-doomed-
film is exciting
It could be a waste of time.
One would say it really depends on what you do. Do you shoot for the news (on tight deadlines) where processing RAW files is more or less a luxury, or do you shoot longer term projects or personal stuff?
If you have a camera that has dual card slots, you can do both.
Often the OOC .jpgs are what I submit for print. Often times I send from the scene via eye-fi card and smartphone.
When I am on my own and working on personal stuff, I'll shoot RAW.
To me, it's a situational thing. On the job I shoot .jpgs out of necessity.
So, breaking that down it works like this for me.
Personal: RAW
Longer term and feature work: RAW (.jpg depending on time)
Daily work: .jpg's
One would say it really depends on what you do. Do you shoot for the news (on tight deadlines) where processing RAW files is more or less a luxury, or do you shoot longer term projects or personal stuff?
If you have a camera that has dual card slots, you can do both.
Often the OOC .jpgs are what I submit for print. Often times I send from the scene via eye-fi card and smartphone.
When I am on my own and working on personal stuff, I'll shoot RAW.
To me, it's a situational thing. On the job I shoot .jpgs out of necessity.
So, breaking that down it works like this for me.
Personal: RAW
Longer term and feature work: RAW (.jpg depending on time)
Daily work: .jpg's
dof
Fiat Lux
I enjoy getting the most from my photos. Consequently I'm just too lazy to shoot jpegs. When I'm out in the world reacting to the things that catch my eye and inspire me, composition, focus and exposure are quite enough parameters to concentrate on.
To get what I want from my images displayed on a computer or in print, shooting jpegs would demand that I add white balance and histogram checks to the experience. I cannot be bothered with something that can be better judged in an environment better suited to the task. Using a calibrated monitor in a room with my favorite music playing on the hi-fi is just that for me.
To get what I want from my images displayed on a computer or in print, shooting jpegs would demand that I add white balance and histogram checks to the experience. I cannot be bothered with something that can be better judged in an environment better suited to the task. Using a calibrated monitor in a room with my favorite music playing on the hi-fi is just that for me.
haempe
Well-known
It seems you missed the bitter sarcasm...
I spend 5 years or so in the development of my post processing skills and have now to read ... waste of time.
And even more, I do this only to cheat my clients...
Always a challenge to stay peaceful if ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand...
Godfrey
somewhat colored
LOL ... Photoshop costs the same for editing JPEGs as it does for editing raw files. ;-)
Remember everyone: Keep it friendly and civil.
Film vs digital, raw vs jpeg, Canon vs Nikon ... never changes, always the same old stuff.
G
Sid836
Well-known
It is always better to have the option to save a photo latter than be sorry you have missed that great perfect moment for a stop.
Also, if one would like to make B&W copies of a photo latter, it is better to work on raw files as you will be offered with a lot more flexibility in terms of getting the desired B&W result.
If all o.k., you can always convert to JPGs latter and get rid of RAWs.
Also, if one would like to make B&W copies of a photo latter, it is better to work on raw files as you will be offered with a lot more flexibility in terms of getting the desired B&W result.
If all o.k., you can always convert to JPGs latter and get rid of RAWs.
user237428934
User deletion pending
I'm sure you read it already, that the photoshop CS2 was not free for everyone but for users who already had a license. But there are enough free photo editing software on the market.....if you get used to them.
pvdhaar
Peter
It's not shooting RAW that's a waste of time, it's the processing that is. Well, at least to me. I'm perfectly fine with the jpegs that come out of most recent cameras. Of course, I've shot slides in the past, so I'm very keen on getting exposure right already while shooting.
peterm1
Veteran
For me this question reminds me of the old Woody Allen joke where someone asks him "Is sex dirty?" Woody replies "Only if its done right!"
Is shooting RAW a waste of time? Yes if its done right - you see I actually LIKE mucking about in post processing. For me its an integral part of the creative process. Without it photography is not much more than making "snapshots".
Is shooting RAW a waste of time? Yes if its done right - you see I actually LIKE mucking about in post processing. For me its an integral part of the creative process. Without it photography is not much more than making "snapshots".
Pablito
coco frío
and none of it has anything to do with photography!
tbhv55
Well-known
+1... I like the challenge of trying to improve an image - whilst trying to achieve the balance required to avoid ruining it by overdoing the processing.
I also, quite simply, find it an enjoyable means of relaxation - especially when accompanied by a glass of wine, and some music...
bobbyrab
Well-known
Much as I'd like to be the nice guy and say lets not argue, the fact remains that you can do things in raw that just can't be done in jpg, and for me the most useful of those is the full range of WB, if you do try to change WB on a jpg in post, the colours balance very quickly falls apart.
That said, if you never shoot in mixed lighting and your not blowing highlights then knock yourself out jpg wise. In the vast majority of situations a well exposed Jpg is every bit as good as a raw file, but don't confuse that with always.
That said, if you never shoot in mixed lighting and your not blowing highlights then knock yourself out jpg wise. In the vast majority of situations a well exposed Jpg is every bit as good as a raw file, but don't confuse that with always.
Mcary
Well-known
Is shoot RAW a waste of time? Yes and No
Do people waste a lot of time processing RAW files YES
1 Just because there's a slider or a button there doesn't mean you have to use it.
2 Know when to say when: To many people fall into the trap of thinking that if I can get a good image from 3 minutes of processing, then spending 30 minute on it will make it a great image.
3 Learn to automate as much of the process as possible, by creating and using actions/presets or simply pasting setting from one image to others.
Some program's like LR even let you assign a set of processing instructions during the import phase.
So is RAW better the JPEG no, it just a different choice, just like TRI-X vs HP5 or Canon vs Nikon. Know that's hard to accept for some
Do people waste a lot of time processing RAW files YES
1 Just because there's a slider or a button there doesn't mean you have to use it.
2 Know when to say when: To many people fall into the trap of thinking that if I can get a good image from 3 minutes of processing, then spending 30 minute on it will make it a great image.
3 Learn to automate as much of the process as possible, by creating and using actions/presets or simply pasting setting from one image to others.
Some program's like LR even let you assign a set of processing instructions during the import phase.
So is RAW better the JPEG no, it just a different choice, just like TRI-X vs HP5 or Canon vs Nikon. Know that's hard to accept for some
jarski
Veteran
shooting raw isn't much of an extra work these days, with tools like Lightroom. dont want to play with sliders? even the default settings are often good enough for net-sized pictures.
like some comments above, personally am also attracted to idea to return raw files recorded now, in 10-20 years from now with at-the-time available whizz-bang technology, and see whats possible. bought my first raw capable camera 2006 and started shooting raw soon after. current software tools were still distant dream back then, and so were my shooting and editing skills mediocre at best.
so raw, especially for backups. shoot raw+jpeg if want fast copy without any edits to Flickr, Facebook, iPad...
like some comments above, personally am also attracted to idea to return raw files recorded now, in 10-20 years from now with at-the-time available whizz-bang technology, and see whats possible. bought my first raw capable camera 2006 and started shooting raw soon after. current software tools were still distant dream back then, and so were my shooting and editing skills mediocre at best.
so raw, especially for backups. shoot raw+jpeg if want fast copy without any edits to Flickr, Facebook, iPad...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
upceci
-
upceci
-
Since most cameras are able to shoot RAW+jpg, its worth while to try and see if you can match the jpg files of the camera with your processing.
This is not one of those either/or arguments, its basically an approach to photography that some might find useful and others may not.
This is not one of those either/or arguments, its basically an approach to photography that some might find useful and others may not.
hteasley
Pupil
I don't get the idea that shooting RAW waste's one's time... it takes no more time to load RAW files into LR than it does to load JPGs into LR. If the time saved is that you don't use LR to organize your photo library, then... ok. I wouldn't trust maintaining my photos to Windows Explorer/OSX Finder, and they certainly don't provide me with fast tools to do things like keyword photos.
So, I don't see where time is saved, unless your photos are just truly disposable things of the moment: if it's snap and load it into Facebook and done, then ok, JPGs take a step out of the process. With a wifi P&S camera, you can be really quick with it. But for anything beyond that, I don't see the time savings as significant.
With that said, and knowing that hard drives are cheap cheap cheap, I see no reason to limit photos to less data by not shooting RAW. I've rescued good pictures from underexposed shots that I never could have done with a JPG.
I posted this set for a friend, who didn't understand how much data loss there is involved with JPG. Not a great set of photos, but pretty demonstrative of what you might be giving up when you shoot JPG only. A dark photo in a nightclub might be really something, if you can adjust the RAW image, but might be unsalvagable if it was a JPG.
So, I don't see where time is saved, unless your photos are just truly disposable things of the moment: if it's snap and load it into Facebook and done, then ok, JPGs take a step out of the process. With a wifi P&S camera, you can be really quick with it. But for anything beyond that, I don't see the time savings as significant.
With that said, and knowing that hard drives are cheap cheap cheap, I see no reason to limit photos to less data by not shooting RAW. I've rescued good pictures from underexposed shots that I never could have done with a JPG.
I posted this set for a friend, who didn't understand how much data loss there is involved with JPG. Not a great set of photos, but pretty demonstrative of what you might be giving up when you shoot JPG only. A dark photo in a nightclub might be really something, if you can adjust the RAW image, but might be unsalvagable if it was a JPG.
icebear
Veteran
Answering such a question with reasonable arguments seems a waste of time to me, as you have stated the obvious already yourself.
For what it's worth : If your are satisfied with jpg out of the camera then go for it.
Why should anyone try to convince you to put more effort into your own processing, if this seems a waste of time to you? Enough waste...
btgc
Veteran
Can we say OoC JPG is like lab made process and conversion from RAW is like your own process, which you can redo several times with different chemicals and/or times?
hteasley
Pupil
That still implies that RAW takes a lot more time. How are people spending time with RAW? Are people loading them through Photoshop or something? I can see the time sink there, as the Open dialogue is a lot of options, and has to be gone through for each one.
But Lightroom or Aperture is load and done. Now you're free to do whatever you want: process or not.