Shooting RAW a waste of time?

May I assume that you regard yourself as a "reportage" type of shooter not an "artistic" shooter? I am the latter and I take the opposite view although I start from the same premis.....I am only interested in the image. The final image that is.

I have found that post processing produces gold in terms of improving the image that comes from the camera and any one who does not get this probably has not really tried to post process properly. Yes it consumes time but to my mind its every bit as important as the actual taking of the image and I enjoy doing it.

Its analagous to working in the dark room when shooting film. People like Ansel Adams knew and understood the above. People like Robert Capa were never interested in darkroom work however. Adams was an artist. Capa was a reporter. It all depends on where you are coming from.

Besides if you are into quality, the quality you get from RAW files is undoubtedly better. Sometimes its subtle, often its not. If your camera does this, try shooting an image and saving it both as a RAW and as a JPG simultaneously. Then process the RAW file to optimise it. Nine times out of ten you can just pull more detail out of the RAW image and this is especially crucial when there are blown highlights etc. The end result is a better image. As I say............................... All I am interested in is the image.
 
Shooting raw suits me quite a lot. With my workflow centred on Lightroom, its easy and painless to import my raw files, and apply a general processing preset to give me results I like. I don't edit each raw file individually, only reserving that sort of indepth editing for final selections, and found after tinkering a bit to create general colour and black and white procesing presets, that I get results that please me far more than the jpeg profiles in camera. This way I also reserve that extra bit in the tank that raw files offer, to draw on when needed with an image.

The only thing I give up by shooting raw over jpegs is files that are about 60% bigger (8 vs 5mb), and the need to run the files through an editing program to convert them to a final output format. The latter is no big deal, as even if I was shooting jpegs, I would be importing them into Lightroom anyway.

Shooting raw does not have to be complex, contrary to popular opinion.
 
Hmmm.... interesting perspective. What I'm reading here is that .jpg is convenient. And it is. I used to shoot all my weddings with my Olympus E1/3/5 in .jpg because it was adequate, and convenient. I seldom printed larger than 8x10 and all was well. I also shot most weddings using the Olympus gear on auto/auto with TTL flash. Again it was spot on 98% of the time, fast and convenient.

Now, I'm shooting different cameras. The .jpg files are nice, but there's so much more I can do with the DNG files. It's a matter of satisfaction I suspect. How high quality of a product am I capable of producing? I'm no longer shooting auto/auto with TTL. I'm back to producing my work the "hard way" where I am controlling every part of the process, and I'm much more satisfied with the output. I'm not leaving the quality of my work to whoever programmed the camera.

After ten years with digital, I'm being a photographer again. It's pretty cool. And I like it.
 
Shooting RAW a waste of time?
Click to expand...


Of course not... :p:p


And it's not taking up hours and hours of fiddling sliders either.

When your shooting style is coherent enough to get good exposures from JPG's straight away, you're also shooting coherently enough to make adjusting RAW a breeze!
 
daveleo said:
You could manually set white balance with a white card before you made the shot.
Click to expand...

I agree on WB issues, you COULD attempt to set it more acurately for each individual set of shots but why worry about it when there is already more than enough to sort out. It would take more time and also confine one's choices later.
I personally don't know of many wedding photographers who shoot jpeg only. I also don't know of many who shoot solely jpeg for any other work purely because it restricts your choices later. I used to do certain corporate jobs with jpeg but only because I know the venue and know what is expected in the final product however I've gone back to RAW for these also.
As for file size, my main reasoning for not going D800 was because using RAW the files are just too big with this camera. I've already got TB's on multiple Caldigit drives and it just keeps on growing! my 12mp Nikons give more than enough quality for what I need.
The debate will always be there. RAW vs jpeg? Use what works for you. If you don't want to invest the time into getting a work flow that works for you with RAW then use jpeg. If you come across tricky lighting and colour situations then just understand that you would possibly be better off using RAW.
 
@nobbylon

thanks for that reply.
I say "to each his own", but I do want to understand why people have made their choices.
 
Sitting DOWN to pee a waste of time?

I don't think so. It's really more hygienic and these days with smartphones you can keep yourself busy so you don't get too bored.
 
haempe said:
RAW is a waste of time - if you have no idea what you can do with it... :D
Click to expand...


With all due respect , and in respect to RAW - most people do not have any idea.

Would you shoot film only to have it developed and printed by K-Mart or a 1 hour photo? If that is your only goal, great. Most people want "more". More control, more hands-on in the image making process, higher quality.
 
get a 3 year old jpg of a shot you like a lot.
get a 3 year old raw file of that same photo, process it using current raw processing technology.
compare both.
take conclusions.
 
The only drawback of shooting jpg is finding the camera with a jpg engine that's suited to one's taste.

Fuji is the undisputed king of jpg but out there there are cheap and even forgotten cameras that produce exquisite jpgs, finding one, well that is the hard part.
 
umcelinho said:
get a 3 year old jpg of a shot you like a lot.
get a 3 year old raw file of that same photo, process it using current raw processing technology.
compare both.
take conclusions.
Click to expand...

You can only improve the IQ of a photo, not the photo itself.

But even there, jpg files can be processed non-destructively in almost any software today - especially the free photoshop CS2.

With jpg no more expensive software and updates and all that nonsense.
 
I tried both when I got my digital camera, but on my old computer and monitor I could see no difference. Just replaced computer and monitor and think I will have to revisit both. I do confess that what I print using jpg is fine for me. So my answer would be do what ever makes you happy.
David
 
i shoot in raw so I can adjust WB & exposure if i dont like the outcome when im viewing it on my iMac.

There are times you just can't adjust the WB/exposure setting fast enough else you will miss the shot you wanted. That where RAW files comes in handy.

This is just my personal preference :)
 
upceci said:
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.
Click to expand...

whatever floats your boat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom