Shooting Raw with Pentax as a Matter of Fact

benjikan · 04-21-2007, 02:36 AM

I would strongly suggest that all of you who have the capacity to shoot in RAW do so. The latitude potential for future requirements are such that you can always go back to the original files and tweak them using the newest software available, which in the future may be capable of extracting even more of the nuances that our software is capable of doing today. JPEG is like analogue tape. The more you open and adjust the more the degradation.

Just a bit of advice that I feel is crucial for all of your future file manipulation.

Ben

RiceHigh · 04-21-2007, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by benjikan

I would strongly suggest that all of you who have the capacity to shoot in RAW do so. The latitude potential for future requirements are such that you can always go back to the original files and tweak them using the newest software available, which in the future may be capable of extracting even more of the nuances that our software is capable of doing today. JPEG is like analogue tape. The more you open and adjust the more the degradation.

Just a bit of advice that I feel is crucial for all of your future file manipulation.

Ben

Agreed. I have been shooting RAW most of the time since I got my *ist DS (before the RAW file size of the *ist D is ridiculously large and the camera is ridiculously slow when shooting RAW).

That's also why I always find that when Pentaxians are talking about the PP friendliness of the in-camera Jpegs of our DSLRs, which is considered to be pointless to me. If PP is important, simply shoot RAW. Jpeg's only value is for instant product which is handy, not for PP.

macdaddy · 04-21-2007, 05:37 AM

Ben:
I've been shooting RAW ever since I saw pro shooters at the various Advertising agencies I've supported have to go back and recover files they shot in RAW and re-do photos for clients—a situation I'm sure you encounter every day when a finicky client changes their mind at the last moment and demand you significantly change a photo!
In most situations JPEG is fine, but the late Bruce Fraser, who wrote the definitive book on RAW, points out that a RAW file is literally the digital version of an original film negative and therefore, critical to have! Besides, as the technology gets better who knows what we'll be able to extract from the file in the future, as you pointed out.
Rob W

Palu Guimaraes · 04-21-2007, 05:41 AM

Hi all,

The post production is where I spend a lot of time. Is a "place" where I lost myself, but I work only JPG's...
The PRO people of the forum please forgive me. But this is the true.

Now I got my K10 and I don't really know what to do with the RAW.
Which the both RAW formats do you use? Are there others RAW edit applications that you prefer rather the one that comes with the camera?

Best regards.
Palu

benjikan · 04-21-2007, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Palu Guimaraes

Hi all,

The post production is where I spend a lot of time. Is a "place" where I lost myself, but I work only JPG's...
The PRO people of the forum please forgive me. But this is the true.

Now I got my K10 and I don't really know what to do with the RAW.
Which the both RAW formats do you use? Are there others RAW edit applications that you prefer rather the one that comes with the camera?

Best regards.
Palu

I exclusively use DNG "Digital Negative" format and set my color space on the camera to "Adobe RGB" and in PS to "ProPhoto RGB". "ProPhoto" has the widest gamut of all of the color spaces available.

Ben

*isteve · 04-21-2007, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by benjikan

I would strongly suggest that all of you who have the capacity to shoot in RAW do so. The latitude potential for future requirements are such that you can always go back to the original files and tweak them using the newest software available, which in the future may be capable of extracting even more of the nuances that our software is capable of doing today. JPEG is like analogue tape. The more you open and adjust the more the degradation.

Just a bit of advice that I feel is crucial for all of your future file manipulation.

Ben

Which is why I have 3 external 250GB hard drives full of RAW files (one is a backup for all the "good" ones). I am considering a 5 bay NAS tower for future expansion as I am about 80% full already.

RAW is the way to go but it does have its issues. I only have a 40GB Espon P2000 so travelling is also a problem. I can take that many images in around 10 days.

So yes, shoot RAW but buy lots of storage and FAST SD cards.

mattdm · 04-21-2007, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by benjikan

I exclusively use DNG "Digital Negative" format and set my color space on the camera to "Adobe RGB" and in PS to "ProPhoto RGB". "ProPhoto" has the widest gamut of all of the color spaces available.

Ben

If you're shooting RAW, the color space setting in the camera doesn't have any effect, does it?

Also, if you're working in a large-gamut color space like ProPhoto RGB, make sure to use a 16-bit color depth. Otherwise, you're getting more extreme color possibilities at the expense of smooth steps between the colors in the middle.

And it bears repeating that few monitors can display such broad color spaces (their gamut is usually much closer to plain old sRGB). Some new wide gamut displays using LED backlights are coming on the market now -- were I a serious professional and/or had extra cash, I'd run to buy one of these immediately. (The Samsung SyncMaster XL20 is one example.)

roscot · 04-21-2007, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by *isteve

Which is why I have 3 external 250GB hard drives full of RAW files (one is a backup for all the "good" ones). I am considering a 5 bay NAS tower for future expansion as I am about 80% full already.

RAW is the way to go but it does have its issues. I only have a 40GB Espon P2000 so travelling is also a problem. I can take that many images in around 10 days.

So yes, shoot RAW but buy lots of storage and FAST SD cards.

Do it Steve.

I was in your exact position a couple of months ago. I put in an Infrant ReadyNAS NV+ with 4 Seasgate Barracuda 400G SATA3.0 drives configured in Raid 5. This gives me 1.2 TBs of redunant storage.

It has been worth every penny I've invested. The only thing I would recommend, that I don't currently have, is a gigabit network.

option · 04-21-2007, 08:08 AM

Now that I've switched my workflow over to primarily RAW, I've found it necessary to become more critical of my work. I use the digital preview more often to check my exposure, and if I don't like a shot, I don't hesitate to axe it. Once I get home, anything thats OOF, blurry, exposed past recovery, or useless in any other way, gets turfed. If I'm bracketing, I take the best exposure and do away with the others. Can I take 100s of photos a day? I can, and I do. Do I need even a third of them? Rarely.

I also don't bother with RAW for casual things like hanging out with friends. If I happen to need it, the RAW button is right there...

Even then, the GBs add up quickly, but storage is cheap these days. A 320gb Seagate drive in an eSATA enclosure sets me back about $150CAN; at less than $.50 a GB its an inexpensive and worthwhile investment...

I understand that other have different needs and shooting styles than me, and some people just cant bring themselves to delete a photo. As someone who isn't making a living from photography, being extra critical of my own work is essential from both a photographic and financial aspect.

Like Ben, I'm shooting DNG (no jpeg), importing into Lightroom and working in ProPhoto. Files stay in ProPhoto as long as possible, until converted to sRGB for web, or something like SWOP v2 for print.

wildboar · 04-21-2007, 08:17 AM

To repeat mattdm's question... Does the in-camera color space matter when shooting RAW?

option · 04-21-2007, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by wildboar

To repeat mattdm's question... Does the in-camera color space matter when shooting RAW?

No, only if youre shooting RAW+

mcleoud151 · 04-21-2007, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by option

Now that I've switched my workflow over to primarily RAW, I've found it necessary to become more critical of my work. I use the digital preview more often to check my exposure, and if I don't like a shot, I don't hesitate to axe it. Once I get home, anything thats OOF, blurry, exposed past recovery, or useless in any other way, gets turfed. If I'm bracketing, I take the best exposure and do away with the others. Can I take 100s of photos a day? I can, and I do. Do I need even a third of them? Rarely.

I also don't bother with RAW for casual things like hanging out with friends. If I happen to need it, the RAW button is right there...

Even then, the GBs add up quickly, but storage is cheap these days. A 320gb Seagate drive in an eSATA enclosure sets me back about $150CAN; at less than $.50 a GB its an inexpensive and worthwhile investment...

I understand that other have different needs and shooting styles than me, and some people just cant bring themselves to delete a photo. As someone who isn't making a living from photography, being extra critical of my own work is essential from both a photographic and financial aspect.

Like Ben, I'm shooting DNG (no jpeg), importing into Lightroom and working in ProPhoto. Files stay in ProPhoto as long as possible, until converted to sRGB for web, or something like SWOP v2 for print.

HA HA, as someone who IS making a living from their work (well, trying to anyway) it is essential for me to be extra critical of my stuff. My near-idol and mentor recently told me I wasn't being critical enough, and 1/3 of my stuff was just wasting space on my hard drives. I don't know why I like to keep enormous RAW files laying around on my drives, but I do! Really though, it is a good thing anyway, to be more harsh on myself.

I also shoot DNG Adobe RBG, import into Lightroom, then PS as/when necessary. My clients are generally magazines, webzines, or ad departments/agencies, so I am probably less likely to toss an image than say, Ben, who shoots high end fashion (I gather?). While I aspire for perfection, occasionally a less than perfect image may fit the needs of said client well enough.

Now that I've said that, I must also admit to shooting JPEG on occasion. Particularly for family and friend events where I know the photos are not going to be of tremendous importance at any point. It is nice to shoot and not worry about much (if any) PP. I think the JPEGS out of the K10 are fine for everyday use and it gives me a chance to shoot away without worrying about how much time I'll be spending at the computer afterwords!

I've rambled enough, particularly since I'm just echoing everyone elses posts.

Happy shooting,

Cliff

option · 04-21-2007, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by mcleoud151

HA HA, as someone who IS making a living from their work (well, trying to anyway) it is essential for me to be extra critical of my stuff. My near-idol and mentor recently told me I wasn't being critical enough, and 1/3 of my stuff was just wasting space on my hard drives. I don't know why I like to keep enormous RAW files laying around on my drives, but I do! Really though, it is a good thing anyway, to be more harsh on myself.

Good point, what I meant is that I'll never get to the point of making a living off my work if I don't hold myself to a very high critical standard. I think its very important that all photographers be able to see the flaws, no matter how minor, in their work in order to fuel our continual drive towards the mastery of our medium...

mcleoud151 · 04-21-2007, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by option

Good point, what I meant is that I'll never get to the point of making a living off my work if I don't hold myself to a very high critical standard. I think its very important that all photographers be able to see the flaws, no matter how minor, in their work in order to fuel our continual drive towards the mastery of our medium...

Well typed my friend. Do you shoot Snow sports (off topic I know)? I am a motocross shooter but have been pondering getting into the snowsports (particularly snowboarding) scene after the pushing of some freinds and one colleague. Besides, I must have SOMETHING to do during the wet winters of the Northwest!

davemdsn · 04-21-2007, 09:22 AM

I am all RAW, have been since about a week after I got my *istD. I do, however, prefer to shoot PEF and convert it to DNG through Lightroom. The PEF is smaller than the in camera DNG so I get more shots per card. End result is DNG all the way.

Lightroom makes handling all those RAW files so much easier tha Bridge. It is no substitute for the power of Photoshop, but much better for RAW file organization and conversion than ACR/Bridge.

04-21-2007, 02:36 AM	#1
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	Shooting Raw with Pentax as a Matter of Fact I would strongly suggest that all of you who have the capacity to shoot in RAW do so. The latitude potential for future requirements are such that you can always go back to the original files and tweak them using the newest software available, which in the future may be capable of extracting even more of the nuances that our software is capable of doing today. JPEG is like analogue tape. The more you open and adjust the more the degradation. Just a bit of advice that I feel is crucial for all of your future file manipulation. Ben

04-21-2007, 05:41 AM	#4
Palu Guimaraes Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Porto - Portugal Posts: 29	hummm Hi all, The post production is where I spend a lot of time. Is a "place" where I lost myself, but I work only JPG's... The PRO people of the forum please forgive me. But this is the true. Now I got my K10 and I don't really know what to do with the RAW. Which the both RAW formats do you use? Are there others RAW edit applications that you prefer rather the one that comes with the camera? Best regards. Palu

04-21-2007, 05:52 AM	#5
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308 Original Poster	DNG Originally posted by Palu Guimaraes Hi all, The post production is where I spend a lot of time. Is a "place" where I lost myself, but I work only JPG's... The PRO people of the forum please forgive me. But this is the true. Now I got my K10 and I don't really know what to do with the RAW. Which the both RAW formats do you use? Are there others RAW edit applications that you prefer rather the one that comes with the camera? Best regards. Palu I exclusively use DNG "Digital Negative" format and set my color space on the camera to "Adobe RGB" and in PS to "ProPhoto RGB". "ProPhoto" has the widest gamut of all of the color spaces available. Ben

04-21-2007, 05:53 AM	#6
*isteve Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 1,187	Have been doing so for years Originally posted by benjikan I would strongly suggest that all of you who have the capacity to shoot in RAW do so. The latitude potential for future requirements are such that you can always go back to the original files and tweak them using the newest software available, which in the future may be capable of extracting even more of the nuances that our software is capable of doing today. JPEG is like analogue tape. The more you open and adjust the more the degradation. Just a bit of advice that I feel is crucial for all of your future file manipulation. Ben Which is why I have 3 external 250GB hard drives full of RAW files (one is a backup for all the "good" ones). I am considering a 5 bay NAS tower for future expansion as I am about 80% full already. RAW is the way to go but it does have its issues. I only have a 40GB Espon P2000 so travelling is also a problem. I can take that many images in around 10 days. So yes, shoot RAW but buy lots of storage and FAST SD cards.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax K10D long exposure noise reduction when shooting RAW?	Robert S Donovan	Pentax DSLR Discussion	30	08-19-2013 11:42 AM
Pentax K-r fact sheet, specs, and reviews	Adam	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	09-15-2010 03:18 PM
K-x shooting in raw	wingman	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	5	06-14-2010 10:55 AM
Are you also shooting raw ONLY?	D0ri	Photographic Technique	51	06-03-2010 12:01 PM
Pentax DSLRS RAW + JPEG, and all DSLRs for that matter.	ebooks4pentax	Pentax DSLR Discussion	5	10-01-2008 01:59 PM

04-21-2007, 03:15 AM	#2
RiceHigh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,934	Originally posted by benjikan I would strongly suggest that all of you who have the capacity to shoot in RAW do so. The latitude potential for future requirements are such that you can always go back to the original files and tweak them using the newest software available, which in the future may be capable of extracting even more of the nuances that our software is capable of doing today. JPEG is like analogue tape. The more you open and adjust the more the degradation. Just a bit of advice that I feel is crucial for all of your future file manipulation. Ben Agreed. I have been shooting RAW most of the time since I got my ist DS (before the RAW file size of the ist D is ridiculously large and the camera is ridiculously slow when shooting RAW). That's also why I always find that when Pentaxians are talking about the PP friendliness of the in-camera Jpegs of our DSLRs, which is considered to be pointless to me. If PP is important, simply shoot RAW. Jpeg's only value is for instant product which is handy, not for PP.

04-21-2007, 05:37 AM	#3
macdaddy Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Dahlonega, GA Photos: Gallery Posts: 141	Ben: I've been shooting RAW ever since I saw pro shooters at the various Advertising agencies I've supported have to go back and recover files they shot in RAW and re-do photos for clients—a situation I'm sure you encounter every day when a finicky client changes their mind at the last moment and demand you significantly change a photo! In most situations JPEG is fine, but the late Bruce Fraser, who wrote the definitive book on RAW, points out that a RAW file is literally the digital version of an original film negative and therefore, critical to have! Besides, as the technology gets better who knows what we'll be able to extract from the file in the future, as you pointed out. Rob W

04-21-2007, 06:29 AM	#7
mattdm Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Boston, MA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,948	Originally posted by benjikan I exclusively use DNG "Digital Negative" format and set my color space on the camera to "Adobe RGB" and in PS to "ProPhoto RGB". "ProPhoto" has the widest gamut of all of the color spaces available. Ben If you're shooting RAW, the color space setting in the camera doesn't have any effect, does it? Also, if you're working in a large-gamut color space like ProPhoto RGB, make sure to use a 16-bit color depth. Otherwise, you're getting more extreme color possibilities at the expense of smooth steps between the colors in the middle. And it bears repeating that few monitors can display such broad color spaces (their gamut is usually much closer to plain old sRGB). Some new wide gamut displays using LED backlights are coming on the market now -- were I a serious professional and/or had extra cash, I'd run to buy one of these immediately. (The Samsung SyncMaster XL20 is one example.)

04-21-2007, 07:54 AM	#8
roscot Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Virginia Beach VA USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,363	Originally posted by *isteve Which is why I have 3 external 250GB hard drives full of RAW files (one is a backup for all the "good" ones). I am considering a 5 bay NAS tower for future expansion as I am about 80% full already. RAW is the way to go but it does have its issues. I only have a 40GB Espon P2000 so travelling is also a problem. I can take that many images in around 10 days. So yes, shoot RAW but buy lots of storage and FAST SD cards. Do it Steve. I was in your exact position a couple of months ago. I put in an Infrant ReadyNAS NV+ with 4 Seasgate Barracuda 400G SATA3.0 drives configured in Raid 5. This gives me 1.2 TBs of redunant storage. It has been worth every penny I've invested. The only thing I would recommend, that I don't currently have, is a gigabit network.

04-21-2007, 08:08 AM	#9
option Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Vancouver Posts: 46	Now that I've switched my workflow over to primarily RAW, I've found it necessary to become more critical of my work. I use the digital preview more often to check my exposure, and if I don't like a shot, I don't hesitate to axe it. Once I get home, anything thats OOF, blurry, exposed past recovery, or useless in any other way, gets turfed. If I'm bracketing, I take the best exposure and do away with the others. Can I take 100s of photos a day? I can, and I do. Do I need even a third of them? Rarely. I also don't bother with RAW for casual things like hanging out with friends. If I happen to need it, the RAW button is right there... Even then, the GBs add up quickly, but storage is cheap these days. A 320gb Seagate drive in an eSATA enclosure sets me back about $150CAN; at less than $.50 a GB its an inexpensive and worthwhile investment... I understand that other have different needs and shooting styles than me, and some people just cant bring themselves to delete a photo. As someone who isn't making a living from photography, being extra critical of my own work is essential from both a photographic and financial aspect. Like Ben, I'm shooting DNG (no jpeg), importing into Lightroom and working in ProPhoto. Files stay in ProPhoto as long as possible, until converted to sRGB for web, or something like SWOP v2 for print.

04-21-2007, 08:17 AM	#10
wildboar Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Columbus Ohio Posts: 158	To repeat mattdm's question... Does the in-camera color space matter when shooting RAW?

04-21-2007, 08:20 AM	#11
option Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Vancouver Posts: 46	Originally posted by wildboar To repeat mattdm's question... Does the in-camera color space matter when shooting RAW? No, only if youre shooting RAW+

04-21-2007, 08:50 AM	#12
mcleoud151 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Oregon Coast Photos: Gallery Posts: 272	Originally posted by option Now that I've switched my workflow over to primarily RAW, I've found it necessary to become more critical of my work. I use the digital preview more often to check my exposure, and if I don't like a shot, I don't hesitate to axe it. Once I get home, anything thats OOF, blurry, exposed past recovery, or useless in any other way, gets turfed. If I'm bracketing, I take the best exposure and do away with the others. Can I take 100s of photos a day? I can, and I do. Do I need even a third of them? Rarely. I also don't bother with RAW for casual things like hanging out with friends. If I happen to need it, the RAW button is right there... Even then, the GBs add up quickly, but storage is cheap these days. A 320gb Seagate drive in an eSATA enclosure sets me back about $150CAN; at less than $.50 a GB its an inexpensive and worthwhile investment... I understand that other have different needs and shooting styles than me, and some people just cant bring themselves to delete a photo. As someone who isn't making a living from photography, being extra critical of my own work is essential from both a photographic and financial aspect. Like Ben, I'm shooting DNG (no jpeg), importing into Lightroom and working in ProPhoto. Files stay in ProPhoto as long as possible, until converted to sRGB for web, or something like SWOP v2 for print. HA HA, as someone who IS making a living from their work (well, trying to anyway) it is essential for me to be extra critical of my stuff. My near-idol and mentor recently told me I wasn't being critical enough, and 1/3 of my stuff was just wasting space on my hard drives. I don't know why I like to keep enormous RAW files laying around on my drives, but I do! Really though, it is a good thing anyway, to be more harsh on myself. I also shoot DNG Adobe RBG, import into Lightroom, then PS as/when necessary. My clients are generally magazines, webzines, or ad departments/agencies, so I am probably less likely to toss an image than say, Ben, who shoots high end fashion (I gather?). While I aspire for perfection, occasionally a less than perfect image may fit the needs of said client well enough. Now that I've said that, I must also admit to shooting JPEG on occasion. Particularly for family and friend events where I know the photos are not going to be of tremendous importance at any point. It is nice to shoot and not worry about much (if any) PP. I think the JPEGS out of the K10 are fine for everyday use and it gives me a chance to shoot away without worrying about how much time I'll be spending at the computer afterwords! I've rambled enough, particularly since I'm just echoing everyone elses posts. Happy shooting, Cliff

04-21-2007, 08:58 AM	#13
option Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Vancouver Posts: 46	Originally posted by mcleoud151 HA HA, as someone who IS making a living from their work (well, trying to anyway) it is essential for me to be extra critical of my stuff. My near-idol and mentor recently told me I wasn't being critical enough, and 1/3 of my stuff was just wasting space on my hard drives. I don't know why I like to keep enormous RAW files laying around on my drives, but I do! Really though, it is a good thing anyway, to be more harsh on myself. Good point, what I meant is that I'll never get to the point of making a living off my work if I don't hold myself to a very high critical standard. I think its very important that all photographers be able to see the flaws, no matter how minor, in their work in order to fuel our continual drive towards the mastery of our medium...

04-21-2007, 09:03 AM	#14
mcleoud151 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Oregon Coast Photos: Gallery Posts: 272	Originally posted by option Good point, what I meant is that I'll never get to the point of making a living off my work if I don't hold myself to a very high critical standard. I think its very important that all photographers be able to see the flaws, no matter how minor, in their work in order to fuel our continual drive towards the mastery of our medium... Well typed my friend. Do you shoot Snow sports (off topic I know)? I am a motocross shooter but have been pondering getting into the snowsports (particularly snowboarding) scene after the pushing of some freinds and one colleague. Besides, I must have SOMETHING to do during the wet winters of the Northwest!

04-21-2007, 09:22 AM	#15
davemdsn Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Boise, Idaho Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,413	I am all RAW, have been since about a week after I got my *istD. I do, however, prefer to shoot PEF and convert it to DNG through Lightroom. The PEF is smaller than the in camera DNG so I get more shots per card. End result is DNG all the way. Lightroom makes handling all those RAW files so much easier tha Bridge. It is no substitute for the power of Photoshop, but much better for RAW file organization and conversion than ACR/Bridge.