# What size RAW should I shoot at?



## VitorMachado (Aug 2, 2013)

Sorry for the newbie question, but shooting at full sized RAW (20M 5472x3648) on my 6D can take up quite a bit of room on my computer's external HDD. M-RAW is bumped down to 11M, and S-RAW drops all the way to 5.0M. My photos are never printed, unless someone prints them for themselves. I deliver all my photos digitally, in full resolution of course. That being said, if S-RAW has a resolution of 2736x1824, which is quite a bit larger than an HD resolution of 1920x1080, does it really matter if I shoot at 5M? I barely ever crop over over the 16x9 aspect ratio, so I assume it should be fine? Anyways, I came here to get some valid answers from more experienced shooters. Thanks in advance!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2013)

Shoot full RAW - everything else is lossy.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 2, 2013)

For normal prints 10 mpix is enough.

To cut down on data-use I generally shoot MRAW on the 7D, SRAW 1 on the 5D2, both are approx 10 mpix. I go to full res though when I expect to need room for cropping or to maximise detail ie in critical shots or some panorama's.

I never go below 10 megapixels.


----------



## tpatana (Aug 2, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Shoot full RAW - everything else is lossy.



I agree.

Assuming someone must use less storage space, I wonder which one would be better, M-RAW or full size jpeg. I guess it depends on the picture, setup etc., but I might vote for jpeg.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 2, 2013)

tpatana said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Shoot full RAW - everything else is lossy.
> ...



With either s or m raw you can convert to a 16 bit Tif when you need to push or pull the data about. An 8 bit joey is processed info. Mind you the joeys from the latest Canon FF cameras are remarkably malleable.


----------



## Schruminator (Aug 2, 2013)

If you have the storage space and a computer that can handle the file size shoot full sized RAW. If you are never going to print out large-ish pictures or crop your pictures, then I suppose S or M-RAW is fine, but for me I don't see why you wouldn't shoot full sized RAW to start with. Hard drives and memory cards are getting cheaper and cheaper these days.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Aug 2, 2013)

Schruminator said:


> If you have the storage space and a computer that can handle the file size shoot full sized RAW. If you are never going to print out large-ish pictures or crop your pictures, then I suppose S or M-RAW is fine, but for me I don't see why you wouldn't shoot full sized RAW to start with. Hard drives and memory cards are getting cheaper and cheaper these days.



+1 about storage

I recently got a 3.5 inch (plug in) external 3TB for $160 or so from a local store. Online I'm sure you could get something even better for less. In comparison to the amount you invested in full frame sensor and L glass, its nothing really.

If storage is an issue with no way chance to expand, I would personally opt to resize in post and trash all but the most important RAW files before I'd shoot at a half sized raw file (especially if you're shooting anything you might want to crop)..


----------



## rs (Aug 2, 2013)

VitorMachado said:


> That being said, if S-RAW has a resolution of 2736x1824, which is quite a bit larger than an HD resolution of 1920x1080, does it really matter if I shoot at 5M?


'HD' resolution is just a stepping stone for computer displays. Apple already have the 15" Retina MacBook Pro out with a 2880x1800 16:10 display. At 100%, S RAW won't fill that screen. It's only a matter of time before there's a 27" Retina display with an expected 5120x2880, and as this display technology becomes more mainstream, Windows will get native support for it too.

While you can rightly argue only a select few have this technology now, don't you want the moments you're capturing to stand the test of time?


----------



## Harv (Aug 2, 2013)

Why invest in a full frame, 20 megapixel camera if you don't take advantage of it?


----------



## alben (Aug 2, 2013)

Shoot full RAW, the camera shoots at full RAW then downsizes to medium or small, wasting proccesing time.


----------



## fugu82 (Aug 2, 2013)

+1 on full sized RAW, and investing in storage. 

One way to take the sting out of it is to be more aggressive with culling your image files. It took me a long time to realize that I would never, ever utilize any of those garbage shots. [Unless they are of a UFO or Sasquatch, which are legally required to be of grotesque quality].

Use all the image quality your equipment can give you, then be realistic about what you keep.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Aug 2, 2013)

fugu82 said:


> +1 on full sized RAW, and investing in storage.
> 
> One way to take the sting out of it is to be more aggressive with culling your image files. It took me a long time to realize that I would never, ever utilize any of those garbage shots. [Unless they are of a UFO or Sasquatch, which are legally required to be of grotesque quality].
> 
> Use all the image quality your equipment can give you, then be realistic about what you keep.



Very much agree with this. Sometimes it takes me a month or two to get to a series of shots (too long, really), but I have learned to do a LOT of culling.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 3, 2013)

In my opinion, this is really a question about memory card capacity in the camera, not on your computer. Just because you shoot the RAWs doesn't mean you have to keep them.

I would shoot in full RAW, discarding the files I don't want to keep (or keep JPEG copies). That way, if I happen to get a spectacular shot, or a shot that's just right but the exposure or white balance is a little off, or a shot I actually do want to print large, I can take advantage of the full, lossless RAW file.

Depending on your keeper rate, this strategy could be a hassle, but I always like knowing I've got the best I can get when I manage to produce an excellent photograph. One way to speed up the process, if you have a low keeper rate (or a low rate of wanting to take advantage of the RAW file) is to simply save the few you want to keep in a different location. Then sort the other files by file type, select the remaining .CR2 files, and delete them.

By the way, Full HD (1920x1080), printed at 300dpi will make only about a 6.4" x 3.6" print. ???


----------



## HoodlessShooter (Aug 3, 2013)

I am also in the “Aggressive Deletion” camp. Shoot Full Raw, and learn to judge your own work. Find the shots with potential, and then delete the rest. This has multiple benefits. It will save space now, it will save time in the future, it will make you more critical of your own work which I believe will make you a better photographer. If you do that and space is still an issue, then I would recommend processing your keepers to JPEG then archive the RAW files to another drive.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 3, 2013)

Multi TB drives are relatively cheap compared to the cost of a camera and lenses. You paid a lot to get high quality images, so don't downgrade them. Spend $100 and get a large hard drive.
Shoot at 100%. I'd only reduce the size if I got caught without enough memory card capacity, but that's not likely to happen.

3TB hard drives are available at Newegg for $120.


----------



## poias (Aug 3, 2013)

VitorMachado said:


> Sorry for the newbie question, but shooting at full sized RAW (20M 5472x3648) on my 6D can take up quite a bit of room on my computer's external HDD. M-RAW is bumped down to 11M, and S-RAW drops all the way to 5.0M. My photos are never printed, unless someone prints them for themselves. I deliver all my photos digitally, in full resolution of course. That being said, if S-RAW has a resolution of 2736x1824, which is quite a bit larger than an HD resolution of 1920x1080, does it really matter if I shoot at 5M? I barely ever crop over over the 16x9 aspect ratio, so I assume it should be fine? Anyways, I came here to get some valid answers from more experienced shooters. Thanks in advance!



I just bought a 2 TB external HDD (USB3) for $100. It will hold 100,000 RAWs easily. When I had 1.44 MB floppy disks I used to be scared by sizes; not anymore.

To be fair, it looks like you do not need 20 mpx resolution; all my facebook posts are like less than 1 mpx. When I print, I print huge, so I am a bit extreme when it comes to printing. My D800E is not enough so I often stitch.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Aug 3, 2013)

Harv said:


> Why invest in a full frame, 20 megapixel camera if you don't take advantage of it?



Exactly my principle (although I do not have those great cameras). Now a days memory cards are not that costly I think (at least when compared to the price of the camera into which it goes). 

I try to get the best out of my equipment - so full RAW it is always. May be today I do not know that much processing but tomorrow I might learn better processing. Then if I do not have the full resolution file I shall not be able to do anything. I am not that good photographer so out of every 100 photos that I shoot I generally finally keep only 20 to 30 photos. So ultimately it is not that memory hogging exercise either. While deleting my principle is if at the computer screen the photo does not look sharp or does not please me compositionally at the first sight then it goes.


----------



## Vivid Color (Aug 3, 2013)

Shooting full RAW and getting more storage: just do it.


----------



## Meh (Aug 3, 2013)

Bigger is better


----------



## Click (Aug 3, 2013)

Shooting full sized RAW also.


----------



## verysimplejason (Aug 3, 2013)

Full Raw!


----------



## TexPhoto (Aug 3, 2013)

Shoot full size RAW, throw away the lousy ones.


----------



## pwp (Aug 3, 2013)

TexPhoto said:


> Shoot full size RAW, throw away the lousy ones.


+1 Good advice. Be a very tough editor. And then keyword your keepers. Storage is cheap.

I'd be inclined to advise shooting full size RAW at all times. If for no other reason, what happens when you shoot that once in a lifetime hero image only to realise you shot it on mRAW or worse...sRAW?

It's a bit like the argument that used to rage about whether to shoot JPEG or RAW. I have older files that I shot JPEG back when RAW conversion software was expensive and finicky to use, and storage was relatively expensive. There are a number of shots that I just ache to be able to re-process as RAW. 

The one occasional exception I make for shooting mRAW is shooting action sports and need the extra buffer depth that the smaller file affords. Otherwise, it's full size RAW all the way.

-PW


----------



## J.R. (Aug 3, 2013)

This might be a useful read - 

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/eos_qt_small_raw_images_article.shtml?categoryId=121


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Aug 3, 2013)

J.R. said:


> This might be a useful read -
> 
> http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/eos_qt_small_raw_images_article.shtml?categoryId=121



Interesting to read, but for all the uses that the author proposes shooting in mRAW or sRAW I thought JPG/JPEGs created from RAW could do as well. With the added advantage of the photographer being able to have full control over post processing.


----------



## grimson (Aug 3, 2013)

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/906367/2&year=2010#8553893

Technically this is an interesting writeup from some other board



> For starters, anytime you remove data, you're removing information, quality, regardless how good it is. BR video compression, JPEG, all that. Specifically about sRaw, on the sensor you start with each pixel having one value: R, G, B. Four hardware pixels make out one full RGB pixel; the way cameras are marketed, a 16MP camera has 16 million photo sites, but actually only 4M discreet RGB values; the other ones are interpolated. This step is called debeyer, as it removes the Beyer pattern. This step is where smoothness of lines or moire is determined - and where the best noise reduction and sharpening can happen, because you have the raw pixels in front of you. This is how ACR6 is better than ACR5 - the debeyer is completely new, better, more sophisticated.
> 
> Now, sRaw gives you a debeyered image. A 16MP camera will give you a 4MP sRaw image (mRaw is an interesting tweener, but the differences in approach are mostly irrelevant). In the Canon sRaw files, each pixel has an RGB value, not just either R or G or B, like in real raw. Therefore, one may think that an sRaw image would be 1/4 the file size of a raw, yet it is about 3/4 the file size of a true raw - because it carries 3x as much information "per pixel". But we have already lost information: we carry only 3/4 of the information.
> 
> ...



So if technically correct you would be (technically) better of process the full RAW file in postprocessing because, just like shooting in JPG, you would 'loose' the ability to gain quality by using advanced or matured postprocessing algorithms like the onging development of ACR.

/Edit
Found another good technical article;
'The Canon sRaw and mRaw Output Formats' 
http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/sRaw.pdf

Because not only size matters


----------



## DigiAngel (Aug 3, 2013)

In the beginning, i did shoot only jpeg. It worked well, but if i look back now, i would love to have RAW files of some special shots do edit them again with my current knowledge und techniques. 

so, if you shoot only sRAW now, and sometime in the future you want to print them big...you´ll miss the resolution. storage is cheap, shoot fullsize raw. 

if its just a lame job you do, you can always throw them away after a year or so if they really take up too much space.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Aug 3, 2013)

Full RAW.
Keep all options alive.


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 3, 2013)

Full Raw.
Occasionally Full Raw + JPEG L if I am lazy and want to give a digital image away without any pp. Mostly full sized Raw because I don't want to lose anything. Load to computer throw out the garbage right away. I keep it on Drobo, and if/when the 5 hdd's get full, I'll start swapping them out. Easy peasy.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 3, 2013)

Yes I'm beginning to see a sort of pattern of 10 commandments forming on CR. 

Number 1 would be:

Buy a 135L ; it'll change your life.

And 2 is definitely:

Only ever shoot in full raw. 
;D


----------



## AJ (Aug 3, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Yes I'm beginning to see a sort of pattern of 10 commandments forming on CR.
> 
> Number 1 would be:
> 
> ...



and commandment #3: Thou shalt print thy pictures.

Why else buy a 6D?


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Aug 3, 2013)

I thought the third commandment on CR is "Thou shalt only shoot fullframe"...


----------



## Vossie (Aug 3, 2013)

For me the only reason not to shoot in full raw, but is m or s raw is when making a timelapse movie.


----------

