POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?

Started 7 months ago | Polls thread
phototransformations
Senior MemberPosts: 2,808Gear list
Like?
Re: Photographic evidence -- part 1 of 3, 2004 thru 2007
In reply to djddpr, 7 months ago

djddpr wrote:

David,

Is verbal argument all that you have? Are your verbal arguments superior to your raw post-processed photos?

It is long past due time for raw practitioners to show photographic evidence for their case. The same should be said of jpg practitioners. Let both sides in this issue show their photographic evidence and let participants in this issue and photographers at large decide for themselves.

Please, no more verbal argument. I am willing to be shown that raw post-processing is superior to jpg plus post-processing; and, if photographic evidence so indicates, I would be enthusiastically willing to learn from you

It is time for you to show your goods or kindly have the good grace to leave me alone on this issue.

David Dollevoet

I'm sorry, I don't know what you are asking me to show you as photographic evidence. My best RAW images? All I and others have been saying is that sometimes working with the RAW file provides advantages that working with the JPEG can't quite match. Several people in this thread have provided examples, including me, but for reasons I don't understand they have been disqualified by those who prefer not to use RAW. Those examples don't show that RAW is "better" than JPEGs, just that in some circumstances it may be preferable. In other circumstances -- such as when rapid bursts are needed, or when images need to be directly transferred to some other medium, or when one is running out of card space, JPEGs are the preferred choice.

The only meaningful evidence I can think of is sample files comparing the same image, shot at the same time, with the same settings (i.e., via RAW+JPEG), and then both the JPEG and the RAW processed to the best of the photographer's ability to see if the JPEG is equal to the RAW and vice versa. I've done simple tests with each of the last cameras I've owned, and, since the Samsung EX1 example above, it seemed to me that at higher ISOs, or where the dynamic range was more extreme, the RAW provided more detail, less intrusive noise, and more recoverable highlights. For me, RAW seemed worth the minor tradeoff of extra storage and the relatively brief learning curve. For others, it may not be worth the bother.

To argue that one methodology is universally better than the other is like trying to say that prints are better than slides or oils are better than acrylics or wood is a better sculptural medium than metal, or vice versa, ad infinitum. Or that we must crack our eggs on the big or the little end, as Jonathan Swift observed long, long ago.

The technology supports what the artist who is using it is trying to do. I truly don't understand why this is even an argument, or why anyone is getting upset over it. It's just a choice. You and others have refined a JPEG workflow. I admire yours, particularly. It helps you create beautiful images. Others prefer a RAW workflow. On the MFT forum some years ago, a member, Louis Dobson, demonstrated extreme adjustments that he couldn't do in JPEG, so he used RAW. His images were beautiful, too, in a different way.

I'm truly sorry that anything I might have said here was upsetting. It's a "RAW vs JPEG" is not a thing we need to fight about.

David

 phototransformations's gear list:phototransformations's gear list
Samsung TL500 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +23 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow