Jim Sykes
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
The arrogance and elitist attitude is not Teriba saying that "real pros shoot jpges" or that in saying that "if you are good enough to get it right in camera then you dont need RAW."
The arrogance is found in many RAW shooters that insinuate or flat out imply that anyone shooting jpeg is not as good as they are and doesnt care about quality like they do or are not getting the most out of their photography like the RAW shooter does.
I have come on this board for awhile now and it seems to crop up more than ocassionally that RAW is just the greatest thing known to man and that if you are not shooting it you are an idiot.
I think that moondigger, Teriba, others and myself would argue that as the elitist attitude and that it sounds like RAW shooters trying to be above all others because they have "seen the light" and are at the epitome of digital post processing.
Fact - RAW does provide and capture more data than jpeg
Fact - You can 'save' more photos shot in RAW than you can in jpeg
Fact - That even if you capture a 12 bit RAW file, before its printed on 99% of the printers is converted bacy to 8 bits, thereby losing some of the benefits of your original RAW file.
Fact - A well exposed jpeg file taken with all the right settings and compared against a print of a RAW file that was processed with the same settings will look virtually identical in print and I would put money on the fact that no one here could tell the difference.
I've argued this same argument with people that insist that an 8mp camera is better than a 6 or a 4. If in the end, when that photo is put into its final form, be it print, web, billboard, whatever, if the client and the viewers cannot tell whether it was captured in RAW, jpeg, on a 16mp camera or a 4, then none of that really matters at all.
There are certainly benefits for shooting RAW, not going to argue that. There have been more than a couple times when I screwed up a wb and wished I had shot it in RAW. But I have done the tests and I know many other very well paid photographers that have done the same. When I put a properly taken jpeg next to a properly taken RAW file, the differences are neglibable at very best. I have found that the ONLY advantage to RAW is saving files not shot right to begin with. I dont see any difference in what RAW can do if they are shot well to start with. So it comes down to RAW being solely to save images, imo. For me, to be able to salvage one or two shots in 10,000 is not worth the hassle of working with RAW.
Also this BS about a digital negative is just that BS. My jpeg files are also digital negatives and I can go back and re-process them however I might need to as many times as I might need to, just as you can re-print a film negative as many times as you need to. And every time I can adjust contrast, sharpness, burn, dodge, color, and even adjust slight WB issues, just as I could do it with RAW or with film. RAW is no more of a digital negative than a jpeg is, the neg is what comes out of your camera and if its a jpeg so be it, if its RAW great. Its the same as using Velvia vs. Portra vs. Tri-X, vs. Superia 400. All come out of the camera differently than the other, but all are the negative you are left with after its out of the camera. Just like digital, if its sRGB, Adobe RGB, jpeg, RAW, 0 sharpening or 4 sharpening. All come out of the camera differently and all are the resulting negative you are left to work with. Its how you work with them and what you put on paper that matters in the end.
In the end my decision has to do with the quality of the images I provide. I have just as high a standards as many RAW shooters, maybe higher than some. Its not about choosing to not provide the best for me or my client, its about providing them he best and not wasting time or space on something that I do not believe will allow me to provide them with anything better than I already do.
That is not being elitist, that is not going along with another pro, that is a decision based on experience and I am no lesser of a photographer or less concerned with quality than anyone else that shoots RAW. The only thing that has bearing on a lesser or greater photographer is what comes out in that final print. If RAW makes that print better for you, great, if you can do it just as well with jpeg, why the hell not?
|
