Should I go RAW only?

Started 11 months ago | Discussions
Michel J
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,009Gear list
Like?
Re: Should I go RAW only?
In reply to Michel J, 10 months ago

Michel J wrote:

Colin Franks wrote:

The enormous latitude for adjusting exposure

No offense, but this is a pure myth. Shooting raw require the same perfect adjustment. If not, you would not need an histogram in-camera!

alone is reason enough to shoot Raw only (except maybe for fluffy, unimportant quickie shots).

-- hide signature --

Cordialement,
Michel J
« Having the latest gear is nice, but great photographers don't have to have it. They can shoot good stuff with anything »

People who have a "extra-life" can shoot raw, they have to have for achieve post-production (and because the HQ in-camera .jpeg are yet difficult to duplicate, so they are good).

-- hide signature --

Cordialement,
Michel J
« Having the latest gear is nice, but great photographers don't have to have it. They can shoot good stuff with anything »

 Michel J's gear list:Michel J's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A37 Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michel J
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,009Gear list
Like?
Re: The ultimate reason not to shoot both
In reply to Dareshooter, 10 months ago

Dareshooter wrote:

I think Knickerhawk might have been alluding to ETTR which is not optimal for jpeg shooting.

What is sauce for the goose may be sauce for the gander. ETTR is as good for .JPEG (if not even better) than .RAW, imho. Take a look to libraw.org web site.

Anyway, if you are worried about HL you have to shoot raw+jpeg, I guess.

-- hide signature --

Cordialement,
Michel J
« Having the latest gear is nice, but great photographers don't have to have it. They can shoot good stuff with anything »

 Michel J's gear list:Michel J's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A37 Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michel J
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,009Gear list
Like?
Re: More questions
In reply to Leonard Migliore, 10 months ago

Leonard Migliore wrote:

AlphaTikal wrote:

The question is not To shoot raw or jpeg. The question is raw+jpeg or raw only.

The question is, "what am I supposed to do with all these jpegs?".

With the evolution of technology (and regarding to computer business and built-in-obsolescence paradigm), nothing could be less certain that someone can read your .RAW in the future...

Try to read a Jaz data cartridge from the 90" on a today's computer, just to confirm the idea...

Anyway, shooting .JPEG increase your skills on exposing your shot better, so why you want to shoot .RAW only, when you can shoot raw+jpeg at the same time?

-- hide signature --

Cordialement,
Michel J
« Having the latest gear is nice, but great photographers don't have to have it. They can shoot good stuff with anything »

 Michel J's gear list:Michel J's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A37 Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michel J
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,009Gear list
Like?
Re: What?
In reply to Charles2, 10 months ago

Charles2 wrote:

knickerhawk wrote: I have an Oly EPL1 and an Oly EM5. I don't use Olympus Viewer much, but I've used it more than enough to determine that there is no difference in its output compared to straight OOC jpegs (assuming similar settings applied).

Oh, one must find similar settings ( ). I have not found a menu option on the raw developers from camera firms that simply reproduces the settings of the camera JPG. Yes, with experience you learn to develop a raw better than the camera JPG 90+ percent of the time. It is those last few exceptions when you wish you had such a menu option.

yes but at the same time, you will realise that your flexibility in raw is very thin if you don't want to lose in DR & IQ. So what?

-- hide signature --

Cordialement,
Michel J
« Having the latest gear is nice, but great photographers don't have to have it. They can shoot good stuff with anything »

 Michel J's gear list:Michel J's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A37 Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leonard Migliore
Forum ProPosts: 10,595Gear list
Like?
A line of straw men
In reply to Michel J, 10 months ago

Michel J wrote:

Leonard Migliore wrote:

AlphaTikal wrote:

The question is not To shoot raw or jpeg. The question is raw+jpeg or raw only.

The question is, "what am I supposed to do with all these jpegs?".

With the evolution of technology (and regarding to computer business and built-in-obsolescence paradigm), nothing could be less certain that someone can read your .RAW in the future...

I am quite confident that my Nikon RAW files will be readable for the next 20 years. Beyond then, it won't be my problem.

Try to read a Jaz data cartridge from the 90" on a today's computer, just to confirm the idea...

That's a storage format issue. It would be just as hard to read JPG's from a Jaz drive as it would be to read RAW files. Not relevant.

Anyway, shooting .JPEG increase your skills on exposing your shot better, so why you want to shoot .RAW only, when you can shoot raw+jpeg at the same time?

I expose my shots just fine. Out-of-camera JPG's are totally redundant for me.

If you choose to shoot JPG's, go right ahead. I have no issue with your photographic methods but I wonder about your specious justifications for them.

-- hide signature --

Leonard Migliore

 Leonard Migliore's gear list:Leonard Migliore's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Nikon D300 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
trac63
Contributing MemberPosts: 569
Like?
Re: My heart is not pure enough for that
In reply to nunatak, 10 months ago

nunatak wrote:

trac63 wrote:

I see it the other way. Getting the metering, lighting and exposure correct in the first place takes a lot more commitment to the art of photography than simply underexposing everything and "pulling" uninspired photos in post-processing.

shooting entirely in manual mode can be challenging. but i don't think that's what you meant. many people are committed to auto-focus, and/or some kind of auto-exposure mode. they let the camera program do part (or all) of the work for them.

there's nothing wrong with that, but to comprehend the art better, it's necessary to parse all the ingredients. letting the camera cook your jpeg with decisions pre-determined by the manufacturer doesn't make you a better chef, just a more consistent one. learning to cook from scratch, deviating from a recipe and emphasizing whatever raw ingredients are truer to one's own taste is necessary for a deeper comprehension of any art.

that, IMO, requires a deeper passion and commitment — unless one believes they already know everything there is to know.

I don't claim to have all the answers or anything. I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" here.

It really comes down to the basic question of, "What is photography?" And I think the answer is different for different people.

For me "photography" comes from the Greek: "photo" + "graphy", meaning "drawing with light". That means that the essence of photography (for me) is understanding and manipulating the light that falls on your subject.

It doesn't necessarily mean manual mode or artificial lighting. For a landscape photographer it may mean just waiting for those few precious minutes each year where the light falling on your scene is exactly right.

I also appreciate the basic fact that JPEG engines vary widely from manufacturer to manufacturer. But again, for me the look and the quality of the OOC JPEGs are a major consideration when purchasing a camera. If I have to run every photo through a RAW converter it's a big deal. A lot of people look at spec sheets and the 100% crops when buying a camera and for me those things are much less important than what the OOC JPEGs look like.

To each is own.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michel J
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,009Gear list
Like?
Re: Ask yourself
In reply to Tony Beach, 10 months ago

Tony Beach wrote:

Lanidrac wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

I consider post-processing to be part of photography -- so yes, being better at that can indeed make you a better photographer.

Thats like saying "I can take a lousy photo and fix it later because I shoot raw".

No, it's saying that post-processing is best done when starting with a Raw file. Post processing a baked JPEG is like preparing a meal from leftovers.

"preparing meal from leftovers" it's especially the case of the .RAW in some aspects.

Just my 0,02:

  • A false WB may affect the exposure in some specific circumstances;
  • In PP, we can't decide subsequently if it was best to use a fill-in flash VS a LED light panel instead choosing to increase ISO amplification, or using a reflector or whatsoever?
  • We can't return subsequently in situ if we have to resolve a case of metamerism;
  • We can effectively choose different ways to achieve a 'near WB' of what's happened in-the-field, with grey charts ok. BUT: sometimes we don't want WB but a near atmosphere from the main scene. And in PP, our visual memory is unable to remember the exact K temperatures (from both axes) of what appeared for real nor the subtiles tonalities of colours required (what does was this colour of bamboo, it starts to pull through this green palet or resulting was more yellow+blue?), that tell to me we are unable to restoring correct ratios on the fly in PP, and all at the same time: from something that we never seen (because by definition our eyes had seen "Unbalanced Whites" from the main scene only, since we don't achieved any WB yet in our workflow in PP);
  • WB in four channels when your workflow is the three RGB channels only?
  • And difficult to achieve the ETTR properly in PP, by the way (according to Iliah Borg);

Consequences, with unskilled people (or not) or having lack of memory of the scene, are:

  • A false (W)B may affect the exposure in some specific circumstances;
  • Overtreatment of the RAW to find the right setting;
  • A so-so WB finally fixed without a nominal exposure (because OOC), after many triturations and means by which an infinite number of issues might appearing thereafter, finally don't provide the nominal result expected by treating RAW;
  • Which means loss of DR, loss of details in LL and loss of colours;;
  • And sometimes which means excessive saturation of colours as well;
  • last but not least, slightly underexposed shots, which means loss of DR in low light;

All that can be fixed in the field in .JPEG as well, better than later with RAW only in PP I guess, through the histogram and spot metering, to achieve the "nominal exposure you have planned to achieve by yourself" according to the scene. What's virtually impossible with .RAW only, reasons why I'm a RAW+JPEG shooter when is required, and xFine Jpeg shooter the rest of the time...

I know that some RAW shooters don't agree that but they surely have extra-life to spend hours in PP, and an ordinary visual memory, extraordinary, ( ) Either this is a way they are so lucky, or they cheat a tad by using a gray card 18%, what is the same as setting up WB in the field and working .JPEG, because that means they want's to stick on this WB thereafter...!

But ALL in PP is "second choice" or preparing a meal from frozen leftovers

So this squabble between RAW VS JPEG shooters dosen't make sense, we do have to chose what the situation require, imho.

-- hide signature --

Cordialement,
Michel J
« Having the latest gear is nice, but great photographers don't have to have it. They can shoot good stuff with anything »

 Michel J's gear list:Michel J's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A37 Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michel J
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,009Gear list
Like?
Re: A line of straw men
In reply to Leonard Migliore, 10 months ago

Leonard Migliore wrote:

Michel J wrote:

Leonard Migliore wrote:

AlphaTikal wrote:

The question is not To shoot raw or jpeg. The question is raw+jpeg or raw only.

The question is, "what am I supposed to do with all these jpegs?".

With the evolution of technology (and regarding to computer business and built-in-obsolescence paradigm), nothing could be less certain that someone can read your .RAW in the future...

I am quite confident that my Nikon RAW files will be readable for the next 20 years. Beyond then, it won't be my problem.

Try to read a Jaz data cartridge from the 90" on a today's computer, just to confirm the idea...

That's a storage format issue. It would be just as hard to read JPG's from a Jaz drive as it would be to read RAW files. Not relevant.

Anyway, shooting .JPEG increase your skills on exposing your shot better, so why you want to shoot .RAW only, when you can shoot raw+jpeg at the same time?

I expose my shots just fine. Out-of-camera JPG's are totally redundant for me.

If you choose to shoot JPG's, go right ahead. I have no issue with your photographic methods but I wonder about your specious justifications for them.

oh thanks! But not specious at all Anyway, I'm not a .RAW shooter only, for some good reasons as a reprographer(!)

I answering you more in this post already:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3615705?page=8#forum-post-53037016

Just I want you know that I work in the Graphic Art industry (offset printing) and in 15 years of career, we never received any .RAW.

If your .raw should no longer be supported in 15 or 20 years for some reason(?), you know that today nothing surprises me already. Maybe we can access in the future only with coin of the realm, by paying a fixed monthly charge as a the "right to use" (like Adobe "Clouds Computing" already does) they also can do after a file format upgrade (under the benevolent leadership of N$A), to lock all our .RAW by a password, and so on... Who knows?

-- hide signature --

Cordialement,
Michel J
« Having the latest gear is nice, but great photographers don't have to have it. They can shoot good stuff with anything »

 Michel J's gear list:Michel J's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A37 Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
John De Bord Photography
Senior MemberPosts: 1,246
Like?
Yes, you should
In reply to LeeStar, 10 months ago

I used to shoot both RAW and jpeg but in the end, all it did was fill up my HD and my card faster. I switched several years ago to RAW only. I also convert all my images to DNG from RAW which allows for some nice hard drive space saved and I don't lose IQ. Honestly, don't listen to the jpeg shooters here, this argument is ages old and the debate has long been won by RAW. In the end, you'll save space, hard to go wrong.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michel J
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,009Gear list
Like?
Re: Yes, you should
In reply to John De Bord Photography, 10 months ago

John De Bord Photography wrote:

I used to shoot both RAW and jpeg but in the end, all it did was fill up my HD and my card faster. I switched several years ago to RAW only. I also convert all my images to DNG from RAW which allows for some nice hard drive space saved and I don't lose IQ. Honestly, don't listen to the jpeg shooters here, this argument is ages old and the debate has long been won by RAW. In the end, you'll save space, hard to go wrong.

Given the very low cost of HD storage today, is hardly a valid argument.

Anyway, .RAW only, .JPEG only or RAW+JPEG, the last word goes to each user according to their needs ...

-- hide signature --

Cordialement,
Michel J
« Having the latest gear is nice, but great photographers don't have to have it. They can shoot good stuff with anything »

 Michel J's gear list:Michel J's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Sony SLT-A37 Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads