Why to shoot in raw mode.

[imagemaker46]

They are all digital images. I agree getting it right in camera is still something that people should strive for, but in the majority of cases that just isn't going to happen for most. I usually make a few minor adjustments, crop where I have to, lighten/darken and subtle colour tweaks where required, but not often. That's it, basically the same things I would do if I was printing from film. It's still a digital image and end result is still going to be a digital image.

I find that anything that has been drastically changed is closer to a photo illustration. HDR for example, while still a digital image is now more of an art piece than a "pure" photograph. When I shoot sports and it is being used as editorial the changes are same as I could do with film. I do use a lot of images for composites, it now changes them into a photo illustration/art piece. But it is still a digital image.

 

[Buckster]

Everybody's got their reasons for choosing one, the other, or both, and I can't imagine how or why that can be a problem for anyone else.

I personally choose to shoot RAW. Always. Sometimes, if I really think I don't need to, and will only need JPGs for whatever reason, I shoot RAW + JPG, and will end up using mostly, or even only, the JPGs. But that RAW is always there for me, if I feel I need it for any reason. I do that because in those "I'll only need JPGs" situations, I don't identify the "killer" shot(s) (if any) until after the fact, when it's too late to go back in time and switch to RAW.

That works for me, so that's what I do. I figure everyone else is similarly doing what works for them, and since it doesn't affect me in any way, it's all good.

 

[bribrius]

Something usually left out of the discussion is this:

Almost none of this matters if you're reducing the size of the final output. You can trade lateral resolution in for bit depth, any time, and with great success. Edit that JPEG all you want. Artifacts all over the place, ugh. Now reduce it to 640x480 for use on the web. Boom, virtually all the artifacts are gone. Ugly posterization is blended away. Block chunky crap is smoothed right out. Blown highlights are shrunk down to tiny white dots that actually look pretty good. Etc.

Since almost every photograph that is ever seen by anyone other than the photographer is radically reduced in size, it doesn't matter all that much how you do it.

Absolutely right. Intended use makes all the difference and standards for expectations and best practices are established by that intended use. I regularly create JPEGs at 800x600 pixels for posting on the internet and once sampled down to that size multitudes of evils just vanish. I can plan to work that way. If that's what photography is for someone that's OK. I can adopt that standard when it's appropriate.

But I also make 16x20 prints which requires that I adopt a different set of standards. I hung four prints in a gallery last week. If I had shot and processed JPEGs those prints would not look as good as they do and no one could fix that -- one of them would have been impossible shot as a camera JPEG. It's also OK to want to do the best possible.

A problem with so many of these types of arguments is assuming one standard fits all or rather that "my" standard fits all.

Joe

lol. Totally agree on best practice. I am kind of weird that way. if someone shoots film and processes the crap out of it in the darkroom I am more likely to think something like "nice rendition". They don't heavily process it I will probably think "nice photograph". They shoot jpeg and print it I might say "nice photograph" if I don't think it has been messed with to much. Anything I think is processed digitally hard, printed or not I think or say something like "nice image" as I don't even perceive it to be a photograph anymore. My own stuff is the same. I process something too much I nolonger look at it as a photo. whether I print it or not. It is a image now. Might be the way my head categorizes things. Even some more famous works by others, I find out they have been darkroom altered my mind immediately reflects that, not always subtracting value but at a minimum re-categorizing what it is depending on how much I think it was altered. so yeah, I guess it does make a difference at least for me just on how I perceive the work. Probably does for most people which might be why the years have gone on with many not fully admitting (though not hiding it either in most cases) the amount of alterations from the original capture. As they know it may make the work perceived differently. so if you told me you processed one of those gallery photos you hung heavily in certain ways my view of it would change immediately. Not always necessarily bad, just different categorization. so what is best possible may vary depending on sought final perception as much as final product.
maybe?

 

[bribrius]

They are all digital images. I agree getting it right in camera is still something that people should strive for, but in the majority of cases that just isn't going to happen for most. I usually make a few minor adjustments, crop where I have to, lighten/darken and subtle colour tweaks where required, but not often. That's it, basically the same things I would do if I was printing from film. It's still a digital image and end result is still going to be a digital image.

I find that anything that has been drastically changed is closer to a photo illustration. HDR for example, while still a digital image is now more of an art piece than a "pure" photograph. When I shoot sports and it is being used as editorial the changes are same as I could do with film. I do use a lot of images for composites, it now changes them into a photo illustration/art piece. But it is still a digital image.

yeah, and that kind of sucks. Just being digital seems to devalue it from film. No way around that. when you can wack off ten thousand digitals and tweak them almost endlessly in post without a care it wont have the same value. The image isn't even had by the same means from the camera as traditional photography. Maybe it is something else right from the get go.

 

[pixmedic]

As I drift back through past memories of identical threads, I have to admit to losing a slight chuckle at some of the age old arguments.

Only the final product matters....
as long as you shoot in manual, raw, and get it mostly right in camera (it must be a full frame camera of course)

the real truth is...if you print that image, (or strip exif data) noone has any clue whatsoever what you shot, how you shot it, or how it was processed...The workflow is completely irrelevant, except to the person doing the work.

Personally, and i mean strictly speaking for my own personal workflow preferences, I edit every file. yup. every file i deem not bound for circular file 13. (i only work 10 days a month, and I don't do a ton of photo work...i got time for it) Most go through LR, a small amount through PS. They all get at least some minor adjustments, even if im just moving some sliders around to see how it would look a few different ways. That being the case, there is little to no reason for me not to shoot raw since there would be no real change in my workflow shooting jpegs, and I retain the advantage of the extra data in raw files in case i need it.

but heres my actual answer as to why someone should shoot raw.
ya ready?
Because you feel like it.
yup. that's pretty much it. If it feels good, do it.
It doesn't matter one wheat cent to me how you get the picture you wanted. In photo editing, the ends really do justify the means.
you want to shoot in jpeg? go for it. aperture priority? full auto rapid fire? who cares.
im sometimes amazed that there are people that care more about critiquing camera settings than the actual picture.

crap this rant is going on forever....hold on, let me wrap this $#&^ up.

my point is...
don't be a racist.
raw and jpeg can coexist in harmony.

For me it does matter how that final image is made. Don't really so much care what others do but on a personal level it really matters and I will tell you why.

I separate photography from digital imaging. while this is very difficult to do with the advent of digital cameras I believe there is still a difference. There are arguments about comparing later edits in software to the darkroom, with some merit. But entensive reliance on post process as it has become is what I consider digital imaging. which I still to a large extent, separate from getting it right in camera which I consider the primary being photography. Learning, one is best to use the theory of best practice, as in the end I believe it DOES EFFECT final image outcome if not directly than indirectly in your mentality toward doing this at all. As businesses developed best practice theory, science testing has a best practice theory in its own form etc. it seems reasonable to expect anyone engaging in a activity they hope to be proficient at would derive themselves some form of a best practice theory. . one can separate that into photography, or post processing and digital imaging depending on where concentration is pointed. But having some basic set of practice I think is of overwhelming importance.

Beyond that there is another thing, not all photography has the main purpose of being art, and art itself is derived in many form and ways. How the art piece came into being is a direct reflection of both final outcome and in how it is perceived by self and others. There is no way to avoid this. One can say the final image is all that matters, but that is not true. If it were true the standards for that image wouldn not vary so greatly on how it is attained in formulating depending on the use of it and area in which it is attempted to be approved of. while in certain forms of art, yes, the final image is all that matters. In general, that is far from the case.
If how the art (or finished product it isn't all art) came into being, was not important. People would not base both financial value on it, rarity considerations, and keep it such a hot topic of debate all these years. There is a reason the trademark of certain products, and items in and out of the artworld is directly related with perception and value based on the way it came into being. That said, yeah, shoot whatever the hell you want to or what you deem appropriate. Perhaps those that push in camera settings and getting it right in camera are just interested in learning and practicing from a different methodology and might even be resisting the changing of photography toward a primary digital imaging platform (which we might consider less photography and more something else)

yes well, the problem with your second theory is that as far as photography is concerned, noone else is actually aware of how much or how little you processed that image. as far as art is concerned, if someone likes your photo, they buy it. there is no interview process where you explain to them exactly how much processing work you did to achieve it to which the customer bases their purchasing decision on. they simply look at the final image and decide whether they like it or not. art galleries do not list the process when they display a piece. they simply put the final product out there and let it be judged for what it is, not how it came to be.
if you see a picture hanging on the wall, lets say something done recently, you have no idea if that was printed from a digital file or from a film negative. if you really like that picture, is it because of how you envisioned it was made, or simply because of what it is? would you suddenly value it less if you thought it was taken on film but found out it was digital?

my point was never to devalue the process of the end result. my point was that when someone looks at your portfolio, they are not privy to any of your workflow. they can only see what you have produced in its final form.
this is partly why we only show finished products to clients, because people care more about what IS, not about what WAS. If you take a series of pictures for a client, would you charge more for pictures you had to edit more to get right and less for pictures that were closer to done right in camera? If not, then you are taking away the intrinsic value of the processing by itself, and putting the value on the finished product. while we base our prices accounting for basic processing times, we do not put a dollar amount on actual processing time per image, or even per job.

 

[pixmedic]

They are all digital images. I agree getting it right in camera is still something that people should strive for, but in the majority of cases that just isn't going to happen for most. I usually make a few minor adjustments, crop where I have to, lighten/darken and subtle colour tweaks where required, but not often. That's it, basically the same things I would do if I was printing from film. It's still a digital image and end result is still going to be a digital image.

I find that anything that has been drastically changed is closer to a photo illustration. HDR for example, while still a digital image is now more of an art piece than a "pure" photograph. When I shoot sports and it is being used as editorial the changes are same as I could do with film. I do use a lot of images for composites, it now changes them into a photo illustration/art piece. But it is still a digital image.

yeah, and that kind of sucks. Just being digital seems to devalue it from film. No way around that. when you can wack off ten thousand digitals and tweak them almost endlessly in post without a care it wont have the same value. The image isn't even had by the same means from the camera as traditional photography. Maybe it is something else right from the get go.

ya know, you can do pretty much the same thing with a film negative. print as many pictures as you want, each with different editing. digital photography didnt invent mass printing. it might have made it more mainstream, but it sure didnt invent it.

 

[bribrius]

They are all digital images. I agree getting it right in camera is still something that people should strive for, but in the majority of cases that just isn't going to happen for most. I usually make a few minor adjustments, crop where I have to, lighten/darken and subtle colour tweaks where required, but not often. That's it, basically the same things I would do if I was printing from film. It's still a digital image and end result is still going to be a digital image.

I find that anything that has been drastically changed is closer to a photo illustration. HDR for example, while still a digital image is now more of an art piece than a "pure" photograph. When I shoot sports and it is being used as editorial the changes are same as I could do with film. I do use a lot of images for composites, it now changes them into a photo illustration/art piece. But it is still a digital image.

yeah, and that kind of sucks. Just being digital seems to devalue it from film. No way around that. when you can wack off ten thousand digitals and tweak them almost endlessly in post without a care it wont have the same value. The image isn't even had by the same means from the camera as traditional photography. Maybe it is something else right from the get go.

ya know, you can do pretty much the same thing with a film negative. print as many pictures as you want, each with different editing. digital photography didnt invent mass printing. it might have made it more mainstream, but it sure didnt invent it.

no. you are correct. I do think that with any art that gets into the upper prices how it was derived does drastically gain importance as well as who the artist was. I am far from a fine collector out of my price range, but at a certain level I think it all has significance. And how it came into being has a lot to do with who the potential buyer is as the artist and work becomes part of a certain element. would that make a difference between advertising if you shot it jpeg or raw? Probably not but might if put hand in hand with the artists reputation as geared toward a certain buying clientele maybe? or I could just be wrong. lol.

 

[Ysarex]

For me it does matter how that final image is made. Don't really so much care what others do but on a personal level it really matters and I will tell you why.

I separate photography from digital imaging. while this is very difficult to do with the advent of digital cameras I believe there is still a difference.

The problem you've got to deal with there is that all photographs no matter film, digital, glass plate, polaroid, negative, slide, print, whatever are manipulated images. Lenses manipulate the image before it's even recorded. So you've got no point where a black/white line exists and crossing it you have one versus the other. All you have is a range or gradient of manipulated images that starts with grey on one end and progresses darker. There's no white end to that gradient. Now you have to select a point to draw your line. What criteria justifies where you draw that line?

When you say you want to separate out a photograph versus a digital image I assume you want to say the photograph is a more faithful representation of reality and that matters to you. But no matter how you produce that photo it is a manipulated representation.

You use a digital camera. So do I. Consider this then: I also strive to make my photos be very faithful representations of the reality that I photograph. That's one important reason I typically shoot and process raw files. The heavy, crude and inaccurate editing applied by the camera software when it processes a JPEG is usually way too far a departure from reality for me and I want a more faithful representation of what I photographed. To get that I discard the automated camera processing that makes all kinds of inaccurate assumptions about what I photographed and then applies it's best crude guess to mangle the result.

You're using a digital camera. You don't think that all the processing algorithms engineered into that camera were created individually for every image you may in the future want to take and were created to produce a "faithful" rendition? Canon camera's even have a picture setting they call "faithful" -- now there's a good laugh.

Joe

 

[bribrius]

a reach, but something to think about.

"Scarcity also matters; a print which has several identical copies fetches less than a unique painting. Intrinsic value and labor also can matter, the size of the painting and material used often influence price. Being sold through a gallery, especially a high profile one, increases value."

High-end art is one of the most manipulated markets in the world – Quartz

"Many people believed that mechanical reproductions would be the death of art. In fact, the opposite has occurred. The hand-produced image is more valuable because of its scarcity alone."

When is a Print really an art Print and when is it not? | eBay

Not sure how this would apply to photography, but there does seem to be a connection with perceived value and mechanical aspects of how the piece was derived.

just something to ponder, I still am not quite sure?

 

[imagemaker46]

Some of the most expensive pieces of art are crap, but because the artist has a reputation usually generated by someone who has promoted them, the crap is worth more. How the piece of art was created in many cases is not important, only that it has been priced that way.

I was in a gallery and looked a piece of "art" It was the front page of a newspaper, blown up to well over 6 feet, and the artist had splashed paint all over it, it looked like junk. The thing was that the photo on the page was shot by a friend of mine, with the photo credit under it. I asked the curator of the gallery if the artist had the rights to deface and us the photo as it wasn't his to use. His answer was a simple, I doubt it.

What appeals to many doesn't appeal to everyone. All a person needs to do is, act a little mysterious, wear dark clothes, be anti-social a little weird and find someone that can promote them. Success.

 

[photoguy99]

That is a somewhat simplified description of what is required to be successful as an artist. Let's say that certain important details have been elided and leave it thus.

 

[bribrius]

For me it does matter how that final image is made. Don't really so much care what others do but on a personal level it really matters and I will tell you why.

I separate photography from digital imaging. while this is very difficult to do with the advent of digital cameras I believe there is still a difference.

The problem you've got to deal with there is that all photographs no matter film, digital, glass plate, polaroid, negative, slide, print, whatever are manipulated images. Lenses manipulate the image before it's even recorded. So you've got no point where a black/white line exists and crossing it you have one versus the other. All you have is a range or gradient of manipulated images that starts with grey on one end and progresses darker. There's no white end to that gradient. Now you have to select a point to draw your line. What criteria justifies where you draw that line?

When you say you want to separate out a photograph versus a digital image I assume you want to say the photograph is a more faithful representation of reality and that matters to you. But no matter how you produce that photo it is a manipulated representation.

You use a digital camera. So do I. Consider this then: I also strive to make my photos be very faithful representations of the reality that I photograph. That's one important reason I typically shoot and process raw files. The heavy, crude and inaccurate editing applied by the camera software when it processes a JPEG is usually way too far a departure from reality for me and I want a more faithful representation of what I photographed. To get that I discard the automated camera processing that makes all kinds of inaccurate assumptions about what I photographed and then applies it's best crude guess to mangle the result.

You're using a digital camera. You don't think that all the processing algorithms engineered into that camera were created individually for every image you may in the future want to take and were created to produce a "faithful" rendition? Canon camera's even have a picture setting they call "faithful" -- now there's a good laugh.

Joe

That line is already drawn. Their are numerous restrictions on post processing depending on use of photo, so it is drawn in many different formats by many different organizations. They don't have a problem coming up with lines. so the idea that they are all altered really doesn't fly as more than one has come up with criteria to separate just the amount of altering from other amounts of altering. I was speaking also to the valuation of work as conceived through its process of coming into being as well. Posted a couple links I thought that could somewhat given perception of that but really would have to do more research and give it some thought. course the value as perceived is always up to the intended use of it and final user of it.
Excellent point on realism, there is realism in the photograph itself and realism as in how well it portrays the seen accurately I suppose. And of course surrealism or others that are more artistic. You can make a more accurate accounting with photoshop adjustments in many cases than shooting jpeg.

 

[Buckster]

All a person needs to do is, act a little mysterious, wear dark clothes, be anti-social a little weird and find someone that can promote them. Success.

LOL! Reminds me of this:

 

[WayneF]

They are all digital images. I agree getting it right in camera is still something that people should strive for, but in the majority of cases that just isn't going to happen for most. I usually make a few minor adjustments, crop where I have to, lighten/darken and subtle colour tweaks where required, but not often. That's it, basically the same things I would do if I was printing from film. It's still a digital image and end result is still going to be a digital image.

Bingo. With film, we had to do the darkroom work, and we understood how to fix the exposure and contrast, etc. It was just part of the process. It rarely came out perfect. That was black&white. Or (most of us), we could send color to the drugstore, and the guy at the drugstore corrected the white balance and exposure for us (he wanted to sell the print). So we shot negative color film in incandescent, or daylight, or we might use a blue flash bulb, or not... whatever... most of us then did not even understand the difference, never heard of white balance then. The guy at the drugstore fixed it for us. Analog had much more range than digital (digital clips at 255, analog light does not).

But with Digital, there is no guy now. The shop just feeds the JPG file to a print machine now. So we are that guy now, if we want any corrections to be made. It is good to know how and be able to fix this. Raw makes that be easy, fast, and good.

 

[photoguy99]

What? The machine can and does color correct like crazy. This is in fact the biggest single problem with cheap machine prints from JPEGs, they'll botch the heck out of your color, and if the place is cheap there's no "leave my damn color alone" button.