This topic is in the 2005 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2005I don't shoot raw!
p.4 #1I don't shoot raw!
moondigger,
Yeah. I'm not taking sides. I shot JPGS at first, I then tried RAW, then didn't like how much space it was taking, after a bit switched back to JPG. Then the nuerotic side of me took over and forced me to shoot RAW. I do think the 20d's JPG compression is slightly high for my liking. That's primarily why I'm shooting RAW now. It's not really an exposure thing because I rarely shift my exposures while converting.
Yeah. I'm not taking sides. I shot JPGS at first, I then tried RAW, then didn't like how much space it was taking, after a bit switched back to JPG. Then the nuerotic side of me took over and forced me to shoot RAW. I do think the 20d's JPG compression is slightly high for my liking. That's primarily why I'm shooting RAW now. It's not really an exposure thing because I rarely shift my exposures while converting.
Apr 07, 2005 at 01:16 PM
p.4 #2I don't shoot raw!
Locster wrote:
If it's only geeks shooting raw, Bibble, C1, etc must not be making too much money
The RAW format is simply a conspiracy put together by Adobe and other companies that produce RAW processing software to get us to buy their software. Let’s no go into the amount of money that memory card, hard disk, DVD/CDR companies make do to the added capture and storage requirements of RAW.
Look at all the photographers who have been tricked into buying a 1D Mrk II instead of a 20D because they need to be able to shoot bursts that are longer then six frames and have been sold on the RAW it better then JPEG myth.
Time for a class action suit
If it's only geeks shooting raw, Bibble, C1, etc must not be making too much money
The RAW format is simply a conspiracy put together by Adobe and other companies that produce RAW processing software to get us to buy their software. Let’s no go into the amount of money that memory card, hard disk, DVD/CDR companies make do to the added capture and storage requirements of RAW.
Look at all the photographers who have been tricked into buying a 1D Mrk II instead of a 20D because they need to be able to shoot bursts that are longer then six frames and have been sold on the RAW it better then JPEG myth.
Time for a class action suit
Apr 07, 2005 at 01:21 PM
p.4 #3I don't shoot raw!
My experience which is very limited, I think Mike has a point. I have a 1Ds MkII and for me, it all depends on the job demands. I don't print 30 x 36 inch images, I use the pics to paint oil portraits life size. I have to zoom into a picture to see the details of a ring on a finger so for my purposes, I could use double this pixel size sensor. But RAW is only needed if I have an issue of color balance. For everything else, web and print, I'm going to be throwing away pixels anyway. That's why I kept my old Olympus E-10, for there is no reason to waste shutter time on my 1Ds. Now if I was a pro photographer, I may well use RAW just to be safe and achieve perfection for safety reasons but I find RAW simply not necessary for 99% of the stuff I shot and suspect it's the same for most so I'm with Mike on this one. Over-hyped!
Apr 07, 2005 at 01:32 PM
p.4 #4I don't shoot raw!
To preempt the inevitable cat picture showing us why RAW is superior, I offer this:
http://webpages.charter.net/hammerli/Rawng.jpg
Shot in jpeg, my dogs love munching on lost pixels.
http://webpages.charter.net/hammerli/Rawng.jpg
Shot in jpeg, my dogs love munching on lost pixels.
Apr 07, 2005 at 01:40 PM
lurple
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.4 #5I don't shoot raw!
moondigger wrote:
I know one wedding photographer who shoots 4 megapixel JPEGs with his 1Ds. He is one of the most respected and highly-paid wedding photogs in the area. I was talking to him about his gear and shooting habits at my brother's wedding, and he told me he doesn't know any wedding pros shooting RAW at weddings. He said he shoots at least one wedding per week the entire year and often shoots two per week, and can't see any benefit in shooting RAW due to the added workflow and the fact that his results with JPEGs are excellent.
And that is STILL anecdotal evidence (1 person talks to 1 wedding photographer who talks to a few other wedding photogrpahers and therefore can accurately deduce what is happening with all the other professional photographers across all disciplines across the globe); please show me a good statistical survey that indicates that all or virtually all professional photographers (once again all or virtually all professional photographers acorss "all" the types of photogrpahy) shoot JPG and I will be inclined to go with what you and teriba say. Until then, you can throw all the anecdotal evidence you want out there and I am going to continue to ask for real evidence to support your conclusions.
moondigger wrote:
And that's the problem. Your sample is heavily skewed towards the internet-geek type of photographer, who is far more likely to shoot RAW than a photographer who doesn't participate in forums like these. I have no numbers to support it, but I would guess that MOST professional photographers (defined as those who make a majority of their incomes by photography) don't participate on forums like these.
So you admit right up front that you are basing your conclusions without any real (non-anecdotal) evidence and yet you tell me that my sample is heavily skewed (implication being that it is flawed), WHEW! Well, I am certainly convinced by that line of reasoning! I am not the one making the wild "all" professionals do one thing or another type claims. And which study did you find that concludes that "internet-geek type of photographer, who is far more likely to shoot RAW than a photographer who doesn't participate in forums like these"? I guess I missed that study too, or is that more conclusion based on anecdotal evidence or just plain opinion on your part. I would say that there is a good chance that the base upon which you and teriba appear to be drawing your conclusions is so tiny that it is statistically insignificant and is therefore not a very valid reason for making such statements, YMMV.
One more time, I am way more than willing to look at and very possibly buy into those types of claims if there appears to be a significant unbiased scientific poll, but until such time as I see that then reading statements based on very narrowly sampled anecdotal evidence just doen't mean a heck of lot to me.
Dwight ® wrote
If you broaden the scope to include fine art/landscape/studio/portrait/etc. I suspect that the number of the pros shooting RAW will be significantly higher.And that is STILL anecdotal evidence (1 person talks to 1 wedding photographer who talks to a few other wedding photogrpahers and therefore can accurately deduce what is happening with all the other professional photographers across all disciplines across the globe); please show me a good statistical survey that indicates that all or virtually all professional photographers (once again all or virtually all professional photographers acorss "all" the types of photogrpahy) shoot JPG and I will be inclined to go with what you and teriba say. Until then, you can throw all the anecdotal evidence you want out there and I am going to continue to ask for real evidence to support your conclusions.
moondigger wrote:
Earlier quote
I know that I have read numerous reports about professionals that are shooting RAW only or RAW+JPG including quite a number here.So you admit right up front that you are basing your conclusions without any real (non-anecdotal) evidence and yet you tell me that my sample is heavily skewed (implication being that it is flawed), WHEW! Well, I am certainly convinced by that line of reasoning! I am not the one making the wild "all" professionals do one thing or another type claims. And which study did you find that concludes that "internet-geek type of photographer, who is far more likely to shoot RAW than a photographer who doesn't participate in forums like these"? I guess I missed that study too, or is that more conclusion based on anecdotal evidence or just plain opinion on your part. I would say that there is a good chance that the base upon which you and teriba appear to be drawing your conclusions is so tiny that it is statistically insignificant and is therefore not a very valid reason for making such statements, YMMV.
One more time, I am way more than willing to look at and very possibly buy into those types of claims if there appears to be a significant unbiased scientific poll, but until such time as I see that then reading statements based on very narrowly sampled anecdotal evidence just doen't mean a heck of lot to me.
Apr 07, 2005 at 02:47 PM
p.4 #6I don't shoot raw!
Oh mine what happend here? Didn't think this thread would become this involved
Apr 07, 2005 at 03:00 PM
p.4 #7I don't shoot raw!
Dwight ® wrote:
I suspect that the number of the pros shooting RAW will be significantly higher.
I know that I have read numerous reports about professionals that are shooting RAW only or RAW+JPG including quite a number here. To say or imply that no (or a vanishingly few) professionals shoot in the RAW format is something that I would like to see documented a bit past your anecdotal evidence; I have reason to suspect that just isn't the case.
The above looks like anecdotal evidence and assumption just as much as the other viewpoint. They are entitled to their opinions just as much as you are; but I don't see you offering much hard proof either. I consider the pros in this forum statistically insignificant, so please link the reports you referred to so we can see where they derived their figures from, and determine if their sampling was statistically viable.
I don't care either way, but it looks like a lot of I read, I heard, I suspect from both sides; none of which is WAD statistically.
Edited by Hammerli on Apr 07, 2005 at 04:12 PM GMT
I suspect that the number of the pros shooting RAW will be significantly higher.
I know that I have read numerous reports about professionals that are shooting RAW only or RAW+JPG including quite a number here. To say or imply that no (or a vanishingly few) professionals shoot in the RAW format is something that I would like to see documented a bit past your anecdotal evidence; I have reason to suspect that just isn't the case.
The above looks like anecdotal evidence and assumption just as much as the other viewpoint. They are entitled to their opinions just as much as you are; but I don't see you offering much hard proof either. I consider the pros in this forum statistically insignificant, so please link the reports you referred to so we can see where they derived their figures from, and determine if their sampling was statistically viable.
I don't care either way, but it looks like a lot of I read, I heard, I suspect from both sides; none of which is WAD statistically.
Edited by Hammerli on Apr 07, 2005 at 04:12 PM GMT
Apr 07, 2005 at 03:10 PM
lurple
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.4 #8I don't shoot raw!
semorg wrote:
Oh mine what happend here? Didn't think this thread would become this involved
Hehe! Well, you can always try Nikon vs. Canon or Mac vs. PC; this is tame by comparison.
Personally I think there are times for each type of format and that the best thing for people to do is try both of them out and see what works best for them for a given situation. It's really not like it is an extreme amount fo work or really expensive to try it out on your own and see what works for you.
Oh mine what happend here? Didn't think this thread would become this involved
Hehe! Well, you can always try Nikon vs. Canon or Mac vs. PC; this is tame by comparison.
Personally I think there are times for each type of format and that the best thing for people to do is try both of them out and see what works best for them for a given situation. It's really not like it is an extreme amount fo work or really expensive to try it out on your own and see what works for you.
Apr 07, 2005 at 03:11 PM
p.4 #9I don't shoot raw!
Dwight ® wrote:
And that is STILL anecdotal evidence (1 person talks to 1 wedding photographer who talks to a few other wedding photogrpahers and therefore can accurately deduce what is happening with all the other professional photographers across all disciplines across the globe);
Anecdotal evidence is not worthless. It must be considered in the context of the question at hand. Anecdotally speaking, a majority of pros who participate here shoot RAW. Anecdotally speaking, all of the pros whom I am acquainted with (A) do not participate on internet discussion groups and (B) do not shoot RAW. I'm not asking you to generalize that or form a definitive conclusion. I am presenting what little evidence I have.
Please show me a good statistical survey that indicates that all or virtually all professional photographers (once again all or virtually all professional photographers acorss "all" the types of photogrpahy) shoot JPG and I will be inclined to go with what you and teriba say.
Likewise, please show me a good statistical survey (not conducted on an internet discussion group which any statistician will tell you cannot represent a truly random sample of professional photographers) that supports your contention and I will be inclined to go with what you say.
I am not the one making the wild "all" professionals do one thing or another type claims.
Neither am I. If you think I am, please point me to the quote in which I said that all pros avoid RAW.
And which study did you find that concludes that "internet-geek type of photographer, who is far more likely to shoot RAW than a photographer who doesn't participate in forums like these"?
That is based on my experience. Folks who participate here shoot RAW far more than folks I know who do not participate here -- pro or otherwise. I have not conducted a study, but I also do not need a study to know what I've seen online vs. offline.
And that is STILL anecdotal evidence (1 person talks to 1 wedding photographer who talks to a few other wedding photogrpahers and therefore can accurately deduce what is happening with all the other professional photographers across all disciplines across the globe);
Anecdotal evidence is not worthless. It must be considered in the context of the question at hand. Anecdotally speaking, a majority of pros who participate here shoot RAW. Anecdotally speaking, all of the pros whom I am acquainted with (A) do not participate on internet discussion groups and (B) do not shoot RAW. I'm not asking you to generalize that or form a definitive conclusion. I am presenting what little evidence I have.
Please show me a good statistical survey that indicates that all or virtually all professional photographers (once again all or virtually all professional photographers acorss "all" the types of photogrpahy) shoot JPG and I will be inclined to go with what you and teriba say.
Likewise, please show me a good statistical survey (not conducted on an internet discussion group which any statistician will tell you cannot represent a truly random sample of professional photographers) that supports your contention and I will be inclined to go with what you say.
I am not the one making the wild "all" professionals do one thing or another type claims.
Neither am I. If you think I am, please point me to the quote in which I said that all pros avoid RAW.
And which study did you find that concludes that "internet-geek type of photographer, who is far more likely to shoot RAW than a photographer who doesn't participate in forums like these"?
That is based on my experience. Folks who participate here shoot RAW far more than folks I know who do not participate here -- pro or otherwise. I have not conducted a study, but I also do not need a study to know what I've seen online vs. offline.
Apr 07, 2005 at 03:13 PM
p.4 #10I don't shoot raw!
He said he doesn't have time to bother with RAW
Funny, I shoot RAW because I don't have time to re-shoot for minor corrections I can make in RAW workflow
.
As already noted - most cameras shoot RAW+JPG so you're saving what, 30 seconds by not shooting in that mode and batch converting. I understand it (not using RAW) as an exercise in discipline...but I don't buy it as a time saver.
Funny, I shoot RAW because I don't have time to re-shoot for minor corrections I can make in RAW workflow
.As already noted - most cameras shoot RAW+JPG so you're saving what, 30 seconds by not shooting in that mode and batch converting. I understand it (not using RAW) as an exercise in discipline...but I don't buy it as a time saver.
Apr 07, 2005 at 03:22 PM
lurple
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.4 #11I don't shoot raw!
Hammerli wrote:
I know that I have read numerous reports about professionals that are shooting RAW only or RAW+JPG including quite a number here. To say or imply that no (or a vanishingly few) professionals shoot in the RAW format is something that I would like to see documented a bit past your anecdotal evidence; I have reason to suspect that just isn't the case.The above looks like anecdotal evidence and assumption just as much as the other viewpoint. They are entitled to their opinions just as much as you are; but I don't see you offering much hard proof either. I consider the pros in this forum statistically insignificant, so please link the reports you referred to so we can see where they derived their figures from, and determine if their sampling was statistically viable.
I am not saying that all pros do or don't shoot JPG or RAW, I'll admit right now that I do NOT know and I never made or implied a such a claim; I did state knowledge of some pros that claim to shoot RAW (we have some right here on FM that have made such claims, I can only assume that they are telling the truth). I was pointing out that making statements that seem to imply that all or virtually all pros shoot JPG based on a small amount of personal evidence can be misleading.
I used anecdotal evidence myself to point out the fallacy in that type of thinking; I obviously didn't do a very good job of making my point. Even if I provided a small subset of my own personal anecdotal evidence that I found pros that shoot RAW and none that shot JPG it would not lead me to imply that all or virtually all of them shoot RAW. I would expect a more comprehensive study than that from myself before advancing such notions.
Dwight ® wrote
I suspect that the number of the pros shooting RAW will be significantly higher.I know that I have read numerous reports about professionals that are shooting RAW only or RAW+JPG including quite a number here. To say or imply that no (or a vanishingly few) professionals shoot in the RAW format is something that I would like to see documented a bit past your anecdotal evidence; I have reason to suspect that just isn't the case.
I am not saying that all pros do or don't shoot JPG or RAW, I'll admit right now that I do NOT know and I never made or implied a such a claim; I did state knowledge of some pros that claim to shoot RAW (we have some right here on FM that have made such claims, I can only assume that they are telling the truth). I was pointing out that making statements that seem to imply that all or virtually all pros shoot JPG based on a small amount of personal evidence can be misleading.
I used anecdotal evidence myself to point out the fallacy in that type of thinking; I obviously didn't do a very good job of making my point. Even if I provided a small subset of my own personal anecdotal evidence that I found pros that shoot RAW and none that shot JPG it would not lead me to imply that all or virtually all of them shoot RAW. I would expect a more comprehensive study than that from myself before advancing such notions.
Apr 07, 2005 at 03:27 PM
p.4 #12I don't shoot raw!
NeoScales wrote:
As already noted - most cameras shoot RAW+JPG so you're saving what, 30 seconds by not shooting in that mode and batch converting. I understand it (not using RAW) as an exercise in discipline...but I don't buy it as a time saver.
How is it that people can claim such amazing benefits of shooting in RAW and at the same time claim that shooting raw takes no more than 15-30 extra seconds in PP than JPEG? When I shoot RAW it's because I know the white balance is wonky, the dynamic range is out of control, or there's something else about the shot that I know will require post processing time. I guarantee you RAW is costing me at least 5 minutes per image in those cases -- maybe as much as an hour depending on the situation. But it's worth the time for those particular shots.
Alternatively, what is the benefit of shooting everything RAW and then having to batch convert (without additional PP) just to get what you could have gotten by shooting JPEGs in the first place? Since most of my shooting is JPEG, there's no PP time at all. The difference between 15 seconds per image and 0 seconds per image is infinite. It's even more compelling when I come back from a busy day of shooting and I have 500 images with me. What's 7,500 seconds worth to me? A lot.
Once again, I recognize and appreciate the benefits of shooting RAW. But I also recognize and appreciate the benefits of shooting in JPEG. I pick the most appropriate format for what I'm doing. I would simply suggest that others shoot what they're most comfortable with.
As already noted - most cameras shoot RAW+JPG so you're saving what, 30 seconds by not shooting in that mode and batch converting. I understand it (not using RAW) as an exercise in discipline...but I don't buy it as a time saver.
How is it that people can claim such amazing benefits of shooting in RAW and at the same time claim that shooting raw takes no more than 15-30 extra seconds in PP than JPEG? When I shoot RAW it's because I know the white balance is wonky, the dynamic range is out of control, or there's something else about the shot that I know will require post processing time. I guarantee you RAW is costing me at least 5 minutes per image in those cases -- maybe as much as an hour depending on the situation. But it's worth the time for those particular shots.
Alternatively, what is the benefit of shooting everything RAW and then having to batch convert (without additional PP) just to get what you could have gotten by shooting JPEGs in the first place? Since most of my shooting is JPEG, there's no PP time at all. The difference between 15 seconds per image and 0 seconds per image is infinite. It's even more compelling when I come back from a busy day of shooting and I have 500 images with me. What's 7,500 seconds worth to me? A lot.
Once again, I recognize and appreciate the benefits of shooting RAW. But I also recognize and appreciate the benefits of shooting in JPEG. I pick the most appropriate format for what I'm doing. I would simply suggest that others shoot what they're most comfortable with.
Apr 07, 2005 at 03:35 PM
p.4 #13I don't shoot raw!
blah blah blah.... *yawnz*
I came here to surf to get away from my statistics homework, and now you guys are bringing it all up again...
Get a life dudes! Have you tried taking pictures lately?
I came here to surf to get away from my statistics homework, and now you guys are bringing it all up again...
Get a life dudes! Have you tried taking pictures lately?
Apr 07, 2005 at 03:36 PM
p.4 #14I don't shoot raw!
nutek wrote:
blah blah blah.... *yawnz*
I came here to surf to get away from my statistics homework, and now you guys are bringing it all up again...
Get a life dudes! Have you tried taking pictures lately?
Have you?
FWIW, I have. In fact I shot a roll of film yesterday in addition to a couple dozen digital images. I'm picking the prints up from the lab in about 10 minutes.
blah blah blah.... *yawnz*
I came here to surf to get away from my statistics homework, and now you guys are bringing it all up again...
Get a life dudes! Have you tried taking pictures lately?
Have you?
FWIW, I have. In fact I shot a roll of film yesterday in addition to a couple dozen digital images. I'm picking the prints up from the lab in about 10 minutes.
Apr 07, 2005 at 03:38 PM
p.4 #15I don't shoot raw!
moondigger wrote:
I came here to surf to get away from my statistics homework, and now you guys are bringing it all up again...
Get a life dudes! Have you tried taking pictures lately?Have you?
FWIW, I have. In fact I shot a roll of film yesterday in addition to a couple dozen digital images. I'm picking the prints up from the lab in about 10 minutes.
Nice! I'm putting a couple rolls of film thru my film cam too. It's nice to not have to worry about JPEG or RAW when you shoot film
nutek wrote
blah blah blah.... *yawnz*I came here to surf to get away from my statistics homework, and now you guys are bringing it all up again...
Get a life dudes! Have you tried taking pictures lately?
FWIW, I have. In fact I shot a roll of film yesterday in addition to a couple dozen digital images. I'm picking the prints up from the lab in about 10 minutes.
Nice! I'm putting a couple rolls of film thru my film cam too. It's nice to not have to worry about JPEG or RAW when you shoot film
Apr 07, 2005 at 03:43 PM
p.4 #16I don't shoot raw!
How is it that people can claim such amazing benefits of shooting in RAW and at the same time claim that shooting raw takes no more than 15-30 extra seconds in PP than JPEG?
You seem to have missed the subtle point I was making…
The original suggestion is that "I don't shoot raw!" and the supportive reasoning was that RAW takes too long to "mess with". My counter point was that you can shoot RAW+JPG. Then you have the RAW file available for the unique adjustments that can be made in that format, should you ever need to do so.
Now the time issue is simply this - you can extract a 100 embedded JPG's in just moments. Now at that point you're exactly where you would have been if you'd just shot the JPG. So saying that keeping a RAW file available is too much trouble is silly, and akin to saying putting your film negatives away is too much work (yes I know RAW file aren’t exactly negatives, but the analogy works).
JFTR - It takes me maybe, 1-2 minutes to go over a given RAW file before rendering the TIFF and opening it in PS for any further PP.
You seem to have missed the subtle point I was making…
The original suggestion is that "I don't shoot raw!" and the supportive reasoning was that RAW takes too long to "mess with". My counter point was that you can shoot RAW+JPG. Then you have the RAW file available for the unique adjustments that can be made in that format, should you ever need to do so.
Now the time issue is simply this - you can extract a 100 embedded JPG's in just moments. Now at that point you're exactly where you would have been if you'd just shot the JPG. So saying that keeping a RAW file available is too much trouble is silly, and akin to saying putting your film negatives away is too much work (yes I know RAW file aren’t exactly negatives, but the analogy works).
JFTR - It takes me maybe, 1-2 minutes to go over a given RAW file before rendering the TIFF and opening it in PS for any further PP.
Apr 07, 2005 at 03:52 PM
lurple
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.4 #17I don't shoot raw!
moondigger wrote:
b]Dwight ® wrote:
Anecdotal evidence ...
Snipped for brevity
My contention (although I obviously have done a horrible job of presenting it) was not that professionals do or don't shoot JPGs, but rather that making statements that seem to imply such in either direction and that are based on anecdotal evidence are suspect at best. Teribas' statement seemed to be such an implication to me and you responded to my reply to him with another statement that appeared to be an attempt to buttress his statement. I am not saying that either one of you meant any such implication, but nonetheless that is what I saw.
At any rate, I am done with this posting in this thread as I am obviosuly totally incapable of making my point in an intelligible manner.
b]Dwight ® wrote:
Anecdotal evidence ...
Snipped for brevity
My contention (although I obviously have done a horrible job of presenting it) was not that professionals do or don't shoot JPGs, but rather that making statements that seem to imply such in either direction and that are based on anecdotal evidence are suspect at best. Teribas' statement seemed to be such an implication to me and you responded to my reply to him with another statement that appeared to be an attempt to buttress his statement. I am not saying that either one of you meant any such implication, but nonetheless that is what I saw.
At any rate, I am done with this posting in this thread as I am obviosuly totally incapable of making my point in an intelligible manner.
Apr 07, 2005 at 03:58 PM
p.4 #18I don't shoot raw!
I don't shoot raw either when I am on assignment with tight deadline.
Apr 07, 2005 at 04:03 PM
p.4 #20I don't shoot raw!
If you have the CF space, I guess one could shoot RAW+highest quality jpeg, extract all the jpegs from the RAW files, then delete all the RAW files where the jpeg for that file came out the way you wanted it. It's a fail safe plan but you still have to deal with slow write times on a 10D era camera.
Apr 07, 2005 at 04:07 PM