Title more or less says it all. Im looking at compact digital cameras and very few have RAW capability. How much do you lose with a 10mp image if you dont have RAW images? There are a few with RAW remaining. Is it important to get one of those if I want to make 8x10 prints? Thanks for any comments.

I think they're trying to differentiate the P&S from the DSLR product families. Personally, I don't think that's a good idea - I'd like to have a pocketable camera that shot RAW. I don't have a lot of faith in the marketing/sales/technical weenies at a lot of camera companies, though. Nikon seems to think that it's in my best interest that the white balance data in their RAW files is encrypted. :mad:

If the optics are good on a 10MP camera, you should be able to make a decent 8x10 image. Heck, I've made decent 8x10s on a 3MP Nikon Coolpix 995, and I even got a good one at 16x20 once with a little help in Photoshop. It'll help if you nail the exposure (underexposure on a P&S = noise). Basically, if you've got good shot-taking technique (ie, steady hands, smooth shutter release), you'll be fine. If you're planning on making large prints from a small camera, I'd suggest looking closely at the test shots you'll find on review sites like dpreview.com.

Remember that the lens in a P&S leaves a lot to be desired compared to a DSLR. There's probably little to be gained from RAW on such a camera.

RAW doesn't get you anything more in terms of resolution, so maybe I'm missing the discussion of print sizes, lens quality, etc.

RAW allows more control over post-processing, pulling back blown highlights, adjusting WB, etc.

I agree that it's a market differentiation - few P&S buyers will do RAW processing, and few photographers interested in detailed RAW/PP will shoot a P&S.

It does leave those of us who prefer RAW/PP and want a pocketable alternative in a lurch. I still use my daughter's trusty G2 when I want something portable.

I occasionally shoot raw (well, increasingly often) with my Panasonic P&S camera. Advantages? Well it mainly gives me more control over noise reduction (i.e. how to reduce and to what extend). Panasonic's own noise reduction is fine for smaller prints but far too heavy handed for anything larger.

Additionally, sometimes there is sometimes advantage to producing three or four different exposures from the single RAW image and then combining them to produce a HDR photo (and of course, there is lots of other artistic trickery you could do if you wanted to).

I have a dslr and I never edit my photos short of a crop. I find that there are some people in the world that really want to take the perfect picture, edit it to death and then those pictures never see the light of day.

So, I say forget it, shoot, print, upload and if you are lucky, 2 out of your 100 photos are fantastic.

I feel the same way about other things - I think it is great that people scrapbook or put together these really complicated montages, but it takes them so long to do it, you sort of lose the excitement of sharing your images with your friends and families.

Just my .15 euros worth.

This raises an issue I've been pondering - photography as art vs documentary.

Joe Rosnenthal's Mt. Suribachi photo is grainy and could use some post processing. Many of the photos I saw at a recent Pulitzer Prize exhibit are the same. They capture the emotion of a moment and are effective as documentation of an event. The visual quality of these images is not paramount.

Photography as art, on the other hand, focuses on the visual presentation of lines, curves, textures, patterns, etc. Post-processing/visuals of the image is an integral component of the photograph.

"Edit to death" is reserved for special "photography as art" images. I bulk process - WB and basic settings the 30% of my images that I select as keepers. Only about 10% of these then get detailed post-processing.

It is a time consumer, but sometimes it's worth it:

http://richs.smugmug.com/photos/152664235-M.jpg

http://richs.smugmug.com/photos/152664278-M.jpg

There will always be those images that are just perfect, straight out of the camera and in no need of any post processing (they tend to be my favourite images). Of course, all cameras do their own post processing and this differs by camera/manufacturer (case in point: Panasonic Venus III).

RAW is worth the effort. And once you figure out how to work with it, it really doesn't take much more than 10-15 minutes to PP the image into one that is significantly better. And if you don't want to deal with the majority of your images individually, it's easy to set up a batch process.

To me there are huge advantages in being able to manipulate a RAW file. It is far easier to apply corrections to exposure, white balance, sharpness, and noise reduction with RAW. You may be able to accomplish the same with a JPEG and some effort, but as soon as you do anything to a JPEG, you are automatically applying destructive edits. With RAW, you can apply many edits that can immediately improve the image without being destructive.

Here's an article on the topic: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/RAW-file-format.htm

And if nothing else, think about the fact that every traditional photography class has always included darkroom work because it is considered an essential element of photography. Why exclude it with digital?

And if nothing else, think about the fact that every traditional photography class has always included darkroom work because it is considered an essential element of photography. Why exclude it with digital?


That is a good point. I never really thought of it like that. For me, the love of black and white is the actual developing of the images and then doing a lot of the fine tuning by hand. It just feels wierd to me doing it with a mouse.

Another argument for RAW is that when shooting JPEG you are relying on your cameras processing power to quickly decide how to "develop" the image. And then you are stuck with those choices. With RAW you are transfering that processing to your computer which has more processing power and more time to work with the image. Which do you think will do a better job- your time challenged camera or the more powerful, time unlimited computer?

I considered the OP a bit more and though this thread (myself included) has strongly argued for buying a camera with RAW capability, I'd also have to counter this with the comment that if your intent is to have P&S convenience and you don't intend or want to do much more with the images other than a crop or minor enhancement, RAW really isn't that critical.

It's likely that most casual shooters buying a P&S don't want to deal with RAW anyway, so it doesn't add anything to the product to include RAW capability. Market forces have converged.

With all that said, in addition to my DSLR (Nikon), I have one of those little supercompact Canon P&Ss, with no RAW capability. I used to have a Minolta Dimage that took TIFFs, but it recently died on me, and the Canon has recently replaced it. The little Canon supercompact has it's place in my photography arsenal, and though I sometimes miss the RAW format, it does take fabulous, sharp (due to the IS), and vibrant pictures, as well as digital movies with sound, which also has it's place. As someone pointed out earlier, the limitation with a compact camera like isn't so much not having RAW, but the inferior lens.

So, it depends on your intent. If manipulating your images in PP is important, get a bridge camera with RAW capability. If compact size and convenience are the goal, and you don't see yourself doing much with photo edits, then I'd go for one of the highly rated little compacts (see dpreview.com, which also includes a buyers guide that will narrow down camera selections based on desired features)

Well, I'm a total raw convert these days. It started a couple of weeks ago. I had it confirmed when I went through a bunch of pictures from a concert shoot and there was one I was going to throw away but played with custom WB in Lightroom and had the following effect:

Original:
http://www.shesgotthepic.com/styx/gowanoriginal_marked.jpg

After PP in Lightroom:
http://www.shesgotthepic.com/styx/gowanpp_marked.jpg

No going back now.

Just going through my new Oly's intro video, it was interesting to see there were three RAW formats and it was recommended in favour of TIFF for not just post-process options but pics were smaller in size. Interesting.

I have a Canon G7; the lack of Raw gets slammed in the reviews. Other than that it's a fantastic camera.

I discussed the lack of Raw with the owner of the store when I bought it. He felt they dropped it due to the cache size needed for raw processing of 10 mg images, that the extra memory would push the price point on the camera. It replaced the G6 (which did have raw) but which was 7.1 mp- how much more cache would have been required?

This camera is borderline betweent the P&S and DSLR market, and I guess they balanced out the percentage of sales lost to lack of raw with the sales they'd lose if the price was a little higher.

i am new to DSLR photography, but I recently took a bunch of pictures using my Canon 30D using raw + highest quality JPEG. Even though both are at the same resolution, the raw images invariably have more detail and better color quality than the JPEGs. This is using out of the box camera settings as I haven't tweaked much.