Why you don't need raw!

We have another guest Blogger for you. This time it's our very own Steve Hallam. When he's not breaking the clubs laptop (sorry couldn't resist) he keeps an eye on our purse strings in his role as the clubs Treasurer;

OK, at least the title made you look. Here are my views on using raw (not RAW, it's not an acronym). A raw image is the output from a digital camera sensor, more or less unprocessed by the camera electronics and software.

A raw image in itself is completely useless. You cannot send it to a printer or project it. It has to be processed into something useful, normally a JPG file. This can be done in the camera, or externally. There are a number of software packages that will do this - often Photoshop or Lightroom, but there are many others.

All cameras can produce JPGs directly - so why not use them?

Here are some arguments commonly put forward for using raw:

A raw file, if correctly processed, will sometimes give better results than an out of the camera JPG.
It's easier to rescue badly exposed images if they are in raw rather than JPG.
It's easier to correct bad colour casts in raw images rather than JPG.
If you are trying to create HDR (high dynamic range) images, you really need to start with raw.

Let's consider these points:

1. Most cameras will produce decent JPGs. Some camera makers manage to produce very good ones.
2. In most cases the visual differences between processed raw files and out-of-camera JPGs will be imperceptible.
3. There is no excuse for producing badly exposed digital images.
4. Learn to use the histogram display on the camera, and bracket if in doubt. it costs you nothing.

Learn how to use the white balance control on your camera. Don't rely on auto white balance unless you know it works well. Getting it right at the taking stage is much better than trying to correct later. Minor corrections are no problem in JPG.

If you want to work in HDR, most packages seem to work better with raw files.

Arguments against raw:

1. Raw takes up more storage space than JPG (this used to be a problem but isn't really now as storage is so cheap).
2. All digital images are inherently soft. If you process from raw, you MUST sharpen your images adequately. Your club projectionist is fed up with being accused of not focussing the projector properly. It's your images that are not sharp.
3. Raw processing can be very time consuming if you have a lot of images to process.
4. You are totally dependent on the quality of the raw processing software: the best results often come from the camera makers' own packages.

So to sum up, what would be a sensible strategy?

1. Learn how to use your camera properly - in particular how to use histograms!
2. Your default camera settings for JPGs are probably rubbish - almost all cameras over-sharpen and over-saturate colours. Some experimentation and asking fellow owners is required - a little Googling will often find what you need to know.
3. Make sure that JPGs are saved at the highest possible quality (again, the camera default is often NOT to do this)
4. If you are taking pictures in reasonable lighting conditions and your camera is properly set up, raw is probably a waste of time (literally!)
5. If in very doubtful conditions, I use raw+JPG which stores both on the memory card.
6. Very intensive processing of images may require raw files to produce the best results. 

Too many people regard raw as some sort of magic bullet that will guarantee good results and manage to produce output inferior to JPGs! If you use raw, you will have to learn to do it properly.

A couple of points to ponder:

1. Our current "Club Photographer of the Year" always works with JPGs.
2. The last judge we had (at the club battle) does not own a digital SLR and always works with JPGs. Despite these handicaps, he has gained ARPS, DPAGB and APAGB qualifications!