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 06, 2010 at 07:17 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
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.
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.
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?
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).
p.1 #12 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer
AhamB wrote:
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.
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.
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
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.
p.1 #17 · 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 have 4.3TB of data (mirrored so 8.6TB), so i known the feeling, but data storage is cheap, and your clients deserve the best possible quality, you can always toss the raw's after your clients have given the "green light" after receiving the images...problem solved
p.1 #18 · 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.
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.
p.1 #19 · New article - Why shoot RAW - The real answer
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...
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.
) ... which is probably why I shoot RAW + med jpgs.