Why to shoot in raw mode.

[Ysarex]

You come off as a bit of an elitist.

Want to come round and yell at my kid for not using proper shading techniques when he is finger painting?

My point is that when I see a great photo I done care what camera, lens or file format they used. People are so obsessed with the technical aspects that they have forgotten the point.

He's not painting outside the lines is he?!!

And you come off as having jumped in with a vacuous cheap shot -- Oh sh*t! I must be elitist; I just used "vacuous" in a forum post.

Of course it's about the photos. So you're not seriously going to advocate just put the camera on green and everybody concentrate on getting great shots. We both know better than that. Understanding and practice and competence don't really get in the way of taking better photos -- they help. You can swing overboard on anything and swings go both ways. So you're going to claim now that switching a camera to save raw files is going tech overboard? No? Oh but switching to save raw and then wanting to understand just how that works -- that's tech overboard?

I know this is an old dead horse topic that can get irritating, but that's one of the things forums like this are for -- there's always new people who have legit questions. I also tried to stay out of it. You'll note if you look back through that when I did join in it was to defend the JPEG shooting journalists. I wasn't willing to let the "good enough" description be applied to their work. Sorry for the sarcasm.

Joe

 

[runnah]

My point is that topics like this are such an exercise in futility that it does more harm than good.

Rather than filling the heads of people who don't understand with biased opinions in lieu of facts we should inform of those facts and let them decide for themselves.

 

[Gary A.]

Technical and Creativity/Vision works hand-in-hand. Content is King. While timing and composition are critically important ... understanding how to manipulate the camera to best capture and even enhance the content is nearly as important as content.

There aren't any shortcuts or quick fixes for photogs to consistently capture the exceptional image. One needs both the creative and technical for photographic proficiency. Neglecting one for the other will significantly harm the final image. Talking tech is easy ... talking creative is hard.

 

[runnah]

Technical and Creativity/Vision works hand-in-hand. Content is King. While timing and composition are critically important ... understanding how to manipulate the camera to best capture and even enhance the content is nearly as important as content.

There aren't any shortcuts or quick fixes for photogs to consistently capture the exceptional image. One needs both the creative and technical for photographic proficiency. Neglecting one for the other will significantly harm the final image. Talking tech is easy ... talking creative is hard.

you are right. Tech is easy because it has hard facts to back it up. You can bust out your slide rule and prove why x is better than why.

For example:

Raw vs. JPEG

Pros of raw.
More information per image file
More latitude during editing

Cons of raw
Large file size
Slower frame rate and more buffering

Pros of JPEG:
Faster frame rate and buffering
Smaller file sizes

Cons of JPEG
Lower image quality (compared to raw)
In camera processing
Less latitude during editing.

Boom done. Simple as that. Now it's time to make an educated decision based on your circumstances.

Declaring you only do this or that is asinine and only hurts you creativity.

 

[photoguy99]

I can also beat you with my slide rule. So, bonus.

 

[runnah]

I can also beat you with my slide rule. So, bonus.

Thanks for adding that very useful contribution.

 

[photoguy99]

Oh come now. You love it. Plus, I'm on your side.

Joe is totally wrong. Getting sidetracked by technical detail has been the ruin of many a photographer. Photography is awash in trivialities you can fuss with.

You can piss away years fine tuning your digital workflow or screwing around with developers or trying to find just the right plastic camera and expired film.

There are literally millions of people who are tinkering with this crap, hoping that if they just get the right mix their inner Ansel Adams, Cartier-Bresson or that one other guy they can't remember his name will be unleashed.

And as long as they feel validated arguing about RAW versus JPEG their inner that-one-guy-whats-his-name is going to stay inner.

Some of them just like technical fussing. But some of them, surely, could be pretty good off they just got their asses kicked a bit.

 

[Village Idiot]

I use auto WB all the time, and I have very few issues with it under most light conditions, indoors or out. Where the light is not ideal, it is generally takes seconds to fix in photoshop. I work with other photographers shooting the same events and they stress over the settings, are constantly making changes and when I tell them I haven't made any changes they look confused. What ends up happening with some of these guys is that they make so many custom changes that they end up having to go back to the defaults and start over when the light changes.

I shot a hockey game last week, no changes at all and then I looked at images shot by another photographer and they were all yellow, i already knew the light in this arena was a little cyan, but that is a quick fix. I think that some people overthink everything they do, and in the end screw up. I keep it simple and concentrate more on what I'm seeing.

The problem is that auto WB gets worse and worse the farther you go back in camera generations. Also, AWB on most cameras up to a point (which may still be true, I’m not really up on new cameras) only shoots is a certain range, so if your WB is outside of that range, it won’t compensate for it.

 

[imagemaker46]

I use auto WB all the time, and I have very few issues with it under most light conditions, indoors or out. Where the light is not ideal, it is generally takes seconds to fix in photoshop. I work with other photographers shooting the same events and they stress over the settings, are constantly making changes and when I tell them I haven't made any changes they look confused. What ends up happening with some of these guys is that they make so many custom changes that they end up having to go back to the defaults and start over when the light changes.

I shot a hockey game last week, no changes at all and then I looked at images shot by another photographer and they were all yellow, i already knew the light in this arena was a little cyan, but that is a quick fix. I think that some people overthink everything they do, and in the end screw up. I keep it simple and concentrate more on what I'm seeing.

The problem is that auto WB gets worse and worse the farther you go back in camera generations. Also, AWB on most cameras up to a point (which may still be true, I’m not really up on new cameras) only shoots is a certain range, so if your WB is outside of that range, it won’t compensate for it.

Like all technology it is constantly improving, but at some point I assume the improvements simply become so minor that they really are just an addition to the specs, but don't make any difference. Having gone through the first generation Canon 1D and now using the 1Dx I know there is a huge difference in the technology, but have I noticed a huge difference in the images I'm producing. The biggest difference is the file size and the ability to crop using an 18mp 1Dx file as opposed to a 3.8mp file from the 1D. It leaves me with a huge file to work with. It's also has a much higher frame speed. I can also assume that the AWB is much better, but I haven't noticed huge changes in my images.

For all the changes that have gone on, if I look at the specs from 14 years ago with the 1D and the specs now, I can see that the numbers are higher or lower. Not being into the technical side of how and why, the numbers mean very little to me. I can stand with someone and show them what I'm shooting, or what I am seeing, and explain why I'm shooting it the way I am. It is more difficult to tell someone how to take a picture based on the camera specs. I know there are lots of people that read through the magazines and love to talk specs, not just cameras, but cars, planes, knives, doesn't matter. It's the way people with more technical minds like to look at things. There is nothing wrong with that.

The bottom line is that I learned how to see the content, read the light, compose an image, and shoot it, all without knowing any of the technical information, rules of thirds, and whatever else I'm told I should know.

Could I improve my images knowing the all the specs, I doubt it, photography goes beyond the specs.

 

[bribrius]

Technical and Creativity/Vision works hand-in-hand. Content is King. While timing and composition are critically important ... understanding how to manipulate the camera to best capture and even enhance the content is nearly as important as content.

There aren't any shortcuts or quick fixes for photogs to consistently capture the exceptional image. One needs both the creative and technical for photographic proficiency. Neglecting one for the other will significantly harm the final image. Talking tech is easy ... talking creative is hard.

you are right. Tech is easy because it has hard facts to back it up. You can bust out your slide rule and prove why x is better than why.

For example:

Raw vs. JPEG

Pros of raw.
More information per image file
More latitude during editing

Cons of raw
Large file size
Slower frame rate and more buffering

Pros of JPEG:
Faster frame rate and buffering
Smaller file sizes

Cons of JPEG
Lower image quality (compared to raw)
In camera processing
Less latitude during editing.

Boom done. Simple as that. Now it's time to make an educated decision based on your circumstances.

Declaring you only do this or that is asinine and only hurts you creativity.

this is extremely shortsighted, because it depends on the school of thought you come from and what exactly you intend to learn. Now i am sure not everyone has a dying need to learn the history of a jpeg image and artifacts, but knowing so gives a much better understanding to exactly what we are doing out there.
instance, my daughter started tae kwon do she was asked to memorize the school motto. That's it. When i started fma i was handed papers to read and learn on the HISTORY of fma. Before we even stepped out on the matt. Different methods, different school of thought. If you limit scope or "crop the photo" and only show them a small portion with no understanding..thats it. That little bit is all someone knows.

Oh come now. You love it. Plus, I'm on your side.

Joe is totally wrong. Getting sidetracked by technical detail has been the ruin of many a photographer. Photography is awash in trivialities you can fuss with.

You can piss away years fine tuning your digital workflow or screwing around with developers or trying to find just the right plastic camera and expired film.

There are literally millions of people who are tinkering with this crap, hoping that if they just get the right mix their inner Ansel Adams, Cartier-Bresson or that one other guy they can't remember his name will be unleashed.

And as long as they feel validated arguing about RAW versus JPEG their inner that-one-guy-whats-his-name is going to stay inner.

Some of them just like technical fussing. But some of them, surely, could be pretty good off they just got their asses kicked a bit.

do you have to know how to change a tire to drive a car? no. But you never know when the information may come in handy. It also gives you a better perspective what you are actually engaging in knowing at least a working knowledge of the tool being used.

 

[runnah]

Technical and Creativity/Vision works hand-in-hand. Content is King. While timing and composition are critically important ... understanding how to manipulate the camera to best capture and even enhance the content is nearly as important as content.

There aren't any shortcuts or quick fixes for photogs to consistently capture the exceptional image. One needs both the creative and technical for photographic proficiency. Neglecting one for the other will significantly harm the final image. Talking tech is easy ... talking creative is hard.

you are right. Tech is easy because it has hard facts to back it up. You can bust out your slide rule and prove why x is better than why.

For example:

Raw vs. JPEG

Pros of raw.
More information per image file
More latitude during editing

Cons of raw
Large file size
Slower frame rate and more buffering

Pros of JPEG:
Faster frame rate and buffering
Smaller file sizes

Cons of JPEG
Lower image quality (compared to raw)
In camera processing
Less latitude during editing.

Boom done. Simple as that. Now it's time to make an educated decision based on your circumstances.

Declaring you only do this or that is asinine and only hurts you creativity.

this is extremely shortsighted, because it depends on the school of thought you come from and what exactly you intend to learn. Now i am sure not everyone has a dying need to learn the history of a jpeg image and artifacts, but knowing so gives a much better understanding to exactly what we are doing out there.
instance, my daughter started tae kwon do she was asked to memorize the school motto. That's it. When i started fma i was handed papers to read and learn on the HISTORY of fma. Before we even stepped out on the matt. Different methods, different school of thought. If you limit scope or "crop the photo" and only show them a small portion with no understanding..thats it. That little bit is all someone knows.

Oh come now. You love it. Plus, I'm on your side.

Joe is totally wrong. Getting sidetracked by technical detail has been the ruin of many a photographer. Photography is awash in trivialities you can fuss with.

You can piss away years fine tuning your digital workflow or screwing around with developers or trying to find just the right plastic camera and expired film.

There are literally millions of people who are tinkering with this crap, hoping that if they just get the right mix their inner Ansel Adams, Cartier-Bresson or that one other guy they can't remember his name will be unleashed.

And as long as they feel validated arguing about RAW versus JPEG their inner that-one-guy-whats-his-name is going to stay inner.

Some of them just like technical fussing. But some of them, surely, could be pretty good off they just got their asses kicked a bit.

do you have to know how to change a tire to drive a car? no. But you never know when the information may come in handy. It also gives you a better perspective what you are actually engaging in knowing at least a working knowledge of the tool being used.

How so?

The good thing about the technical aspects about photography is that there is a firm truth in the facts. It's proven using facts that ISO 800 is more light sensitive than ISO 400. The flip side is the creative aspect of photography that cannot be qualified with numbers and facts.

Bogging down the technical aspects of photography with nonsense opinions and bias only hurts people's ability to learn.

 

[Gary A.]

In an all-else-is-equal sense ... shooting RAW only is okay, as long as you know the benefits of shoot JPEG and have selected to shoot RAW. Conversely, shooting JPEG is okay, again, as long as you know the benefits of shooting RAW and have chosen not to do so.

But shooting RAW just because you heard it was better, or shooting JPEG just because you don't know how to process RAW, is limiting and will put you down a narrow path of growth and fewer options.

Same for camera settings, using auto modes is fine, as long as you understand manual and understand what the camera is doing for you in auto mode. yadda-yadda-yadda

My point is that it is fine to set the camera in auto and work on composition as long as you know that someday you'll have to shift out of auto mode and work on exposure, if you desire more than just snapshots and the occasional and inconsistent exceptional image. And similarly for exposure. If all you're after are snapshots, then auto everything, shoot SOOC ... and why are you here on this forum.

Gary

 

[photoguy99]

I think it's a mistake to separate technical aspects from artistic ones. It all flows together. The necessary technical details can be taught in hours, though, and so obsessing over them is a waste of time, unless of course the technical details are what you enjoy.

RAW versus JPEG is a minor nicety which is rarely applicable to artistic vision. Sometimes it is, though. Luckily it's also trivially easy, so when your ideas need it, there it is

 

[pixmedic]

Dang....y'all still going on about raw vs jpeg? Can't we move on to a more civilized discussion? Like why Nikon is better than Canon?

 

[snerd]

Dang....y'all still going on about raw vs jpeg? Can't we move on to a more civilized discussion? Like why Nikon is better than Canon?

I'm in!! I was soooooooooo tempted by the D810!! Only my lenses held me back!!