Does Shooting in RAW Matter Given My Workflow?

[The_Traveler]

Not one leaves here after learning Processing is still shooting Raw.

Do they learn that Processing jpegs is like processing Raw but with much less information?

 

[JonFZ300]

My usually workflow is: shoot in RAW, identify files I want to edit, import them to Affinity Photo, "Develop" the photo (which in AP means take the RAW file and make edits--which almost never involve any serious work on white balance--I try to get that right with the shot rather than post-production). I'm always doing some sharpening (b/c it's shot in a RAW format), some cropping to alter the composition a bit, some healing brush to eliminate a few distractions (damn power line and how the hell did that coke can get in the foreground), maybe some filter affects (adding grain or removing haze, etc.), usually a little with shadow or highlights, usually a little around color, occasionally playing with DoF settings, then exporting as a Jpeg.

But I got to thinking--what editing am I doing that needs to be done in RAW? If I shot in jpeg I'd lost a lot of more sophisticated editing options and white balance stuff but I'm rarely doing that. And if I shot in jpeg, it would save the time of "Developing" (ie: reading the RAW file) and also having to sharpen every RAW file.

Thoughts? I'd welcome advice. Because right now if because of my principles (RAW is best for everything I shoot) I'm significantly adding time to my workflow.

If you're going to be doing all the editing steps in bold to a jpeg, then you're really only eliminating one step, exporting. You still have to "open" the file and do all these edits. Am I missing something? I would use Raw based on the fact that you do adjustments to shadows and highlights alone.

Back in the day, the first time I slid the highlights slider down and saw detail appear from what I thought was blown highlights, I decided then and there I would always shoot raw. You simply cannot pull as much detail from shots taken in tricky lighting from a jpeg. Just look at the boat photo above. I've replicated what Ysarex has done more times than I count just to confirm.

In my opinion, if you're going to edit at all, why not give yourself as much information to work with as possible? If you're not going to edit, it's not hard to batch export to jpeg.

I also agree with Ysarex about some of those that rinderart posted. Some of those composites are just wacky. Mid-day sun screaming over the foreground with a sunset-time sky in the background. Some of them also look like the sky is cropped before being added in. Not to my taste but neither is Britney Spears and she has sold 33 million records. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Overread]

I find it confusing that students would learn to process and would all leave shooting JPEG and none leave shooting RAW unless they are a very specific type of student shooting a specific type of scene and setup. Eg I know that many news reporters shoot in JPEG because the editing allowed by most news stations is limited and its more important to have files sent fast to the editor as well. So RAW just holds little benefit (then again a good few shoot both so that the editor has the JPEG and there's a RAW to work from if the photo gets increased demand or goes into private sales etc...).

Studio shooters who have time and capacity to control the lighting and thus also take a white balance shot and fix it before shooting their main subjects - again I can see them working in JPEG because they've control over the situation.


For me RAW is about potential and its preserving the maximum potential. Sure 90% or more of the time you don't need it; you do minimal editing and you get the shot as clsoe to right in camera as one can. That said RAW is there for those fewer but more critical situations where you do need it; and for where you might not have a chance to reshoot the shot and enable RAW in the camera after review of the first JPEG shot.

Furthermore some things in RAW are just easier - highlight and shadow recovery; white balance adjustment. Both are effortless in RAW working, but with a JPEG the data just isn't there for the first two and the latter can be an exercise in frustration trying to tweak the balance of colour in the shot.

@Rinderart I have to say I've never had a problem with high colour glossy/overcooked photos. I've always liked animation so bright and vibrant colours are no issue for me - a few of the ones you show are REALLY powerful. Even on a calibrated monitor they are going into that "nuclear glow" region which makes me wonder if on an uncalibrated they are even more vibrant. It is indeed what I'd consider "overcooked" to the point it actually detracts rather than attracts the eye. I'm looking in particular at the green tree against an orange background shot.
That said there's a world of various styles and methods and no one single method is fully correct.

I think the "issue" some have is the surprise that so many of your students are learning and studying photoshop and moving away from RAW when the experience of most here is the exact opposite. This leads one to think that either the students are learning method that most of us don't know of when it comes to working with the software and editing JPEGs; that they are working in genres where RAW offers no benefit or even that there's a particular style that you present and teach which, again, draws no benefit from RAW. Ergo without greater context its hard to accept the view that so many have stepped away from RAW at a higher level.

 

[Derrel]

I find it confusing that students would learn to process and would all leave shooting JPEG and none leave shooting RAW unless they are a very specific type of student shooting a specific type of scene and setup. Eg I know that many news reporters shoot in JPEG because the editing allowed by most news stations is limited and its more important to have files sent fast to the editor as well. So RAW just holds little benefit (then again a good few shoot both so that the editor has the JPEG and there's a RAW to work from if the photo gets increased demand or goes into private sales etc...).

Studio shooters who have time and capacity to control the lighting and thus also take a white balance shot and fix it before shooting their main subjects - again I can see them working in JPEG because they've control over the situation.


For me RAW is about potential and its preserving the maximum potential. Sure 90% or more of the time you don't need it; you do minimal editing and you get the shot as clsoe to right in camera as one can. That said RAW is there for those fewer but more critical situations where you do need it; and for where you might not have a chance to reshoot the shot and enable RAW in the camera after review of the first JPEG shot.

Furthermore some things in RAW are just easier - highlight and shadow recovery; white balance adjustment. Both are effortless in RAW working, but with a JPEG the data just isn't there for the first two and the latter can be an exercise in frustration trying to tweak the balance of colour in the shot.

@Rinderart I have to say I've never had a problem with high colour glossy/overcooked photos. I've always liked animation so bright and vibrant colours are no issue for me - a few of the ones you show are REALLY powerful. Even on a calibrated monitor they are going into that "nuclear glow" region which makes me wonder if on an uncalibrated they are even more vibrant. It is indeed what I'd consider "overcooked" to the point it actually detracts rather than attracts the eye. I'm looking in particular at the green tree against an orange background shot.
That said there's a world of various styles and methods and no one single method is fully correct.

I think the "issue" some have is the surprise that so many of your students are learning and studying photoshop and moving away from RAW when the experience of most here is the exact opposite. This leads one to think that either the students are learning method that most of us don't know of when it comes to working with the software and editing JPEGs; that they are working in genres where RAW offers no benefit or even that there's a particular style that you present and teach which, again, draws no benefit from RAW. Ergo without greater context its hard to accept the view that so many have stepped away from RAW at a higher level.

Well-written...

 

[The_Traveler]

That would look quite nice on black velvet.

 

[Rinderart]

Goodbye everyone. I tried to help. Im not gonna web argue anymore. . Those days are Long gone.Not my cup of tea.Deleting all posts Now. If ya wanna ask a question Rinderart@aol.com

 

[Overread]

Goodbye everyone. I tried to help. Im not gonna web argue anymore. . Those days are Long gone.Not my cup of tea.Deleting all posts Now. If ya wanna ask a question Rinderart@aol.com

I didn't see argument so much as a surprising claim being debated - as would be expected in any exchange of ideas and concepts. Myself I even pointed out several specific instances where I can well accept that the workflow doesn't benefit RAW and instead benefits JPEG or where RAW offers little to no gain. Your view was, as presented, quite stronger on the angle that the context didn't matter which is surprising to many of us. I'm saddened that you've decided to leave and not expand upon your point in greater depth so that we could better understand your position and that of your students that you teach.

 

[Derrel]

Goodbye everyone. I tried to help. Im not gonna web argue anymore. . Those days are Long gone.Not my cup of tea.Deleting all posts Now. If ya wanna ask a question Rinderart@aol.com

Sorry to see you pulling responses/leaving. I enjoyed your posts/POV/experience/outlook!

 

[The_Traveler]

Sometimes I shoot in such adverse conditions that raw is required to get back to something viewable.

 

[Ysarex]

Goodbye everyone. I tried to help. Im not gonna web argue anymore. . Those days are Long gone.Not my cup of tea.Deleting all posts Now. If ya wanna ask a question Rinderart@aol.com

Predictable.

Joe

 

[AlanKlein]

Folks get the whole raw/JPEG difference and rationale confused all the time. There's nothing wrong with JPEGs. JPEG compression is great and my finished photos end up as JPEGs. I print JPEGs all the time and you can't tell the difference. So it's not about JPEG compression -- that's a valuable feature. "Raw processing gives me more flexibility in case I screw up." Don't screw up. I don't shoot raw because I need to cover my butt in case I screw up.

It's about extended capability. I shoot raw so I can take photos that JPEG only shooters just can't take at all. I do that regularly and I expect to be able to do that. The "get it right in camera" myth is a myth because unless you're setting up the lighting in a studio, you have to deal with the light as is out there in the world. Often it's a good match for the processing capabilities of the camera JPEG software but just as often it is not. As frequently noted the comparison between transparency and negative film is appropriate. Transparency film has to be right straight from camera so there's little room for error. When people make that comparison they always leave off what should be the next sentence: And so adverse lighting frequently shuts down the option to shoot transparency film entirely. Negative film however can be taken into the darkroom where the adverse lighting condition can be worked with and overcome. Negative film can be used successfully over a wider range of lighting conditions.

So going all the way back to the OP's original question and reapplying that question to myself the answer is absolutely yes. I'm not at all willing to limit what I shoot to only the photos JPEG shooters can take.

Joe

I had to go out after the above post and didn't have more time. It would help of course to present an example of; "I shoot raw so I can take photos that JPEG only shooters just can't take at all." So a couple weeks ago I got out for a day trip with my camera. On that trip I took 1/2 a dozen photos that JPEG shooters just can't take at all. I'm not going to give up taking those photos so I can shoot JPEG -- why should I? I took this photo of the old Winfield ferry:

View attachment 170554

Here's the JPEG the camera created for that exposure:

View attachment 170518

The JPEG is of course a crash and burn with the diffuse highlights nuked to oblivion. That's understandable since I took the photo with the EC set to +1.3. I expose for the sensor in my camera and I knew I'd want as much tonal info as possible in the above photo. From the shadow detail under the front of the boat to the highlights in the clouds there's 9.5 stops of tonal data. I used all of it in my version of the photo. A JPEG shooter simply can't have that much data.

So if the JPEG shooter wanted to take this photo they'd have to reduce exposure. In fact they'd have to use less than half as much of the sensor as I did. I put the raw file back in the camera and re-processed it with the exposure pulled. The JPEG shooter would have to expose and get something like this:

View attachment 170519

And then of course the real thigh-slapping hilarity of all of this is they're going to have to take that to the computer anyway and try and salvage a usable photo from it -- a task more difficult and time consuming and requiring more skill than just processing the raw file. In fact I imagine I'd process dozens of raw files while a JPEG shooter tried to get anything remotely looking like my first image above from the basket case JPEG they'd bring home.

One it's about exposure: If you shoot JPEG you can't expose and clip the diffuse highlights. That means you're always going to expose less than I do. JPEG shooters typically only use about 1/2 the recording potential in their camera's sensors -- I use it all. The photo presented here is backlit and the lighting contrast is very high. Shooting JPEGs you're forced to walk away with less of the scene's tonal data.

Two it's about processing: The camera JPEG software has limited flexibility and can't do anything local with an image. I dragged a gradient over the sky in processing to allow local control and then I erased the gradient from the boat. When the JPEG software encounters a scene like the one above it doesn't have the ability to accommodate the high lighting contrast (& yes I'm well versed with Active D lighting, Canon HTP, Fuji DR modes etc. which are good for even more thigh slapping hilarity). As a result the JPEG shooter tries to take a photo like the one above and heads for the computer anyway to try and effect a repair which is more difficult, takes more time and then fails -- thigh slapping LOL.

Of course smart JPEG shooters can just walk away from a scene like the one above and leave it to me.

NOTE: The slide film/negative film comparison: The above scene with the main subject of the photo backlit is a classic case of the transparency film photographer also getting shut down. Try that with any transparency film and if you get a decent exposure for the boat you're going to have clear film base holes in your transparency where the clouds should be. Expose to keep the clouds and you get a basket case exposure of the boat. It's a lose/lose situation. It's always been that way and slide film shooters learned when to walk away. JPEG shooters learn when to walk away too. I take the photo.

Joe

I took the dark picture and lightened up the shadows in PS ELements. So there's still plenty of stuff in jpegs even one that was posted on the web.

 

[AlanKlein]

There's nothing wrong with RAW to help in tough lighting situations. However, shooting RAW may fool the photographer into thinking he can get away with sloppy exposure and sloppy composition. I see that in my photo group. People saying they'll correct it later in PS rather than taking the time to get in right in the camera. You can only correct content, perspective and good lighting so much in PS. A snapshot is a snapshot.

 

[Overread]

There's nothing wrong with RAW to help in tough lighting situations. However, shooting RAW may fool the photographer into thinking he can get away with sloppy exposure and sloppy composition. I see that in my photo group. People saying they'll correct it later in PS rather than taking the time to get in right in the camera. You can only correct content, perspective and good lighting so much in PS. A snapshot is a snapshot.

To be fair I think if those people were shooting JPEG they'd still have the same attitude. Sometimes its not the medium or the method or the setup its the attitude of the person and what they want from their hobby. Everyone reaches a point of information and education overload or peaks out at a point where they feel that they know enough and don't dedicate themselves to learning more. More serious people often push further; many don't and will casually enjoy at a level they are at.
Sometimes its because they lack the drive and determination; sometimes the lack of outside encouragement*; sometimes they lack self learning skills or can't find specific resources or those resources are behind a paywall - so sometimes there are barriers that they cannot overcome on their own.

*yes yes yes its a hobby and people do it for themselves, but outside influence is also important. A lack of encouragement, from the right source, can result in a person losing enthusiasm.

 

[AlanKlein]

There's nothing wrong with RAW to help in tough lighting situations. However, shooting RAW may fool the photographer into thinking he can get away with sloppy exposure and sloppy composition. I see that in my photo group. People saying they'll correct it later in PS rather than taking the time to get in right in the camera. You can only correct content, perspective and good lighting so much in PS. A snapshot is a snapshot.

To be fair I think if those people were shooting JPEG they'd still have the same attitude. Sometimes its not the medium or the method or the setup its the attitude of the person and what they want from their hobby. Everyone reaches a point of information and education overload or peaks out at a point where they feel that they know enough and don't dedicate themselves to learning more. More serious people often push further; many don't and will casually enjoy at a level they are at.
Sometimes its because they lack the drive and determination; sometimes the lack of outside encouragement*; sometimes they lack self learning skills or can't find specific resources or those resources are behind a paywall - so sometimes there are barriers that they cannot overcome on their own.

*yes yes yes its a hobby and people do it for themselves, but outside influence is also important. A lack of encouragement, from the right source, can result in a person losing enthusiasm.

I agree with many of your points. However, I think the situation is people learn or think that PS is where all the hard work occurs. That pictures are "great" because the photographer magically conjured something in editing that made the shot. They think that technology is going to provide the artistic and important component. So they ignore the shooting phase as something pedestrian rather than the key requirement. A snapshot will be a snapshot even if taken in RAW. And a magical shot will be magical even if only taken in jpeg. But I do agree, that each person has to decide for themself what is important.

 

[Ysarex]

There's nothing wrong with RAW to help in tough lighting situations.

There's everything right with raw in tough lighting situations to solve the problem and allow for a successful photo that shooting JPEG can't produce at all. Shooting raw doesn't just help; it solves what would be a insurmountable problem if shooting JPEG. It can be a simple case of:

raw = possible
JPEG = impossible

However, shooting RAW may fool the photographer into thinking he can get away with sloppy exposure and sloppy composition. I see that in my photo group.

Why even bring this up? It's the biggest red herring in photo. There is no rule that says because people in your photo club are doing something sloppy that I have to be sloppy too. Can we please assume for the sake of this discussion, without evidence to the contrary that we are not making the mistakes that some other people make. I'm not.

People saying they'll correct it later in PS rather than taking the time to get in right in the camera.

I was wrong -- THIS is the biggest red herring in photo. The "get it right in camera" myth. The photo I took above of the tow -- there was no "get it right in camera" option to take that photo. The photo I took was not possible if shooting JPEG and certainly not possible as a SOOC JPEG. Again, this is the JPEG my camera created:

It sucks. But in fact I totally nailed the raw exposure in camera. There are no controls in the camera software that will permit that lighting contrast to be handled correctly.

raw = possible
JPEG = impossible

Joe

You can only correct content, perspective and good lighting so much in PS. A snapshot is a snapshot.

P.S. It's also worth noting that since in a lighting condition like I dealt with in that tow photo will prohibit a successful SOOC JPEG then it's the JPEG shooter trying nonetheless to take that photo who ends up in PS trying to repair the mess and often just making it worse.