Home Theater Forum - View Single Post

Rob Gillespie · 05-21-2007, 03:31 PM

Raw - as long as you understand how to convert it properly - can really save your bacon, especially when the venue has mixed lighting and the white balance is hard to nail properly. Raw files also have greater colour bit depth and allow all post processing - including sharpening - to be amended or even removed later, rather than locked into the file and fiddled with. It also allows a bit more detail to be recovered from 'blown' highlights. It's good for wedding photography due to the inordinate number of factors that you cannot control on the day but even many pros don't use it (their inherent skill with the camera renders much of raw's superiority moot).

For snapshots it's overkill. In fact it's overkill on anything you're not really prepared to put a lot of time into as it does add that extra layer of post processing which you may or may not be prepared to deal with. The finer control you have with raw virtually necessitates calibrated monitors and colour-profiled printing, none of which the casual shooter is going to use. It also means more memory cards and greater storage capacity on your PC.

I used to have the G5 and I liked the raw facility on it. Canon have dropped raw on that level of camera as price-wise they're nearly encroaching on DSLR territory which long-term are more profitible for them.

If you're the kind of photographer that takes the pic and prints, raw isn't for you. If you fiddle with it to get it 'just so' then it's worth the extra hassle IMO.

05-21-2007, 03:31 PM	#4 of 10
Rob Gillespie Member Join Date: Aug 1998 Local Time: 01:05 AM Local Date: 09-08-2008 Posts: 12,160	Re: how many of you use RAW or even need it? Raw - as long as you understand how to convert it properly - can really save your bacon, especially when the venue has mixed lighting and the white balance is hard to nail properly. Raw files also have greater colour bit depth and allow all post processing - including sharpening - to be amended or even removed later, rather than locked into the file and fiddled with. It also allows a bit more detail to be recovered from 'blown' highlights. It's good for wedding photography due to the inordinate number of factors that you cannot control on the day but even many pros don't use it (their inherent skill with the camera renders much of raw's superiority moot). For snapshots it's overkill. In fact it's overkill on anything you're not really prepared to put a lot of time into as it does add that extra layer of post processing which you may or may not be prepared to deal with. The finer control you have with raw virtually necessitates calibrated monitors and colour-profiled printing, none of which the casual shooter is going to use. It also means more memory cards and greater storage capacity on your PC. I used to have the G5 and I liked the raw facility on it. Canon have dropped raw on that level of camera as price-wise they're nearly encroaching on DSLR territory which long-term are more profitible for them. If you're the kind of photographer that takes the pic and prints, raw isn't for you. If you fiddle with it to get it 'just so' then it's worth the extra hassle IMO. No longer here.