Shooting RAW a waste of time?

U

upceci

-
Local time
10:39 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
75
I have no doubt RAW files will give better results with processing when it comes to IQ only, but processing also means a lot of time spent in pressing buttons and playing with sliders, the stuff that does not interest me because I'm interested in the photos not sitting there and "playing" with photos.

I have begun to actually see shooting RAW as making one's work more than it should be and a waste of time, not to mention making one susceptible to be a photoshoper than a photographer.

My new must-have criterion for buying a new camera, great jpgs.
 
You have your own question answered. If you can get great jpegs every time RAW is a waste of time for you.
Of course, good luck rescuing a jpeg you shoot in difficult light or one that is poorly exposed ;)
 
It's part of the process. If you want the best possible image, RAW is the way to go. Many are happy with OOC Jpegs, but you can usually push those shots further if you edit them from RAW. Even minor tweaks to an image can make a big difference.

That's just my opinion though.
 
Because I have a Fuji X-Pro1 and Aperture, I'm stuck with jpegs. HOWEVER... the jpegs from the Fuji are very nice and so I'm not feeling a loss.

But what I wanted to add to the conversation is this. I've had digital cameras who's RAW files were recognised by Aperture. I have to say that when using these RAW files, I didn't see ANY difference in the processing procedures & time involved. I use exactly the same adjustments for both jpeg and RAW files. I understand that using RAW files allowed more room for adjustment, but from a workflow point of view, it made no difference.
 
Part of digital photography is accepting that work once done in the darkroom is now done on the computer. Admittedly, working with photoshop or lightroom is a very different experience than making adjustments with chemicals, papers, filters, etc. in a darkroom.
But if you want the most out of your images, you should learn to effectively use the new "darkroom."

I just know that I've never regretted shooting raw and making my own jpgs. But I have regretted shooting in jpg and finding myself unable to fix an image that could have been better.
 
The ideal camera should of course have great jpegs straight out of it. That way you would be able trust them enough to really learn how your camera works and be able to visualize the photo while you compose. In a way I'm very attracted to that thought. Having the image done and ready in the moment I take the photo.

I however tend to work over my digital files until they are unrecognizable.
 
I discovered for myself that, for me, shooting RAW is a waste of my time.
I don't have the calibrated monitor / printer / software / artistic eye that RAW deserves (demands ?) to get the most of it.

YMMV
 
These days I shoot jpeg only on my GRD IV - outstanding jpeg engine.
These shots end up directly on my ipad with very little if any tweaking and are very quickly ready to show.

With the M9 and MM, the end use of the photos is very different; more technical images ; so raw processing and extensive adjustments, mask etc. are not uncommon.

Both workflows have their time and place.
 
Lets analyze some common objections to jpg:

-White Balance

Instagram has made a billion$ business by screwing up the WB of photos. Slide film's charm was incorrect WB... WB accuracy is another digital era photoshoper obsession rather than photographer one.

-Noise

Noise is no longer an issue with almost all digital cameras.

-Detail

If the detail is too small to get lost with jpg then its useless detail.

-Large printing

What % of photographers print that large?

--Dynamic range

HDR has made it quite obvious that too much DR is in fact a sure way to kill an image. High contrast images are still liked by everyone because it only makes one notice the important stuff. I don't care whats in the shadows or highlights if the image is useless to begin with it.


The obsession with RAW is simply due to image quality becoming the only profitable business in photography, from software to sensors to RAW converters...
 
there are a number of issues here. OP recognizes there is 'no doubt' RAW files provide more info. thats a fact, and a fact is objective.

whether that info is necessary in all situations or whether having it generally leads to a noticeably better result are in fact different questions the answers to which are subjective.

nothing prevents a photographer deciding after experimentation that in the great majority of situations RAW is a waste for them. in addition, one could come to that exact conclusion, and yet still shoot RAW in difficult situations. indeed that is the conclusion to which i came, and i'm damned happy with it!

back to OT, if you want the best jpegs, seems the consensus is behind fuji. i certainly can vouch for the high quality jpegs i get from the now-hopelessly-outdated x100.
tony
 
If we leave alone fact that most of exposures made daily are waste of time and resources, then JPG vs RAW isn't too crucial. OP worries about photoshoppers, but skilled RAW shooters do it all in converter so they can not be blamed for photoshopping (beyond technical stuff like levels/USM). Probably we are too close to doomed "straight scan(or JPG), not manipulated" purist issue.
 
I have raw files from 10 years ago that I recently reprocessed in Lightroom and I was surprised at how raw processing software has matured in that period of time. Back then there were embedded Jpegs or you could process all your raw files into whatever format you chose. Now, I shoot Raw plus small jpegs just like for film where I get Negatives plus an "Econoscan" disc. Storage space is cheap. I would recommend to anyone that shooting Raw is worth the effort. You can always delete the Raw files later if you need the space.

Angelo
 
btgc said:
OP worries about photoshoppers...
Click to expand...

I have nothing against photoshopers, I was basically referring to photoshoper syndrome, if i can put it that way, a sort of situation where photos become RAW material for playing later on.

Dan Margulis is a great photoshoper, in his own right his a skilled individual, but his not a photographer.
 
something about that last statement is bothersome . . . if you are saying that people who do heavy computer post-processing are "not photographers", I am not going to argue about it, but I absolutely disagree - and I don't connect that to the original question (it seems now to be a diversion).

Anyway FWIW, I love manipulated images - has nothing to do with shooting RAW files.
 
Now we're getting there...

Raw isn't about "rescuing" a photograph. It's about extracting the maximum amount from a given exposure.

And this business about too much dynamic range ruining an image (à la HDR) is ridiculous. Does Portra 400 have "too much" dynamic range? Not for me, it doesn't (and it has FAR more DR than any digital photo, shot in Raw or otherwise). I'd much rather be able to add contrast as needed, than have too much to start with.
 
Shooting RAW a waste of time?
Click to expand...

Not anymore than shooting with film is a waste of time.

Every digital photo I make is RAW. I think of this as undeveloped film.

I develop the RAW files with my computer rather than having the camera make decisions, when converting from RAW to JPEG.

I work hard at getting it "right" during capture as I use RAW with Bridge as a way of achieving proper color balance and exposure.

Just what I do as it's my work flow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom