To Raw or not to Raw

Rankbadyin said:
look at the quality of pictures in any Newspaper or Mag or any kind of publication. an iPhone would do never mind a Raw File, if you do it for your own satisfaction then carry on, but no one else cares.
Click to expand...

Umm, no. A lot of news photos are taken in RAW. Have you done any press work? Had any of your shots published in magazines? It's true that a lot of what turns up on breakfast tables is pretty simple. But so is driving along an empty road is a good car. A press photographer has to get the shot right, every time, or they are no longer a press photographer. Knowing you can do this, and being entrusted by editors to do this, is the point.


Rankbadyin said:
Try and get those things right when you take the picture, Photoshop can do all those things and more f you have the time.
Click to expand...

No, it can't.

Rankbadyin said:
What you say is right, I did try Raw like everyone else but found no benefit.
Click to expand...

That's because you haven't learned to use it properly yet.

Slow buffering between Camera and Card
Click to expand...

Buffer sizes and speeds are rarely a problem with a modern camera - and if you know how to use it properly. Can you give us a couple of examples of when you ran out of buffer?

very large files that can't be seen or printed, having to revert to the Jpeg you try to avoid to start with, Photoshop and Camera capable of doing anything you might wish.

Others have tried to put forward the reasons why you should use Raw Files and trot out all the same opinions they have read somewhere, none of which is a real benefit.

And you are also correct in saying I just like to get out there and shoot jpeg. My feeling is Photographers today get too caught up in the technicalities, too caught up in chasing the next big and better thing, whether it be Cameras or Lenses, Tripods, Lighting etc. they get locked into the thought that they will never be a good photographer until they have all that most expensive equipment. I would say if you have all that spare time to sit in front of your 30 inch screen peeping at all the supposed imperfect pixels, try using some of that to look back at Photographers who never had a 10th of your stuff, who went out and produced superlative photographs with nothing more than a 35mm Camera and a few rolls of Film, and follow their example, and I don't mean go buy a Film Camera.
Click to expand...

Photographer in the past used the best equipment available. Always did, always will. Photography is far more to do with ability than equipment. Cameras don't take photographs.

I've bolded a couple of bits above, where you express opinions. You are quite entitled to these, but please don't spout off about how the rest of us - many of whom make our living as photographers - are wrong.
 
Rankbadyin said:
I have asked the same question many times myself, online and in Clubs, all anyone can say say is "You can change the White balance" I don't know why I would want to change the White balance, either the Camera sets it properly, or I set it for the effect I'm looking for.
Click to expand...

At this point, I think you have to ask yourself if you do understand what WB really is, what it means getting it right, how it is processed by the camera or in PP and whether it all makes any difference. Answering those questions may actually alter your prospective somewhat...
 
I shoot the M9 in RAW, and the Fuji S5 in jpeg as I like the Fuji F1a to F2 settings.
 
I used to only shoot JPG, untill I discovered what one can do with correcting the white balance in RAW....WOW.

I only realised 'this week' what a difference it can make.

Now I shoot both.
 
I think most of us have had that particular epiphany, Dave. Perhaps Rankbadyin will swallow his pride and do the sensible thing...
 
jon ryan said:
Umm, no. A lot of news photos are taken in RAW. Have you done any press work? Had any of your shots published in magazines? It's true that a lot of what turns up on breakfast tables is pretty simple. But so is driving along an empty road is a good car. A press photographer has to get the shot right, every time, or they are no longer a press photographer. Knowing you can do this, and being entrusted by editors to do this, is the point.
Click to expand...

Are a lot of press togs shooting in RAW? I'd have thought with tight deadlines and real time news they'd want a picture sent asap, even more so with football or the Olympics. Can people tell the difference between a good jpeg and RAW in the papers? :thinking:
 
Depends on how much time you've got. My press work is mostly for lowly local titles, and there tends to be time to shoot RAW and do a decent edit. Dunno about the national types, but probably not. Freelance sports sales are pretty much dependant on getting your shot in front of an editor fast, so probably mostly jpeg (I'm sure an expert in this will be along before long to correct me if I'm wrong about this), and when I'm shooting equestrian stuff for immediate printing, I shoot jpeg. Magazine stuff is generally taken months before publication, so no problem there.

News shots have to be honest, though. You can't embellish a shot even a little bit. You can straighten horizons, crop, bring out shadowy bits, sharpen, take away any dust bunnies, reduce noise, and correct WB. That's about it. Any playing around with what you actually saw through the viewfinder can get you into serious trouble.

Interesting take on this here

Not sure if sacking was wholly merited, but the final depiction was not as he actually shot it. So it's a fake.

As to to your last point, no, they can't tell if it was shot RAW or jpeg, but the RAW is likely to look better in most circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
Can people tell the difference between a good jpeg and RAW in the papers? :thinking:
Click to expand...
Raw is not an image file - everyone who 'shoots raw' will need to convert it to an image file. Most people who shoot raw choose jpeg as the image file format that they convert to. Raw is not a file format to challenge jpeg in the quality stakes - they're different things for different purposes and cannot be compared in that way. Shooting raw is all about control over the processing/conversion stage - it is this that can give the edge in image quality (it doesn't guarantee it though).

The newspaper reader will most likely see a jpeg (or maybe tiff?) printed whether the photographer was shooting raw or not - the certain thing is that they won't 'see a raw'.
 
Rankbadyin said:
try using some of that to look back at Photographers who never had a 10th of your stuff, who went out and produced superlative photographs with nothing more than a 35mm Camera and a few rolls of Film, and follow their example, and I don't mean go buy a Film Camera.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with the RAW vs Jpeg theme but have a look at the quality and quantity of sports images now compared to 'in the good old days'.

Today's equipment is far superior.

As has been mentioned there is a time and a place for both. When shooting sports like rugby & football I only shoot Jpeg but am now starting to shoot RAW for other situations.
 
I alway shoot in raw, then straight into lightroom with a "generic" profile that gives me the results (nearly) that I want, no difference in time to uploading jpegs. If specific shots are not quite right I can adjust later at my leisure.

Lightroom converts to DNG which is much smaller than Nikon NEF files, and large hard drives are cheap enough. Lightroom converts to jpegs when required, or sends straight to printer. Windows 7 now has codecs to view nikon NEF and adobe DNG files in live view. Lightroom can even export web page slide shows. I never really need to create jpegs.

I have 2 cards in the D7000 and can take 1600+ shots in 14 bit uncompressed raw, how do you run out of space ? the battery goes flat first!

If I want more than 10 continous shots in the D7000 the jpeg has to be set to "small" and low quality anyway, so not worth it, I would have to probably get a much better camera for that, but Im not a "pro" and most of my shots are opportunist not planned so raw allows me more chance to get a photo I like.
 
Laudrup said:
Are a lot of press togs shooting in RAW? I'd have thought with tight deadlines and real time news they'd want a picture sent asap, even more so with football or the Olympics. Can people tell the difference between a good jpeg and RAW in the papers? :thinking:
Click to expand...

I read one guy that shoots for a newspaper, he shoots raw then passes his card to his assistant who then tweeks the image if needed, then mails it in to the paper, done and dusted in not a lot of time.


I only shoot raw and its the best way for recovery if needed.

For example, a photo i messed up


BEFORE by Derek Mackinnon, on Flickr


A little bit of work and its better. Not perfect but its just an example.


AFTER by Derek Mackinnon, on Flickr
 
You would need to also have the JPEG and recover that one too to prove the point as the non believers will just say the same recovery could have been done on JPEG
 
I might be wrong, but, someone mentioned that RAW files cannot be printed, what about if the RAW file is imported into photoshop as a Smart Object ?
I know if its done that way, it maintains the original and you don't lose detail when changing the size using transform.
 
When im finished with a raw file and have everything done to it in lightroom, i export it and i export it as a JPEG
 
kry10 said:
I might be wrong, but, someone mentioned that RAW files cannot be printed, what about if the RAW file is imported into photoshop as a Smart Object ?
I know if its done that way, it maintains the original and you don't lose detail when changing the size using transform.
Click to expand...

A RAW file is that - raw.You need to cook it into a jpeg or some other format before you can print. A rough (and not exactly correct) analogy: Think of RAW as wet cement. You can draw a design on it, then change it to something different if you don't like the first go. When it sets you can make some changes, but not as cleanly. But it needs to be set to print.
 
The best 2 decisions i have taken since starting digital photography.

1-shooting RAW
2-buying Lightroom

Nuff said:)
 
jon ryan said:
A RAW file is that - raw.You need to cook it into a jpeg or some other format before you can print. A rough (and not exactly correct) analogy: Think of RAW as wet cement. You can draw a design on it, then change it to something different if you don't like the first go. When it sets you can make some changes, but not as cleanly. But it needs to be set to print.
Click to expand...

That is a good analogy, but, as I said, in photoshop, when you have camera raw open, if you shift click on the "open image" button, you can open it as a smart object, which can be printed, changed, edited, but it is still a raw file, because you can double click on the image in the layers panel and it re-opens in camera raw for further changes to be made, it can also be printed, so, until you save it out as a jpeg, it is still essentially a raw file.
That is why when making any alterations such as changing the file dimensions through transform, you don't lose any details, if it was a jpeg file, you would lose detail and get serious blurring.
 
Can't help, I'm afraid! I don't use smart objects. At a guess, it may convert to jpeg when it becomes an SO? :shrug:
 
Don't believe it gets converted, it is non destructive and to my knowledge it allows you to edit a raw file in photoshop, I will research it more if people want further information, otherwise, I'll keep quiet, lol.
 
kry10 said:
Don't believe it gets converted, it is non destructive and to my knowledge it allows you to edit a raw file in photoshop, I will research it more if people want further information, otherwise, I'll keep quiet, lol.
Click to expand...

If you want to see what others can do, you could stick it up in Post Processing and Image Editing and invite people to have a go.
 
kry10 said:
Don't believe it gets converted, it is non destructive and to my knowledge it allows you to edit a raw file in photoshop, I will research it more if people want further information, otherwise, I'll keep quiet, lol.
Click to expand...

You've got me curious now as well. I'll put up a question in Post Processing and Image Editing. Always good to learn new stuff. :D
 
Phil Young said:
Well I was hoping for what I edited, I just wanted to site the benefits of RAW as you can't do anything with that cyan infested jpg.
Click to expand...

Here's an attempt using Lightroom 4. not too good though...

P6140038_copy.jpg
 
only about 5 minutes.

used the following settings in basic module, plus reduced the saturation of green and blue.
Lightroom.jpg


PS - i almost always shoot raw myself. using raw and lightroom means little difference in my workflow, as i find i pretty much need to export everything anyway..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Exactly, it makes no difference to my time spent editing whether Raw or JPEG so why not use the best option available. People who state it takes a long time to edit Raw either don't know what they are doing or have some rough software.
 
Go to RAW.
I had a like-wise thread on this forum, bit the biscuit, shot in RAW & haven't looked back! Better to experiment with it a while before you consider discarding it eh?
 
ernesto said:
Exactly, it makes no difference to my time spent editing whether Raw or JPEG so why not use the best option available. People who state it takes a long time to edit Raw either don't know what they are doing or have some rough software.
Click to expand...

It took me about 7/8 mins to edit the RAW.
 
Last edited:
kry10 said:
Don't believe it gets converted, it is non destructive and to my knowledge it allows you to edit a raw file in photoshop, I will research it more if people want further information, otherwise, I'll keep quiet, lol.
Click to expand...

It has to convert to Jpeg to print, because the printer can only print Jpeg or Tiff. :shrug: It may still be a RAW file, and a Smart Object, but just like any open Photoshop file. it has to send in a format the printer can print, and RAW is not it. :shrug:


As for Sports shooters shooting Jpegs, I think I've read interviews with Dickie Pelham where he mentioned that he shoots in RAW, but then he has really fast cameras with very fast cards. ;) I would think the majority would use Jpegs for speed, in all areas. :shrug:
 
Phil Young said:
It took me about 7/8 mins to edit the RAW.
Click to expand...

I was getting at it taking the same time as editing JPEG if a lot of editing is required then it won't be quick but will be no slower than JPEG. I wasn't too clear there:)
 
ernesto said:
I was getting at it taking the same time as editing JPEG if a lot of editing is required then it won't be quick but will be no slower than JPEG. I wasn't too clear there:)
Click to expand...

I realised that but there is a noticeable loss in quality so the point I was making is that in an extreme "recovery" like this, editing a jpg will not be able to give you the final image a RAW can. Editing a "normal" exposed, "normal" white balanced etc image then fine go straight to a jpg but for those images that are potential amazing but could never be because it was shot in RAW then it would be a shame.
 
Just catching up here with everyone who wants to Convert me to Raw.

Maybe I should explain, I don't enter competitions, I don't have a business, I don't try to sell anything, I don't have a workflow, I don't have a Flicker account or any other photo library, Getty has never noticed one of my pictures, No Facebook, no Twitter, I don't own anything whose name begins with i, I just enjoy taking pictures for my own pleasure, its not nesessary for me to impress anyone.

Despite all that has been said, shooting in Raw is still a waste of time and space, anyone who feels they need Raw should just carry on if it pleases them, that is one of the things about photography, people can take, or leave many aspects of it.

If taking pictures is no longer a pleasure, but a business where you dance to someone elses tune, then I guess you would feel the need to do what you think is expected.
 
Rankbadyin said:
Just catching up here with everyone who wants to Convert me to Raw.

Maybe I should explain, I don't enter competitions, I don't have a business, I don't try to sell anything, I don't have a workflow, I don't have a Flicker account or any other photo library, Getty has never noticed one of my pictures, No Facebook, no Twitter, I don't own anything whose name begins with i, I just enjoy taking pictures for my own pleasure, its not nesessary for me to impress anyone.

Despite all that has been said, shooting in Raw is still a waste of time and space, anyone who feels they need Raw should just carry on if it pleases them, that is one of the things about photography, people can take, or leave many aspects of it.

If taking pictures is no longer a pleasure, but a business where you dance to someone elses tune, then I guess you would feel the need to do what you think is expected.
Click to expand...

It's now clear that not only do you not have a clue what you're talking about, but you consider yourself superior in your ignorance.

It's odd that you don't want to impress anyone -yet you post pictures on the sharing section 'not asking for critique' and according to your welcome post you are 'not claiming to be an expert in any way.' but despite the hundreds of years of experience of RAW shooters above, you still assert that 'shooting Raw is a waste of time and space'.

It'd be interesting to see how much effort you'll put in when we get onto a subject you care about and know something about:LOL:

For the record:
Shooting for money, owning an iPad or wanting critique to help yourself improve are not signs of a personality disorder, any more than owning a Nikon is.:puke:
And nor do any of the above stop us loving taking photo's, or make our picture taking in some way invalid.

And we don't care whether you shoot Raw, we only care that you offered an unqualified opinion to someone who wanted to know whether they should shoot Raw.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
It's now clear that not only do you not have a clue what you're talking about, but you consider yourself superior in your ignorance.

It's odd that you don't want to impress anyone -yet you post pictures on the sharing section 'not asking for critique' and according to your welcome post you are 'not claiming to be an expert in any way.' but despite the hundreds of years of experience of RAW shooters above, you still assert that 'shooting Raw is a waste of time and space'.

It'd be interesting to see how much effort you'll put in when we get onto a subject you care about and know something about:LOL:

For the record:
Shooting for money, owning an iPad or wanting critique to help yourself improve are not signs of a personality disorder, any more than owning a Nikon is.:puke:
And nor do any of the above stop us loving taking photo's, or make our picture taking in some way invalid.

And we don't care whether you shoot Raw, we only care that you offered an unqualified opinion to someone who wanted to know whether they should shoot Raw.
Click to expand...

YEAH!!! SO SUCK OUT!!!!

Haha only kidding.

It is apparent that you don't know as much as you present yourself to know but perhaps a little humbleness will regain some lost respect ;)

Most of us (I would imagine) are into photography because we love it and want to produce the best images we can. The way I see it, if you don't and you're ok with "ok" pictures...put your camera on ebay and take up dancing instead.
 
Rankbadyin said:
Just catching up here with everyone who wants to Convert me to Raw.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone was trying to convert you, they have just been pointing out what they think are the positive reasons for shooting in the RAW format.:shrug:

Rankbadyin said:
Maybe I should explain, I don't enter competitions, I don't have a business, I don't try to sell anything, I don't have a workflow, I don't have a Flicker account or any other photo library, Getty has never noticed one of my pictures, No Facebook, no Twitter, I don't own anything whose name begins with i, I just enjoy taking pictures for my own pleasure, its not nesessary for me to impress anyone.
Click to expand...

I resemble some of the above, ;) but I also want to get the best image I can, and RAW allows me to do that better than the camera can. I know what the scene looked like if I'm trying to replicate it, and not guess and use the same generic settings for every image like the camera, and throwing a lot a lot of the useful information away in the process. :shrug:

Or I have an idea of how I want an image to look like, which may not be an exact replication of reality, but the RAW format gives me more control and latitude to make changes with less degradation. Just like those who shoot with film may have more control of their images developing the film, and using a darkroom. :shrug:

Whatever works for you though. (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top