What is so bad about RAW?

[dbvirago]

Shooting JPGs helped me grow as a photographer the day I shot landscapes all day set to tungsten WB. My personal journey of growth involved moving the little doo-hickey over to the RAW setting and never looking back.

 

[Overread]

One way to get yourself noticed - say things that are outrageous and go against the common grain (Ken Rockwell built himself on doing this).

Part of life itself is learning who is and isn't worth listening to; furthermore another key part is learning to separate opinion from fact - sadly both points are very hard to perform when new to a specific area of interest; its one reason that "just google it" doesn't work as an answer because often than not the popular answer is either wrong or highly opinionated to the point where its wrong as generalist advice.

There are times when JPEG is superior and there are times when RAW is superior. Research the options, learn to use both to a good level of finish and then make your choice at the time for what works for you best.

 

[tecboy]

I'm not insulting anyone. I just don't like fact about giving wrong information about jpeg is better picture quality than unprocessed raw image.

 

[Overread]

Ps many professional sports photographers shoot in JPEG - their profession allows for very little editing itself and the photos are needed almost as soon as they are taken by the editors (not just for the print in the paper, but these days also for online display). As such the photographer doesn't even have time to edit RAWs and won't gain much in their use - so they shoot JPEG. It speeds up the process and also means that file transfer sizes are small so that they can quickly send images right to the editor (its not unknown for some to shoot with a wireless transfer setup and an assistant on site who uploads the shots as they are taken).

So JPEG does have a place in the world, even in the professional world. It's an example of where most of the photographers shooting can use both approaches - they've learned what the strengths and weaknesses are for each and have made the choice to use from an informed position .

 

[Gavjenks]

I'm not insulting anyone. I just don't like fact about giving wrong information about jpeg is better picture quality than unprocessed raw image.

It's not objectively wrong. If creative constraints like limiting yourself to jpeg do indeed jolt you out of a creative rut, then your images will have a higher image quality than otherwise, since you are more creatively stimulated to make tasteful artistic choices. Also, an image that exists necessarily has higher image quality than an image that doesn't exist (because you ran out of space on your card).

These things may not apply to you, but they can and do occasionally apply to some people, sometimes, and in those cases, jpeg only leads to better image quality. So saying that the information is "wrong" is saying that they are lying, basically.

And I don't even really care if you do insult such people. Maybe you think they ARE liars, and deserve to be insulted *shrug* But it's inconsistent to say "oh we should respect people's opinions and it's your choice! But also, these people are completely wrong." at the same time.



edit: the post above mine being another example: effective image quality of a jpeg is higher than a RAW if the jpeg is small enough to wirelessly transmit to a commentator before it is needed while a RAW is not (thus resulting in zero useful image)

 

[Benco]

So JPEG does have a place in the world, even in the professional world. It's an example of where most of the photographers shooting can use both approaches - they've learned what the strengths and weaknesses are for each and have made the choice to use from an informed position .

That's a balanced, reasoned and unbiased statement. It has absolutely no place on a JPG Vs raw thread, shame on you!

 

[AlanKlein]

Isn't JPEG like chromes were years ago. Either you got the shot or you didn't and then you threw the shot away if you screwed up. No one wrung their hands about not being able to see inside shadows much. Sure they used grad ND filters, or maybe bracketed if there was time like in landscape photos, but you either got it or not. There was no down time after with out-of-camera adjustments now called post processing. You were back out taking pictures which for many is more important than sitting by a computer. Isn't that similar with JPEG? It is kind of freeing to focus on getting a creative shot and being very aware of exposure while shooting. And then moving on to the next shot.

 

[Overread]

I'd liken JPEGs more to being akin to sending your film to the lab to be processed whilst RAW is processing the film at home.

JPEG gets some standard treatment the same for each and every shot which is always to the same standard. You can change the standard (with JPEG only before you take the shot of course) but its always applied the same unless you change it yourself and you can't react to the shot you have to do it before.


You can, of course, still edit a JPEG, but the amount of light data you have is less and thus the possibilities are reduced. Some things will take longer to do well whilst others can be near impossible - White balance is often hard or impossible to correct if you get way out when shooting JPEG - whilst with RAW its a few seconds to adjust.

 

[Buckster]

Isn't JPEG like chromes were years ago. Either you got the shot or you didn't and then you threw the shot away if you screwed up. No one wrung their hands about not being able to see inside shadows much. Sure they used grad ND filters, or maybe bracketed if there was time like in landscape photos, but you either got it or not. There was no down time after with out-of-camera adjustments now called post processing. You were back out taking pictures which for many is more important than sitting by a computer. Isn't that similar with JPEG? It is kind of freeing to focus on getting a creative shot and being very aware of exposure while shooting. And then moving on to the next shot.

If someone wants to live in the past by using older technology, that's their business and they're welcome to it. But to sit and make statements that make it clear that he thinks that people who shoot RAW do it because they're basically insecure rookies who don't have enough experience to know schitt about what they're doing yet, while the great Will Crockett has been shooting for 30 some-odd years - well, that's just pure bull.

There are a LOT of pro photographers today who shoot RAW, both big names and everyday working photographers from coast to coast, and they are certainly not insecure rookies. There are a LOT of non-pro photographers as well who have been shooting for 30, 40, 50 years and beyond who are certainly not insecure and DO know what they're doing. In many cases, they simply chose not to take a chance at a life as a starving artist, having had much better career options.

As far as I'm concerned, Will Crockett can take his steaming pile of condescension, get together with ego-maniacal know-it-all Ken Rockwell, and they can both go pound salt into each other back sides while pontificating on video about how they're the salt-pounding experts.

 

[Gavjenks]

Isn't JPEG like chromes were years ago. Either you got the shot or you didn't and then you threw the shot away if you screwed up. No one wrung their hands about not being able to see inside shadows much. Sure they used grad ND filters, or maybe bracketed if there was time like in landscape photos, but you either got it or not. There was no down time after with out-of-camera adjustments now called post processing. You were back out taking pictures which for many is more important than sitting by a computer. Isn't that similar with JPEG? It is kind of freeing to focus on getting a creative shot and being very aware of exposure while shooting. And then moving on to the next shot.

Keep in mind that by doing things like bracketing exposure (as you mentioned) or screwing and unscrewing filters, you are taking more time in the field to fiddle with settings to get your initial jpeg right. Whereas somebody shooting RAW doesn't really need to worry as much about bracketing exposure. Depending on how efficient you are with your computer, this may end up being just as much or even more time spent fiddling in the field than you would have spent fiddling on the computer.

So if your goal is to spend the most time making creative decisions in the field, it may actually be a bit ambiguous whether jpeg or RAW are actually the most efficient, depending on your own personal habits, computer skills, etc. Assuming you devote an equal number of hours in both cases to "photography" (fiddling and creative decisions, field vs. post processing, etc. etc.)

 

[tecboy]

I agree with Overread and Gavjenks, but if you read their websites, they started the war of controversies about jpeg vs raw. They actually hate raw file format and some hate photographers shooting raw. I have met several photographers who shoot jpeg, and I didn't argue about that. It is not a good idea to distort the truth. I started shooting jpeg a while back, and now I shoot raw. Just don't says photographers are "not professional" because they shoot raw.

 

[Gavjenks]

I agree with Overread and Gavjenks, but if you read their websites, they started the war of controversies about jpeg vs raw. They actually hate raw file format and some hate photographers shooting raw. I have met several photographers who shoot jpeg, and I didn't argue about that. It is not a good idea to distort the truth. I started shooting jpeg a while back, and now I shoot raw. Just don't says photographers are not "professional" because they shoot raw.

Well if he says that elsewhere (the "non-professional" thing), then that's pretty inappropriate, yes.

 

[AlanKlein]

Isn't JPEG like chromes were years ago. Either you got the shot or you didn't and then you threw the shot away if you screwed up. No one wrung their hands about not being able to see inside shadows much. Sure they used grad ND filters, or maybe bracketed if there was time like in landscape photos, but you either got it or not. There was no down time after with out-of-camera adjustments now called post processing. You were back out taking pictures which for many is more important than sitting by a computer. Isn't that similar with JPEG? It is kind of freeing to focus on getting a creative shot and being very aware of exposure while shooting. And then moving on to the next shot.

Keep in mind that by doing things like bracketing exposure (as you mentioned) or screwing and unscrewing filters, you are taking more time in the field to fiddle with settings to get your initial jpeg right. Whereas somebody shooting RAW doesn't really need to worry as much about bracketing exposure. Depending on how efficient you are with your computer, this may end up being just as much or even more time spent fiddling in the field than you would have spent fiddling on the computer.

So if your goal is to spend the most time making creative decisions in the field, it may actually be a bit ambiguous whether jpeg or RAW are actually the most efficient, depending on your own personal habits, computer skills, etc. Assuming you devote an equal number of hours in both cases to "photography" (fiddling and creative decisions, field vs. post processing, etc. etc.)

You raise very valid points. I think the idea I was trying to convery is that years ago, some really great photography was made with chromes which "locked-in" the final result sort of like JPEG at the time the shot was made. Yet the photos were phenominal as Nat GEo, Life and other purveyors of photography showed. The limitation of chromes didn't stop really great photos. Creativity, composition, story telling, beauty was all there. I'm not saying RAW is no good. Far from that. I appreciate the greater flexibility it gives you. I'm only trying to make a point that JPEG could be as good as chromes were. If RAW never existed, only JPEGs with great content exposed properly, don't you think we'd still have some very great photography regardless? And the counterpoint this raises is if the photo has none of these other qualities, will RAW save it? How many people waste their time trying to dress up RAW pictures in post that truly can't be saved because they lack the innate qualities that make a photo great? Does RAW photography encourage carelessness and lack of creativty in many? Would they be better off forgeting about the technical tools and focusing on capturing the right shot? Just some food for thought.

 

[kathyt]

It is all about whatever works for you as a photographer. If Jpeg is working for you then great. If you find that RAW is yielding better results then stick with RAW. Everyone has different ways of getting from A to Z. I know amazing photographers that shoot in both Jpeg and in RAW. I don't really care if they shoot in their underwear as long as they are happy with their end results. Who is it really hurting anyways?

 

[unpopular]

In one of his comments he wrote:

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]camera makers are moving away from RAW[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]

[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Which makes me think he doesn't really know what raw is. He clearly isn't very well versed. Does he really think Lord of the Rings was shot in MPEG?[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]---[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]As some of you may know, I am a big proponent of self limitation, so I get what he's saying here about that. But with so many other areas which could be pared down, zoom lenses, AF, AE, and all the other stuff that more or less makes a DSLR into a really big p/s, raw is kind of the last thing I think of. I am also not totally sure what limiting yourself in this way owuld accomplish, perhaps make you a better technical photographer without the ability to 'just fix it in post', but I also think it promotes an SOOC attitude which creates this feeling that processing and post some kind of inconvenience, rather than a continuum from exposure.

This kind of attitude takes digital photography with all it's flexibility and advantages, and sends it to the bad old days of slide film. The fact that this 'old pro' uses his experience with slide film to sort of validate his views on jpeg and raw kind of makes sense ... but he's not the only one who's shot a few slides, and I for one don't miss it one bit.[/FONT]