Why to shoot in raw mode.

[Ysarex]

I only shoot Raw. The advantages are simply too great. Raw lets us actually SEE what is needed, and SEE what can be done, and SEE how well it works. As opposed to using some settings done months ago, probably forgotten now, and wishfully hoping something works.

Sorry, but my notion is, those insisting JPG is "good enough", either: Probably simply don't know about the Raw advantage, or are too lazy or too rushed or don't care about getting it right, or are terrified by the word Edit, no computer skills to attempt anything, etc. By Edit, here I only refer to minor exposure and white balance tweaks to make it be correct. It makes such a big difference, assuming we care.

Raw is the easy, fast, good way.

I also shoot raw, but I have the luxury of doing that now. There are legitimate reasons to shoot only JPEG and have the skill to make sure that the result is indeed good enough.

Are you a camera for hire? We have a job for you. We need an auto race covered. It's a 120 lap race over a pretty tough track and the race should run over and hour. We'll need you to set up a wifi feed for you images and we'll require photos on the editors desk as the race progresses as we intend to publish coverage in real time. Within an hour of the end of the race we'll need all photos on hand here in our office.

Are you going to shoot raw?

Joe

 

[WayneF]

Are you going to shoot raw?

I included "too rushed" in my reasons.

But your one hour states a requirement that simply does not exist for my own work. I always have a few more minutes to do it right. (be glad we don't shoot film any more. )

 

[Ysarex]

Are you going to shoot raw?

I included "too rushed" in my reasons.

But your one hour states a requirement that simply does not exist for my own work. (be glad we don't shoot film any more. )

And it doesn't exist for my work either so I shoot only raw, but I understand the requirements for those of us who shoot sports action and journalism and rather than refer to the work they do then as "good enough" I would prefer to applaud them as able to produce great images under very difficult circumstances.

So I agree I can produce a better result processing the raw original and I advocate that methodology. I just want to make sure we use careful language that recognizes legitimate alternative methods. If Scott captures an awesome football action shot in full sun and there's some highlight clipping on a player's white jersey I'm not going to call that photo "good enough" I'm going to call it an awesome photo -- making sure we stay focused on what matters.

Joe

 

[480sparky]

...........Sorry, but my notion is, those insisting JPG is "good enough", either: Probably simply don't know about the Raw advantage, or are too lazy or too rushed or don't care about getting it right, or are terrified by the word Edit, no computer skills to attempt anything, etc. By Edit, here I only refer to minor exposure and white balance tweaks to make it be correct. It makes such a big difference, assuming we care.

Raw is the easy, fast, good way.

So what about those who MUST produce an image minutes after it's taken? Do you expect them to carry a laptop with them at all times, and constantly download images and edit them (if nothing else, simply convert raw files to JPEG) so they can be used immediately?

Sorry... your argument just ain't gonna cut it here. JPEGs are, in many cases, 'good enough' for their intended uses. May not YOUR uses, but you're not the only one taking photos, are you?

 

[WayneF]

So what about those who MUST produce an image minutes after it's taken?

That has been addressed, did you read the previous? That handful of us needing immediate results certainly do have issues to address.

You must have your ideas about Good Enough, and I have mine.

I stated my notions about three reasons for resisting Raw:

Probably simply don't know about the Raw advantage,
or are too lazy or too rushed or don't care about getting it right,
or are terrified by the word Edit, no computer skills to attempt anything, etc

I realize there is no hope for the middle line, but there are hopes for the first and third line.

 

[480sparky]

............That has been addressed, did you read the previous? That handful of us needing immediate results certainly do have issues to address.........

Unless you quote a post, there is NO WAY for me to know you're specifically addressing it. I'm not a Vulacan or a Betazoid, and can't read your mind.

I cannot follow your train of thought. As such, I assume your post stands alone.

 

[Mr. Innuendo]

I did a shoot last night for a local magazine, and not a single frame was shot in raw.

Not.

One.

The Editor was quite happy with what I sent her and has paid me so, no, there was no reason for me to shoot raw.

I'm of the opinion that those who say "YOU GOTTA' SHOOT IN RAW!" say that because that's what they've always been told, or they just unable to produce suitable images in jpeg.

Far more often than not, jpeg is, indeed, "good enough"...

 

[runnah]

This again?!!?

I will say what I say about "mode" topics; a good photographer knows when to use what tool in their arsenal.

Limiting your toolset just limits you.

 

[imagemaker46]

I get pretty tired of geeks going on and on that raw is the only way to shoot. I am not always rushed to get images out, but the majority of my shoots require 25-70 images within an hour of shooting. I'm not lazy when it comes to how I shoot, I'm not afraid to edit images and I have excellent computer and photo shop skills when it comes to turning out the images I need. What WayneF has to say is coming from, what is it he shoots? I don't think he has said. I did look at his blog and it goes back to the geek squad, while supplying information about everything is important to many. I just take pictures, and I do it very well. While I am not the most tech savy photographer, it has never stopped me from producing high quality images with every shoot I'm on. All jpegs, I have never been asked to shoot raw files by any clients.

The pro football team I shoot for will be switching to wifi next season, which means I'm shooting and images are going to the web guy to pull what he needs instantly, to cut down on post game time. Would I ever consider sending him raw images? Not a chance. What it does do, puts more pressure on me to get the images as perfect in camera as possible, does that mean I need to shoot raw, no, jpegs will get the job done and not "just" good enough.

The raw/jpeg subject is tired and getting older everyday.

 

[greybeard]

I get pretty tired of geeks going on and on that raw is the only way to shoot. I am not always rushed to get images out, but the majority of my shoots require 25-70 images within an hour of shooting. I'm not lazy when it comes to how I shoot, I'm not afraid to edit images and I have excellent computer and photo shop skills when it comes to turning out the images I need. What WayneF has to say is coming from, what is it he shoots? I don't think he has said. I did look at his blog and it goes back to the geek squad, while supplying information about everything is important to many. I just take pictures, and I do it very well. While I am not the most tech savy photographer, it has never stopped me from producing high quality images with every shoot I'm on. All jpegs, I have never been asked to shoot raw files by any clients.

The pro football team I shoot for will be switching to wifi next season, which means I'm shooting and images are going to the web guy to pull what he needs instantly, to cut down on post game time. Would I ever consider sending him raw images? Not a chance. What it does do, puts more pressure on me to get the images as perfect in camera as possible, does that mean I need to shoot raw, no, jpegs will get the job done and not "just" good enough.

The raw/jpeg subject is tired and getting older everyday.

Kinda like shooting slides back in the day.

 

[greybeard]

I have my D7000 setup to save Raw on #1 card and JPEG on #2. I usually import the Raw in to Lightroom and if needed, edit with PS. This is the routine that works for me. The JPEGs are backup.

 

[imagemaker46]

I have my D7000 setup to save Raw on #1 card and JPEG on #2. I usually import the Raw in to Lightroom and if needed, edit with PS. This is the routine that works for me. The JPEGs are backup.

That's taking advantage of the tools you are using.

 

[imagemaker46]

I get pretty tired of geeks going on and on that raw is the only way to shoot. I am not always rushed to get images out, but the majority of my shoots require 25-70 images within an hour of shooting. I'm not lazy when it comes to how I shoot, I'm not afraid to edit images and I have excellent computer and photo shop skills when it comes to turning out the images I need. What WayneF has to say is coming from, what is it he shoots? I don't think he has said. I did look at his blog and it goes back to the geek squad, while supplying information about everything is important to many. I just take pictures, and I do it very well. While I am not the most tech savy photographer, it has never stopped me from producing high quality images with every shoot I'm on. All jpegs, I have never been asked to shoot raw files by any clients.

The pro football team I shoot for will be switching to wifi next season, which means I'm shooting and images are going to the web guy to pull what he needs instantly, to cut down on post game time. Would I ever consider sending him raw images? Not a chance. What it does do, puts more pressure on me to get the images as perfect in camera as possible, does that mean I need to shoot raw, no, jpegs will get the job done and not "just" good enough.

The raw/jpeg subject is tired and getting older everyday.

Kinda like shooting slides back in the day.

Before digital I would shoot the first period of a pro hockey game, process the film, scan and transmit to Reuters in Washington, all had to be done as quick as possible, first images out made the papers. Digital is pretty much the same.

 

[Gary A.]

I get pretty tired of geeks going on and on that raw is the only way to shoot. I am not always rushed to get images out, but the majority of my shoots require 25-70 images within an hour of shooting. I'm not lazy when it comes to how I shoot, I'm not afraid to edit images and I have excellent computer and photo shop skills when it comes to turning out the images I need. What WayneF has to say is coming from, what is it he shoots? I don't think he has said. I did look at his blog and it goes back to the geek squad, while supplying information about everything is important to many. I just take pictures, and I do it very well. While I am not the most tech savy photographer, it has never stopped me from producing high quality images with every shoot I'm on. All jpegs, I have never been asked to shoot raw files by any clients.

The pro football team I shoot for will be switching to wifi next season, which means I'm shooting and images are going to the web guy to pull what he needs instantly, to cut down on post game time. Would I ever consider sending him raw images? Not a chance. What it does do, puts more pressure on me to get the images as perfect in camera as possible, does that mean I need to shoot raw, no, jpegs will get the job done and not "just" good enough.

The raw/jpeg subject is tired and getting older everyday.

Kinda like shooting slides back in the day.

Before digital I would shoot the first period of a pro hockey game, process the film, scan and transmit to Reuters in Washington, all had to be done as quick as possible, first images out made the papers. Digital is pretty much the same.

Back when I was shooting news, printing from wet negatives was very common for me. For big games at the Rose Bowl, the Forum or Coliseum, we had messengers on motorcycles. Every 20 minutes or so a run would be made from the event to the office/darkroom downtown Los Angeles. Then the photogs manning the darkrooms printed from wet negatives. (We had individual darkrooms.)

 

[imagemaker46]

I get pretty tired of geeks going on and on that raw is the only way to shoot. I am not always rushed to get images out, but the majority of my shoots require 25-70 images within an hour of shooting. I'm not lazy when it comes to how I shoot, I'm not afraid to edit images and I have excellent computer and photo shop skills when it comes to turning out the images I need. What WayneF has to say is coming from, what is it he shoots? I don't think he has said. I did look at his blog and it goes back to the geek squad, while supplying information about everything is important to many. I just take pictures, and I do it very well. While I am not the most tech savy photographer, it has never stopped me from producing high quality images with every shoot I'm on. All jpegs, I have never been asked to shoot raw files by any clients.

The pro football team I shoot for will be switching to wifi next season, which means I'm shooting and images are going to the web guy to pull what he needs instantly, to cut down on post game time. Would I ever consider sending him raw images? Not a chance. What it does do, puts more pressure on me to get the images as perfect in camera as possible, does that mean I need to shoot raw, no, jpegs will get the job done and not "just" good enough.

The raw/jpeg subject is tired and getting older everyday.

Kinda like shooting slides back in the day.

Before digital I would shoot the first period of a pro hockey game, process the film, scan and transmit to Reuters in Washington, all had to be done as quick as possible, first images out made the papers. Digital is pretty much the same.

Back when I was shooting news, printing from wet negatives was very common for me. For big games at the Rose Bowl, the Forum or Coliseum, we had messengers on motorcycles. Every 20 minutes or so a run would be made from the event to the office/darkroom downtown Los Angeles. Then the photogs manning the darkrooms printed from wet negatives. (We had individual darkrooms.)

Those were the good old days? There are some days I miss that rush, and then other days wonder how we even managed.