Taking pictures in RAW

[rocketlily]

I've been doing some reading and playing with programs for photography. Would you photo experts recommend taking pictures in RAW then adjusting the WB or using the white paper/coffee filter to set the WB on the camera before taking the picture?

[Snaz]

Originally Posted by rocketlily

I've been doing some reading and playing with programs for photography. Would you photo experts recommend taking pictures in RAW then adjusting the WB or using the white paper/coffee filter to set the WB on the camera before taking the picture?

Ups and downs to RAW. The downside is large files and longer processing time between shots, probably not noticeable if your camera is newer. Milliseconds.

The upside is post processing of RAW images is easier and you get better results. White balance, colour balance and all variations look better with RAW files than JPG.

This is what I know, I'm sure others here more knowledgeable could add some more.

[spoot]

You keep more data too. If you are shooting only in JPG, the camera compresses the sensor data, and applies the tonal curve that is preset. If you are using RAW, you are basically saving the sensor data. Main advantage is that the dynamic range of your sensor is more than the eye can see, so by shooting in raw, you can bring out highlights or shadows that get removed when compressing to JPG. This allows greater exposure control in post processing.

[SmallFry]

Originally Posted by rocketlily

I've been doing some reading and playing with programs for photography. Would you photo experts recommend taking pictures in RAW then adjusting the WB or using the white paper/coffee filter to set the WB on the camera before taking the picture?

I'm new to aquaria (so far I only have rocks, sand and a nitrate problem.. ), but I've been playing with DSLR for a few years now, so here goes my best shot...

You may have the option to shoot both at the same time (Canon EOS 350D does) this gives you the best of both words... As spoot already said you loose data by saving as jpeg. When you're editing, I'd keep any intermediate saves in something that isn't 'lossy' (e.g. tiff - big files I know, but you'll be deleting it when you've finished right?), then save as jpeg right at the end. This is because the losses associated with jpeg compression are cumilative, the first time you won't notice the difference, but after the second, third fourth time you save and reopen it you might well see a difference.

spoot also mentioned highlights/shadows. I routinely underexpose my photos a little just to make sure that I don't 'blow out' (overexpose) the highlights. If you shoot RAW, the detail in the shadows is still there, even if it looks so dark you can hardly see it (because the camera's sensor can see more than you), but if you overexpose the highlights to the point that they're white and you can't see the detail, you can never get that back...

I hope that's of some use..