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!
lurple
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #1I don't shoot raw!
teriba wrote:
erm ....duck?
It's the truth.
I believe that is the truth as you see it and in your experience. I would suggest that perhaps your experience is not a scientific sampling of a wide range of professionals in many different types of photography (not to mention that what your definition of a pro is might not be the same as others). If you are confining you numbers just to PJ/sport/etc. type of work then I have little doubt that a high percentage shoot all or mostly JPG. 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.
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.
paulhodson wrote
teriba wrote
I've found that it's mostly only internet message board geeks who shoot RAW. Most come for a technology background, as opposed to a photography background. I, and every single pro I've ever met and shot with, shoot only JPEG. It's the truth.I believe that is the truth as you see it and in your experience. I would suggest that perhaps your experience is not a scientific sampling of a wide range of professionals in many different types of photography (not to mention that what your definition of a pro is might not be the same as others). If you are confining you numbers just to PJ/sport/etc. type of work then I have little doubt that a high percentage shoot all or mostly JPG. 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.
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.
Apr 07, 2005 at 10:04 AM
p.3 #2I don't shoot raw!
PJ style work, some sports, and extreem tight deadlines + JPEG (let the flaming begin)
Portrait, landscape, and the other important stuff, shoot RAW, save as TIFF for archive.
Portrait, landscape, and the other important stuff, shoot RAW, save as TIFF for archive.
Apr 07, 2005 at 10:05 AM
p.3 #3I don't shoot raw!
setiprime wrote:
There is an idiot savant from Madagascar, that offers a free trial (good for two years) package. I wil PM you the address. Keep in mind that the RAW pixels are opposite of what you want, so you will have to figure each pixels' reciprocal value and apply it on a one-to-one basis.
Just be careful, I got the LE version of the software and it was saving all the lost pixels to the SD card while the rest of the JPEG went on the CF card in my MKII. Fortunately I was able to set up an action in PS for pixel reciprocity and replacement.
There is an idiot savant from Madagascar, that offers a free trial (good for two years) package. I wil PM you the address. Keep in mind that the RAW pixels are opposite of what you want, so you will have to figure each pixels' reciprocal value and apply it on a one-to-one basis.
Just be careful, I got the LE version of the software and it was saving all the lost pixels to the SD card while the rest of the JPEG went on the CF card in my MKII. Fortunately I was able to set up an action in PS for pixel reciprocity and replacement.
Apr 07, 2005 at 10:07 AM
p.3 #4I don't shoot raw!
I shoot with the 10D. Write times are VERY slow shooting RAW+jpeg. In a fast shooting situation, I never use RAW. I also never use RAW for people shots where I have the time to get the settings correct. The eeny weeny teensy tiny little bit of extra quality the RAW file would give me would never be seen in any print, no matter how large I printed it.
For landscapes, however, I will shoot RAW on occasion, but still prefer jpeg. It's just a preference. I hate having to go through the whole conversion process in Photoshop before I can really get a good look at the file. To each their own. . .
Russ was correct in that there is virturally NO difference in a file saved by the camera as a superfine jpeg and one converted from RAW to a Tiff. You can go to the pixel level and they will be almost identical.
For landscapes, however, I will shoot RAW on occasion, but still prefer jpeg. It's just a preference. I hate having to go through the whole conversion process in Photoshop before I can really get a good look at the file. To each their own. . .
Russ was correct in that there is virturally NO difference in a file saved by the camera as a superfine jpeg and one converted from RAW to a Tiff. You can go to the pixel level and they will be almost identical.
Apr 07, 2005 at 10:08 AM
p.3 #5I don't shoot raw!
Shoot whatever you like - why is there a need to debate in the first place?
Apr 07, 2005 at 11:16 AM
p.3 #7I don't shoot raw!
I would set up an experiment to demonstrate this, but all images destined for web display would be JPEGs anyway. You can try it yourself. Take a photo with your camera set to RAW + Large JPEG. Make sure it's a properly-exposed photo in decent light and that the color temperature setting is appropriate. Convert the RAW file to TIFF using the same exact settings in the Canon RAW converter that you had the camera set for to produce the JPEG, then compare the two photos at 100% in Photoshop. Even better would be if somebody else did this part and...Show more →
An alternative, less subjective test would be to overlay the JPG image on top of the RAW-converted image in Photoshop and set the blending mode to difference. This will reveal which pixels are different.
Apr 07, 2005 at 11:28 AM
p.3 #8I don't shoot raw!
"no detectible difference between raw and jpg"
Some people can dine on a can of off-brand ravioli for lunch in the afternoon and be completely satisfied. Others can dine at a four star restaurant in Paris, note subtle variations in spices used in their meal since the last time they ate there, and be annoyed.
This does not mean that one taste is "right" and the other is "wrong"--it just depends on your own tolerances. I'm picky and whenever feasible want the best, even if its only the theoretical best, and make no apologies for it. On the other hand, I'm not a pro and don't need to worry about time=money when it comes to the photos I take.
While there is no doubt that the differences between raw and jpg under some conditions are not detectible, there is also no doubt that in other conditions there is a visible difference.
If I get to chose the conditions under which a photo is taken, I'll take the bet about not being able to tell the difference between raw and jpg any day.
Rob
Some people can dine on a can of off-brand ravioli for lunch in the afternoon and be completely satisfied. Others can dine at a four star restaurant in Paris, note subtle variations in spices used in their meal since the last time they ate there, and be annoyed.
This does not mean that one taste is "right" and the other is "wrong"--it just depends on your own tolerances. I'm picky and whenever feasible want the best, even if its only the theoretical best, and make no apologies for it. On the other hand, I'm not a pro and don't need to worry about time=money when it comes to the photos I take.
While there is no doubt that the differences between raw and jpg under some conditions are not detectible, there is also no doubt that in other conditions there is a visible difference.
If I get to chose the conditions under which a photo is taken, I'll take the bet about not being able to tell the difference between raw and jpg any day.
Rob
Apr 07, 2005 at 11:33 AM
p.3 #9I don't shoot raw!
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.
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.
I know that I have read numerous reports about professionals that are shooting RAW only or RAW+JPG including quite a number here.
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.
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.
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.
I know that I have read numerous reports about professionals that are shooting RAW only or RAW+JPG including quite a number here.
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.
Apr 07, 2005 at 11:37 AM
p.3 #10I don't shoot raw!
Why would Canon offer RAW if it wasn't better. RAW is 12bit per channel, JPG is 8bit per channel. This means that gradients will be handled better in the file. This means that RAW can store 4096 shades of red versus 256 shades of red. I highly doubt they are offering it to appease the geeks. There's a reason why it's 3X larger than JPG.
I don't buy the idea of people who shoot JPG are inherently better at exposing correctly the first time around. I can undertand work flow issues and using JPG. That's 1 step less( or ~15 seconds an exposure per image shot depending on their processor). The only thing JPG offers over RAW is time saved and storage.
I don't buy the idea of people who shoot JPG are inherently better at exposing correctly the first time around. I can undertand work flow issues and using JPG. That's 1 step less( or ~15 seconds an exposure per image shot depending on their processor). The only thing JPG offers over RAW is time saved and storage.
Apr 07, 2005 at 12:06 PM
p.3 #11I don't shoot raw!
I shoot raw because there is a lot more leeway in editing. Not only from white balance correction but color correction. And JPG being 8 bit looks terrible after curves are adjusted in shadow areas. 16-bit images are much easier to work with . Why take away from the cameras potential when you can take it so much further? Shoot JPG + RAW and pick the one you like. For me the choice is a no brainer. I will take RAW over JPG any day. With MAGNE's profiles for my 10d V2 I am one happy camper. The "PRO" here that posted above is pretty ignorant to think everyone who takes pictures is a photojournalist. Newspapers dont require high quality. They are half toned and generally lower resolution. So if we are geeks on forums why do you come on those same forums?? Or is it in your nature to TROLL discussion boards.
Edited by thepiecesfit on Apr 07, 2005 at 04:48 PM GMT
Edited by thepiecesfit on Apr 07, 2005 at 04:48 PM GMT
Apr 07, 2005 at 12:07 PM
p.3 #12I don't shoot raw!
metalstorm wrote:
Why would Canon offer RAW if it wasn't better.
Who said it wasn't better? It's obviously a better choice if you're going to mess with the file later, or when the color balance is wonky, or... pick a reason. That doesn't mean it's enough better for most situations that it's worth the time for many photographers. What matters is the print. If the print is good, it doesn't matter how you got there.
RAW is 12bit per channel, JPG is 8bit per channel. This means that gradients will be handled better in the file. This means that RAW can store 4096 shades of red versus 256 shades of red.
You're missing the point here. 8 bits per primary means 24 bits per pixel. 24 bits = 16.8 million colors. Humans cannot discern two 24 bit colors separated by only the value of the least significant bit, and no printer or photographic paper in the world can handle the full range of a 24 bit image. The advantage of 12 bits per pixel is not in the output -- it's to avoid posterization when doing heavy editing in a file. When it's time for the output, you're dropping to 8 bits per pixel anyway.
I highly doubt they are offering it to appease the geeks.
They are offering it to please those who would benefit from it.
I don't buy the idea of people who shoot JPG are inherently better at exposing correctly the first time around.
Who said they were? It's not that people who shoot JPEG are inherently better at exposure. It's that IF you can nail exposure in-camera there is less of a need to shoot RAW. That doesn't mean somebody who nails exposure every time can't shoot RAW if they want to.
Why would Canon offer RAW if it wasn't better.
Who said it wasn't better? It's obviously a better choice if you're going to mess with the file later, or when the color balance is wonky, or... pick a reason. That doesn't mean it's enough better for most situations that it's worth the time for many photographers. What matters is the print. If the print is good, it doesn't matter how you got there.
RAW is 12bit per channel, JPG is 8bit per channel. This means that gradients will be handled better in the file. This means that RAW can store 4096 shades of red versus 256 shades of red.
You're missing the point here. 8 bits per primary means 24 bits per pixel. 24 bits = 16.8 million colors. Humans cannot discern two 24 bit colors separated by only the value of the least significant bit, and no printer or photographic paper in the world can handle the full range of a 24 bit image. The advantage of 12 bits per pixel is not in the output -- it's to avoid posterization when doing heavy editing in a file. When it's time for the output, you're dropping to 8 bits per pixel anyway.
I highly doubt they are offering it to appease the geeks.
They are offering it to please those who would benefit from it.
I don't buy the idea of people who shoot JPG are inherently better at exposing correctly the first time around.
Who said they were? It's not that people who shoot JPEG are inherently better at exposure. It's that IF you can nail exposure in-camera there is less of a need to shoot RAW. That doesn't mean somebody who nails exposure every time can't shoot RAW if they want to.
Apr 07, 2005 at 12:24 PM
p.3 #13I don't shoot raw!
NUTEK - It's not a matter of need - It's a matter of type "A" personalities.
see my deadly serious comments on pages 2 & 4
see my deadly serious comments on pages 2 & 4
Apr 07, 2005 at 12:30 PM
p.3 #14I don't shoot raw!
Another point is that most newspapers do not need really high resolution - they are printing on newsprint. The jpegs process faster, etc. One newspaper I know uses 20D with Tamron 28-300 lens. It is a lens that doesn't get much respect here (not even in the reviews), but takes shots good enough for the newspaper reporters.
Keep in mind the output - two page color spread in Sports Illustrated, or a report on the local town meeting and high school football team on newsprint. I doubt anyone can see the difference in L glass contrast, color, and sharpness in a typical B&W newspaper print.
Keep in mind the output - two page color spread in Sports Illustrated, or a report on the local town meeting and high school football team on newsprint. I doubt anyone can see the difference in L glass contrast, color, and sharpness in a typical B&W newspaper print.
Apr 07, 2005 at 12:36 PM
p.3 #15I don't shoot raw!
Of course they don't shoot RAW. Sports shooters/photojournalists take the shot and send it off to whomever.
I shoot RAW, because I've already proved to myself that RAW captures more detail than a jpeg, and I don't worry about white balance while shooting.
It's simple: You bought a digital SLR with a sensor that captures an X amount of high quality pixels, and if you shoot JPEG, you're simply not squeezing out that extra resolution from your camera.
This does not matter to images that will be used in newspapers. For the wedding photographers that shoot medium jpegs with an 11mp camera, well, if it works for them and their clients, then that's fine. For my work, I prefer to squeeze out every last detail that the sensor is capable of by shooting RAW (I use Capture One).
I shoot RAW, because I've already proved to myself that RAW captures more detail than a jpeg, and I don't worry about white balance while shooting.
It's simple: You bought a digital SLR with a sensor that captures an X amount of high quality pixels, and if you shoot JPEG, you're simply not squeezing out that extra resolution from your camera.
This does not matter to images that will be used in newspapers. For the wedding photographers that shoot medium jpegs with an 11mp camera, well, if it works for them and their clients, then that's fine. For my work, I prefer to squeeze out every last detail that the sensor is capable of by shooting RAW (I use Capture One).
Apr 07, 2005 at 12:54 PM
p.3 #16I don't shoot raw!
Most of my students come to class shooting jpegs, but by the time they leave they're almost all shooting Raw. The advantages of shooting Raw are numerous, but simplicity of workflow and efficiency of time are not it's strong points. Why one set of pros uses jpeg and another set doesn't has too many variables. In my experience the pros shooting jpegs are either less concerned about quality and more concerned about time (photojournalists, some event shooters, etc.) or are not confident in their Photoshop abilities.
Apr 07, 2005 at 12:54 PM
p.3 #17I don't shoot raw!
moondigger wrote:
Who said it wasn't better? It's obviously a better choice if you're going to mess with the file later, or when the color balance is wonky, or... pick a reason. That doesn't mean it's enough better for most situations that it's worth the time for many photographers. What matters is the print. If the print is good, it doesn't matter how you got there.
It was implied that the benefits of RAW weren’t any better in the hands of a PJ since PJ’s exposed correctly the first time around.
You're missing the point here. 8 bits per primary means 24 bits per pixel. 24 bits = 16.8 million colors. Humans cannot discern two 24 bit colors separated by only the value of the least significant bit, and no printer or photographic paper in the world can handle the full range of a 24 bit image. The advantage of 12 bits per pixel is not in the output -- it's to avoid posterization when doing heavy editing in a file. When it's time for the output, you're dropping to 8 bits per pixel anyway.
8 bits per channel of R, G, B. so..JPG can only store 256 combinations in the red channel. If a print has a tends to be a limited color and has a lot of gradient, 8 bit per channel will show it’s weakness before 12 bit.
They are offering it to please those who would benefit from it.
According to some, only geeks are benefiting from it.
Who said they were? It's not that people who shoot JPEG are inherently better at exposure. It's that IF you can nail exposure in-camera there is less of a need to shoot RAW. That doesn't mean somebody who nails exposure every time can't shoot RAW if they want to.
The tone of many posts earlier in the thread are saying pro’s don’t shoot RAW because they expose better thus negating the need for RAW. My statement was that JPG is fine for a lot of situations if it suits people but saying it’s the essentially the same as RAW isn’t correct.
Edited to add: I do think that certain personalities would prefer RAW regardless of being a pro or not.
Who said it wasn't better? It's obviously a better choice if you're going to mess with the file later, or when the color balance is wonky, or... pick a reason. That doesn't mean it's enough better for most situations that it's worth the time for many photographers. What matters is the print. If the print is good, it doesn't matter how you got there.
It was implied that the benefits of RAW weren’t any better in the hands of a PJ since PJ’s exposed correctly the first time around.
You're missing the point here. 8 bits per primary means 24 bits per pixel. 24 bits = 16.8 million colors. Humans cannot discern two 24 bit colors separated by only the value of the least significant bit, and no printer or photographic paper in the world can handle the full range of a 24 bit image. The advantage of 12 bits per pixel is not in the output -- it's to avoid posterization when doing heavy editing in a file. When it's time for the output, you're dropping to 8 bits per pixel anyway.
8 bits per channel of R, G, B. so..JPG can only store 256 combinations in the red channel. If a print has a tends to be a limited color and has a lot of gradient, 8 bit per channel will show it’s weakness before 12 bit.
They are offering it to please those who would benefit from it.
According to some, only geeks are benefiting from it.
Who said they were? It's not that people who shoot JPEG are inherently better at exposure. It's that IF you can nail exposure in-camera there is less of a need to shoot RAW. That doesn't mean somebody who nails exposure every time can't shoot RAW if they want to.
The tone of many posts earlier in the thread are saying pro’s don’t shoot RAW because they expose better thus negating the need for RAW. My statement was that JPG is fine for a lot of situations if it suits people but saying it’s the essentially the same as RAW isn’t correct.
Edited to add: I do think that certain personalities would prefer RAW regardless of being a pro or not.
Apr 07, 2005 at 12:55 PM
p.3 #18I don't shoot raw!
If it's only geeks shooting raw, Bibble, C1, etc must not be making too much money 
Apr 07, 2005 at 01:06 PM
p.3 #20I don't shoot raw!
Metalstorm... I think we pretty much agree, but were coming at it from different POV. Personally I shoot somewhere between 80-90% JPEGs most of the time. However when I visit Antelope Canyon later this month I'm going to be shooting mostly, if not all, RAW.
Apr 07, 2005 at 01:09 PM