Should I go RAW only?

Started 11 months ago | Discussions
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,538Gear list
Like?
Re: What?
In reply to Chris59, 11 months ago

I am not new and made my tests already. And I talk about the Sony A65 and I have my conclusion. Btw can't upload here anything, get some error messages.

-- hide signature --

· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

 AlphaTikal's gear list:AlphaTikal's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro Sony SLT-A65 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tony Beach
Senior MemberPosts: 5,068
Like?
Re: Exposure is often different, so yes
In reply to carl english, 11 months ago

carl english wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

carl english wrote:

try harder with your exposures.

No, I am often meticulous about my exposures. You on the other hand are clearly not because you accept underexposure as part of the price of only shooting JPEG. Maybe you should try harder to understand what others are telling you.

You must get off that pedestal Tony,

You first. Keep in mind that you are the one who wrote the condescending remark about my not being able to avoid blowing highlights due to some alleged carelessness.

yes we can see you have spent lots of money on equipment and would like to spend more

You have no clue really. I have bought gear and sold it as well. Anyway, that has nothing to do with the question of shooting Raw or not.

(not happy with results eh?)

My walls are full of results that I'm perfectly happy with.

If you read my first post and many others over the years

No, I haven't bothered reading your posts. The only reason I'm replying to you is that you started replying to me.

I stated there is not a good argument against using raw,

I can think of a couple. Depends on the circumstances.

problem with you and others is you poo poo those who choose not to use it

The thing is I do not "poo poo those who choose not to use it;" what I am critical of is those that wrongly accuse me of using Raw as some sort of crutch.

and I simply point out that a high % do not choose to use raw which includes the Pro guys,

Do not include all the "Pro guys" among the JPEG only shooters, that is far from true. Like I said above, there are reasons to choose JPEG; however, there are also reasons to choose Raw. The point being made here by myself and others is that "correct" exposure with Raw and JPEG are not necessarily the same and are in fact often different by about a stop.

ask a 100 photographers what's headroom or dr and you will get a blank look.

Are you counting yourself among those 100 photographers? Are you counting everyone or anyone participating in this thread among those 100 photographers? Frankly, I wouldn't trust someone as a photographer if they didn't know what those two terms meant, just as I wouldn't trust them if they didn't understand exposure values, DOF, etc.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Indeed
In reply to Tony Beach, 11 months ago

Upside down logic!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Every real photographer
In reply to carl english, 11 months ago

carl english wrote:

AlphaTikal wrote:

But we are not speaking about Dynamic Range and other limitations. I was quoting and holding against "SHARPNESS" only.

-- hide signature --

· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

Those who believe raw is heaven sent always bring in Dynamic Range and of course HEADROOM

Wants as much DR as they can capture, even the best cameras today still have a pathetic DR when you consider what's really possible! You are incredibly old, so maybe your eyes are happy with the lower DR, maybe your eyes can't see more DR than your camera JPG! Photography (besides copywork and some documenting) isn't about being photorealistic (pun intended), but it's also not about constraining to what can be done with a camera to something less than was possible with b&w film 50 years ago! If you really think we should go back in time and not make the best of the relatively amazing cameras we have today, there is something seriously wrong with you, and I'm not saying this as a personal attack, I'm saying this as a wakeup call! Wake up and smell today's possibilities and use them! A lot of photographic techniques were invented 70, 60, 50, 40 years ago, ETTR is the technique of today for digital cameras, use it or go back to film if you don't want digital cameras for what they can really do!

Try ETTR! I dare you to try it. Seeing is believing.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Hear Hear
In reply to Tony Beach, 11 months ago

Tony Beach wrote:

Frankly, I wouldn't trust someone as a photographer if they didn't know what those two terms meant, just as I wouldn't trust them if they didn't understand exposure values, DOF, etc.

That's all that needs to be said! If you don't know what those terms mean and how they benefit you, what are you even doing with a camera? Use your iphone and be happy. IQ has no meaning to you, not the one, and not the other! Just letters!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tony Beach
Senior MemberPosts: 5,068
Like?
Re: Every real photographer
In reply to canonagain123, 11 months ago

canonagain123 wrote:

A lot of photographic techniques were invented 70, 60, 50, 40 years ago, ETTR is the technique of today for digital cameras, use it or go back to film if you don't want digital cameras for what they can really do!

ETTR practiced correctly is pretty much The Zone System revisited.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Josh152
Senior MemberPosts: 1,258
Like?
Re: Hear Hear
In reply to canonagain123, 11 months ago

canonagain123 wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

Frankly, I wouldn't trust someone as a photographer if they didn't know what those two terms meant, just as I wouldn't trust them if they didn't understand exposure values, DOF, etc.

That's all that needs to be said! If you don't know what those terms mean and how they benefit you, what are you even doing with a camera? Use your iphone and be happy. IQ has no meaning to you, not the one, and not the other! Just letters!

I agree. What this argu.. I mean discussion comes down to is understanding the best way to expose a digital sensor, something I consider one of the most basic things in digital photography. Most people set their exposure for the desired final brightness which is almost always the wrong thing to do if you are shooting raw.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
carl english
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,113Gear list
Like?
Re: Every real photographer
In reply to canonagain123, 11 months ago

canonagain123 wrote:

carl english wrote:

AlphaTikal wrote:

But we are not speaking about Dynamic Range and other limitations. I was quoting and holding against "SHARPNESS" only.

-- hide signature --

· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

Those who believe raw is heaven sent always bring in Dynamic Range and of course HEADROOM

Wants as much DR as they can capture, even the best cameras today still have a pathetic DR when you consider what's really possible! You are incredibly old, so maybe your eyes are happy with the lower DR, maybe your eyes can't see more DR than your camera JPG! Photography (besides copywork and some documenting) isn't about being photorealistic (pun intended), but it's also not about constraining to what can be done with a camera to something less than was possible with b&w film 50 years ago! If you really think we should go back in time and not make the best of the relatively amazing cameras we have today, there is something seriously wrong with you, and I'm not saying this as a personal attack, I'm saying this as a wakeup call! Wake up and smell today's possibilities and use them! A lot of photographic techniques were invented 70, 60, 50, 40 years ago, ETTR is the technique of today for digital cameras, use it or go back to film if you don't want digital cameras for what they can really do!

as expected you are doing it again, I am not attacking raw or the users of raw my argument is with people like you who constantly condemn those that happen to prefer jpeg and as I've pointed out so many times but happy to say it again, a high percentage of Pro's use jpeg and a very high percentage of amateurs also, an even higher percentage do not understand or not even heard of DR, so settle down keep on taken pics get on your PC open PS or LR and make those images the best you can so you can then post them on the web at very low res in case someone steals them.

 carl english's gear list:carl english's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Nikon D70
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
True. After 1940 everyone should know!
In reply to Tony Beach, 10 months ago

Tony Beach wrote:

canonagain123 wrote:

A lot of photographic techniques were invented 70, 60, 50, 40 years ago, ETTR is the technique of today for digital cameras, use it or go back to film if you don't want digital cameras for what they can really do!

ETTR practiced correctly is pretty much The Zone System revisited.

And every non-digital photographer knows the Zone system so there's absolutely NO excuse for not knowing what DR is if you've picked up a camera after 1940.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
"Pros"
In reply to carl english, 10 months ago

carl english wrote:

as expected you are doing it again, I am not attacking raw or the users of raw my argument is with people like you who constantly condemn those that happen to prefer jpeg and as I've pointed out so many times but happy to say it again, a high percentage of Pro's use jpeg and a very high percentage of amateurs also, an even higher percentage do not understand or not even heard of DR, so settle down keep on taken pics get on your PC open PS or LR and make those images the best you can so you can then post them on the web at very low res in case someone steals them.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53022856

Like the author of that post, I consider the best way of exposing the sensor of your camera basic knowledge, the starting point for your photography.

No professional (discounting those whose professional high point is being the photographer at their cousin's, niece's or sister's wedding) who doesn't know what DR is exists.

A professional can make a judgment call: this image for this assigment be shot in JPG, or does it need the latitude provided by DR?

I'm afraid the people who shoot in JPG and never in RAW are limited to amateurs and professionals who are retired... or about to retire very soon. I don't know how the JPGs SOOF camera look like today, but I know they can't overcome the 8-bit color depth limitation, and if the world is really taking a turn to such a place that the majority of professional photographers shoot JPG, I find that incredibly sad because it suggests photography as a skill is in danger of extinction. Imagine if in the film days film cameras and negatives would have disappeared and everyone just switch to Polaroids!

You're arguing for laziness and snapshooting as a valid professional approach. That's not the kind of professionalism I endorse, not in photography, not in the restaurant business (just put that steak in the microwave), and not in anything else.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,538Gear list
Like?
Re: Ask yourself
In reply to Tony Beach, 10 months ago

If the steps in post process lead to same or almost same image like ooc jpeg with only basic processing, then the ooc jpeg is good enough. Not all images needs to be post pricessed heavily and it depends on the scene, light quality, settings, style and post process.

Is it really that hard to understand?

And why is another debate started between raw against jpeg? The thread starter asked to go with raw+jpeg or raw only...
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

 AlphaTikal's gear list:AlphaTikal's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro Sony SLT-A65 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,538Gear list
Like?
Anyone noticed thread starter never replied
In reply to IGotShot, 10 months ago

The thread starter just opened a question and never repilied to any of those answers. Smells like...
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

 AlphaTikal's gear list:AlphaTikal's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro Sony SLT-A65 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
carl english
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,113Gear list
Like?
Re: "Pros"
In reply to canonagain123, 10 months ago

canonagain123 wrote:

carl english wrote:

as expected you are doing it again, I am not attacking raw or the users of raw my argument is with people like you who constantly condemn those that happen to prefer jpeg and as I've pointed out so many times but happy to say it again, a high percentage of Pro's use jpeg and a very high percentage of amateurs also, an even higher percentage do not understand or not even heard of DR, so settle down keep on taken pics get on your PC open PS or LR and make those images the best you can so you can then post them on the web at very low res in case someone steals them.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53022856

Like the author of that post, I consider the best way of exposing the sensor of your camera basic knowledge, the starting point for your photography.

No professional (discounting those whose professional high point is being the photographer at their cousin's, niece's or sister's wedding) who doesn't know what DR is exists.

A professional can make a judgment call: this image for this assigment be shot in JPG, or does it need the latitude provided by DR?

I'm afraid the people who shoot in JPG and never in RAW are limited to amateurs and professionals who are retired... or about to retire very soon.

WOW! it takes a brave to tell the millions of jpeg Photographers out there that they are Amateur or old Pro's.

You're arguing for laziness and snapshooting as a valid professional approach. That's not the kind of professionalism I endorse, not in photography, not in the restaurant business (just put that steak in the microwave), and not in anything else.

Blimey you are getting braver, Now you are saying all the jpeg and elderly Pro Photographers are lazy snapshooters.

 carl english's gear list:carl english's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Nikon D70
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Lazy
In reply to carl english, 10 months ago

carl english wrote:

Blimey you are getting braver, Now you are saying all the jpeg and elderly Pro Photographers are lazy snapshooters.

What's more work?

Exposing for JPG, getting a JPG, post processing a JPG, releasing a JPG?

Or:

shooting RAW, exposing for subject with individual considerations for the DR latitude desired, exposure correcting, curving, de-hot pixeling and selective denoising and possibly tone-mapping the RAW, getting a 16-bit tiff, color grading the tiff, getting a tiff or png, post processing the png in photoshop or equivalent, and finally getting a png/jpg/tiff depending on what the client wants, and releasing the final image?

So what's the lazy approach?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,538Gear list
Like?
Re: "Pros"
In reply to carl english, 10 months ago

My thoughts. Maybe he is lacking some basic knowledge to understand jpeg.

Some argue that RAW shooters aren't photographers, but post processors who don't know how to setup the setup. Others say JPEG shooters aren't real photographers, because they let a software (the camera) decide how the photo will look alike. And what I am, as a RAW+JPEG shooter?

Really, there are reasons to shoot in whatever format. No need to tell others that they are noobs for whatever reason. Look at the pictures and tell then if he is a noob or not. No one should ask if the picture is made from ooc jpeg or raw format.

-- hide signature --

· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

 AlphaTikal's gear list:AlphaTikal's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro Sony SLT-A65 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,538Gear list
Like?
It depends
In reply to canonagain123, 10 months ago

It is easy. If the scene requires heavy post process, then RAW is sure better than out of the cam JPEG. But are you doing that with all of your images? Color grading and tone mapping? Sometimes the out of cam jpeg is really good and simple processing is all you need. Generalization is not possible.

-- hide signature --

· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

 AlphaTikal's gear list:AlphaTikal's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro Sony SLT-A65 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,538Gear list
Like?
Re: Anyone noticed thread starter never replied
In reply to AlphaTikal, 10 months ago

Sorry my apologies. The thread starter already answered one time. Did not saw it under all the other replies.

He is sticking with RAW only for burst rate and more space in SD card. RAW+JPEG is not needed for him. In fact, the thread have answered his question and the rest is battling against RAW versus JPEG.

-- hide signature --

· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

 AlphaTikal's gear list:AlphaTikal's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro Sony SLT-A65 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
In my previous post
In reply to AlphaTikal, 10 months ago

AlphaTikal wrote:

It is easy. If the scene requires heavy post process, then RAW is sure better than out of the cam JPEG. But are you doing that with all of your images? Color grading and tone mapping? Sometimes the out of cam jpeg is really good and simple processing is all you need. Generalization is not possible.

-- hide signature --

· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

I said that a professional photographer understands the considerations for DR and headroom and can choose to take a JPG only when a JPG is all that is required. I've never argued against sometimes choosing JPG. Our friend Carl however has repeatedly mockingly said things like "here come the RAW shooters proclaiming DR and headroom again, oh DR, there are many pro photographers who don't even know what DR is" (paraphrased). That's a claim I can't stand for, and if it's ever proven to be true, I'll probably want to cry!

To answer your question, no, of course I don't do all that for every single one of my images, but I do find that post processing with the latitude RAW gives will always improve an image, including an image already perfectly framed and exposed. There are cases where RAW vs JPG post processing might only make a small difference to the desired final result, but the difference is nonetheless there.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlphaTikal
Senior MemberPosts: 1,538Gear list
Like?
Re: In my previous post
In reply to canonagain123, 10 months ago

So, then we are on same boat. I still shoot RAW+JPEG for years and 60% or more of the time I am happy with the JPEGs. Sometimes I am not able to beat the RAW. And sometimes the time is very important value for me.

But when I try to make a really good shot, then I always or almost always use the RAW.

-- hide signature --

· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

 AlphaTikal's gear list:AlphaTikal's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a77 II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro Sony SLT-A65 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
That's
In reply to AlphaTikal, 10 months ago

AlphaTikal wrote:

So, then we are on same boat. I still shoot RAW+JPEG for years and 60% or more of the time I am happy with the JPEGs. Sometimes I am not able to beat the RAW. And sometimes the time is very important value for me.

But when I try to make a really good shot, then I always or almost always use the RAW.

-- hide signature --

· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.

a perfectly valid approach.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads