never shoot in raw?

[DBeck]

Thanks Jim for clarifying. The Canon XSI does shoot RAW in all modes except for Full Auto. Since I never use the Full Auto and mostly manual, sometimes AV, I now have to investigate why some of my shots are jpegs when importing. My camera setting is set to RAW and I never change that.

[fletch]

Originally Posted by DBeck

Thanks Jim for clarifying. The Canon XSI does shoot RAW in all modes except for Full Auto. Since I never use the Full Auto and mostly manual, sometimes AV, I now have to investigate why some of my shots are jpegs when importing. My camera setting is set to RAW and I never change that.

At last something my Olympus can win at in comparison to the latest Canons. It can shoot RAW in Full Auto. It would anoy me no end if on the odd ocasion I get lazy on a snap shot and flip into full auto my camera would prevent me shooting RAW.

[Jim Poor]

Wow, I didn't know that. I stand corrected on that camera model then. Why on earth would they handicap a camera like that? Oh well, some mysteries will never be solved.

Originally Posted by DBeck

Thanks Jim for clarifying. The Canon XSI does shoot RAW in all modes except for Full Auto. Since I never use the Full Auto and mostly manual, sometimes AV, I now have to investigate why some of my shots are jpegs when importing. My camera setting is set to RAW and I never change that.

[ditch_azeroth]

if i had an unlimited number of 1GB CF cards (i prefer to have 8 x 1GB CF's over a 1 x 8GB CF), i'd shoot raw all the time. 1GB probably be good around 75 or so raw images on my 40d, then it's off to another CF - brings the nostalgia of using film back to digital (but this time, i don't have to worry about exposing my negatives to daylight) LOL

[LENS Photography]

I read all the pages here and I visited the link provided for not shooting in raw files. I've read what this guy has said and I have analyzed his reasons.
First of all, getting a software to process your raw files is not that hard as he's saying. most of the advanced image editing software has the ability to read most of the raw files.

Raw gives you much more data than needed, and you can always archive them for the time that you need them. Sorry, it's not 20 years of newspapers that has been written by others and MAYBE i wanna read again. It's MY SHOTS that my OTHERS need and I have to keep the raw files when they do. Here, I'm the newspaper company, not the newspaper reader.

Since I've been shooting in raw, I started having a lot more confidence and freedom in playing with my images. Though the guy is right.. If you're shooting above 200 photos for example, having them as RAW might not be the best solution.

I shoot raw when the pictures really matter! Some commercial photo, close up fashion shows, nature.. Not my going out with my friends.

[jessemoya]

I haven't read the last couple pages of replies, so I might not be the first to point this out, but Ken Rockwell says that RAW may just be the format for you. He says it's not for him because a) his photos don't need a lot of correcting, and b) time is extremely important to him.

*I* on the other hand am inexperienced and I love editing photos as much as I love shooting them. That's why I shoot RAW.

But JPG might have an advantage beyond a reduced hardware requirement (i.e. memory cards!). Can Nikon handle .NEF files better than Apple? Everyone who shoots RAW needs to know that different software may render RAW files differently. For a given shot it is possible that the JPG output from a camera is better than how Aperture or Photoshop will render it on my screen.

And lastly, if you know how to use Photoshop to its true potential – or as I like to put it: if you treat the software with the dignity of learning what else it can do besides crop and adjust levels – RAW offers zero advantage over JPG in editing and processing.

[Naois]

Originally Posted by jessemoya

And lastly, if you know how to use Photoshop to its true potential – or as I like to put it: if you treat the software with the dignity of learning what else it can do besides crop and adjust levels – RAW offers zero advantage over JPG in editing and processing.

I'm not so sure this is a correct statement. Raw files contain more color data than JPG. They offer a greater range in color (much larger). Its true that you may need to tweak the settings of your raw processor to make it look like a JPG, but LR2 now offers build in camera profiles that come close to that as soon as they're imported.

Read back a few pages and you will find the details about the difference in available colors and why that makes it better for editing.

[Jim Poor]

Originally Posted by jessemoya

And lastly, if you know how to use Photoshop to its true potential – or as I like to put it: if you treat the software with the dignity of learning what else it can do besides crop and adjust levels – RAW offers zero advantage over JPG in editing and processing.

Do some real research and you will see that this simply isn't the case.


On a related note, the potential new JPG XR standard might change some peoples' minds.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10...CmoreStories.0

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by jessemoya

I haven't read the last couple pages of replies, so I might not be the first to point this out, but Ken Rockwell says that RAW may just be the format for you. He says it's not for him because a) his photos don't need a lot of correcting, and b) time is extremely important to him.

*I* on the other hand am inexperienced and I love editing photos as much as I love shooting them. That's why I shoot RAW.

But JPG might have an advantage beyond a reduced hardware requirement (i.e. memory cards!). Can Nikon handle .NEF files better than Apple? Everyone who shoots RAW needs to know that different software may render RAW files differently. For a given shot it is possible that the JPG output from a camera is better than how Aperture or Photoshop will render it on my screen.

And lastly, if you know how to use Photoshop to its true potential – or as I like to put it: if you treat the software with the dignity of learning what else it can do besides crop and adjust levels – RAW offers zero advantage over JPG in editing and processing.

Im sorry, but no.

I don't trust a word out of Ken Rockwell's mouth (or printed on his page). I know of alot of people that don't either. He's full of CRAP. His time may be precious, but his images most certainly are not perfect. Theyre acceptable to his standards, but not perfect.

All software reads and processes RAW files slightly differently, but it is always possible to get the same image as a SOOC jpg, especially when using the manufacturers software. ACR, lightroom and Aperture will all initially read the images differently at first, but through adjustment its possible to get them to be as good and better than any SOOC jpg. And that's a guarantee.

Your last statement is particularly erroneous: I dont care how good you think you are at manipulating JPGs, RAW will always offer more powerful editing tools. That's a fact, not an opinion.

[kencaleno]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Im sorry, but no.

I don't trust a word out of Ken Rockwell's mouth (or printed on his page). I know of alot of people that don't either. He's full of CRAP. His time may be precious, but his images most certainly are not perfect. Theyre acceptable to his standards, but not perfect.

All software reads and processes RAW files slightly differently, but it is always possible to get the same image as a SOOC jpg, especially when using the manufacturers software. ACR, lightroom and Aperture will all initially read the images differently at first, but through adjustment its possible to get them to be as good and better than any SOOC jpg. And that's a guarantee.

Your last statement is particularly erroneous: I dont care how good you think you are at manipulating JPGs, RAW will always offer more powerful editing tools. That's a fact, not an opinion.

Here's a quote from a working wedding/portrait studio: www.NoBSphotosuccess.com:




OK.....

I am sick and tired of being sick and tired of this non-stop, on-going, droning, same-old story over-and-over and over debate. And it seems the RAW shooters are the worst offenders in this, as far as fueling the flames of the "RAW is better than JPEG....here's why blah blah blah..." debate.

On and on and on it goes. Will it never end? My guess, it will end. In time. It's taking more time than the old debate "is digital better than film?" that we used to hear when digital first started out.

But soon enough this debate will let out it's last gasp, and forever be put to rest. But not until we're done reviving and beating it to a pulp.....onwards. Here's my take on it.

What kind of a photographer are you?




What does this mean for you and I, the pros who live and breathe photography, and mostly need it to keep our business's going so we can stay afloat, and pay the bills, and bring home the bacon for our families? It means we need to be smarter, savvier and more attentive to marketing than ever.

Gone are the days of getting some equipment, basic training, a sign, space, business cards and voila! You're in business. Guys with more talent in their baby finger are struggling, many of which are there because of their own doing, for not staying with the times.

So staying on top of it all means having a great product as well. Not JUST a great product, but a good relationship with clients, great service, packages, innovation, sales process's and everything that goes into the delivery, from first contact to final sale, and hopefully repeat sales combined with referrals. It all works together.

Do you see where I'm going with this? What's any it got to do with shooting RAW? Everything. Keep reading.


In my first year of stuggles things moved along fairly fast. I picked it up rather quickly and worked it into our studio much quicker than I anticipated. (James was right there the whole time, sometimes a thorn, more often the genius behind the solutions-don't tell him I said that-he'll want all the credit ) Within week actually. But none of it happened without some reliabe and solid TESTING. Never jump into anything new and untried without testing first. I even started shooting weddings (nervously of course) much, much sooner than I anticipated. But I felt ready. And the rest is history.

I did all this while in my absolute most peak time in my business. I was doing up to 700 sessions a year, or more, and many weddings. Needless to say we needed solutions, not headaches.

One of the first tests I did was JPEG vs RAW. I also tested different resolutions with different output, but that's another article at another time. When I tested the JPEG vs RAW, I could not see the difference. Maybe it was me, I thought. Maybe I am not getting this RAW thing. I did conclude the two major benefits to RAW:

MAIN BENEFIT NUMBER ONE TO SHOOTING IN RAW: You can adjust your exposure

MAIN BENEFIT NUMBER TWO TO SHOOTING IN RAW: You can adjust your white balance.

I quickly realized that these benefits would not apply to me since I had a fairly good handle on this area. I had to. Remember, I needed no headaches. 700+ sessions a year. The other few photogs who I learned from at that time (they were far and few between), who were in the game a little longer than I, and knew and experienced more than I, also agreed and came to the same conclusions. Seems the rest of the photographic world didn't, for many photographers anyhoo.

The benefits of shooting JPEG, besides producing an identical in quality product, were as follows: (I did not want to give these up. I want to hang onto these benefits far more than hanging onto the benefits of shooting RAW- which for the most part don't really qualify as benefits given the circumstances)

MAIN BENEFIT NUMBER ONE TO SHOOTING IN JPEG: Speed

MAIN BENEFIT NUMBER TWO TO SHOOTING IN JPEG: Storage (which amounts to speed)

I also concluded that all the steps required when shooting in RAW were really useless. They didn't add up to much in the long run. I needed SPEED! GIVE ME SPEED! My clients wait for their sessions within 15 minutes after it's done. I also didn't want the extra cost associated with the extra workflow and staff hours associated with RAW.

RAW does not help me when it comes to speed. In my studio, time is money. And sanity. In my studio, minutes count. They add up to hours, and add up to sales. Final. If you don't get this, your head is somewhere else.

I didn't do the workflow myself, preferring to delegate (as any studio owner should), but feel that it is essential, no, an absolute, that we as photographers understand the workflow at its deepest level, so we can oversee it effectively.



Shooting JPEG is good for the self-esteem.




You see, I want to be a business person who creates great photography. Period.

NOT, a technician struggling to create a business (technician suffering from an entrepreneurial seizure, as Michael Gerber says in The E Myth) and forever working behind a computer screen spending countless and endless hours WORKFLOWING.

There is no creativity in that. Little merit unless you eventually learn from it and move on. There are little profits.


If you are using RAW for the benefits I mentioned, then you really need to take a step back and start with the fundamentals. Both in business and in photography. We're in business.

I often meet people in my travels who have taken up photography in a big way. Recently, while in the Caribbean, I met a guy who I believe was well-off, likely self-employed, from Detroit. He had a Nikon D2X and a D200 and all the best lenses. He shot RAW. I didn't even go there with that discussion with him.

WHY? He lives and breathes photography from a different universe than I. It would be like talking with someone from a far distant land, with no knowledge of my language. Blank stares, eye's spinning.

I met another guy last year, while in Costa Rica, same exact story, except he was a retired school teacher, now travelling the world, living his dream, shooting RAW. Again, different universe.

These guys wouldn't be hung out to dry the way I would. I am reliant on my business. They shoot RAW for totally different reasons than I. I do it for SPEED. They do it because it makes them feel good, like a soother to a baby, or like a 140 horsepower, 4 cylinder turbo, 1200cc engine rumbling between the legs of a 48 year man.

But business is serious. (ask your bank manager how serious it is) And when I show up at the bank with my deposits that I made from my portrait sales that week, the teller doesn't look at the total and ask: "Did you shoot RAW or JPEG to earn this money?". My clients don't ask either. No one CARES, only us photographers, for whatever reasons we choose.


So why is there so much resistance? I think it's fear-based and "look at my files" egotism.

There has to be a reason. I can guess that it has something to do with the language barrier. We live in different universes.

So ultimately it's about productivity. Not the technicality. I wish there were a visible reason for shooting raw. I am all for doing what I can to get the best images possible. I guess I will have to stick with the basics to achieve that: exposure and composition. Since anything above and beyond that really cuts into my time, with little or no return. I heard every argument, and they simply don't resonate. They don't "fit". I guess that's part of communicating with others from different universes.


P.P.S. There is one direct comparison to film that I like to make that supports the idea behind using JPEG (alleged lower quality) vs RAW (alleged higher quality). If we really needed all that information that RAW offers, assuming there was a visible dif, and assuming that JPEG was indeed an tad softer or whateever (which it ain't), then why:

*Did we not use the hightest format available back in the film days- say a 4"x5"or higher view camera on all shoots? (hey, higher quality) assuming we needed all ta image data
*Did we not shoot everything with Kodachrome 64 or Fuji counterpart?
*Did we use film stock (portraits film) that was less contrasty, more muted (ideal for portraits) and had a compromised range?
*Did we put softars and Harrison/Harrison soft focus filters in front of our high priced lenses, effectively deteriorating the optics?
*Did we mount our images on canvas, linen, or similar, effectively deterioting the image even more? And we even retouched many of our portraits.
*Did we not create black and whites the way Ansel Adams did? He had the ideal system for doing so.

Why? Because we did what mattered and what worked. Always compromising to get there.




Robert Provencher