How useful is RAW to the lazy/unskilled?

[drrich2]

Hi:

My wife, friend & I are OW divers who enjoy occasional trips to the Caribbean. We use a Canon A620 in Canon housing, and Canon Elph 1100 in Canon housing (haven't done a lot with it yet), and were using a Sea & Sea DC500 with an external strobe but were getting quite a few blurry and washed out shots compared to the A620.

So the DC500 is apt to be replaced. Upcoming trip to Bonaire seen.

Very torn between options; the Canon 880IS & Canon housing, G10 & Canon housing, Panasonic TZ5 with Panasonic housing, the SeaLife DC800, those are the main options. Each can do 28 mm wide angle. I wish the Olympus Tough 8000 had a better reputation, since it ought to survive flooding of the case, dropping 5 feet if I bend over & it falls out of my shirt pocket, and fit into said pocket, but image quality reports for this series of Olympus cameras has long be alleged to be sub-part to mediocre of a little better in online forums/reviews from what I understand, so that doesn't sound like an option.

We stick it in Underwater mode and leave it. No manual. Likely won't be using any strobes, either, aside from built-in flash & the case's diffuser; we go with the 'Point & Shoot' approach. I take dozens of photos each dive.

Thing is, I've got a Canon SX 10 coming as a walk-about land camera. Wife & friend already have walk-about land cameras. This camera will mainly be a scuba camera, although a pocketable Elph-type camera for me might be nice.

I keep reading how if I can shoot RAW I wouldn't have to worry about white balance; it could be adjusted later.

Thing is, my idea of 'adjustment' is hit an 'Auto Fix' button & maybe 'Undo' if I don't like the new look.. I've got Photoshop Elements 6 on the Mac, but I'm not coversant with it.

So, I've got to wonder...would the G10's RAW file option (actually, JPEG + RAW if that's an option, since we'd like nice JPEGs available right away, and would likely use them most of the time) be a significant value-added option for us?

Any thoughts on the relative merits?

Richard.

 

[Geoff_H]

So, I've got to wonder...would the G10's RAW file option (actually, JPEG + RAW if that's an option, since we'd like nice JPEGs available right away, and would likely use them most of the time) be a significant value-added option for us?

You can use Photoshop to auto-fix white balance - the results are normally pretty good. I would say it works well 8 or 9 times out of 10 for me.

 

[driftwood]

Hi Richard,

Take a white slate diving with you and take a shot of it to set your white balance at that depth and dive conditions. My old Oly 5060 allows me to set custom white balances that way. What hoops you have to jump through to get to the same place on your Cannons are beyond me.

 

[Peter Guy]

OP -- Thanks for asking the question because it raises one of mine:

To the "RAW" people -- Does RAW make THAT much difference when you are shooting macro (or close) and everything is lit by a strobe? Or does RAW (or for that matter, custom WB) become a much more important item for WA and/or non-strobe lit shots?

 

[John_B]

A couple of random thoughts:

• I don't think CHDK has been released yet for the 880IS. So, without that, there is no RAW for that camera at this time.
• It would be worth your time to research the G10 without strobes. Some people have complained that the built-in flash isn't very functional with the Canon housing.
• If you did shoot combined JPEG + RAW, you could white balance the JPEG and use those now while saving the RAW until the day where you learned your way around PS, LR, Aperture, etc.

 

[Geoff_H]

To the "RAW" people -- Does RAW make THAT much difference when you are shooting macro (or close) and everything is lit by a strobe? Or does RAW (or for that matter, custom WB) become a much more important item for WA and/or non-strobe lit shots?

It is much more useful on wide-angle than macro shots fully lit by a strobe. I don't think I have adjusted the white balance on any of my macro shots.

 

[Wisnu]

I have to say you still get more benefit with RAW.
My strobe's battery was finish when I saw this critter; unfortunately I could not use my internal flash as I blocked it with developed unexposed negative film (to reduce visible light trigering my D2000 strobe). So, I took in raw (& jpg too), natural light, auto wb - camera G9.
This is the result in Jpg as it is (croping only)

And below in RAW with one click WB adjustment using Canon raw image task.

 

[HowardE]

Take a white slate diving with you and take a shot of it to set your white balance at that depth and dive conditions. My old Oly 5060 allows me to set custom white balances that way. What hoops you have to jump through to get to the same place on your Cannons are beyond me.

Or... just make the adjustments on your computer AFTER the dive. Carrying a slate and White Balancing every 2 minutes is a pain in the butt... no??

---------------------------------------------------------


RAW is better period.

RAW has no compression. JPEG does.

Even if you don't take advantage of the benefits of RAW now... you may eventually, and then you'll be bummed that your old files aren't RAW.

 

[CheddarChick]

I have had many bad shots saved by RAW...The picture above is really how it works...

 

[AussieByron]

I think a picture tells a thousand words.

Digital media is so cheap these days there isnt an excuse not to use RAW unless your camera doesnt have it.

Regards Mark