What is so bad about RAW?

[Gavjenks]

my time for processing is NOT a concern...(just for the sake of this question)
IS there a scenario where I will get a result by shooting jpeg that i CAN NOT get by shooting raw and processing in LR or PS?

Technically speaking, no. The advantage of jpeg is that for all real world people, time for processing IS a concern. It's just a question of whether it is enough of a concern for you to give up some flexibility. For a pro sports photog who wants to upload images to a commentator or website within seconds, that would be an example of a result that they cannot get shooting RAW. But only because of the processing time, not because of "better data" in any way. It isn't.

Also, if you believe Will Crockett, then for non-technical reasons, you might be able to get a result from jpeg that you couldn't get from RAW, irrespective of processing time. Not because of data differences, but because of the mindset it puts you in. This may or may not be valid for YOU, but obviously it is for him. So it happens. Or even if it isn't true for him, it is true for some people, because this is a known, documented phenomenon (mostly for writing, not photography, but no reason it shouldn't apply).

Crockett seems to be stuck in the, "somebody else do it for me" world that Kodak created, and that's fine for him and anyone else that wants to do things that way. But to claim that it makes him more creative, or for him to even imply that it makes him or his choices better in some way is just ridiculous.

As annoying as the guy is, this was NOT his argument. He is not handing off his images to some underling to do the RAW processing. He's choosing to use jpeg and the default or limited conversion settings in camera instead of the conversion on the computer.

You might argue that amateurs who don't understand RAW and just use jpeg by default are the equivalent of people who let "the photo lab guys do it" but that's not the case here. As long as he knows what RAW can do--and he does--and chooses not to use it, then that itself is a legit technical choice of his own, equivalent to any other choice he could have made in a dark room or in software, but simply done ahead of time.

He may very well be just trying to annoyingly get a rise out of people, but the argument is still sound and is not at all ridiculous as at least a potential reason to shoot jpeg (whether it's his reason or not). Again, creativity from constraint is a very well known and documented phenomenon in the psych literature. And even personally, I've experienced this first hand many times. I'd be surprised if you haven't, too. Anybody who finds it easier to build interesting things with Legos, for instance, instead of clay, could be said to be benefitting from this.

Or here is another, clearer example: The Storymatic: a writing prompt, a teaching tool, a parlor game, and a toy

For him to claim that he's right because he's shot for so long and gets gigs shooting for Fortune 500 companies is a logical fallacy. There are plenty of people who've shot as long or longer than him that suck, and frankly, I'm not terribly impressed by anything I saw on his web site. As for the Fortune 500 gigs, it's a lot like being a pop star - it's not necessarily talent that gets you the big star - it's more marketing and promotion combined with the fact that the masses and clients we serve often don't know shat from shinola, or we wouldn't have had disco or Justine Bieber.

Yes, this part is ridiculous, but that doesn't undermine the validity of the creative constraint idea.

 

[unpopular]

I am trying to form a point about the creative constraint idea. I'm a bit proponent of this concept, but it seems a little bit lacking when you're using AE/AF and zoom lenses.

I think the problem with raw is that processing is seen as this kind of detached, time consuming inconvenience which is somehow separate from photography. I suppose that makes sense, much of digital photography is a lot like shooting slide film - up until it's time to process it. It's really only the darkroom end that things start feeling really different. So I think some people kind of can't really get over this, they just can't see processing similar to working in the darkroom, adjusting development time like you would with a b/w negative, they don't see the processing as a continuous step in making an image, and rather prefer to view digital photography as slide film, or perhaps more accurately really high resolution polaroids where getting the most detail out of the camera isn't as important as getting a passable representation.

 

[Gavjenks]

I am trying to form a point about the creative constraint idea. I'm a bit proponent of this concept, but it seems a little bit lacking when you're using AE/AF and zoom lenses.

Why is that? I don't see why it needs to be an "all or nothing" thing. In fact, either all or nothing is probably bad for almost everyone. It's a sliding arc with a maximal point somewhere in the middle for everybody. The more constraint you have, the easier it is to get a creative jumpstart. BUT also the more, well, constrained you are. Too much constraint is unnecessary if you already had enough creative motivation before, and will only serve to make your work stagnate by always looking the same (minor iterations due to lack of flexibility). Too little is paralyzing.

It's also going to be most efficient for each person to constrain the things that are least important to his or her own stylistic flexibility. You lock out the chaff, the silly things that just distract you. In his case, shooting still corporate buildings and portraits may have very controlled lighting and WB, and the benefits of RAW may be more of a distraction than an asset to him. For somebody who shoots more off the cuff in available light, perhaps RAW is part of their needed flexibility, and they may be better off constraining something else, such as focal length by only taking out one or two primes with them. Or nothing (beyond what they are forced to constrain), if they are a person who doesn't need much constraint to get started with the creative juices.

Some other people may personally benefit (at least now and then) from a larger degree of constraint in multiple aspects, like people who shoot view cameras with 8x10 film.

 

[unpopular]

This is kind of my point, at what level is self limitation sufficient? Wet plate?

WB thing is pretty funny, I think. there is quite literally NO technical reason to think about WB unless you're shooting jpeg. WB correction is always done post-exposure, so I am not really convinced that thinking about w/b at exposure makes you a better photographer.

 

[KenC]

WB thing is pretty funny, I think. there is quite literally NO technical reason to think about WB unless you're shooting jpeg. WB correction is always done post-exposure, so I am not really convinced that thinking about w/b at exposure makes you a better photographer.

Absolutely, and this was true even before digital if you were shooting negative film and making prints. The color dials on the enlarger are there for a reason. The only problem you would need to avoid (unless this is what you wanted for some reason) was mixed light sources, and this is still true now, whether you shoot raw or jpeg. I suppose you could fix it in raw with selective color balance adjustments but it would be a real PITA.

 

[unpopular]

There are some channel chops that make mixed light less of a PITA, but i've never been very good at it.

Personally I think spending too much time thinking about white balance prevents you from thinking about numbers, and not enough time thinking about how the scene looks.

There are theoretical reasons why you might want to think about w/b BEFORE exposure, using CC filters to adjust w/b optically - but that's getting into some pretty technical stuff that goes well beyond what Crockett is aiming at (and imo, likely know anything about).

 

[AlanKlein]

When I go on a trip, or I'm at a party, it's nice and fun to just leave the P&S or m43 on "P" and jpeg and process the shots only with crops and a little curves and that's it. MAybe make a slide show for playing on the computer or HDTV, Who needs to bother with all the other stuff? (I usually shoot jpeg + RAW just in case). On the other hand, if I'm specifically going out for "The Shot", sure it makes sense to give muself the flexibility. When I'm shooting film, well that's easier because I only have to focus, and set aperture and shutter, no frustrating menus. Of course, post processing and scanning are laborious, but I use the MF camera for "The Shots" and not much else.

As I'm getting older, I'm finding that simplicity is fun and pretty good as well.

 

[Gavjenks]

You definitely have to think about WB if you're mixing lights together of diff. temperatures. You can avoid a lot of headaches by flashing into a white vs. a gold umbrella when appropriate, or bouncing off an ambiently colored wall, or using a gel or something to match colors better between lights.

I never bother with available or uniform lights though

And yes, Unpopular. it has to be wetplate. Sorrz.

 

[tecboy]

When I go on a trip, or I'm at a party, it's nice and fun to just leave the P&S or m43 on "P" and jpeg and process the shots only with crops and a little curves and that's it. MAybe make a slide show for playing on the computer or HDTV, Who needs to bother with all the other stuff? (I usually shoot jpeg + RAW just in case). On the other hand, if I'm specifically going out for "The Shot", sure it makes sense to give muself the flexibility. When I'm shooting film, well that's easier because I only have to focus, and set aperture and shutter, no frustrating menus. Of course, post processing and scanning are laborious, but I use the MF camera for "The Shots" and not much else.

As I'm getting older, I'm finding that simplicity is fun and pretty good as well.

Tips? I know there is possible way to get the nearest white balance on my canon p&s camera. I don't fully understand some of the settings. Maybe you or anyone else explains these?

 

[AlanKlein]

Watch the colors on the screen as you switch through the different manual WB settings (ie, sunny, cloudy, flourescent 1, flourescent 2, incandescent, etc. Stop when the colors look natural. That's easier when there's white people in the frame as flesh looks weird when it not flesh color looking.

 

[unpopular]

You definitely have to think about WB if you're mixing lights together of diff. temperatures. You can avoid a lot of headaches by flashing into a white vs. a gold umbrella when appropriate, or bouncing off an ambiently colored wall, or using a gel or something to match colors better between lights.

Though, at this point you're thinking more about the source temperature than the compensated temperature. I suppose in theory you could compensate mixed WB to some sort of middle ground, and selectively adjust for both light sources. I personally just let mixed light be mixed light, I might adjust using hue/sat to tone it down a bit, but I'm not going to pretend that a mixed source isn't when it is.

The only sure solution is to gel the one source to match the other.

 

[tecboy]

Watch the colors on the screen as you switch through the different manual WB settings (ie, sunny, cloudy, flourescent 1, flourescent 2, incandescent, etc. Stop when the colors look natural. That's easier when there's white people in the frame as flesh looks weird when it not flesh color looking.

That is a good tip! Thx. I think my camera is kinda old, and I don't know how accurate the colors on my two inches screen. There are maybe times I select the wrong preset white balance by mistake and shoot. Is it possible to change the white balance correctly in Photoshop or any photo editing software? That is also apply to my DSLR when I want to shoot jpeg.

 

[munecito]

Watch the colors on the screen as you switch through the different manual WB settings (ie, sunny, cloudy, flourescent 1, flourescent 2, incandescent, etc. Stop when the colors look natural. That's easier when there's white people in the frame as flesh looks weird when it not flesh color looking.

That is a good tip! Thx. I think my camera is kinda old, and I don't know how accurate the colors on my two inches screen. There are maybe times I select the wrong preset white balance by mistake and shoot. Is it possible to change the white balance correctly in Photoshop or any photo editing software? That is also apply to my DSLR when I want to shoot jpeg.

Just use Bridge to open the jpeg in camera raw and fix white balance there.

I think you can call camera raw from inside Photoshop in a jpeg but I don't know the way.

Let me google that for you

 

[AlanKlein]

It's simple to correct if your shooting RAW because the WB selection can be made in post processsing. It's more difficult in JPEG, because the WB is "burned in" by the camera. However, if the colors are off in the JPEG image, you should be able to adjust colors in post to make it better if not exactly natural.

 

[tecboy]

It's simple to correct if your shooting RAW because the WB selection can be made in post processsing. It's more difficult in JPEG, because the WB is "burned in" by the camera. However, if the colors are off in the JPEG image, you should be able to adjust colors in post to make it better if not exactly natural.

Good to know! I'm always curious about that. There will be times I need to use jpeg as a last resort for my DSLR. Not exactly natural still better than not natural at all. You are a good help. Thanks a lot, AlanKlein.