Bronko From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 805 posts, RR: 12 Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1456 times:
Yes.
But if you do not know what the advantages and differences of RAW vs. JPG/TIF is, you should look into that first.
Planedoctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 286 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1440 times:
For high-volume shooting (sports) I shoot jpeg. No time to edit much. For landscapes, portraits, etc. I shoot RAW. The 16-bit (12-bit, really) of RAW gives you much smoother gradations when you mess around with curves a lot. For shooting planes I still shoot RAW most of the time. But like Bronko said, you should look at the advantages/ disadvantages before making your choice.
Granite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5542 posts, RR: 67 Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1396 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Hi Ryan
I am now shooting Canon RAW for everything.
A little longer in the processing but I am liking it. Now that I have portable storage it makes more sense to me.
I will be getting some Photobox prints done soon so I should be able to see a slight difference in larger prints.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1379 times:
OK. its a bit extreme, but I think about it as RAW="negative" JPG="print".
The prints may be stunning, but, if you haven't kept the negative, you can never go back and create a fresh print.
So why might you want to create a new print? Sometimes your initial thougts on the pic change - I've often gone back to an old image and decided it was better "printed" darker or lighter. Also every month we see new processing software appear - I like to be in the position to go back to older images and perhaps improve the sharpening or reduce noise a little more.
While you can of course re-edit a jpg, it is important to realise the jpg processing is destructive - every edit you make is throwing away irreplaceable data. Sort of like scanning a print to edit the image (OK, I'm exaggerating for effect )
Vaman From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 328 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1354 times:
Im new to his digital business. I have been shooting in raw converting to tiffs then keeping the tiffs on a cd and deleting the raw files. Should i be keeping the raw files too?
TS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1349 times:
I have been shooting in raw converting to tiffs then keeping the tiffs on a cd and deleting the raw files.
Doesn't make much sense to me. To use Colin's comparison that would be like burning your slide after getting the pic printed. Plus, RAW files are much smaller than TIFs. I'm not yet in the situation of having dozens of gigabytes of files, but in the future I'll make a JPEG copy of every RAW file I want to keep. This way it's easier to archive the files than just having the RAWs.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1344 times:
I'd look on archiving .tifs as the least useful option - you have all the hassle of processing, extra storage requirements, but you still don't have an "original" for future work/experimentation.
For thos who feel that the need to process RAW files is too time consuming, note that the Canon RAW files (not sure about other makes) contain an "embedded" jpg image. If you don't want to process all your RAWs, you can simply extract all the embedded jpgs (a quick one click process with most RAW software) and use these jpgs for review, indexing etc.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5542 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, 
)
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
