To RAW or not to RAW

04/03/11

It's nowadays commonly accepted that shooting in RAW is the best thing to do ... or is it?

A lot of photographers (and the ever increasing amount of people who think of themselves as such) these days shoot in RAW without really knowing what it actually is and what it does. A lot of them have heard, or read, at some point that it's best to shoot in RAW so they just do it. But shooting in RAW – at least in my humble opinion – is not always better, not to mention necessary.

What does RAW stand for? 'RAW' doesn't stand for anything. It just means 'raw data' effectively, and since all the other formats are technically abbreviations (.jpg, .tiff, .gif, etc) it's more practical to use this three-letter word. And that's what RAW is: raw data. An image shot in RAW is technically the original, pure, uncontaminated, i.e. raw, information captured by the camera's sensor. It's completely free of any in-camera processing, sharpening, cropping or editing. RAW also captures more detail and is much more forgiving when it comes to over/ under exposure. In other words, you're much more likely to be able to rescue a screwed-up shot if you've shot it in RAW, than you would be if you'd shot it as JPG. RAW is often referred to as a digital negative.

So, this is clearly a good point about shooting in RAW, but shooting in RAW also means that you have to do all the editing yourself afterwards on the computer – practically everything – and then save it in a regular format. This can increase time spent behind the computer quite drastically, and will have a major impact on your work flow, because you spend much more time on each individual image. This can to some seem a bit pointless because, funnily enough, once you're finished editing your RAW image you'll not be able to spot the difference in quality between this and a well-exposed JPG from a pro camera.

JPG's are pretty much the finished article compared to RAW, but they can still be tweaked to a certain degree without it affecting the overall image quality.

I usually shoot in JPG. It's quicker, easier and because I use pro gear the images produced are of very high quality anyway. Because of this I also need to do very little editing, provided I got it right in-camera at the time. Shooting in JPG means you need to think twice as hard about what you're doing and how you're doing it, whereas with RAW it doesn't matter that much since you can always rectify it afterwards. When I download my images to my laptop/ computer I first have a quick look through them and decide which ones are potential keepers and which ones are duds. The duds are deleted straight away (I can't use them and after a while they seriously begin to clog up your hard drive). After that I have a second, more detailed look through the remaining images and select the ones I want to keep – the best ones – which is generally only a handful. These images I then re-save as 16-bit TIFF files at 300dpi, and those are the images I then edit and make copies from. The original JPG files are archived. TIFF is a loss-less format which means that the editing I do to the image does not affect its quality, although I still try to keep editing to an absolute minimum. Once I'm finished editing I save the edited version as a separate 16-bit TIFF file. So, my 'working negatives' are practically the 16-bit TIFF files. A RAW file lets you go much further with regards to editing, but for my style of shooting it's really not necessary. The only times I shoot in RAW is if I have to get the shots no matter what, i.e. on an assignment. In situations like that shooting RAW gives you a certain guarantee that you will come away with something you'll be able to use even if all the odds are against you on that particular shoot.

So, is it always better to shoot in RAW? No, not necessarily. It all really depends on your personal preference, style of shooting, what you shoot and what gear you use. It's commonly accepted that RAW files produce better quality photographs than you'd get from straight JPG files, but, as I mentioned, you won't be able to spot the difference. They both have their pro's and con's: RAW is more flexible but also more laborious and time consuming. JPG is a lot quicker but has its limitations. The difference in quality afterwards is negligible. RAW does provide a certain amount of security and peace of mind, though, as I mentioned, and can proof to be a real life-saver on occasion.

(Copyright ©2011 Oliver Rauer)