Shooting RAW a waste of time?

Maybe I am reading it wrong, and forgive me if I am, but the OP seems to have some real angst regarding this subject. I never thought I would enjoy the processing part of photography on my computer but I have grown to enjoy at and I got better at it. To the point where my actual darkroom lies dormant. But what is the point of this thread? If you feel jpegs give you the information needed and look you desire then don't shoot Raw. If you can't get what you want then Raw it has to be. Are you trying to convince the rest of us of the error of our ways or is the thread merely an attempt to start a bunfight? Again I apologise if I read this wrong.
 
upceci said:
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...
Click to expand...

You're funny. 🙄
 
Have not taken a RAW capture in 4 years...

Have not taken a RAW capture in 4 years...

Post Processed to the point of "strain" for five years before that. Became an adept photoshopper.

Finally decided to put the emphasis on improvements in camera for Large Fine near compressionless JPEGS. Quit RAW altogether and started paying attention to camera development and in camera process capabilities.

Now that the camera manufacturers are tackling the last big hurdle I saw to excellent quality after the camera processes the image, I will probably never again shoot RAW.

Primary reasons for me. RAW not condusive to fast action events (and aren't they all) because of time the camera is out of comission to write files.

Time spent at the computer, since my occupation is computer consulting and teching..... You can only stare at computer screens for so long every day.

The hurdle that is being overcome, aside from all the recent developments, is the weakening, or complete removal of Low Pass filtering (AA). I found that Olympus took leaps forward with weaker AA filters 4-5 years ago and have been shooting Olympus M4/3 as a result.

Now Canon and Nikon are both removing or cancelleing out AA filtering, ie the Canon 6D and the Nikon D800E. Other manufacturers following suit are Sony, Pentax, etc.

Olympus is still using weak lowpass filtering and out shot both Canon and Nikon for the Camera of The Year 2012 award from DPreview. Not exlusively as a result of the low pass filtering changes, but also as a result of what Olympus does better than anyone else... innovation and taking risks in the marketplace.

So, RAW is history for me.

Reasons like maintaining a properly calibrated system, ISO and WB certainly play a role in my decision. I don't need a computer in my camera to do WB and I don't need RAW. I can change white balance on JPEGS as easily as I can control it on a RAW file in a RAW convertor.

Arguments like having more control with RAW over letting the camera process a JPEG are totally absurd. If you know how much control you have over the processing a good camera enables you to do with JPEG from the camera, you would wipe the whole CONTROL issue off your slate of "whines".

No RAW Please. Let me go out and shoot (with a properly adjusted and setup camera). And also thankful that I can now get the sharpness that my lenses are capable of.... not smudged OOF by the AA filters.
 
No didn't read wrong, but another take might be.....

No didn't read wrong, but another take might be.....

hausen said:
Maybe I am reading it wrong, and forgive me if I am, but the OP seems to have some real angst regarding this subject. I never thought I would enjoy the processing part of photography on my computer but I have grown to enjoy at and I got better at it. To the point where my actual darkroom lies dormant. But what is the point of this thread? If you feel jpegs give you the information needed and look you desire then don't shoot Raw. If you can't get what you want then Raw it has to be. Are you trying to convince the rest of us of the error of our ways or is the thread merely an attempt to start a bunfight? Again I apologise if I read this wrong.
Click to expand...

I am beginning to think of RAW as the digital photographys means to avert people from competing with professionals.

I mean, come on, how many newbys are going to persist in tackling photography as a career, once they hit the RAW and Post Processing plateau.

While at the same time, Professional Photographers hourly rates are going down if they are not making price adjustments to compensate themselves for Post Processing time on ALL their work.

Double edged sword. Post Processing well managed may be just fine for many. As a hobby in which one does not begrudge the separation of digital photography into two pastimes....1) Photography and 2) Graphic Artistry, which is the real exchangeable term for Post Processing/RAW, the RAW and PP is an obvious choice.

Personally, I don't believe that people are necessarily getting better pictures than I can get with No RAW and minimal post. Yet at the same time, I have looked at more than just a few abominations coming out the hind side of RAW Convertors, Light Room, Photoshop and Aperture.
 
There's nothing wrong with using JPEGs produced in-camera if you get the results you want that way. Olympus digital cameras, in particular, tend to make outstanding JPEGs right out of the camera. Get the image processing settings right, focus and expose correctly, right out of the camera they'll be excellent.

However, I tend to separate what I do in capturing the image from what I do when rendering it. It's just the way I prefer to work. So I set my cameras to output raw files and leave the image processing settings at their defaults. I learn to work exposure using the ISO, aperture and shutter time speeds just like I always do with film cameras. I learn to focus and control focus zone with aperture and focal length just like I always do with film cameras.

I vet my exposure work against my raw processor (Lightroom). If the exposure is right, I tweak the image processing adjustments until I get the results I want, then save those as the defaults for the camera.

If I've done my job successfully, for MOST average photos all I do is import from camera card into Lightroom, annotate with my IPTC information, then output to the JPEGs I need to deliver for a website. Done. It's an almost effortless operation.

For the special photos that are going to a full exhibition print, etc, I put in a little more processing time to optimize them. This typically takes less than five minutes on a given photo. Since it's one out of a {large number} of average photos that needs this kind of effort, I don't find it particularly burdensome.

Raw capture data provides much more image processing leeway and allows you to get the most a camera/sensor can deliver. But if your needs are satisfied by the camera itself, using the camera's JPEG engine, sure: use it! It can save some effort and time.

G
 
I wouldn't even consider taking ANYTHING important, paid or unpaid unless I shoot it in RAW. As Tim said, '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'.
I recently shot a wedding at some botanical gardens, Green, green and more damn green everywhere! No other choice for the group shots, too many people there so it was out on the lawns with nothing but green in the background!
ALL and I mean ALL jpegs from guests cameras I've seen are awfull. My own in camera jpegs were awfull. Skin tones green, cream dress with green cast and all in all a nightmare scenario. Open up the RAW in Capture One, adjust WB, levels and exposure for optimums, selectively pick up the green and adjust to look as it did on the day, job done. You simply cannot do this if you shoot only in jpeg.
If your photography doesn't need the versatility of RAW capture then fine but it's not just about image quality. And for the record I hardly use photoshop 🙂.
 
upceci said:
Dan Margulis is a great photoshoper, in his own right his a skilled individual, but his not a photographer.
Click to expand...

I get your point. Great cook isn't a chief, deciding on menu and nuances.

For me it's simple - RAW is just like negative. One can make several prints from negative, all different. Printer can just print and don't be photographer. Photographer can be printer, too or just leave printing to someone, but he should have his own decisions and preferences on how print should look.

Back to RAW - in this context JPG is more like chromes, more "what you got is what you print". Yes, some adjustments can be made but not as extreme as working with negative. If one knows look he needs and can get it shooting JPG - that's way to go, nothing wrong with it.
 
Nobbylon has it spot on, my preference to work in raw is entirely for the WB stability.
If your forced to shoot in less than ideal light as I often am, then raw's the only way to go regarding accurate colour. If jpg WB was stable I'd have no problem with it.
 
All my digital cameras deliver pure BS directly out of the camera. When I load the RAW files into Lightroom even with a standard adobe profile the files look better. With LR it makes no difference if you work on a jpg file or a raw file. Software behaves almost the same. Why the hell should I waste my time with jpg?
 
Jamie Pillers said:
I have to say that when using these RAW files, I didn't see ANY difference in the processing procedures & time involved.
Click to expand...

I agree with this - I can see no real need for extra time to be spent in Raw processing, unless one chooses to indulge. The only argument that I can see for not using Raw is the question of storage space (both on the camera card, and on the computer) - and this one can't be denied, because Raw files (from any given camera) are always larger than the Jpegs.

Beyond this, it seems to me that Raw vs. Jpeg is purely down to individual preference - neither is right, nor wrong.
 
bobbyrab said:
Nobbylon has it spot on, my preference to work in raw is entirely for the WB stability.
If your forced to shoot in less than ideal light as I often am, then raw's the only way to go regarding accurate colour. If jpg WB was stable I'd have no problem with it.
Click to expand...

You could manually set white balance with a white card before you made the shot.
 
Why don't you shoot both RAW and JPG files? If it's everything OK with image quality just use JPG. If you want to change something in the image use RAW though.
You can buy that huge cards 16, 32, 64GB and forget about space even shooting RAW+JPG.
 
Roger Hicks said:
What isn't a waste of time
Click to expand...

Quite! Absolutely nothing isn't a waste of time (apologies for the clumsy double-negative sounding structure there!🙂)

As an adjunct to this, though, I enjoyed a comment that I heard recently: "Wasted time isn't wasted, if you enjoyed wasting it". That rather appeals to me...😀
 
tbhv55 said:
Quite! Absolutely nothing isn't a waste of time (apologies for the clumsy double-negative sounding structure there!🙂)

As an adjunct to this, though, I enjoyed a comment that I heard recently: "Wasted time isn't wasted, if you enjoyed wasting it". That rather appeals to me...😀
Click to expand...
Beautiful!

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom