Truly, Paul Janovitz (http://www.pauljanovitz.com/) deserves credit for making me a RAW convert. Paul is a Boston area photographer and musician and we met when I was shooting Tony Savarino playing at Church of Boston. He’s been doing this stuff longer than I have, so I spent some time picking his brain about photo business and technical issues and he was nice enough to give me advice. The fact that I didn’t (at the time) shoot in RAW came up and he strongly suggested I try it out. I’m sure most of you that have heard of RAW have heard the stories about how much better it is. I had always been skeptical, but now I’m a believer.
About two months after my conversation with Paul I was shooting The Red Elvises (Russian surf rock, if you can imagine such a thing) at TT The Bear’s in Cambridge and accidentally set my camera for the mode where it shoots in both RAW and JPG simultaneously. This gave me the perfect opportunity to look into the supposed merits of RAW. The light at TT’s that night (as is often the case at shows) was downright awful. There wasn’t much of it and what there was was mostly red. Usually in these situations I fall back on black and white, because there’s only so much help you can give to an image that is too red. Well, it turns out you can do a lot more if you start from RAW.
Here are 3 images of Elena Shemankova, the keyboard player for the Elvises. The first image is straight from the camera. It really gives you an idea of what the lighting conditions were that night. Image #2 is my best effort to do color correction starting from the JPG version of the image. Image #3 is my final image after I color corrected starting with the RAW version of the image. The improvement is striking.

Original shot, right out of the camera

Color corrected JPG version

Final color corrected JPG working from RAW
As you can see, there’s just no comparison. There is so much more information stored in the RAW file that gets thrown away when the camera converts to JPG. It’s all this extra data that allows a wider range of color correction and exposure improvements. Exposure correction is the number one reason I’ve seen people recommend RAW. I don’t have any examples on hand, but it is definitely the case that there’s a wider dynamic range captured in the pure sensor data. Areas of an image that would be all white or all black (and stay that way no matter what you did) in a JPG capture can often yield more data if you’re working from a RAW sensor dump.
Now, there are two reasons that I had avoided messing with RAW for a while, and I think both would be legitimate reasons to have second thoughts about it.
First, the images are larger than their JPG conversions. The NEF files that come out of my 12 megapixel Nikon D700 are about 14.3 Megs, while the JPGs are about 4. Disk space is pretty cheap these days, but that’s still a big difference, especially when it comes to how many images you can get on a memory card.
Second, it adds a step to the workflow, and that’s a little annoying. RAW file formats are all proprietary and vary from camera to camera, even for the same makers. Lightroom 1 (yes, I’m behind the times) won’t natively read the NEF format that comes out of a D700, so I first put all the NEF files on disk, use Adobe’s free DNG converter to convert them all to the Adobe Digital Negative format (basically a RAW format that all Adobe products can handle), and then import them to lightroom. It’s not so bad, but it takes a little more work and a little more organization. Only you can decide if the improved results are worth the extra effort. If you’re shooting in reasonable lighting conditions or are just doing quick shots that you don’t want to spend a lot of time messing around with, RAW may not pay off. But if you’re pushing the limits of what your camera wants to do, I think the choice is pretty clear. For all intents and purposes I’m pretty much trying to take pictures in the dark when I go shoot shows, so shooting in RAW is a no brainer.
Thanks Paul!