RAW is better..how?

[T3]

"I had already dialed in 1/3 underexposure . . ."

I'm sorry, but that sentence is meaningless without knowing:
1. what metering mode you are in
2. what you are metering on
3. what's the sensitivity bias of the sensor/film in your camera
4. which part of the scene you are trying to expose "spot-on," and
how you weigh metering bias.

Look at the scene again, and apply the Zone System. Estimate how
many zones are there . . . compared to how many stops your
sensor/film captures, then decide on which zone you want to meter on
. . . only then exposure bias dialing comes in only if necessary.
Like I said before, RAW shooting by and large is being used as a
crutch by those who need more rigorous photography practice.

I set my exposure compensation to -1/3, knowing that I wanted my meter to bias in that direction in order to give me a better chance of holding highlights. But other than that, I'm going off of matrix metering and spot metering. I don't have time to sit around Zones in the heat of shooting. And I guarantee you that the VAST majority of work-a-day professional photographers out there are doing the exact same thing. You think Sports Illustrated photographers covering countless sporting events around the world are sitting around looking at the scene and applying the Zone System for all there shots? Do you live in the real world? Sorry, but the rest of us live in the PRACTICAL world, where every shot doesn't necessarily get an in-depth analysis of Zones. And it has nothing to do with the lack of rigorous photographic practice. It has to do with what is practical in a split second, where your primary concern is focus, composition, and timing. For the rest of us shooting in the real world, with plenty of years of experience under our belts, your academic Ansel Adams-esque, ivory-tower attitude is quaint and mildly amusing. But the fact is, in the real world, images do have contrast ranges that exceed what is captured in a JPEG, we don't always nail the exposure, we don't always have time to analyze a scene, we don't always get the right WB. Does that mean we're incompetent photographers? No. It means nothing is perfect, and that's reality. Lucky for you, you don't live in reality.

 

[nanook s]

You are misunderstanding what "dynamic range" is. Dividing the 60-minute RANGE into 12 parts (5min each) vs. dividing into 10 parts (6min each) have the same range (60 minutes), but yes, minute #55 would read "11" (out of 12) in one but "10" (out of 10) in the other.

Both are from the same sensor, so the dynamic ranges have to be the same. The remapping is different. That's all. How you can change the remapping in JPG? besides the latest crop of curve functions, the good old fashion way is called exposure!

 

[nanook s]

So I guess, most working pros just yell "what utter rubbish" all day, in your opinion.

 

[T3]

Most wannabe photographers who waste too much time on forums instead
of getting exposure skills perhaps.

What a pathetic bunch of bull. Sorry we're not always perfect, like you are. Obviously, if we all had perfect skill to get perfect results EVERY time we pressed the shutter button, we'd be just like you and not need the "crutch" of RAW. But alas, we're just a bunch of wannabe photographers who lack exposure skills. Nevermind that, even with the best exposure skills, a sensor's data, compressed down to a JPEG, just may not be able to retain the full contrast range exhibited in some scenes.

 

[John Motts]

So I guess, most working pros just yell "what utter rubbish" all day,
in your opinion.

I'm sorry, I'm struggling to follow your logic. Can you explain how you arrived at that one?

 

[nanook s]

Extra time is not in processing RAW, but in handling data stream and maintain data security. Oh, btw, stop the nonsense insinuation about quality vs. quantity. A few high quality images are what an amature can deliver too. What makes a professional is quality, reliability and efficiency. Massive amount of data as implied by an all-RAW work flow for a busy photo studio is quite infeasible in real life. What clients ultimately want is a high quality print, which has far less dynamic range than JPEG files. Delivering that in a timely and reliable fashion is what makes a successful and enduring business. Wasting time pixel peeping or burying oneself in overwhelming amount of data doesn't make for good business plan.

 

[jimcreative]

Of course I agree with you that the original capture is RAW
regardless whether the person shoots in RAW mode or JPEG mode. The
result just get mapped out differently.

Fine so far...

I categorically disagree with you that the photographer has no
control over which "5 stops" (actually more than that) to keep. The
photographer controls which stops to keep by controlling exposure to
begin with. That's where the zone system comes in.

Did I state that the photographer did not have some control over the process? If I did I did not mean to. However, once the camera responds to the photographer's exposure settings the final result is locked in. The fact still remains that the exact same image that the camera interpreted from the RAW sensor data could have been easily achieved from the RAW file.

in the camera hardware. So why bother monkeying with post instead of
getting it right the first time (or the second time, after checking
histogram

Simple. I like the way I think a lot better than the way my camera thinks. I like to have absolute creative control over my final image and letting the camera in on the process takes a lot of that control out of my hands. Bear in mind, I shoot a lot of subject matter that honestly cannot be 'made right the first time' without spending 2-4 hours on setup for one shot. Some images I produce are impossible with one in-camera jpeg (see example). I know you have to shoot hundreds of images per day. I shoot a dozen. For me it is clearly the best way to achieve the results that I want.

Here is a shot that is a jpeg of a building I shot three weeks ago...



Here is the exact same view, RAW conversion from three separate exposures. Yes, that is the real sky that evening. Yes, the grass is added from a previous shoot in Texas.



No way that happens with just shooting jpegs. Even if O had taken the five exposures that went into the final image as jpegs I could not have done this. The contrast was just too great for jpegs.

--

'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.com

 

[nanook s]

So, did you use spot metering or matrix metering for that shot? without looking at capture data, do you remember? What did you meter on if you did use spot metering? How does that particular camera's matrix metering bias between highlight vs. shadow? center vs. periphery vs. active focus point? All these are very basic questions expected of a professional using his/her professional tools.

What you are describing, with none of those questions entering the operator's mind, is the modus operandi of a "point-and-shooter." For what it's worth, with sufficient practice, Zone System is practically second nature; it can be done in a fraction of a second . . . takes longer to elaborate to the student/apprentice in a lecture, but takes practically no time when I need to spot-meter or dial compensation on the fly. BTW, speaking of real world, I hope you have realized by now that different camera models have different sensitivity bias; don't tell me you never noticed that either as you patch up exposure for every shot in RAW.

 

[T3]

You are misunderstanding what "dynamic range" is. Dividing the
60-minute RANGE into 12 parts (5min each) vs. dividing into 10 parts
(6min each) have the same range (60 minutes), but yes, minute #55
would read "11" (out of 12) in one but "10" (out of 10) in the other.

Both are from the same sensor, so the dynamic ranges have to be the
same. The remapping is different. That's all. How you can change
the remapping in JPG? besides the latest crop of curve functions, the
good old fashion way is called exposure!

Jeez, what the heck is wrong with you. You honestly believe that a JPEG file has all the same dynamic range data as a RAW file? Oh, man, you're beyond help. So I guess we can recover highlight information from a JPEG file just like we can from a RAW file, right?

As for "good old fashioned exposure", you're forgetting that we don't aways get perfect exposure every time we hit the shutter button. Furthermore, even with proper exposure, there still may be areas of the scene that exceed what ends up being cooked into the JPEG.

You can talk on and on about how poorly skilled everyone else is with exposure, but for many of us, we shoot RAW for the same reasons that we shot negatives (rather than slide) for certain situations. RAW, like negatives, is more forgiving and not baked in like a slide is. So are you going to say that photographers who shot negatives, rather than slides, did so because they had poor photographic exposure skills?

 

[nanook s]

I was in awe of your eloquent argument.

 

[jimcreative]

How do you produce a digital image of a scene that has a ten-twelve stop range when you have to shoot it in one exposure using JPEG?

This is the kind of thing that I deal with daily. Tell me how to do it shooting jpegs.

--

'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.com

 

[jimcreative]

Shadow posterization (banding) shows up in 5x7's. Maybe you are not familiar with the term?

--

'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.com

 

[T3]

You realize, of course, that your constant babbling about exposure theory and exposure analysis is one big reason why many of us shoot RAW!!! It's because, in the heat of shooting, we don't have time for this BS. It's because, for many of us, we want photography to be a creative exercise, not an academic exercise!!! With RAW, we don't have to worry about six of one and a half dozen of the other. You call it "point-and-shooter", we call it "who gives a rat's ass about your academic, ivory-tower BS." Furthermore, in the example I posted, my method was to get a proper exposure, while using RAW to pull back the detail in a small, blown portion of the scene. You, on the other hand, wanted to underexpose the entire scene to preserve the detail of a small portion of the scene. Frankly, I'll take my properly exposed scene, with the extra highlight data of a RAW file. That'll do me fine, thank you very much.

So, did you use spot metering or matrix metering for that shot?
without looking at capture data, do you remember? What did you
meter on if you did use spot metering? How does that particular
camera's matrix metering bias between highlight vs. shadow? center
vs. periphery vs. active focus point? All these are very basic
questions expected of a professional using his/her professional tools.

What you are describing, with none of those questions entering the
operator's mind, is the modus operandi of a "point-and-shooter." For
what it's worth, with sufficient practice, Zone System is practically
second nature; it can be done in a fraction of a second . . . takes
longer to elaborate to the student/apprentice in a lecture, but takes
practically no time when I need to spot-meter or dial compensation on
the fly. BTW, speaking of real world, I hope you have realized by
now that different camera models have different sensitivity bias;
don't tell me you never noticed that either as you patch up exposure
for every shot in RAW.

 

[Vance Zachary]

but not great: jpg is really not like polaroids; the amount of the quality difference does not hold for jpg vs RAW

the argument of RAW vs jpg we indulge in is probably a waste of creative energy

different tools for different uses

eventually you are going to have to throw away information to output to web or for printing or whatever; so the issue is when to throw the extra info away; do we do it in Photoshop or in the camera

to be sure, RAW gives more latitude in postprocessing and, if we likely to sit at our computer playing with an image file, it will probably worth it to shoot RAW always

RAW vs Jpg is a matter of personal choice--nothing more or less

do I use a hammer or a screwdriver? well, it depends on the job at hand!
--
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.sawhost.com/photoworksbyzachary/index.html

 

[jimcreative]

So, why aren't you interpreting these images pixel by pixel, by hand?
instead of taking the lazy way out and fiddle with those curves? I
mean serious, why use camera at all?? Why don't you use your mind's
eye, and use a pencil or brush? heck, even a brush is too little
control . . . some of us may need to control every hair in that
brush. On the other hand, some artists among us would rather
prefer working on things that the target audience can actually see
and appreciate, instead of the irrelevent minutia.

You do it your way, I'll do it mine. I sell images that are worth thousands of dollars EACH so maybe I can afford to spend the time to look at the minutia. Maybe my clients expect it from me? Maybe I feel that that is partly why my business has grown by 40-50% over the last four years...?

Lazy? No. I think not. I suspect that you are just jealous that someone could possibly be highly successful without using your narrow minded approach.

Hey, I can't believe it, I almost made it all the way through this post without using the term 'anal sphincter'!

--

'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.com

 

[nanook s]

Obviously, RAW, or for that matter not a single sensor, retains the 14 stops of dynamic range that is visible to the human eye. What do you do then? The photographer's job is to pick out from those 14 stops to make a image for print, which has far less stops than JPG files . . . just like the photographer's job is to take a slice in time out of a continuous life (let's igore quantum mechanics for now).

Would you suggest shooting a wedding by mounting cameras at every angle, and shooting at 60 frames a second on all of them? Then pick from the resulting billions offrames? Of course not.

The "crutch" is not entirely free, it has at least four pitfalls:

1. Affect frame rate on many camera models; this is actually relatively minor for Weddings;

2. Frequent card switching forces down-time, when imporant things could be happening; this is more important;

3. Large number of used cards pose data security risk, especially when switching is in a hurry; the risk of being misplaced, lost or stolen increase dramaticly as the amount exceed what can be securely and safely placed in suit chest pocket, without falling out when bending over yes we do bend over for our clients. And I insist on lead photographer keeping all used cards at all time, at weddings.

4. Backup and archive nightmare. This is a real biggie when a studio captures 200k-300k frames in a year, given current storage technology. Storage technology will improve, but so will pixel count and the business growth itself. As storage volume necessitate more and more elaborate setups, the risk of data loss also increase.

Now, set against these trade-off's, is the minor additional exposure adjustment available through RAW really worth it? For some of my assistants, yes, but not for me.

 

[nanook s]

For your line of work, bracketting is the key. Once bracketting is in play, the "dynamic range" argument for RAW is out of the window. For the same amount of storage of 3 RAW, there can be 6-10 JPEG's. It's easily proveable that RAW does not offer twice as much dynamic range as JPEG on any camera.

 

[nanook s]

The answer is simple: bracketting. You can't capture 10-12 stops with RAW either. Both formats would need bracketting. For the same amount of storage, the JPG shooter can get more brackets in between to capture the sutble variance, just in case the non-linearity of human perception comes into play vs. the linear photo buckets on the sensor.

 

[John Motts]

For your line of work, bracketting is the key. Once bracketting is
in play, the "dynamic range" argument for RAW is out of the window.
For the same amount of storage of 3 RAW, there can be 6-10 JPEG's.
It's easily proveable that RAW does not offer twice as much dynamic
range as JPEG on any camera.

He shoots a dozen shots a day! If you think he should go onto jpeg shooting to save data, then do you not think you're getting this a bit out of proportion?

 

[nanook s]

"Dynamic range" is a sensor characteristic, it has nothing to do with whether the file ouput is 8bit or 12bit. What you are describing, the difference is a "boundary issue" in slicing the same range.

Sure, not every click is perfect, but there is a thing called histogram; check it, and get the second one right

We know that a lot of photographers relied on the film labs to do their exposure; that's why they had such a hard time switching to digital at the beginning, when the new digital labs were feeding JPEG files directly to the machines instead of doing the adjustment for them.

JPG's are like film negatives: you can do quite a bit of adjustment before making to prints, with no real visible ill effect within a stop or so for 8x10 prints or smaller . . . simply because the paper prints have much less than 8 stops, and the pixel combining takes place anywhere in small prints. For really large prints, like 20x30, grain structure difference certainly show up even for film that is not exposed correctly. Converting RAW, IMHO, is a little like insisting on developing one's own film by hand. Sure, there were hobbyists who were into it and swore by it, especially at the beginning. They were eventually crushed by color machines that could deliver consistent results, especially with continually advancing proprietary chemicals that were well integrated with each generation of color machines. Sound a little familiar?