The sad part about this is the anecdotal evidence given by most of these great minds and set down in the thread - still have not been able to come to a logical and unified conclusion. It truly bothers me that you will all eventually go out and SHOOT SOMETHING worth looking at.
Then you will come back with ...."SEE, I told you (insert preference here) was best" !!!
God help us all when that happens.
BTW - I bought an Epson P2000 viewer...and it is the BEST viewer.
Who cares what pros use, and in what proportion? To debate the value of anecdotal evidence in file format preference analysis is meaningless. Clearly, the RAW format has value, but not to everyone. Maybe moondigger and Teriba are right in that the photographers they know don't shoot RAW.. we know that Moondigger chats up wedding photogs and gets their perspective on file formats. What does that mean to the rest of us?
In reference to RAW's apparent unpopularity, I present one interesting fact... Some of the most expensive camera equipment out there does not even have a JPEG option! I would be willing to bet that companies like Phase One, Creo (now Kodak), Mayima, and others are not relying mostly on the 'internet geek' crowd to stay in business with their obligate 16-bit RAW files. Klinko and Indrani shoot fashion, and they shoot RAW, like most other digital fashion photogs. Many professional photographers are glamour and landscape shooters, where the benefits of RAW are compelling. Most professional portrait studios that I know locally shoot RAW digital, or medium format film. That should come as no surprise to anyone.
Now, I don't know the basis for the image format preferences of James Natchwey, Teriba's friends, Moondigger's brother's wedding photographer's friends, or RD-1 users in Italy. I could really care less. I don't see why it is necessary to devote even one post, let alone almost 3 pages of this thread, to the importance of anecdotal evidence in determining the popularity of RAW among photographers.
For the type of work I do, RAW benefits me. I hardly need to see a poll of professionals to come to that conclusion.
After reading Mitch Hedberg's obit I looked up some of his quotes and found one appropriate for this thread:
"You know that Pepperidge Farm bread, that stuff is fancy. That stuff is wrapped twice. You open it, and it still ain't open. That's why I don't buy it, I don't need another step between me and toast."
As a PJ myself, I do shoot Jpeg, however since its possible that pictures I take might be sold to a lawyer or used by a public safety dept, maybe I start using raw/jpeg, and use the raw if needed.
Bobster2 wrote:
After reading Mitch Hedberg's obit I looked up some of his quotes and found one appropriate for this thread:
"You know that Pepperidge Farm bread, that stuff is fancy. That stuff is wrapped twice. You open it, and it still ain't open. That's why I don't buy it, I don't need another step between me and toast."
teriba wrote:
Hahah. Need I also mention that most RAW shooters are incredibly arrogant about their choices? Didn't think so.
You can call it arrogance if you like. I certainly think that my choice of shooting RAW suits my workflow better than JPEG would. I imagine you have found the opposite, and I hardly need to try to convince you otherwise.
What I think is silly is to look at what most 'pros' are shooting, and elect to shoot as they do. Further, even if my preferences were dictated by what others do, I would still choose RAW. Why? Because, for the subjects I like to shoot, the pros I reference would largely choose RAW. While Most PJ's and event photographers may shoot JPEG, glamour and landscape photographers shoot RAW. At times, their equipment does not even grant them a JPEG alternative, so 'wrapped bread' it is...
I also think it's kinda silly to compare RAW files to toast, but that's just me.
The camera manufacturers provide the format for a reason. Use it if it suits you, and avoid it if it doesn't.
There is far more to shooting Raw than just getting the exposure right. In fact when you shoot jpeg you aren't getting the exposure right at all to begin with.
What you see in a histogram or just looking at the your photo in the display are the values for a jpeg, they don't show you the total range that the camera has actually captured.
As an example, when you look at a histogram will appear that you are clipping the highlights and that would be true for a jpeg but if you were to process that same file as a raw you will find that you have another stop worth of exposure.
If you are not shooting on a tight deadline you are not getting the most out of your file unless you are shooting raw. This isn't a matter of getting exposures right in the camera it is about throwing away needlessly information in that the camera is producing.
As I wrote in another forum topic on this subject a few weeks ago - everyone seems to forget that the only reason why we use the lossy jpeg format is because of the limitations of bandwidth and cost of storage. There wouldn't be jpeg compression if it wasn't for the fact the both of the above are compromises we have with our current technology.
We should as photographers be concerned about capturing the best quality DATA from the camera's sensor as possible. In time I would hope to see uncompressed TIFF as another option other than jpeg to shoot. (Some cameras already do)
I don't understand why there is such a bizarre love for the jpeg format in these threads. It is just a format that someday will be replace by a better one when the cost of storage and bandwidth isn't as much of an issue.
There also seems to be a reverse eliteism going on here that find disturbing as well.
"Real men shoot JPEG, Pro's shoot JPEG and they know best"
No actually, pros have to make a living shooting where deadlines are critical and demands are high. They are going for the easiest path, most compatibility, quickest upload times, etc. Time is money. Quality is taking a second seat here. Which isn't to say the quality is bad either.
"RAW is for computer geeks and scientists."
We all know the benefits of having more data to work with. Less posterization, more artistic leeway to modify color, saturation and sharpness. We also see the advantage of being able to properly adjust white balance and exposure latitude. These factors do not have anything to do with an individuals skills as a photographer. It comes down to whether you find it important to you to have these abilities.
Really it is no different than wanting a Canon 1Ds MK II or Canon G6. Both can take great pictures, but we know which one is the better camera. We also know that 95% of people out aren't going to have a Canon 1Ds MK II or want to learn how to use it, but that doesn't make it worthless, like the way some people seem to think RAW vs. jpeg. It is a choice not an, "this-is-better that" argument.
Each format has its merit for a certain application. Disregarding any format because it is cool or not - pro or amateur is just simply being closed minded.
Thankyou for the indulgence. I think I needed to vent
teriba wrote:
Hahah. Need I also mention that most RAW shooters are incredibly arrogant about their choices? Didn't think so.
There's enough arrogance, intolerance and insecurity to go around...
It totally boggles my mind that people have the energy to criticize and/or defend, and even get personal, about things like the choice of RAW versus JPEG, and a multitude of other similar subjects (M versus P, IS or not, 85/1.8 versus 85/1.2 etc). They are all valid choices with different characteristics. As already said... research the options and choose what's right for you. Then stop worrying about what others do, and don't get up on a high horse looking down at those who choose differently.
Tim Wild wrote:
My teacher, a pro who teaches the odd class, shoots only JPG. He said he doesn't have time to bother with RAW, and he's pretty damn good at getting the pictures right in the camera. I shoot RAW because i'm not as good as him, yet, and RAW helps me save shots that wouldn't be good enough otherwise.
Ditto.............only a pro shoots jpg...............
FretNoMore wrote:
It totally boggles my mind that people have the energy to criticize and/or defend, and even get personal, about things like the choice of RAW versus JPEG, and a multitude of other similar subjects (M versus P, IS or not, 85/1.8 versus 85/1.2 etc). They are all valid choices with different characteristics. As already said... research the options and choose what's right for you. Then stop worrying about what others do, and don't get up on a high horse looking down at those who choose differently.
Professionals get paid per megabyte, that's why they prefer to shoot RAW and TIFF convert their files. That's also why the 1DsII is so popular amongst them
