Raw is awesome!

[Guzzler]

I've read and read here about the pro's of using RAW format, and I have been using it alot. I only drop down to the internal JPG format when I know I'm just having fun and doing quick snaps.

I've never really appreciated how versital raw is until I finally tried a night shot of a power station that I have been driving by for years now and always thought "That might be a cool picture"

This is what the camera produced:
http://members.cox.net/dirk.brewer/images/photos/powerstationorg.jpg

And yes, this is what the place looks like to the naked eye. My DRebel did a good job of caputureing it.

Now, this is with just a minimal amount of darkroom work with Photoshop CS RAW import, and just a touch of tweaking after the import.

http://members.cox.net/dirk.brewer/images/photos/powerstation.jpg

I'm totally converted
:lust

[Dee]

I noticed in the "blue" version there's a lot more discernable noise in the sky than in the "brown" version."

Which one looked more true to life?

[Guzzler]

I noticed in the "blue" version there's a lot more discernable noise in the sky than in the "brown" version."

Which one looked more true to life? Number one was exactly what the naked eye saw. Night time, with the orange/brown lights on the station, and the general glow of the city. The power station is smack dab in the city.

[ginger_55]

I love the way RAW looks, I can tell the difference in my shots visually.

The only problem, now that I am addicted to RAW, I don't think I could go back. It takes so long to write.

I read somewhere that in sports they have to shoot jpeg, and I can see why.
However, I agree, visually RAW is awesome.

ginger (Who didn't want that picture of the Heron before he flew off, or the egret either. I was just as happy with my memories as my camera wrote the RAW file up. I read that it is going to be a problem with the 20D I am getting, too.)