Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by RT_Panther, Aug 4, 2011.
Informative read here...
Why you should take photos in RAW | Pixiq
Here's an article with a good example of how much you can salvage from a picture:
Robin Wong: Olympus E-5: Highlight Retention
There are a billion threads about that topic. All those articles are very short-minded and hold only for some photographers but not for others. There are good reasons why many professional photographers shoot JPEGs instead of raw. Among those are sport photographers who need the finished result very quickly. Sport photographers also need high frame rates which they get only by shooting JPEGs. When you are a photographer shooting a major sport event your time schedule is so tight that there is no chance to develop raw files anyway.
Many other photographers like Bob Krist and Karl Grobl shoot JPEGs. Bob Krist has written in his blog, that he actually shoots JPEG+Raw and uses the JPEGs about 80% of the time, because they are perfect out of the camera. Many photographer just want to finalize their concept when they release the shutter. Professionals just do what works for them.
It all depends on how much one relies on post processing. At the end there is always a JPEG which contains less information than a raw file. If one gets the final image out of the camera, there will be no more loss than after processing the raw file and exporting the final result as JPEG. If one processes ones pictures intensely, it will be best to start with the raw file. Howsoever, post processing is a skill one has to learn in order to process ones raw files properly. Many people don't have that skill and would get technically better pictures, if they shot JPEGs and learned how to work with the JPEG engine of their cameras.
I shoot raw because my Olympus lets me try again with different white balance, gradation, aspect ratio and so on, after the fact. I often turn it off again, though, because they do fill the SD card rather quickly. Then I miss it, and turn it on again...
*sigh* I'd shoot raw all the time if my camera could delete all the raw files in one go, leaving my JPEGs.
For people who shoot jpg that article is too much text and the diagram too complicated just as raw editing is too much effort.
I think it also depends on the users personality. Some require a fast, fun look while others like to spend time to set each parameter to how they exactly want it.
It's amazing to see the differences in Choleric, Sanguine, Phlegmatic, and Melancholy type people and how they perform/like things.
I'll humour you on this observation.
I use Raw +JPG. The JPG is often fine, but I have the option if needed. SD cards are much cheaper these days.
haha good one:smile: I think you must be a mix of choleric and sanguine maybe?
Alternately Sanguine and Melancholic, which I believe qualifies me as Classical Bipolar.
I smell a bit of photographic elitism/snobbery
Digital photography was supposed to free us from the long process of film developing. Now we've replaced spending time in the dark room with spending hours sitting in front of the computer peeking at pixels.
I'm not against shooting in RAW, but saying everyone should is a bit overreaching.
It was known that negative films carried more information than slides, yet many professional photographers shot only slides. If you know what you are doing, a jpeg can be equal to any RAW image. Quantitative reasoning does not do a very good job at defining subjective processes.
LOL... Darkroom work though for most of us that did/still do wet print, never had over 72 images (2x 36x rolls) to go through at a time. (has a hobbyist).. but, I my option, making a wet print could take 10m per print with Dodging/Burning plus the soup/rinse/dry time. So, the Digital Darkroom is much faster, even with RAW.
I use only RAW, for a few main reasons...
Total WB control.
Better DR over JPG (not much, but some)
easier to adjust H/M/S EV values
Better Noise Control (RAW has slightly less noise at any given ISO, or it just processes better)
This discussion will just never die, would it? Well, here you go.
I agree that RAW isn't necessarily for everyone... but I do disagree with your supposition that using a RAW only workflow condemns you to hours of computer based manipulation.
Using modern software such as Lightroom or Aperture on a modern computer, It is my experience a RAW only workflow can be as fast as a JPEG based one, and more flexible to boot.
I rarely spend more than 5 minutes on an image that I wish to work on - and much of that work I would probably perform if I was shooting JPEG - e.g. cropping, WB, curves, sharpening. The advantage to me is that with RAW I have access now to all the data the camera captured - not a subset of it as decided by the camera
Shooting RAW+Jpeg seems a waste of disk space to me - use one or the other and simplify your filing system.
there is no right answer for everyone...
I shoot Raw + JPEG 100% of the time...
I will use the JPEG 98% of the time when posting to the internet somewhere. If I decide to print an image, I will process the RAW file 100% of the time.
People have become overly obsessed with the term "RAW", it's suppose to be the Digital "Negative" equal to film, but one still needs to have a properly exposed image, whether RAW or JPEG or FILM, that's the key. How many of your processed RAW images do you upload to the internet at full resolution, how many do you actually end up printing. What better software can you use other than the proprietary software that came with your camera to process the RAW file, your camera software is programmed to process and optimize the RAW file as intended and designed. Most of the time people are trying to produce an image their camera did not or cannot capture.
With that said, I do tweak JPEG's using Faststone, Picassa, PhotoPerfect or GIMP, and for printing I will use Photoshop...
ps. I abhor PP :smile:
No, as new photographers join the ranks, these Q's come up.
I have no problem with it. and sometimes, it can help others out that may want to shoot RAW.. I can do both. But, I don't use flash, and I shoot in all kinds of lighting that at times has no easy WB control. Then a Custom WB is used... BUT, many times at high ISOs, the image is still a bit underexposed (I am lazy with EV adj at times )
Maybe a separate forum for RAW and JPG discussions....:tongue:
Hasn't this horse been beaten to death?
Sport photographers also need high frame rates which they get only by shooting JPEGs.
Yes, or birders, or any action pics really. Give me 5 or even 3 fps continuous in RAW and I'll use it, until then its JPEG or I don't get the picture.
Apparently the horse is immortal
I disagree. If anything, digital photography freed us from the film development COSTS, not the processes....