RAW vs JPG - End of discussion

I just posted a thread on why one would want to shoot RAW.

Now I see this issue as being about photography levels.

Going from beginner to intermediate is easy, going on to advanced is not.

If you're really going to be an advanced photographer, in my opinion, you're going to get an ILC with premium prime lenses, you're going to shoot RAW, and you're going to post process in PS. It's expensive and it's hard, but that's the only way you're going to get the very best results.

true.

Thanks.

I should have said technical results because there are plenty of great photographers who don't use cutting edge equipment or processing.

Brad Bohland said:

I just posted a thread on why one would want to shoot RAW.

Now I see this issue as being about photography levels.

Going from beginner to intermediate is easy, going on to advanced is not.

If you're really going to be an advanced photographer, in my opinion, you're going to get an ILC with premium prime lenses, you're going to shoot RAW, and you're going to post process in PS. It's expensive and it's hard, but that's the only way you're going to get the very best results.

Click to expand...

Brad,

I disagree with this. There are MANY reasons why an amateur would want to shoot RAW, and those being pretty much the same ones as to why a pro would want to shoot RAW: better latitude, better ability to fine tune the image (for the amateur, to help somewhat with mistakes), and so forth and so on.

Shooting RAW, in and of itself or combined with your ideas above, don't make one a pro any more than having a Nikon D4s or a Canon 1Dx makes one a pro! A pro is someone who, among other things, knows the equipment he/she has and how to make the most of that equipment. That equipment may consist of a camera phone, at times. Or a point and shoot. Now, granted, that won't be their camera of choice, generally speaking. But, they'll use it to the best it can do and get quality shots from it. Seen Apple's campaign of a while back that was "Shot on an iPhone"? I'm SURE the photographers were pros, but they certainly weren't using "an ILC with premium prime lenses"!

One learns with what they have, as much as they want to learn. If they stop learning at the basics of taking a photo and either using the OOC JPG files, or using something rather basic to do minimal adjustments of their images, then they're most certainly NOT going to be termed a pro. And that's probably fine with them.

However, if one learns as much as they can about their camera gear, how to use it to the best of their abilities as well as the gear's abilities, and they learn whatever post-processing program they want to use to the best of their abilities and the program's abilities, then they're much closer to being a pro, whether or not they shoot a D4s, a 1Dx, a Pentax Q, or a point and shoot, or anything else.

Gear doesn't make one a pro. Knowing how to get the best work with what you have and DOING so goes a LONG way towards that, though. Don't get me wrong: the right gear certainly makes it MUCH easier to get certain shots. But it's not always necessary to have the most expensive, most capable gear to be a pro.

Sam

Depends. A few days ago I had bad indoor light for "fast movement" pictures. I could chose raw and get 5-10 frames before buffer was full or 50+ with jpeg. I did a few sequences of raw and a few jpeg. "Unfortunately" the best captures were in the jpeg sequences so I felt somewhat limited and just handed the jpegs over.

I'm not experienced in jpeg pp and didn't want to touch them further but am sure I could have made them better if they had been raw in no time

greenmanphoto said:

Brad Bohland said:

I just posted a thread on why one would want to shoot RAW.

Now I see this issue as being about photography levels.

Going from beginner to intermediate is easy, going on to advanced is not.

If you're really going to be an advanced photographer, in my opinion, you're going to get an ILC with premium prime lenses, you're going to shoot RAW, and you're going to post process in PS. It's expensive and it's hard, but that's the only way you're going to get the very best results.

Click to expand...

Brad,

I disagree with this. There are MANY reasons why an amateur would want to shoot RAW, and those being pretty much the same ones as to why a pro would want to shoot RAW: better latitude, better ability to fine tune the image (for the amateur, to help somewhat with mistakes), and so forth and so on.

Shooting RAW, in and of itself or combined with your ideas above, don't make one a pro any more than having a Nikon D4s or a Canon 1Dx makes one a pro! A pro is someone who, among other things, knows the equipment he/she has and how to make the most of that equipment.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Some just happen to make money. The only difference is an amateur has funded their photography from a different profession.

greenmanphoto said:

That equipment may consist of a camera phone, at times. Or a point and shoot. Now, granted, that won't be their camera of choice, generally speaking. But, they'll use it to the best it can do and get quality shots from it. Seen Apple's campaign of a while back that was "Shot on an iPhone"? I'm SURE the photographers were pros, but they certainly weren't using "an ILC with premium prime lenses"!

One learns with what they have, as much as they want to learn. If they stop learning at the basics of taking a photo and either using the OOC JPG files, or using something rather basic to do minimal adjustments of their images, then they're most certainly NOT going to be termed a pro. And that's probably fine with them.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as being termed a pro. Sorry about that. A pro is just someone who gets paid their work. Nothing more or nothing less. Whether someone can do adjustments has nothing to do whether someone is a professional photographer.

greenmanphoto said:

However, if one learns as much as they can about their camera gear, how to use it to the best of their abilities as well as the gear's abilities, and they learn whatever post-processing program they want to use to the best of their abilities and the program's abilities, then they're much closer to being a pro, whether or not they shoot a D4s, a 1Dx, a Pentax Q, or a point and shoot, or anything else.

Click to expand...

Closer to being a pro means nothing unless you are competing for business in the same market. There are two different goals. A professional's goal is to maximize the money with the time spent. If a professional isn't investing properly in gear they either hurt sales due to insufficient quality or they hurt profit with equipment investment. An amateur isn't restricted in that way.

greenmanphoto said:

Gear doesn't make one a pro. Knowing how to get the best work with what you have and DOING so goes a LONG way towards that, though. Don't get me wrong: the right gear certainly makes it MUCH easier to get certain shots. But it's not always necessary to have the most expensive, most capable gear to be a pro.

Click to expand...

That is correct. However being a professional doesn't mean that the person is a good photographer. It only means they get paid enough to pay taxes on their work. While many professional photographers are very good I'm sure there are some pros that are nowhere near as accomplished as many amateurs. I've seen examples.

greenmanphoto said:

Sam

--
Sam B.
D200, 16-85mm, 35-135mm, Sigma 10-20 f3.5 N8008s, Gitzo 2531, Induro DM-01 ballhead
Certified Texas Master Naturalist
Proud WSSA Member #260!
www.flickr.com/photos/sibeardjr
www.doormouse-editions.com

Click to expand...

Thanks, Sam.

I'm not an expert, I'm just trying to figure out for myself what would be involved in stepping up my photography.

First, I went through this with my camera. Could I get an ILC with an all-purpose lens that would have the equivalent zoom range to my FZ1000 and have better IQ? Pretty much the answer was no, if I want better IQ from my equipment, I need to use prime lenses.

Now I'm asking about RAW, and I'm getting a similar answer--processing RAW takes considerable skill.

So I put these two ideas together. If you're going to shoot RAW and develop the necessary skill to process it, why would you use anything less than an ILC with prime lenses? If your processing is going to be advanced, your equipment should also be advanced, and that's what advanced photography is--advanced equipment coupled with advanced processing.

I'm not talking about professional. Plenty of amateurs are into this, and some pros aren't.

Obviously, this has nothing to do with how much talent a photographer has. This is strictly about the technology of photography.

"...with minimal extra skill you can capitalize on the benefits of shooting raw."

What people are telling me is that it's not that easy to process RAW.

It sounds to me that if you want the most out of RAW you should really think about what kind of camera and lens you're using. Why would you use a second rate camera and process the heck out of its RAW files?

Brad Bohland said:

"...with minimal extra skill you can capitalize on the benefits of shooting raw."

What people are telling me is that it's not that easy to process RAW.

Click to expand...

It's not hard if you get a good raw converter. Just read your raw file in with defaults, press a virtual button and you have a good jpg result. Spend more time and skill and you get a better result. I've said before, DXO is a good raw converter that also does an excellent job on lens corrections. You are going to want to pay for decent software that will handle lens corrections for you. Many cameras now have built in lens corrections for jpg so that needs to be included in the raw converter.

Brad Bohland said:

It sounds to me that if you want the most out of RAW you should really think about what kind of camera and lens you're using. Why would you use a second rate camera and process the heck out of its RAW files?

Click to expand...

A second rate camera might not support raw files. You have mentioned an FZ1000 which should be of sufficient quality to be worth processing raw files. DXO supports your FZ1000. Try it free for 30 days and decide for yourself. That would be faster than agonizing on DPR about it.

Member said:

Member said:

Brad,

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Member said:

Member said:

I disagree with this. There are MANY reasons why an amateur would want to shoot RAW, and those being pretty much the same ones as to why a pro would want to shoot RAW: better latitude, better ability to fine tune the image (for the amateur, to help somewhat with mistakes), and so forth and so on.

Shooting RAW, in and of itself or combined with your ideas above, don't make one a pro any more than having a Nikon D4s or a Canon 1Dx makes one a pro! A pro is someone who, among other things, knows the equipment he/she has and how to make the most of that equipment.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Some just happen to make money. The only difference is an amateur has funded their photography from a different profession.

Member said:

That equipment may consist of a camera phone, at times. Or a point and shoot. Now, granted, that won't be their camera of choice, generally speaking. But, they'll use it to the best it can do and get quality shots from it. Seen Apple's campaign of a while back that was "Shot on an iPhone"? I'm SURE the photographers were pros, but they certainly weren't using "an ILC with premium prime lenses"!

One learns with what they have, as much as they want to learn. If they stop learning at the basics of taking a photo and either using the OOC JPG files, or using something rather basic to do minimal adjustments of their images, then they're most certainly NOT going to be termed a pro. And that's probably fine with them.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as being termed a pro. Sorry about that. A pro is just someone who gets paid their work. Nothing more or nothing less. Whether someone can do adjustments has nothing to do whether someone is a professional photographer.

Member said:

However, if one learns as much as they can about their camera gear, how to use it to the best of their abilities as well as the gear's abilities, and they learn whatever post-processing program they want to use to the best of their abilities and the program's abilities, then they're much closer to being a pro, whether or not they shoot a D4s, a 1Dx, a Pentax Q, or a point and shoot, or anything else.

Click to expand...

Closer to being a pro means nothing unless you are competing for business in the same market. There are two different goals. A professional's goal is to maximize the money with the time spent. If a professional isn't investing properly in gear they either hurt sales due to insufficient quality or they hurt profit with equipment investment. An amateur isn't restricted in that way.

Member said:

Gear doesn't make one a pro. Knowing how to get the best work with what you have and DOING so goes a LONG way towards that, though. Don't get me wrong: the right gear certainly makes it MUCH easier to get certain shots. But it's not always necessary to have the most expensive, most capable gear to be a pro.

Click to expand...

That is correct. However being a professional doesn't mean that the person is a good photographer. It only means they get paid enough to pay taxes on their work. While many professional photographers are very good I'm sure there are some pros that are nowhere near as accomplished as many amateurs. I've seen examples.

Member said:

Sam

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Brad Bohland said:

Thanks, Sam.

I'm not an expert, I'm just trying to figure out for myself what would be involved in stepping up my photography.

First, I went through this with my camera. Could I get an ILC with an all-purpose lens that would have the equivalent zoom range to my FZ1000 and have better IQ? Pretty much the answer was no, if I want better IQ from my equipment, I need to use prime lenses.

Now I'm asking about RAW, and I'm getting a similar answer--processing RAW takes considerable skill.

So I put these two ideas together. If you're going to shoot RAW and develop the necessary skill to process it, why would you use anything less than an ILC with prime lenses? If your processing is going to be advanced, your equipment should also be advanced, and that's what advanced photography is--advanced equipment coupled with advanced processing.

I'm not talking about professional. Plenty of amateurs are into this, and some pros aren't.

Obviously, this has nothing to do with how much talent a photographer has. This is strictly about the technology of photography.

Click to expand...

Brad,

You're welcome.

However, I still feel we're on a disconnect, here. Again, prime lenses doesn't necessarily mean being a pro, nor does it necessarily mean getting the optimal results simply because it's a prime. These days, certain zoom lenses can shoot almost as good, if not better (in some cases) than some primes.

Again, to me, being an "advanced" photographer means making the best use of the equipment you, KNOWING that equipment well, and making the best use of the results of all that for your purposes.

To be as versatile as you need to be, that may involved an ILC with a variety of lenses, or it may involve a good point and shoot with the appropriate range on the lens. If it suits the purpose at the time and provides you with the results you want, then it's good enough. As mentioned, Apple had a campaign showcasing the camera on their iPhone 6 a while back. Inarguably, some of those images were pretty amazing, particularly considering they were shot with a phone camera. And that was the point, after all.

As far as processing goes, again, getting whatever program is going to provide you with the results you want for the effort you want to put into it. With some programs, Photoshop is a prime example, the more you put into it (at least, to a certain extent), the better your results are going to be. However, some may get excellent results with Elements or Lightroom. Indeed, I use LR and find it does pretty much all I want, with only one or two exceptions, and plugins give those capabilities, so...

Sam

Brad Bohland said:

I just posted a thread on why one would want to shoot RAW.

Now I see this issue as being about photography levels.

Going from beginner to intermediate is easy, going on to advanced is not.

If you're really going to be an advanced photographer, in my opinion, you're going to get an ILC with premium prime lenses, you're going to shoot RAW, and you're going to post process in PS. It's expensive and it's hard, but that's the only way you're going to get the very best results.

Click to expand...

The beginner-->intermediate-->advanced transitions exist along a continuum rather than as discrete entities. It doesn't have to be hard to get a good-looking shot, because a good post-processor can dress-up even a cellphone shot.

The initial objective of an advanced photographer--to bag the shot--is no different from that of the beginner. Sometimes, zooms further that goal more than primes. A prime example would be a safari shoot, where animals of varying sizes and distances require versatile framing.

So, the use of primes (or expensive equipment) is not a precondition to getting "the very best results." Using the right equipment is.

"You are going to want to pay for decent software that will handle lens corrections for you."

That doesn't sound good. But thanks for the DXO recommendation.

I haven't made up my mind about anything yet. But I'm beginning to see a trend in these two recent inquiries of mine. Want better IQ? Get a better camera with primes and shoot RAW.

RAW with a camera like the FZ1000, or any smaller sensor camera, seems like a mismatch. If you're going to go RAW, why not go FF ILC and primes, too? Why go half way?

(I see one question coming--if RAW and the FZ1000 are mismatched, why does the FZ1000 have RAW? I don't know, to make you want a better camera when the RAW files disappoint? I don't know, really, I'm just trying to figure it out, and I'll probably have to try it.)

Brad Bohland said:

"You are going to want to pay for decent software that will handle lens corrections for you."

Click to expand...

The bottom line is that you get what you pay for. If you want cheap stuff for nothing don't expect the same results.

Brad Bohland said:

That doesn't sound good. But thanks for the DXO recommendation.

I haven't made up my mind about anything yet. But I'm beginning to see a trend in these two recent inquiries of mine. Want better IQ? Get a better camera with primes and shoot RAW.

Click to expand...

This is a total misconception. You don't need primes to have benefit from RAW.

Brad Bohland said:

RAW with a camera like the FZ1000, or any smaller sensor camera, seems like a mismatch. If you're going to go RAW, why not go FF ILC and primes, too? Why go half way?

Click to expand...

No way do you need FF ILC and primes to be worth raw conversions. Raw conversion is a great value to my OMD cameras.

Brad Bohland said:

(I see one question coming--if RAW and the FZ1000 are mismatched, why does the FZ1000 have RAW? I don't know, to make you want a better camera when the RAW files disappoint? I don't know, really, I'm just trying to figure it out, and I'll probably have to try it.)

Click to expand...

I don't own an FZ1000 but I've heard people say good things about the camera. If you don't want to try something for free evaluation, then it's probably best you just forget the idea.

Sure. People make compromises.

But don't you agree that the very best IQ is most likely to be achieved with a large sensor ILC with premium glass, shot RAW (assuming the photographer knows how to use the camera and the processing software)? Don't these links imply each other?

"No way do you need FF ILC and primes to be worth raw conversions."

OK. Thanks.

Brad Bohland said:

Sure. People make compromises.

But don't you agree that the very best IQ is most likely to be achieved with a large sensor ILC with premium glass, shot RAW (assuming the photographer knows how to use the camera and the processing software)? Don't these links imply each other?

Click to expand...

Brad, take a look at this site: http://pixelsbypaul.com/northwest

DPRs own Paul Richman has taken some of those shots. In keeping with your sentiments, yes, he does use an FF camera. But note also that many of the photos are with a 28-300mm lens--hardly a vaunted optic even among zooms, let alone in comparison to primes. Nevertheless, I think they look very nice because they're post-processed well.

I agree with you that primes give you the absolute best, but I don't believe you need to "go all the way" necessarily.

Brad Bohland said:

OK. Thanks.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with gear quality,
for any given rig, RAW is nice icing on the cake.
Even if you never use RAW, as a safety net, it can't be beat.


RAW processing is not one bit harder than JPEG processing
and both can be stooged up, with equal ease.

These arguments are always framed the wrong way.
It should go something like this...
If your camera produces a quality JPEG and you are happy,
why would you change ?
If you do any PP beyond a crop, try RAW
and in a week's time you'll wonder why you resisted so long.

"I agree with you that primes give you the absolute best, but I don't believe you need to "go all the way" necessarily."

Thanks for the link. Works for me (see the two below).

OK, I'll get off it.

I'm sitting at a cheer competition about to start, when it ends I'll go home with around 3000 images and I sure as heck don't want to be processing raw files when I need to get them uploaded later tonight. Sometimes it's about getting as many good shots of as many potential customers as you can in the allotted time. I shoot jpg with a picture style I've been tweaking for months to minimize any post processing. Would I get better results shooting raw? Sure but when is the last time you processed 3000 raw files and had them online in a couple hours?

Ben