p.2 #1 · 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.
p.2 #2 · 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......Show more →
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
p.2 #3 · 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.
p.2 #5 · 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......Show more →
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.
p.2 #6 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer
There are valid reasons for shooting RAW; yet there are valid ones for jpg as well. A local studio uses jpg for their senior portraits. They also test images continually. They tie knots in a string attached to the lights and know, from those tests, which not to use - precisely measuring the distance from the light to the subject. They get top results, and processing the jpgs takes less time, therefore, save processing costs. That's an old trick that still works.
p.2 #7 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer
This was not ever meant to be "the bible" of raw processing, for that you need to look else where, this was only meant to point out some of the, at least what I think, key reasons to choose RAW...
p.2 #8 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer
atufte wrote:
This was not ever meant to be "the bible" of raw processing, for that you need to look else where, this was only meant to point out some of the, at least what I think, key reasons to choose RAW...
p.2 #11 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer
True not the bible but mawz is actually correct and the blog should probably be updated or we'll all have to explain it over and over for people here and on other sites.
mawz wrote:
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.
I don't know of any cameras that create an actual 16 bit "half" or 32 bit HDR. I hear of prototypes here and there though. Maybe there are now as I haven't looked recently. I like to explain it with the staircase metaphor. Where the floors are the luminance values:
* JPEG 8bpp is a staircase from the ground floor to the 1st floor with fewer steps.
* RAW 12, 14, and 15 bpp as well as 16bit tiff, and JPEG 2000 16 bpp, is a staircase from the ground floor to the 1st floor with MANY steps.
* 16 bpp HDR (very rare actually and mostly one encapsulated in game data for dynamic lighting and etc.) is a staircase from B2 to the 2nd floor with very many steps.
*32 bpp HDR is a staircase from B5 to the 5th floor with very very many steps.
p.2 #12 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer
Graham Mitchell wrote:
DR and bit depth are unrelated. I stopped reading the article after that first colossal blunder.
IT IS related, so keep reading...if not, why on earth do we get heavy problems regaining blown out highlights in shots of let's say mountains with a lot of sky in it with a JPEG which is on the other hand a piece of cake with the same picture in RAW, this is because you have a lot more bit depth, and with this gain a lot of more data in the highlights, which again makes it possible to regain... the same goes the other way, with heavy shadows, much easier to regain in RAW...but if you have another word for what makes this possible, please let me know...
Feb 07, 2010 at 03:36 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.2 #13 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer
atufte wrote:
IT IS related, so keep reading...if not, why on earth do we get heavy problems regaining blown out highlights in shots of let's say mountains with a lot of sky in it with a JPEG which is on the other hand a piece of cake with the same picture in RAW, this is because you have a lot more bit depth, and with this gain a lot of more data in the highlights, which again makes it possible to regain... the same goes the other way, with heavy shadows, much easier to regain in RAW...but if you have another word for what makes this possible, please let me know......Show more →
Haha - no, that's because you have your jpeg contrast set too high. Correct exposure and minimum contrast in jpeg mode won't get you much less DR than a raw especially if you want to keep highlight colours real.
p.2 #14 · 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. 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....Show more →
I ask this only out of curiousity.... but why 4000 images from one job. Did you shoot the same when shooting with film - pre-digital days?
I am not a working professional photographer and I ask only to better understand why so many images need to be taken on a single job.
p.2 #15 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer
atufte wrote:
IT IS related, so keep reading...if not, why on earth do we get heavy problems regaining blown out highlights.
It's the number of steps thing again. Imagine that in an 8 bit JPEG that we have just one step from the whitest white in the cloud to the next level down in the grey scale. When we scrunch up or stretch out the curve we get clipping and it "blows out" or bands. Now imagine that the same single step (between those same two levels) is divided into thousands of steps (shades). Now when we modify that curve - whala, no clipping and no blowing-out. That's RAW (12, 14, 15 bpp) and common tiff type 16bpp files.
But the whitest white in this example is still 255,255,255 (100%) white and it can't get any "brighter". Introducing HDR! Tadaa.. With it's "dynamic range" the whitest white (for example) can be 200% or more. There are more "floors" in the building (higher levels in the image). With standard range images the first floor is as high as the building goes - period - it's impossible to go to the 2nd floor because there isn't one. See?
So (non-hdr) 16 bpp files have a MUCH MUCH finer resolution (greater number of divisions) between 0,0,0, and 255,255,255 (0% and 100%). Dynamic range then is additionally lower slash higher values than 0,0,0 (0%) slash 255,255,255 (100%) respectively.
p.2 #16 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer
I have another question - something I've never tried: Does a RAW-converted-to-JPG from a computer give the same result as straight-out-of-camera JPG?
If that's the case, I'd say simply shoot RAW only, batch-process everything to JPG and use those to edit. Then you'll have a RAW to fall back on if JPG doesn't cut it. I realize this requires more disc space, but only temporary: if you're happy with your final edit, trash the rest.
p.2 #17 · 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......Show more →
I think Ken Rockwell has been brought up because he is very vocal about his preference for jpgs and sometimes people like to make fun of him. I don't think it's directed at your post.
The ease of changing WB is indeed the most important raw feature to me. Most of the time, the desired white is not pure neutral white. Just sharing why I use raw. Whether it makes any sense to anyone is not up to me to decide.
p.2 #18 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer
Marcel VanEerd wrote:
I have another question - something I've never tried: Does a RAW-converted-to-JPG from a computer give the same result as straight-out-of-camera JPG?
Usually pretty damn close, yes. The differences are between the demosaicing, color space profiles, sharpening, contrast, and etc. algorithms the camera's rendering engine uses compared to those contained in whatever software you're using. Typically software does a better job but there may be some exceptions.
p.2 #19 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer
Bifurcator wrote:
Usually pretty damn close, yes. The differences are between the demosaicing, color space profiles, sharpening, contrast, and etc. algorithms the camera's rendering engine uses compared to those contained in whatever software you're using. Typically software does a better job but there may be some exceptions.
This is like others already mentioned camera specific, i can get wonderful JPEG's out of my 5D MKII but if i use my Leica M8, i'm loose enormous amounts of data shooting JPEG...
p.2 #20 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer
Yeah, I don't know what cameras are as good, better, or worse than something like Capture One Pro for example. You say the Leica isn't very good at it huh? That's interesting.
, 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...