"Skygod44 is in the RAW" (again!) - Hey, that even rhymes. Must be a great title for a new thread in this fantastic forum!

[Skygod44]

So, I was watching a great video by the 'quirkily British' Craig Roberts of "e6 Vlogs" fame on YouTube today, and he was talking about shooting RAW.
I'd completely forgotten about shooting in the RAW, and it was like a bolt of electro-shock therapy had gone through my brain.

"But HOW could you forget about shooting in the RAW?!?!?" I hear nobody cry
Well, since the next part is just me, letting off steam, I'll tell ya!


A few years ago, I became really disillusioned with POTN.
"No! Surely not !" I hear nobody say at all.
But yes!
Tis true!!!

To be frank, one POTNer was going on and on about his amazing gear - I think it was a Canon 5D mk3, and a couple of L lenses - but every photo was flat, dull and unimaginative.
You could take the same with a P&S worth 100 euro-dollar-pounds!
But when I very politely gave him ideas on including foreground elements, or altering the perspective, he just poo-pooed my at-the-time 30D, as if expensive gear = amazing photos.

This attitude seemed to become pervasive, and I just couldn't be bothered...
...so I tried to learn video editing

I'm no pro (unlike my best mate, who's done the editing for three Olympic games!), but to date, my biggest project started with about 4½ hours of footage, shot at 30 or 60 frames/second, 1080p (fullHD), processed in-camera.

I think the data totalled about 1.2 terabytes prior to cutting.

Using RAW data would have increased that 2x to 6x
So, "RAW" became a distant memory.

So, I'm back in the RAW, and here are my questions (yes, there's a point to this!):

"Has editing RAW files changed over the last 6 years or so?"

"Do some of you use bespoke RAW file conversion/editing software? Or just shove RAW files into something like Lightroom?"

"Is there more leeway using RAW, than a decade ago?"

And if you have any other advice, I'm all ears, because I love to learn & would never assume to be a know-it-all.

Cheers for now,
Simon in the RAW

 

[Joeseph]

I still shoot both RAW & jpeg. Usually only touch the RAW's when I can't get the jpeg into anything useful. Probably just a waste of hard drive space!

 

[Skygod44]

I still shoot both RAW & jpeg. Usually only touch the RAW's when I can't get the jpeg into anything useful. Probably just a waste of hard drive space!

Thanks
So you double up on data "just in case"
Yeah...I think I remember that being popular back in the day.
But with sensors increasing in size since then, I can imagine that jpg+RAW would necessitate pretty big data cards.

Thanks again

 

[Joeseph]

It's really about getting better at editing I think - looking back at some of my earlier efforts they were pretty awful, can't say I'm proficient after all this time but I'm better that I was.
Occasionally I'll have a shot of something that is not reproduceable and it's good to have a RAW to use if I need.

 

[Skygod44]

It's really about getting better at editing I think - looking back at some of my earlier efforts they were pretty awful, can't say I'm proficient after all this time but I'm better that I was.
Occasionally I'll have a shot of something that is not reproduceable and it's good to have a RAW to use if I need.

Gotcha

Well, I shot a couple of frames today deliberately over- and underexposing by 2.5 stops.

So I'll go upstairs, crank up the beast, and see how they compare when brought back down, and back up to the "correct" exposure.

Thanks again

Edit: I'll add, I've never shot in RAW on any of my Olympus camera, so this is going to be interesting

 

[BigAl]

You want really data heavy video? I shoot time lapses, and do a lot of them around dawn and dusk. So I shoot in RAW on my EOS 50D. That works out as about 533MB/s at 30fps. It dose allow me a lot more room in the highlights and shadows than I would get from the 50D's JPEG engine. Once I have all the images converted to PNG I import them into DaVinci Resolve to convert to video.

 

[Skygod44]

You want really data heavy video? I shoot time lapses, and do a lot of them around dawn and dusk. So I shoot in RAW on my EOS 50D. That works out as about 533MB/s at 30fps. It dose allow me a lot more room in the highlights and shadows than I would get from the 50D's JPEG engine. Once I have all the images converted to PNG I import them into DaVinci Resolve to convert to video.

Hahahaha...
No thanks! Not on your Nelly

But thanks to the replies, I've done some digging on my PC, and it turns out that when I bought my cameras, at some point in time, I downloaded the free Olympus RAW editor
Tried to open it, and it was "ok", but then pointed me to the new "OM digital solutions" website for an update/upgrade - also free!

Well, I must say, it's not bad at all.

It can deal with focus stacking, full-size ORF. files, and can even add the Olympus "Art filters" - which I sometimes do for fun, and to annoy photography purists

I'm so pleased I wrote this silly thread after watching Craig's vid today.
Honestly, the fun and thrills since FoP started are just getting better every day!

 

[SkedAddled]

I record images in RAW because, as Duncan mentions, there's more data to provide for
a better chance of keeper vs dud. If it's a simple over/underexposure, that's a quick and simple fix
if it's an otherwise good frame.

I first used a RAW format while using my S3iS with the CHDK 'hack', and it was revolutionary for me.
More data to work with, exposure bracketing, the list is large.

Once I acquired the XTi DSLR, I went with RAW-only. CHDK was developed for that camera,
and I tried it out, but it didn't significantly expand on what the camera was already capable of
for my own use. Same for the later 40D. The exposure-bracketing was cool, though.

I looked into Magic Lantern for the 50D and 5D Mk IV.
Didn't do much with the 50D, and I don't even remember how to activate it.
No point to it for the MK4, as that camera does far more than I'm even aware of.

But yeah, even though I don't use a camera as much as I used to, I keep it all RAW.
The data files are rather large, but the tradeoff of me having more leeway in editing
is a bona-fide positive to me.

 

[Skygod44]

I record images in RAW because, as Duncan mentions, there's more data to provide for
a better chance of keeper vs dud. If it's a simple over/underexposure, that's a quick and simple fix
if it's an otherwise good frame.

I first used a RAW format while using my S3iS with the CHDK 'hack', and it was revolutionary for me.
More data to work with, exposure bracketing, the list is large.

Once I acquired the XTi DSLR, I went with RAW-only. CHDK was developed for that camera,
and I tried it out, but it didn't significantly expand on what the camera was already capable of
for my own use. Same for the later 40D. The exposure-bracketing was cool, though.

I looked into Magic Lantern for the 50D and 5D Mk IV.
Didn't do much with the 50D, and I don't even remember how to activate it.
No point to it for the MK4, as that camera does far more than I'm even aware of.

But yeah, even though I don't use a camera as much as I used to, I keep it all RAW.
The data files are rather large, but the tradeoff of me having more leeway in editing
is a bona-fide positive to me.

Thanks for the reply, Craig
With video files the hardware I use would've struggled, and after I quit photography, I didn't see the point...
...so RAW just became a distant memory.

Now, thanks(?) to Craig on YouTube, I can clog up my PC with RAW data files again!
Yippee!

 

[SkedAddled]

Hardware isn't the setback it used to be, if you can do an update based only on
CPU + motherboard + RAM. I updated from an Intel Core i-7 3rd-generation system
to a tenth-gen i-7 just a couple years ago, and it only cost around $400 USD.
CPU, motherboard and RAM were the only changes; discrete video, storage,
case and power supply all carried over. Of course, proprietary systems such as DELL
and HP don't allow for such casual parts swapping.

For me, it's worth the storage space for RAW files, particularly if I find potential
in the image that's not apparent as taken. Tweaking exposure and color temperatures
are the two most solid reasons I record RAW, with a greater flexibility in manipulating
sharpness and color saturation coming in as close seconds.

JPEG editing just wasn't to my liking with what I had to work with at the time,
and discovering EXIF made me realize I wanted more.

I'm still using PhotoShop CS6 with a plugin to import RAW files,
and it's still doing very well for me.

 

[Skygod44]

Hardware isn't the setback it used to be, if you can do an update based only on
CPU + motherboard + RAM. I updated from an Intel Core i-7 3rd-generation system
to a tenth-gen i-7 just a couple years ago, and it only cost around $400 USD.
CPU, motherboard and RAM were the only changes; discrete video, storage,
case and power supply all carried over. Of course, proprietary systems such as DELL
and HP don't allow for such casual parts swapping.

For me, it's worth the storage space for RAW files, particularly if I find potential
in the image that's not apparent as taken. Tweaking exposure and color temperatures
are the two most solid reasons I record RAW, with a greater flexibility in manipulating
sharpness and color saturation coming in as close seconds.

JPEG editing just wasn't to my liking with what I had to work with at the time,
and discovering EXIF made me realize I wanted more.

I'm still using PhotoShop CS6 with a plugin to import RAW files,
and it's still doing very well for me.

Sorry. I should have made it clear that I was talking about hardware for video project files totalling well over a terabyte.
My current system has three internal SSDs totalling 1.5Tb. Plus external HHD memory dumps, I think up to 3Tb...
...though I can't remember exactly!

Really, it was a decent RAW video camera + lenses which made my jaw hit the ground. So I stuck with compressed video files instead.

Now I'm back 'into' stills photography, I'm 100% with you on considering RAW v jpg depending on the scene, and whether I care enough about the shot.

 

[DavidWatts]

I always shoot RAW + Jpeg. The jpegs are for backup. For editing, the RAWs always have much more leeway in editing. With storage so cheap, and computers so fast, there is no reason not to go RAW.

And, weirdly, my (after) midnight snack as I was reading this thread had a hidden-in-plain-sight message about this very subject!

 

[Skygod44]

I always shoot RAW + Jpeg. The jpegs are for backup. For editing, the RAWs always have much more leeway in editing. With storage so cheap, and computers so fast, there is no reason not to go RAW.

And, weirdly, my (after) midnight snack as I was reading this thread had a hidden-in-plain-sight message about this very subject!

I think they're definitely trying to tell you something

 

[DavidWatts]

I think they're definitely trying to tell you something

To eat better maybe? (ties in to the health thread)

 

[Stic2]

I shoot RAW + JPEG; my JPEG's are set to B&W as I like B&W, but will convert RAW's into colour if it suits...

My Photoshop (CS3) can't open Canon RAW files, so I convert them all to DNG's with Adobe DNG converter first...

 

[Skygod44]

To eat better maybe? (ties in to the health thread)

From one of your other comments somewhere, I get the feeling you're as wide awake about the dregs so many people are eating, as I am.

 

[DavidWatts]

From one of your other comments somewhere, I get the feeling you're as wide awake about the dregs so many people are eating, as I am.

I sell food for a living. Both good and bad. I try to keep my mouth closed when people are buying the really unhealthy stuff. Just today, someone was purchasing quite a lot of bottles of canola oil. I was hoping it wasn't going to be used in food prep. Anyway, back to the RAW thread...

 

[Skygod44]

I shoot RAW + JPEG; my JPEG's are set to B&W as I like B&W, but will convert RAW's into colour if it suits...

My Photoshop (CS3) can't open Canon RAW files, so I convert them all to DNG's with Adobe DNG converter first...

Thanks for that.
Yep! I can see your wise approach

And I want to say a big THANKS to everyone who commented.

My conclusions are that not much has changed when editing RAW files over the last 6 or 7 years.

Thanks to you all, I've remembered to update my Olympus RAW editor. And with that plus GIMP, I can do all I want to.

Since my pro work is, by choice, very limited, there's no need to invest in 3rd party software.
And my video-project editing machine is, as you'd expect, not even breaking out into a sweat with still images.

So again, thank you all so much

Regards,
Simon

 

[Joeseph]

I shoot RAW + JPEG; my JPEG's are set to B&W as I like B&W, but will convert RAW's into colour if it suits...

My Photoshop (CS3) can't open Canon RAW files, so I convert them all to DNG's with Adobe DNG converter first...

Hooray for CS-3!!! (my most up to date editing software) DNG converter is great innit?

Just a tip if you're not already aware, you cannot properly re-install the software anymore, as the license check servers have long since been turned off - you can however image a running machine to a VM...
(and then remove the running machine copy to comply with licensing rules)

 

[Stic2]

My copy of CS3 is , shall we say, not 100% 'factory'....