What is so bad about RAW?

[Gavjenks]

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.

Yeah you should probably only use it for correcting legitimate exposure and color errors, or as a replacement for bracketing if you KNOW that the RAW is going to add enough extra range to cover your "fudge" factor.

Not as a "spray and pray" blind safety net.

 

[unpopular]

It's not like we didn't 'fix exposure' in the darkroom, either. We even had chemicals specific for this purpose. Every time you did a test strip, this is pretty much exactly what you were doing.

For some reason now adjusting a stop is like some kind of mortal sin. Was mixing a batch of reducer or waiting another couple seconds on the print exposure so difficult to justify all the 'get it right in the camera' lines?

 

[amolitor]

I will never tire of watching people on internet forums respond to what they imagine someone probably said rather than what that same someone actually said. Some people can't be bothered to pay enough attention to read, or listen, or whatever. They see a title, they pick up on a few words, and they decide what the chap must be saying. Because it's probably the same thing that other chap didn't say, and the chap before him didn't say.

Then they put on their Hat Of Internet Fury and reply.

 

[bratkinson]

Gavjenks comment regarding “more creativity from a more constrained position” as a psychological phenomenon got me to thinking…Were the authors of the great novels of years ago, be it William Shakespeare or Dashiell Hammett (The Maltese Falcon, et al) constrained by the fact they used the comparatively ‘clunky’ old pen and ink or typewriter, respectively? Did the fact that they had to write ‘perfect copy’, no erasures, cross-outs, etc, constrain their creativity? Or, more importantly, WHEN did they have their creativity? Perhaps WHERE did they have their creativity? And at what point did they record their creative expressions on paper?

Remembering my many years as a mainframe computer consultant/analyst/programmer, my big creativity point was when I first ‘laid out in my head’ the blocks of code that had to be written. It was only at/with the pencil and paper (coding forms and punch cards, back then) and later the keyboard at a CRT that I filled in all the details of each ‘chunk’ of code. One could hardly consider writing code for payroll calculations or inventory ‘creative’. It was more like: “here’s the formulas to use, plug them in”. The creativity was more in the ‘conceptualization’ stages, rather than the ‘doing’ stages.

For what it’s worth, the company I work for produces a calendar each year with 12 photos of their equipment ‘in action’ submitted by employees. I have a very specific photograph in mind I'd like to submit, but need the weather to cooperate to get that foggy night I have in mind. Is my creativity at the point of framing, setting exposure and clicking the shutter? (doing) Or is it when I visualized the photograph in my mind…weeks, if not months, before taking the photograph? (conceptualization) My camera is still in the car waiting for that night.

As far as the ‘great Raw vs JPG debate’… I fall into the ‘whatever works for me for that situation’ category. For situations where the WB is going to change from second to second such as flouresent + incandescent + sodium (or?) vapor lighting all in the same room, trying to get the WB correct in the camera IS impossible…no grey/white/whatever card made can change 60 times per second as does florescent lighting does. So, in those situations, it’s set the WB in post, there’s no other choice. So much for ‘get it right in the camera’.

But I’d be the first one to admit that when I transitioned from film to digital about 2001, I didn’t even know what WB or RAW was, and was perfectly happy leaving my Canon G3 and later, G5 on ‘Auto WB’ and ‘JPG’ and firing away. But then, it was a major battle with the very early Photoshop freebie that came with the G3 to get the colors right. I didn’t know any better. And I have this forum to thank for their information that there IS such as thing as white balance and how to fix it. Later, reading about raw vs JPG, I switched to raw+JPG and shoot in both 100% of the time. That way, if I’m satisfied with the JPGs, I can make quick ‘touch ups’ and go with it. I also use the JPGs to make my ‘first pass’ decisions on what to delete and what raws go to Lightroom for editing. And perhaps the big downside of raw (+JPG)?...On the 5D3, it ‘eats’ memory cards like there’s no tomorrow! I’ve learned the hard way to carry more than I did when I had a 60D!

So is JPG better than raw? From the ‘lazy photographer’ point of view, absolutely! It saves editing time and can get me out of the dark room…er…computer room a lot faster! However, at the same time, shooting raw has enabled me to fix nearly everything but mis-composed, missed-focus, camera shake, too-slow shutter speed and the worst of the under/over exposed shots. And don’t forget an occasional lens flare or chromatic aberration, or barrel distortion, etc., too!

 

[tecboy]

Anyway, the getting right camera video is pretty funny.

 

[unpopular]

I really don't like the idea that the only purpose for raw is to fix mistakes. this is kind of like saying the only reason to adjust developer time is to fix a missed exposure.

 

[Tinderbox (UK)]

I shoot RAW, i need every bit of help i can get to produce a good photo

John.

 

[Ysarex]

I really don't like the idea that the only purpose for raw is to fix mistakes. this is kind of like saying the only reason to adjust developer time is to fix a missed exposure.

:thumbup: Right. Saving and processing raw files (for me) is about achieving excellence -- the very best photo I can get by taking full advantage of the tools available and devoting the time and effort to learn to use those tools to best advantage. The process extends seamlessly from end to end starting with the camera and ending with the finished photo. Over the course of nearly 40 years now it's been my experience that if I hand any segment of that process over to an automated system (software algorithms etc.) that automated system will do the only thing it can do: apply a rule of averages which is the essence of what makes automation possible. I'm not trying to achieve average I'm trying to achieve excellent. Raw file in hand can I produce a better photo than the software in the camera? Every time. Can I produce a better photo than someone editing JPEGs? Most of the time.

Excellence is one of those extreme, absolute concepts that we have to be careful with. When you mix excellence with reality you end up with compromise and that's a good thing. If you're unwilling to compromise then you never get anything done. You don't want to just throw your hands up and quit. Holding up excellence as a goal is the right thing to do, but productive excellence means that at the end of the day you're happy that you worked to your very best ability and you look forward to trying again tomorrow. I think my photos could be a little more excellent if I had 645DF+, but right now I'm compromising.

As for shooting JPEG, it is likewise valid. The working parameters can change to require a compromise (some degree of automation in exchange for efficiency). Overread made the case perfectly -- the job requirements can be the final determinant -- journalism being the perfect example. I was initially trained by a sports professional (staff photographer for the baseball Cardinals) and I learned that among the different specialties in photography there is none more exacting than action journalism. Their job today requires they shoot JPEG. It's ridiculous to suggest that they're not as committed to achieving excellence as I am.

Joe

 

[ShaneF]

Ansel Adams "Got it right in camera" then also spent hours mastering his images in the dark room dodging and burning etc tweeking his images. In this day and age are darkroom is photoshop and lightroom.

When you took film to be developed the masters that developed your film in the darkroom also tweaked your images to come out the best they could, there has always been post processing tweaking and always will be so why not shoot raw to have the most information available to do so,

 

[unpopular]

When I make a photograph, I make decisions about the exposure based on how I intend to process the image to best utilize the gamut available.

For example, [ideally] I will meter the hilights and the shadows to determine how I will make the exposure. If the region I place in Zone IX puts the shadows above Zone V, I'd want to pull the hilights back a stop and use an S-Curve in processing. If the shadows are below Zone V, I can just add a simple gamma-curve.

Would this work for photographers who benefit most from JPEG's advantages? Most certainly not. But the feeling that the only reason to shoot RAW is to fix problems is really a short-sighted way to look at processing - which in my view is as much a part of photography as exposure.

 

[unpopular]

Ansel Adams "Got it right in camera"

Adams 'got it right in camera' with the understanding of how it would be processed. I don't think Adams had this split view of photography that seems to exist in chrome and digital, he seems to have seen exposure, process and print under one continuous umbrella called 'photography'. Adams did "get it right in camera", but at the same time if you processed a N-1.3 exposure according to the instructions on the package, it will come out dense.

That's kind of what raw-deniers are suggesting to do. Just shoot everything at N±0, and if the shadows plug up, then you've just got to eat it because you've only 64 shades of grey (lolz) below Zone V to work with on an 8-bit image.

 

[amolitor]

It's possible that some of the raw deniers are more like me. I don't give a damn about a few blocked up shadows or blown out highlights, I don't consider these technical issues to be particularly important. I don't pay much attention to the, uh, "debate" though.

 

[Tony S]

I always shoot in RAW, but when it gets cold out little Willy shrinks. :neutral:

 

[Superfitz]

I don't have problem with people shooting jpeg. However, this video claims jpeg is better than raw.

Why I REALLY Shoot Portraits in JPEG instead of RAW. - YouTube

JPEG is better than raw. What is the problem with someone believing that an stating why?

 

[amolitor]

I don't have problem with people shooting jpeg. However, this video claims jpeg is better than raw.

Why I REALLY Shoot Portraits in JPEG instead of RAW. - YouTube

JPEG is better than raw. What is the problem with someone believing that an stating why?

Didn't you just get through trolling a thread with this?
HA HA HA HA HA! IT WAS SUPER FUNNY THE FIRST TIME AND NOW ALMOST A DAY LATER IT'S BOUND TO BE EVEN MORE FUNNY!

HA HA HAHAHAHA!!!!!!