how did i let you guys talk me into pulling the raws

[photoguy99]

Online forums tend to fetishize image quality over content. Which makes them wonderful resources for you when you're seeing to improve that angle.

The raw vs. jpeg debate is just one piece of that. See also FF vs. crop; cell phones vs. DSLRs; endless discussions of how to get sharper photos; and on and on.

A SOOC jpeg of something good is worth an infinity of RAW files of nothing

 

[Overread]

Online forums tend to fetishize image quality over content.

Which is why the "brick wall" gallery is our most popular gallery! Show casing the best in RAW and optical performance! With the straightest lines - sharpest details - deepest depth - richest colour corrected colour! Indeed its a fantastic showcase of technical perfection.

So good in fact that we keep it hidden from normal members; anyone who wants in though just has to report to Mish for a permit (also she requires those turning up to bring their own handcuffs these days).

 

[photoguy99]

I used the word FETISH on purpose!

 

[Ysarex]

A SOOC jpeg of something good is worth an infinity of RAW files of nothing

And that same photograph of something good get's even better if the IQ is better.

There's no law that says we have to sacrifice one for the other or that an engaging image isn't improved if it's also technically well done.

I'm listening to Beethoven's violin concerto right now. I'm glad that the violinist is I. Perlman. You wouldn't prefer to listen to it performed by someone who plays poorly, right?

Joe

 

[pgriz]

Back to Brian's beef. I shoot RAW+JPG all the time. When downloading from the camera to the computer, there's a few commands that get applied automatically. Then there's a quick pass through to eliminate the obvious clunkers, and tag the images that will be copied to working storage (usually only about a tenth of what I shot). Then the downloads are backed up, and my attention is now on the much smaller number of images where I go to the RAWs for tweaks, etc. If it's a family get-together, the JPG's get copied and handed out. I shudder at the thought of processing 600+ RAWs.

 

[photoguy99]

There's no law, it appears to be habit and inattention. But that's just a theory.

 

[bribrius]

My keeper rate when I was shooting film was about 1:36. Shooting digital it is 1:50.

my keepers aren't even just based on the quality of the photo. ones I really like I of course keep. A low quality one that didn't come out I may keep for future reference for a reshoot, to remember my mistakes, if it made a certain effect I could use later, or just to track my progress. Then I could have a better shot I have no need for and will just delete it. stuff I am more apt to delete. abstracts, landscapes nature (have to be a damn good flower shot for me to keep it at this point). stuff I am less apt to delete, record type shots, photos of my kids, street photography. stuff more likely to go to raw, night long exposure and questionable lighting shots, artistic purpose shots like if purposely intend to drive down the exposure for a effect, wedding type shots (but since I have only done one that is really a nonexistent issue). Most all daytime, majority of my kids photos, street, holidays and family, the majority of everything is fine in jpeg and often low quality jpeg. There is something to be said for time too. In the time it takes to fix a shot I could just take another one and use the mistakes on the first to learn from and not make them again. In fact I might be better off just getting off my azz and redoing the shot if it is really that important or just deleting it if it isn't. I was keeping shutter speed photos for a while even if they sucked just to get a better grasp on shutter speed. I kept water drop photos for a while that sucked just playing with water drops (mostly deleted now waste of space). But then I could come out with a half way decent abstract and just not need it or want it, delete delete. lot of stuff I know I will delete before I hit shutter even "lets go practice and frig off for a hour" and really don't raws for that.. i will flip through them and mostly delete delete delete.

 

[bribrius]

WHAT image is so important to have and not important enough to edit properly?

Seriously, why are you having to edit hundreds of frames? Wedding?

In a portrait session I will shoot 200-600 frames...I only edit 3-10 of them.
On a vacation I'll shoot the same, edit a few more perhaps.

Who wants to look at 600 frames of the same things?

Honest, I won't shoot jpg. What reason is there to pick up my camera if I don't give it my 100%.....that's what my cell phone is for!

The vast majority of what I shoot, will never see print. I think I have printed a total of maybe 500 photos this year. To me shooting raw and editing is bringing it to a level of thinking everything needs to be shot in medium and large format. which is ridiculous in my opinion. If I need to shoot raw I need to. If I plan on something going to large print then yeah, shoot raw. Most of this stuff wont even see print at all just sit on a drive...

 

[bribrius]

A SOOC jpeg of something good is worth an infinity of RAW files of nothing

And that same photograph of something good get's even better if the IQ is better.

There's no law that says we have to sacrifice one for the other or that an engaging image isn't improved if it's also technically well done.

I'm listening to Beethoven's violin concerto right now. I'm glad that the violinist is I. Perlman. You wouldn't prefer to listen to it performed by someone who plays poorly, right?

Joe

then you should throw away your dslr and shoot everything large format you are wasting your time too.

 

[photoguy99]

I find it very interesting to look at various and sundry 'great photos' from the past. You know the ones, whichever ones you like.

They're often surprisingly bad by modern standards. Blown highlights. Blocked up blacks. Sketchy focus. Weird tonal placement due to botched exposure. Why are they good? Is it because they were shoot raw and edited to within an inch of their life?

Nope. Someone did on the right place and squashed a button at the right moment.

That's what matters. That's virtually the only thing that matters.

 

[beachrat]

If I were you,I'd shoot jpeg.
Seems like a very simple solution to me.
Plus,you wouldn't be wasting even more of your time tending to a thread about it.

 

[Trever1t]

I don't print very much, what's raw have to do with printing?

 

[Overread]

Nope. Someone did on the right place and squashed a button at the right moment.

That's what matters. That's virtually the only thing that matters.

Photos are a composite of several different elements. Trying to prioritize them into some kind of order of importance nearly always fails. Because there are examples on all sides to support that side.

As a result the best thing one can do is to aim to learn as much as they can about each area. Then armed with the knowledge they can make informed choices when they shoot.

It sounds like you've already made that choice yourself; but it does a great disservice to others learning their way up the scale to tell them to out-right discount a whole avenue of learning because you've made a choice on what is critically important to yourself. Especially so because chances are there ARE situations where you expect technical excellence to be a core part of the shot.

You seem very earnest upon ensuring that newbies don't get hung up on the technicalities; but you're doing so by trying to dismiss them. To discount them as being totally unimportant. That is a great disservice to those willing and eager to learn and crippling to those who might avoid learning it as a result.


By all means make your choices, but don't try to discourage others from learning and going down the same path (and maybe choosing a different ending point).

 

[bribrius]

I find it very interesting to look at various and sundry 'great photos' from the past. You know the ones, whichever ones you like.

They're often surprisingly bad by modern standards. Blown highlights. Blocked up blacks. Sketchy focus. Weird tonal placement due to botched exposure. Why are they good? Is it because they were shoot raw and edited to within an inch of their life?

Nope. Someone did on the right place and squashed a button at the right moment.

That's what matters. That's virtually the only thing that matters.

Pretty much anyone who is anyone in photography around here give credence to Fred Philpot. And at one point I was collecting his photos and cards, following along shooting similar scenes. Maine Memory Network | Fred Philpot Store, Springvale, ca. 1890 He has had books written about him (wife knows one of the authors that wrote one). The reason he is so appreciated is the vast majority of images we have in the southern part of the state and some in newhampshire and elsewhere all came from him. It isn't so much the quality as many aren't even level, but the times and record. Without him much of that time and happenings would have gone uncaptured. He was obsessed with photography and wanted everything in a photo. And for those looking back he is basically THE one they attribute everything from the entire area from that time period too. I don't live far from either of where his shop or studios were and often walk along the same streets over this hundred years later. It is a odd thing a single man could leave so much. He went rather unnoticed at the time, didn't gain recognition until years later.

 

[bribrius]

I don't print very much, what's raw have to do with printing?

well for me at least, if something is going to print I am a little more inclined about it being "just right" or at least higher quality. so would be more apt to want that precautionary chance to edit it if need be at some point with more lattitude. Especially certain photos that need it. . If it isn't going to print and will most likely sit on the hard drive why worry about it? I mean it is nice to flip through your photos on the screen I suppose but for quality purposes if isn't going to print does it really matter? Lets say I do screw up that jpeg editing too much. well if it isn't ever going to be printed, who really cares. You can still flip through your photos on the screen and look at it. And if it is lower quality, well you are staring at it on a screen. so what. usually you would be hard pressed to know the difference. Now if I treasure a image for some reason, wanted a higher quality level that could only be done through raw, and planned on it going to print well that is something else.

A lot of stuff wont ever see print though. Lets say I spend a couple hours editing a photo to post on here or somewhere (even 500px or something) . Odds are it will never see print. I may get some likes on it, but so what? it isn't going to print. Or at least the odds of it going to print and someone actually buying one are so unlikely it really wouldn't be worth worrying about it. so why care? And even if it is going to print, does the photo require a raw file edit anyway? usually not for what I shoot only certain things.