Raw is better how? 2

[T3]

I have stated over and over again, RAW is just a tool available to
photographers, among many others. Use as needed. What I'm against
is the all-RAW religion, somehow using RAW is a machismo thing. It's
simply not true. Plenty very accomplished professionals shoot mostly
JPG's.

LOLOLOL. YOU are the one who is making this discussion a "machismo thing". In fact, your implication is that shooting JPEG is a "machismo" thing because it supposedly requires a superior level of photographic skill, not "point-and-shoot" incompetence or laziness. On the other hand, the rest of us are saying we like the flexibility, safety net, exposure lattitude, adjustment potential, etc, (all benefits that we find useful and valuable) that RAW offers. But you seem to think that means we're just a bunch of girly men who need to develop our photographic skills.

I think you should seriously take a closer look at your hypocrisy. Because the rest of us see it plain and clear.

 

[T3]

Superior when bandwidth is a factor. That should be obvious.
Otherwise JPG would not have been invented when bitmap (bmp, tif
etc.) were the rule of the day.

When bandwidth is not a factor, like in your line of work, there is
no advantage.

So you're saying that JPEG is superior when bandwidth is a factor, but when bandwidth is not a factor, JPEG has NO ADVANTAGE? Can I quote you on that?

So basically, if bandwidth is an issue, shoot smaller JPEG files, but if bandwidth is not an issue, feel free to take advantage of the flexibility and wealth of data that a RAW file offers.

 

[tmdowd]

Hey Jim - Nice work on your site -

UPDIG is the recommended resource for image gatherers and image
purchasers. It is an association of numerous creative groups;
photographers, artists, retouchers, pre-press, etc., etc.

Here is the 'quick guide' to UPDIG protocol for image workflow with
digital gear. In case you want a hint, it is basically shoot RAW and
deliver TIFF. But for those of you with thick skulls, here is the
guide - http://www.updig.org/guidelines/quick.php

Argue with them. Not me.

--
'We spend all of our lives pushing the buttons and pulling the levers
found on the front panel of reality. How can we be so certain that
there is also not a rear panel... one that only God can reach, and
when He does flip an unseen switch or turn a dial that is out of our
reach we see it as a Miracle?' JR
http://www.jimroofcreative.net

--
Tom D
http://thomasdowd.zenfolio.com/

 

[nanook s]

Of course shooting JPEG and getting good results requires exposure skills. Once again that's a point that we agree on. How else can you explain your ealier statement that shooting JPEG is like slides, vs. RAW as analogous to negatives? How else can you explain your ealier picture sample that RAW enables one to "rescue" a shot? Does that mean all guy who shoot JPG are necessarily better photographers? of course not. Never did I say otherwise.

Now let's take a look at what claims have been advanced by RAW advocates:

1. Some RAW advocate said that they would only recommend photographers who shoot raw . . . hmm, did any JPG advocate say the converse? Obviously not.

2. Some RAW advocates said that RAW is always better than JPG. Did any JPG advocate say the converse? Obviously not.

3. Some RAW advocates said that JPG guys are just "jealous" . . . hmm, did any JPG advocate say the converse? Obviously not.

4. Some RAW advocates said that real pros should always shoot in RAW . . . hmm, did any JPG advocate say the converse? Obviously not.

That's why I suggested that some RAW advocates are going down a rather narrow parth of religious intolerance. All that accusations of "non-sense," "BS" and "you don't get it, do you" are just reflective of a regious zealousness unable to find a rational out let.

 

[John Motts]

Yup, there must be only one way to skin a cat. They used to demand 2
1/2 and 4x5 submissions only. So all the 35mm guys were rank
amatures. After that, since they only took films and rejecting
digital submissions for a while, so all the digital shooters must be
rank amatures.

Turn the lights out when you've finished, there's a good chap.

 

[nanook s]

I will go one step further than that, if bandwidth and cost are no issue, one should not use DSLR's at all. There are plenty capture medium with higher resolution and dynamic range.

Now back to the real world, for many busy working pro's, bandwidth is a real issue. For those who still back up using DVD's, they just witnessed the resolution increase from 4megpix to 17megpix in 5 years without much change in the capacity in their backup medium. For those who work with RAID arrays, like yours truely, the capacity limit is in practical terms about 2-3T, without having to make the trade-off using high-platter count hard drives that are potential data security risks. It's an on-going process. When 25gig HD DVD becomes widely available and proven reliable, the picture may be different. When they make 1T hard drives out of two platters, the picture may be different. I shot much higher per centage of RAW's when I used 1D instead of 1DsII. (Partly also because the in-camera conversion capability improved dramaticly in the last few years).

Being a good photographer is not about making a single image. It's the proverbial not missing the forest for a single leaf. What clients usually want from us is the forest, delivered in a timely and reliable fashion (both now, and a decade from now). Doing that right enables some of us to get the next step on the technology ladder, which makes a bigger difference in image quality than RAW vs. JPG difference on an older generation of tech. Okay, let me put it less abstract, run the business right so we can afford the 1DsIII is going to make a bigger IQ improvement for our clients than messing around with archiving and editing hundreds of thousands of RAW files from 5D's. See, there's a cost to every endeavor we undertake. Editing and handling storage is not free; nor is turning away clients to reduce amortization base. Running a business is about priorities. Do the things that will benefit the clients the most, and hopefully benefit your own family too in return.

 

[T3]

Now let's take a look at what claims have been advanced by RAW
advocates:

1. Some RAW advocate said that they would only recommend
photographers who shoot raw . . . hmm, did any JPG advocate say the
converse? Obviously not.

And so that's an opinion. What's wrong with that?

2. Some RAW advocates said that RAW is always better than JPG. Did
any JPG advocate say the converse? Obviously not.

Because, comparing file for file, a RAW file is better than a JPEG file. It's pretty hard to argue the converse. That's why no one ever does.

3. Some RAW advocates said that JPG guys are just "jealous" . . .
hmm, did any JPG advocate say the converse? Obviously not.

Well, some JPEG advocates say that RAW is a "crutch". LOL

4. Some RAW advocates said that real pros should always shoot in RAW
. . . hmm, did any JPG advocate say the converse? Obviously not.

Well, because part of being a pro is delivering the best image possible, even if that means incurring more expense by buying higher quality equipment, or by taking up more storage by shooting a higher quality format.

Furthermore, most rational pros know that they can't always guarantee perfectly exposed images every time they hit the shutter button. Sometimes, they want to be able to adjust exposure after the fact. Sometimes, they want to be able to adjust white balance after the fact. Sometimes, they want to adjust shadow density after the fact. Sometimes, they want to pull back the highlights after the fact. Sometimes, they want to deliver a 16-bit TIFF. Sometimes, they want to have 65,536 levels to work with rather than just 256 brightness levels available. And finally, if you want a JPEG, you can get one from a RAW. But you can't get a RAW from a JPEG. So if you shoot RAW, you still get your beloved JPEG. Basically, with RAW, you can have it both ways. With JPEG, you only have it one way.

That's why I suggested that some RAW advocates are going down a
rather narrow parth of religious intolerance. All that accusations
of "non-sense," "BS" and "you don't get it, do you" are just
reflective of a regious zealousness unable to find a rational out let.

It's not "religious intolerance". Just taking a look at your "pitfalls" of RAW, which have been thoroughly debunked, it's pretty clear that the intolerant one might be you. And it's not a "machismo" thing either, because RAW shooters are perfectly willing to admit that not every shot they take is perfect, and therefore they like the advantage of being able to adjust, correct, recover, and alter the image rendition before burning it into a JPEG. In fact, it takes a very "anti-machismo" mindset to admit to ourselves that we're not always perfect, the sensor isn't always able to capture the full range of what we saw, and that RAW does a better job of helping is get the best image possible, even after the image is captured.

 

[T3]

I will go one step further than that, if bandwidth and cost are no
issue, one should not use DSLR's at all. There are plenty capture
medium with higher resolution and dynamic range.

Stop right there. We're talking about DSLRs. Once again, you're trying to get off base and dodging the topic. The topic is DSLRs, RAW, JPEG.

 

[T3]

Yup, there must be only one way to skin a cat. They used to demand 2
1/2 and 4x5 submissions only. So all the 35mm guys were rank
amatures. After that, since they only took films and rejecting
digital submissions for a while, so all the digital shooters must be
rank amatures.

You don't know what you're talking about, do you? National Geographic and Sports Illustrated have, historically, almost exclusively worked in 35mm submissions, at least for the last few decades before moving mainly to digital.

Once again, you're trying to get off topic. But you're as ill-informed as ever.

 

[nanook s]

How can I possibly be the intolerant one? I use RAW on occasions, for crying out loud. Every action has its consequences. Focusing one's energy and resources on one aspect of the business means giving up something on other aspects. There is no free lunch. If shooting RAW means giving up on data security, both in terms of the number of cards that have to handled, and on giving up on "full backup" (like the discarding that you suggested earlier), some of us working pros, especially those confident enough about their exposures, would rather prefer not to compromise on data security.

Judging professionals on the tools that they use is just silly . . . especially on something as silly as RAW vs. JPG. Heck, different cameras make a far bigger difference than the difference between RAW vs. JPG.

 

[nanook s]

So you choose to acquiece on the rest of the post. At least we agree on something. Of course JPG vs. RAW boils down to bandwidth/data security vs. flexibility in adjusting individual shots post-capture. That goes without saying. Bandwidth was the reason why JPG was invented. Given today's storage archive/retrieval technology vs. rapidly increasing camera pixel count, bandwidth requirement relates to data security for a busy studio. It goes without saying that the "busy-ness" of a studio has a bearing on the equipment that they can afford. Is the client better served by RAW conversion from an older less expensive camera or JPG from a newer more expensive camera? That's a decision that business owners often make.

 

[professorgb]

I use RAW from time to time, rarely, when I'm ISO-shutter limited in low light environment.

Why would you do this? According to your multitude of posts above, you have claimed that RAW offers no more dynamic range than JPEG. If that is the case, surely you would shoot JPEG and then use software to adjust the image appropriately.

The reason you shoot RAW under low-light conditions is that RAW offers a much smoother gradation of tones (12 bits vs. 8 bits) within the same dynamic range. Thus, you are better able to adjust your tone curve without introducing gaps in the curve, and thus creating banding. Furthermore, when you shoot JPEG, unless you convert to a lossless format such as TIFF, any editing will result in further image degradation.

While many, if not most, images will be nearly identical if shot RAW or JPEG, there are simply conditions (low light, very subtle tones within a limited range, etc.) in which having the extra data will be vital.

Oh, and by the way: I've seen this argument too many times to count, both here and elsewhere. It's a straw argument. Choose the format that best suits your workflow and the demands on your time and image quality--and then use it. There are obviously arguments for both workflows, and decided advantages to each. From a purely data point of view, RAW is superior. From a workflow/image production point of view, there isn't any set-in-stone, fits-all-images reason to choose one over the other.

I knew it. I hate myself for even getting into this stupidity. It's as bad as the Nikon vs. Canon arguments.

 

[T3]

There is no free lunch. If shooting
RAW means giving up on data security, both in terms of the number of
cards that have to handled,

This is been debunked before. If you want the same number of cards, just use higher capacity cards. If you don't want to use higher capacity cards, the loss of a single card will result in more lost images if one fills that card with JPEGs as opposed to RAW.

and on giving up on "full backup" (like
the discarding that you suggested earlier),

The "full backup" is of finalized JPEG's derived from the RAW files. So in the end, you have a full set of JPEG's, just like if you had shot JPEG's to begin with. As a result, there is no compromise in "full backup" with RAW. In fact, with RAW, you have the advantage of "full backup" plus some, since you have the additional option of achiving select RAW files for future processing (possibly to 16-bit Adobe RGB files, for example).

some of us working pros,
especially those confident enough about their exposures, would rather
prefer not to compromise on data security.

Again, that "data security" issue has been debunked.

And by the way, National Geographic has all their digital photographers shoot RAW. They shoot, on average, 10,000 images per story, all in RAW, from confident, seasoned pros that are "confident enough about their exposures.

Judging professionals on the tools that they use is just silly . . .
especially on something as silly as RAW vs. JPG. Heck, different
cameras make a far bigger difference than the difference between RAW
vs. JPG.

The "judging" is coming from you. We have no problem admitting that, if the exposure needs adjustment, or the highlights need a bit of recovery, we can do it with RAW. You judge it as being incompetent photographers who don't have confidence in their skills. No, we don't have any problem admitting that we are not perfect. No, we don't have any problem understanding that sometimes the contrast range of a scene goes beyond what a JPEG can handle. No, we don't have any problem realizing that WB isn't always going to be spot on. But apparently, you see these as all examples of poor skill and inexperience, being the judgemental person that you are.

Keep up the postings. Embarrassing for you, entertaining for us.

 

[nanook s]

I was not addressing NG and SI specificly. Magazines often have rules that are designed to help them screen out a flood of submissions. It's ludicrous to suggest that a magazien spread print can deliver more than what is captured in a JPG. The CYMK process has narrower gamut than even JPG.

 

[T3]

I was not addressing NG and SI specificly. Magazines often have
rules that are designed to help them screen out a flood of
submissions. It's ludicrous to suggest that a magazien spread print
can deliver more than what is captured in a JPG. The CYMK process
has narrower gamut than even JPG.

You still don't get it, do you? Thus the need to constantly go off on tangents.

 

[Frank A.]

Three cheers for the professorborg!!!

http://www.pbase.com/faragon

 

[professorgb]

Three cheers for the professorborg!!!

http://www.pbase.com/faragon

Rah. D@mn, I can be pompous . . .

 

[nanook s]

1. What's the largest capacity CF card that has been on the market for one year? 4gig or 8Gig? how many 1DsII RAW shots can it take? about 300-500; not even close to what's required for a wedding. Just because you are using 2Gig cards doesn't mean others are; just because you are using 20D doesn't mean others don't have more than 8megpix. I do not use any card model that are so new that I'd be the guinea pig, lest there be another Lexar disaster.

2. The "full backup" that you talk about is discounting human error, both in culling and converting. What if your assistant makes a mistake in the process but you already deleted the RAW? Don't tell me you never make a mistake editing tens of thousands of pictures. You just never thought about what it's like working a studio with multiple workers.

3. The thousands of pictures for a story in National Geographic are mostly discarded. Only a handful are published, and the rest are ditched. Nobody calls up NG to ask, "can you dig up a picture of my step father's brother, who just passed away a month after my wedding?" One of my assistants actually had a Time Magazine cover photo to his credit. Let's just say that that particular pictures was the only one that seasoned pro preserved from that photoshoot.

4. I do not judge the method with which other photographers would like to work. I even tell my new assistants not to stigmatize the use of program mode if that's how they can cope with rapid indoor-outdoor transitions. I'm just sick of the religious RAW zealots who put down other photographers who shoot in JPG's. Different workign pros make different tradeoffs.

 

[nanook s]

You still don't get it, do you? Thus the need to constantly go off on tangents.

Right back at you. Very eloquent argument indeed. shrug.

 

[T3]

The purpose is to weed out the wannabes when wading through a sea of
submissions. A similar guide line used to say something like we only
accept 2 1/2 and 4x5 . . . that doesn't mean all pros should dump
their 35mm equipment.

Again, you're off base. Why? Because everyone who has a DSLR can choose between RAW or JPEG, and UPDIG is simply saying to choose the RAW setting in order so that you can delivered their desired/preferred a 16-bit TIFF file. So the only people who they are weeding out are A) people who don't know how to read UPDIG's submission standards or B) people who don't know how to switch their cameras from JPEG to RAW! This is FAR different from organizations that wanted 2 1/2 or 4x5 because that is to do with resolution requirements. And yes, there are resolution requirements in digital as well. But, chances are, they want you to start with a RAW file, too!