posts and the like.

 

[Groucho]

What I do on trips is bring a small stack of blank DVDs and burn two copies of all the raw files each night. If you're really paranoid, you can even store one copy in one piece of luggage and the other in another!

 

[mom2rtk]

What I do on trips is bring a small stack of blank DVDs and burn two copies of all the raw files each night. If you're really paranoid, you can even store one copy in one piece of luggage and the other in another!

I like to bring CD mailers preadressed to home. Once I burn a CD or DVD, I drop them at the front desk. I still keep them on my laptop, but feel better knowing I have a backup plan in case something happens to the laptop (or it is stolen.)

 

[MarkBarbieri]

RAW? I'm voting JPG. RAW is for people that can't get it right when they shoot. You're not an idiot. Surely you can manage to get a few simple settings right like exposure level, white balance, saturation, contrast and sharpening before each shot. It's not rocket science.

You need to post process RAW files. Do you really want to be one of those geeks that sits around futzing over your pictures trying to make them look better? Just shoot it and be happy with what you get. Honestly, who knows better how your pictures should look, you or the professional engineers that built your camera?

You take more shots more quickly with JPG than with RAW. RAW may be better for any one shot, but quantity beats quality.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

What I do on trips is bring a small stack of blank DVDs and burn two copies of all the raw files each night. If you're really paranoid, you can even store one copy in one piece of luggage and the other in another!

I used to do that. Now my fle volumes are just too big. I've had days where I've shot 6 DVDs worth of files. Now I carry a pair of 500 gig USB drives. I import my pictures to both simultaneously and store them separately. It's not quite as secure as DVDs, but the difference is trivial. I find it much more convenient.

 

[keylime359]

I just wanted to jump in and say how much I love looking at the photographs all of you take! I am inspired! What would you recommend for someone who knows nothing about photography? I have a Canon Rebel XT and a speedlite 430ex. Can I get the same results you all have with this equipment? The reason I have what I have is because I am a realtor and that is how I do my visual tours. The software makes it look good, not me. Any advice would be greatly appriciated. I will be up there for Halloween and I would love to get some shots!

 

[Evad]

I agree with Mark, shoot jpg and get your settings right on the camera.

Yes cards are cheap but I don't want to take the time to go through every shot and adjust. All that fussing takes time from what I want to do in life like take more pics...... The last thing I want to do is have to run back to the resort just because I have to empty my card

When I get free time I may go back in photoshop and use things such as topaz and do some adjustments, but it is only for enhancement purposes only.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

When your camera takes a picture, it reads a bunch of brightness values from the sensor. This is the "RAW" data. Your camera can then apply a bunch of transformations on that data to make it viewable. It can adjust the white balance, sharpening, contrast, saturation, and other things. When it is done, it also shrinks the file by throwing away data that it doesn't think you'll use. The end result is a JPG file.

A JPG is great because it can be viewed and printed by almost anything. A RAW file is proprietary. Only your camera company or specialty software can read it.

Shooting JPG is easy because the end result is something that you can use right away. JPG files take up less space on a memory card. You camera can write them faster, so if you are taking lots of shots in a hurry you can take more shots more quickly.

RAW files have advantages as well. If you change your mind about any of the settings, you have more flexibility with adjustments.

Many people use the analogy that a RAW file is like a negative and a JPG is like a print. I've also heard the analogy that a RAW file is like the ingredients and a JPG is like a cooked cake. In essence, you'll pretty much always end up with a JPG. With a RAW file, you have to create the JPG yourself but you have much more control over it.

In the old days when space was expensive and cameras wrote slowly, there was a big split between those shooting RAW and those shooting JPG. With space cheap now, almost every serious shooter shoots RAW almost all of the time. Some exceptions are those on tight schedules (like sporting event shooters) or situations where quality really doesn't matter that much (like your kid's friend's birthday party). RAW files do require special software, so many beginners avoid shooting RAW.

With the exception of a couple of pro sports shooters, I've never met a photographer that has taken the time to learn to process RAW files that has gone back to shooting JPGs for most of their work.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I agree with Mark, shoot jpg and get your settings right on the camera.

I think Mark was being a wise guy.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I think Mark was being a wise guy.

Not me! I shoot RAW because I'm just not that good. I have every confidence that PDMedic can nail it right every single time and doesn't need the safety net that RAW provides.

 

[WDWFigment]

Not me! I shoot RAW because I'm just not that good. I have every confidence that PDMedic can nail it right every single time and doesn't need the safety net that RAW provides.

Phhh, you're still using JPG? What a sucker. I just look at a scene, close my eyes really hard, and commit it to memory. It's cheaper because it doesn't require any memory cards or even one of those DLSR things. It's better because my eyes and memory see more dynamic range than your DLSR things.

Plus, I trust the professional engineer who made my eyes and brain more than some fallible Nikon technician who builds cameras.

If I were to take pictures, I would do it in RAW. Then again, I'm fallible and I like to sit around processing images (been doing it all morning!)

 

[Evad]

I think Mark was being a wise guy.

What!! Mark would never do that.............

 

[MarkBarbieri]

What!! Mark would never do that.............

I just couldn't stand to see everyone agreeing.

 

[Evad]

I just couldn't stand to see everyone agreeing.

That's exactly how I feel. Give poor old jpg a chance!!

Besides everybody's pics look the same on my black and white monitor......

 

[pdmedic]

Not me! I shoot RAW because I'm just not that good. I have every confidence that PDMedic can nail it right every single time and doesn't need the safety net that RAW provides.

 

[boBQuincy]

What would you recommend for someone who knows nothing about photography? I have a Canon Rebel XT and a speedlite 430ex. Can I get the same results you all have with this equipment?

The short answer: Yes, your Canon Xt is capable of producing almost all of the photos posted on this board. The longer answer is you may need lenses, filters, tripod, software, and some learning & experience.

For someone who knows nothing about photography I recommend some books on the basics: Ansel Adams "The Camera" and "The Negative". These are not "easy" books but the easy ones rarely tell the whole story, tending to say "do this" without really telling why.

 

[ColleenG]

I just picked up the book Understandin Exposure by Bryan Peterson. Many here recomend it. I did have some background about ISO, shutter speed and aperature from a photog class I took. But this explains things in a way that is easy to understands and show good examples of how the 3 work together. I highly recommend it. I just got my SLR about 6 weeks ago and am learning a lot just by playing around with it.