New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 4 end

Archive 2010 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

atufte
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

http://www.galerielux.com/?p=353

Feb 06, 2010 at 11:23 PM

cputeq
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

Thread explosion in 3..2..1..

Feb 06, 2010 at 11:28 PM

trenchmonkey
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

where's that raspberry emoticon

Feb 06, 2010 at 11:35 PM

AhamB
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

cputeq wrote:
Thread explosion in 3..2..1..

Why? I'd think that among alt users there are not that many Ken Rockwells/jpeg proponents?

Feb 06, 2010 at 11:47 PM

cogitech
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

Thank God, Allah, and Buddha this isn't a Ken Rockwell thread.

Or, is it too late...?

Feb 06, 2010 at 11:57 PM

SHVv
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

I think that I am missing the hidden message in this topic. All that I know is that when I go back in my LR files to a nice image that I shot JPEG six years ago and want to "improve" it, I kick myself for not shooting RAW.

Steve

Feb 07, 2010 at 12:17 AM

brainiac
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.1 #7 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

Shooting raw has hurt my business because it has dramatically prolonged the wait. What used to take a few hours now takes days. That turns my customers off. These days my workflow involves delivering jpegs from the raw files with no alteration, but keeping the raws anyway. But the volume of data is out of control. 4000 21 Mpixel raws from one job is affordable in terms of disc space, but unmanageable in terms of access to all the material. I am constantly under my desk shuffling RAIDS. Something has to give. I remember with great affection the days of only shooting JPEG. The example given in the article is just heavily underexposed. You couldn't do that with slide film, so why expect to get away with it now? There are still plenty of applications where JPEG is more than adequate and more efficient.

Feb 07, 2010 at 01:09 AM

makron
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

I shoot raw solely for the ease of changing WB. I'm still quite weak in mix lighting situation.

I'm ok with Ken Rockwell's preference for jpgs as well as anyone's preference for raws. One man's meat is another man's poison.

Feb 07, 2010 at 01:32 AM

RustyBug
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

I think Richard's point of 'adequate' & 'efficient' are worthily noted ... but for optimum IQ and creation to artistic taste / style, RAW is 'hard to beat' in the hands of talented PP (striving to be one some day

) ... which is probably why I shoot RAW + med jpgs.

Feb 07, 2010 at 01:41 AM

DocsPics
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

"You should always shoot RAW" OK, that was pretty informative.

How about a few more:

You should always turn the camera on before shooting
You should always have camera batteries with charge in them
You should always take off the lens cap before taking a picture
You should always have a memory card of some sort in the camera (unless of course your using a film camera in which case be sure to have some film)
You should always try to hold the camera steady when photographing

Let's see, did I leave out any other trade secrets?

Feb 07, 2010 at 01:55 AM

AhamB
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

brainiac wrote:
The example given in the article is just heavily underexposed. You couldn't do that with slide film, so why expect to get away with it now?

Why the comparison with slide film? Isn't RAW development like developing negative film where you have the option to push it when you underexposed? A JPEG doesn't give you this option because it's developed at the exposure setting of the camera. On the other hand you can simply do more chimping with JPEG but chimping doesn't always give you a better shot (better exposed but less aesthetic value).

Feb 07, 2010 at 01:57 AM

pingflood
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

AhamB wrote:
brainiac wrote:
The example given in the article is just heavily underexposed. You couldn't do that with slide film, so why expect to get away with it now?

Why the comparison with slide film? Isn't RAW development like developing negative film where you have the option to push it when you underexposed? A JPEG doesn't give you this option because it's developed at the exposure setting of the camera. On the other hand you can simply do more chimping with JPEG but chimping doesn't always give you a better shot (better exposed but less aesthetic value).

Well, unless you intentionally underexposed you wouldn't know to opt to push it during development.

Feb 07, 2010 at 02:50 AM

philip_pj
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

One of the modern day conumdrums is that amateurs shooting low volume can afford RAW and work like an artist in post; whereas pros (esp. wedding guys) must use jpg for high volume applications and rely on batch processing their settings. I do feel for them, in days of yore the lab had all the settings absolutely right for colour negs, and the results were spectacular in many/most cases.

WB is still a problem with differences appearing in the various environs for one wedding - outside portraits, church interior, reception hall, etc.

RAw is not like any film process, IMHO. RAW is the reason I shoot digital now. It's pretty analogous to E6 645/67 in terms of post-processing, minus the scanning chore.

The article is wafer thin re the benefits and advantages of RAW, also. KR would be proud.

Feb 07, 2010 at 03:28 AM

Marcel VanEerd
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

brainiac wrote:
(snip) .. Shooting raw has hurt my business because it has dramatically prolonged the wait. What used to take a few hours now takes days. That turns my customers off. These days my workflow involves delivering jpegs from the raw files with no alteration, but keeping the raws anyway. But the volume of data is out of control. 4000 21 Mpixel raws from one job is affordable in terms of disc space, but unmanageable in terms of access to all the material. (/snip).

I have a solution... find some fabulously low priced and great 1D classics - a LOT less file space

Feb 07, 2010 at 03:39 AM

jianghai_ho
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

I remember years ago the comparison being made that shooting raw is similar to shooting color neg and jpeg is similar to shooting color slide (which was mentioned above).

The reason I hear many people giving for shooting RAW so that they can "fix it in post" and I don't subscribe to that. It's true that RAW gives one more room for pulling back high dynamic range scenes, probably slightly better resolution, etc etc but the storage and processing requirements are through the roof for that benefit, at least for me.

Also... JPEG is now somewhat of a universal standard. In 20-30 years, I would venture that we'd see at least some RAW formats lost to the wilderness as far as readers go, while JPEGS might still stand a chance of surviving.

Just my 2c

Feb 07, 2010 at 05:23 AM

systemlayers
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

Shoot both if you're not a sports/event photographer?
That's what i do...

Feb 07, 2010 at 05:31 AM

atufte
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

Feb 07, 2010 at 10:13 AM

Toothwalker
Online
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

Feb 07, 2010 at 10:38 AM

atufte
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

Why all this comparing with Ken Rockwell...

Feb 07, 2010 at 10:47 AM

David Baldwin
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

Well, what galerielux says in his article is true, basically. Of course he appears to underplay the more positive reason for using RAW, that it makes the best use of the tones coming off the sensor, so if you nail exposure perfectly you will have the richest possible print.

Bluntly, in the real world for 90% of photographers the biggest advantage of RAW is that it will tolerate more post processing before falling apart as the article suggests. For example heavy Levels work in Photoshop will probably cause a jpeg to reveal its limited colour budget, just a matter of whether the practical degradation of the image actually shows on your prints.

I agree that the big drawback of RAW is that handing lots of files is a big problem, particularly for social photographers like Bainiac who need to shoot alot, perhaps with other photographers/assistants for all I know, I just hope that the bandwidth (or whatever you call it) in the next generation of computers improves to make up some of the deficit so that RAW can be processed and saved out faster. Perhaps both Apple and PC manufacturers could concentrate on this aspect of computing, something that would make a real difference to lots of us.

Speaking personally I shoot alot of night work, and getting exposure perfect is not straightforward, for example during a 5 minute shot clouds could unexpectedly cover the moon and I must estimate a time correction. In those circumstances using jpeg would be madness, less wriggle room later. But if I am using studio flash and can nail exposure absolutely perfectly, then the RAW vs jpeg advantage might shift towards jpeg as no post is envisaged and the smaller files are easier to deal with.

One day computing will speed up enough to allow us to process RAW as fast as we currently process jpeg, then this argument will end. RAW will rule.

Feb 07, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Bifurcator
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #21 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

brainiac wrote:
Shooting raw has hurt my business because it has dramatically prolonged the wait. What used to take a few hours now takes days. That turns my customers off. These days my workflow involves delivering jpegs from the raw files with no alteration, but keeping the raws anyway. But the volume of data is out of control. 4000 21 Mpixel raws from one job is affordable in terms of disc space, but unmanageable in terms of access to all the material.

Toothwalker wrote:
4000 raws from one job? Wow. A total of 1500 raws has accumulated on my disk in the course of four years. But then I am not a professional shooter and only keep what's worth keeping.

Yeah 4000 is a lot I think for a one-day job. If indeed it's a one-day job. Just since November 30th 2009 (10 weeks) I've taken 2,600 shots though - all RAW. About 2/3 to 3/4 of my shots are keepers and get processed. Some are just fun little things I that I trash after processing and sending out or posting. Anyway, I'm just a retired hobbyist so if I can do 260 shots a week on average then I can see a lot more than that for a working guy like our friend The Brain here.

BTW, I think I'm convinced that the only way to "manage" the volume (when it's that big) is screen real-estate! Just for my uses I have to use dual monitors and Apple's "Spaces". If I were working at triple or quadruple this volume I would want four to six 24" ~ 26" monitors in a semi-circle around my editing bay. Only one or two of them need to be ColorEdge quality monitors - the others can be $400 el'cheap-o's.

atufte,
Don't take it so hard. Lately this place has gone down-hill a bit. People pipping up and acting as agents of confusion when they don't really know what they're talking about (or just being inconsiderate slash rude) seems to be getting more and more common. But don't drop out my brother, just put on your thick-skin suit, your humor hat, and locate the "HIDE ME" button.

It was a good tip! Thanks!

Feb 07, 2010 at 11:34 AM

biotar
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #22 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

atufte wrote:
Why all this comparing with Ken Rockwell...

, this article was made just to point out the real benefits of shooting raw, not only that you can change WB easier, like so many people refers to as the most important RAW feature, which to me is totally bollocks, since you can just use the grey picker in "levels" in PS, and it does exactly the same with your JPEG's...

I do not feel this is fair, but since it bothers you guys so much, that i post this "wafer thin article"
i will not post anything like this again, trying to give a friendly tip is obviously not always the right thing, at least not here...

You are right, many reactions are of a very childish nature. I find this very indecent and disappointing.

I must admit I initially felt the same sentiment as docspics: at first glance this thesis seems to be rhetorical and in nature seems unnecessary topic. -mind that this doesn't legitimate childish reactions, a civilised option would be ignoring such a thread-

THEN Brainiac comes with a personal and good reason to base shooting on JPEG: for a wedding I once had to shoot over 1300 photo's in four hours (total of two cameras). This has to do with the nature of the event, e.g.: you really wouldn't want to miss the kiss at the ceremony, or end up with a photo that is disgusting. You also wouldn't want to restage this kiss or rearrange it, as this ruins the atmosphere on the wedding.

For the other types of photography I always use raw. My main motivation is one that may also come from Brainiac: It simply offers more resolution, color depth and so on, which enables me to offer more to my clients or myself (stopped doing assignments because of my study).

For weddings I'd like to have a camera with an enourmous buffer to shoot raw and JPEG simultaniously, without my buffer or cards clogging up (and throw away most of the raw pictures afterwards).

-edit: David, read your post too late (took me too long to write mine

) I agree with your points

Feb 07, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Spyro P.
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #23 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

After a couple of years of learning, experimenting and polishing up my post processing skills, I realised that it requires a special kind of talent, akin to a painter's talent, to "work like an artist in post". Many people think they have it, but in reality they're way out of their league. I see photos everyday on the internet that burn my retina. I know now I dont have that talent, so I keep it simple. If I want super-saturated colours/contrast, I just pick a canned solution by Kodak (yes, film) that has been around for ever and I know it works and I'm not gonna wake up a month later thinking what kind of drugs I was on when I was working that photo "like an artist".

"Fix it in post", ie push an underexposed photo, yep I understand that but I feel I dont need it either. It's a digital photo, if it looks too dark on the LCD I just shoot it again. Bottom line is all I do in post is I might dodge/burn a little, maybe push half a stop or so, and jpeg can take that. Life is simple, life is easy.

Feb 07, 2010 at 12:53 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #24 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

O.K. I'm convinced now. I'll shoot RAW from now on.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Feb 07, 2010 at 01:09 PM

mawz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #25 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer

atufte wrote:
Why all this comparing with Ken Rockwell...

, this article was made just to point out the real benefits of shooting raw, not only that you can change WB easier, like so many people refers to as the most important RAW feature, which to me is totally bollocks, since you can just use the grey picker in "levels" in PS, and it does exactly the same with your JPEG's...

I do not feel this is fair, but since it bothers you guys so much, that i post this "wafer thin article"
i will not post anything like this again, trying to give a friendly tip is obviously not always the right thing, at least not here...

I stopped at the second paragraph when I hit the first major technical error.

RAW does NOT necessarily provide more Dynamic Range. It depends strongly on the camera used and the JPEG profile chosen. What the extra bit depth of RAW provides is finer resolution of the dynamic range, which primarily gives you more room to manipulate that data without running into posterization. If you have a camera that delivers 10 stops of DR, you can represent that as 256 different levels in 8 bit JPEG, 65,536 levels in a true 16bit file, or 4096 levels in a 12 bit RAW file. But you're still getting the same 10 stops of DR. Your description of the results of excessive editing of a JPEG are however accurate. However you ignore the inherent problems with doing the sort of editing you suggest (bringing up the levels in the example you provide to cope with severe underexposure introduces other problems. RAW is no substitute for getting the exposure right in camera).

Note this is a fairly thin article that covers only one aspect of RAW's advantages and one that is only significant if you do a fair bit of manipulation in post. You are ignoring the colour management aspects (RAW allows you to use a fully-profiled workflow, including conversion profiles specific to individual cameras), the improved detail due to better optimization of demosaicing and sharpening that's possible with more powerful systems, the ability to pick a demosaicing algorithm on a per-image basis by switching converters, the ability to increase dynamic range via HDR and single-image pseudo-HDR, the improved noise control possible with certain converters, etc.

Feb 07, 2010 at 01:24 PM


FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 end