RAW - Do I REALLY need it?

[CruisingLover]

Ok so I've been looking into getting a new underwater camera with wifi and have narrowed it down to Olympus TG4 and Olympus TG870.

 

The ONLY issue I can see (or read about as the case may be) is the 870 has a funky clicking type noise while playing back a video. I've read several instances of this. But then again, there are those that own the 870 that DON'T have that issue. So I'm looking to those on here that own the 870 and wondering if you have had that issue.

 

The TG4, a lot of people recommend (although I am curious as to why it is more expensive than the 870 since it is older...). The one thing I keep seeing that is liked is the TG4 can shoot RAW. Ok, I have no idea what that means. If I am just a person on vacation wanting to take pictures and not necessarily printing them and hanging them at my home, do I NEED to learn about this RAW feature?

 

:confused:

[TheOldBear]

Taking pictures in JPEG format yields image files that can be directly viewed, printed, shared and stored. That covers almost everything you want to do with images.

 

The 'raw' file is the digital equivalent of a film 'negative'. It is a useful thing to have a copy of when you want to do something special in post processing.

 

 

Note - I am an 'advanced user' with lots of experience with post processing. Even on the fancy camera I find that I will use/share the jpeg image with little adjustment.

[pierces]

If I am just a person on vacation wanting to take pictures and not necessarily printing them and hanging them at my home, do I NEED to learn about this RAW feature?

 

:confused:

 

No, you don't need it.

 

That's the short answer. The long answer is a quasi-religious argument on the benefits of additional color depth and such that you will see more times than you can imagine as you get deeper into photography.

 

I wrote a newbie-friendly article on RAW vs. JPEG that explains the advantages and disadvantages of each format that may help you understand the short answer more clearly: http://www.pptphoto.com/articles/rawvsjpeg.html

 

Dave

[fletch1027]

Ok so I've been looking into getting a new underwater camera with wifi and have narrowed it down to Olympus TG4 and Olympus TG870.

 

The ONLY issue I can see (or read about as the case may be) is the 870 has a funky clicking type noise while playing back a video. I've read several instances of this. But then again, there are those that own the 870 that DON'T have that issue. So I'm looking to those on here that own the 870 and wondering if you have had that issue.

 

The TG4, a lot of people recommend (although I am curious as to why it is more expensive than the 870 since it is older...). The one thing I keep seeing that is liked is the TG4 can shoot RAW. Ok, I have no idea what that means. If I am just a person on vacation wanting to take pictures and not necessarily printing them and hanging them at my home, do I NEED to learn about this RAW feature?

 

:confused:

 

I own the TG4 and besides the raw functionality, the TG4 also has the ability to put filters in front of the lens, like a polarizer, which can make a difference when taking pictures on a cruise that include sun, sky, etc.

 

Here's a detailed comparrison...

 

Tough-TG-870-vs-Tough-TG-4

[CT Sean]

Do you ever "touch up" pictures that you take because they are too bright, or too dark or the color isn't quite right? If so, you might have interest in having a camera with RAW capability. If you don't have any interest in processing your pictures after you put them on a computer, then you probably don't have any use for RAW.

[pierces]

Also good to note that with programs like Lightroom, you can make significant corrections to a JPEG image as well. RAW gives you more latitude but for simple brightening, unblocking shadows or color correction, JPEG will serve you well for all but the worst exposure errors.

 

Dave

[havoc315]

Most people never touch RAW files. If you are just uploading your photos straight from the camera and sharing and printing them... maybe with some cropping, but no other major adjustments, then there is no need for RAW files.

 

On the other hand, the majority of photography enthusiasts and professionals will mostly shoot in RAW. RAW images essentially are huge data files that capture more information. It gives the photographer far more latitude in post-processing.

 

For example, this was shot raw, before post processing:

 

before70.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

And after processing:

 

fallsunrise-70.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

So if you shoot raw, and then spend time on the computer afterwards, you can pull a lot more out of the image.

[CruisingLover]

Thank you all SO much for your help! Seriously, I appreciate it!

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Forums mobile app

[pierces]

FYI - Out of camera Fine quality JPEG with Lightroom adjustments only.

 

BEFORE

 

AFTER

 

The original wasn't too bad but the days of JPEG being a death sentence for a photo that needs a nudge or two are in the past. Another benefit of Lightroom is that the original suffered no loss of quality by being edited since the adjustments are stored in the program's database and only applied when exported. Sort of like RAW. ;)

 

Bottom line: Pick the camera that suits you best and don't sweat the details too much at this point. The fact that you're here asking this kind of question means that this will likely not be the last camera you buy and if at some time in the future, you decide you need a camera that shoots RAW, that feature can be at the top of your spec list.

 

Happy shooting!

 

Dave

[tommui987]

Dave has a article on his Webpage on JPEG vs RAW. Good reading.

 

My rule of thumb - unless you are going to print photos bigger than 8x10 - just use JPEG. Learn Lightroom or Photoshop or Elements.