Shooting RAW a waste of time?

Image quality is a marketing gimmick and also a convenient aspect of photography that anyone irrespective of their skill level can grab onto.

The postcard-conditioning of people since childhood is hard to shed, after all postcards are the perfect examples of 'perfect photographs', technically.

Without image quality factor why should people pay for large sensors, expensive lenses and what not? After all most photographers are out there to produce postcards, even if they're not aware of it... But then the whole history of great photography is photographs that are not like postcards.

In the end this argument becomes a question of photography aesthetics. Postcard aesthetic with obsessive image quality consideration or allowing the photographs to develop their own aesthetic, the hallmark of all great photographs, a certain look that becomes a signature. While most of us cannot reach those levels, at least its better to try rather than go for the postcard perfection, which in the end of the day looks like any other postcard...

A jpg is also postcard-like but then by allowing for 'mistakes', its possible to get a more unpostcard-like look.

I'm not even mildly interested in postcards.
 
hteasley said:
That still implies that RAW takes a lot more time.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that. Sure, extra steps take time. If I don't have time and requirements, I shoot JPG. Or don't take picture. Not much to discuss here. There are restaurants and there are burger places, basically both serve food but difference is in details. Some things take time.
 
upceci said:
In the end this argument becomes a question of photography aesthetics.
Click to expand...

I would disagree. I would say it's an argument about options. I have done things to distress or add film grain to digital images: it's why people buy things like SilverEFX or DxO Filmpack.

The difference between a Holga and a Leica isn't that one makes better art: it's that one permits more choices in what your final art will look like. You can make a Leica shot look like a Holga shot (to a reasonable approximation, to me), but you can't make Holga images look like Leica.
 
Last edited:
Capture Write time???

Capture Write time???

hteasley said:
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.
Click to expand...

Overlooking any discussion of time spent on the computer, or transferring files, What about the write time on the camera to the card for RAW or RAW plus Jpg.

It might be interesting to hear from a few people who are using RAW for fast action events.

Sports
Auto racing
Rodeo
Equine events
two year old children at a playground (anywhere other than sleeping)


Do those who specialize in action photography use RAW in burst mode, or rapid sequence on the shutter button?
 
tom.w.bn said:
Thank you that you looked up the license text for cs2.
Click to expand...

you must be joking right?

putting something out there and saying its not free but if you want it you can take it?

the reason they cannot say its free has to do with the simple fact that it might annoy their customers who paid a lot of money for that product many years ago.
 
With digital I capture 100% RAW.

After a gig I bring the cards back to my studio, upload to various external hard drives, then, with my designated "work" drive I go from there.

I make folders to process the RAW files into DNG files, just in case but I still keep software in case I need to look at a RAW file or two down the road. So I question if I need to make dup of RAW into DNG?

Then I work the RAW files, usually color balance, white balance and exposure. That's about it.

Using Photoshop I process the RAW files into JPEGs.

Then I go from there.

I use anywhere from 500 GB to 3 terabyte externals. No images are stored on any of my computers internal hard drives.

For the cameras I use I have slots for two cards so I get a backup immediately. I usually use anywhere from 4 gig to 8 gig cards; however, for my second backup on camera cards I have 16 gigs.

Works for me.

Please note: I'm pretty much retired but still make business portraits and someone wants me to photograph their wedding later this month! Some fritter money! Maybe another film camera body or, lets see, lenses!

Hope this info may help you.
 
With in camera jpeg you let the camera software make the decision on how the image gets baked. By adjusting the menu parameters available you can have an input into this, but you need to do this before capture occurs. By shooting raw you defer how the image is baked to after capture.

I know what works better for me: I find it more convenient to defer these decisions to after capture when I have more time. If somebody has a different take on it, that's fine too!

As for CS2 being free - I think the Adobe disclaimer makes it pretty clear that it's not. I am no lawyer, but I would not rely on reading between the lines of adobe's intent as a defence. If people have a different take on this, that is no concern of mine, but I think it is wrong to tell others it is available free.
 
kuzano said:
Overlooking any discussion of time spent on the computer, or transferring files, What about the write time on the camera to the card for RAW or RAW plus Jpg.
Click to expand...

I thought write time was mostly a non-issue with most pro cameras, with dual cards and super-speed processors. If you're in a job where that's critical, I can see calling it "wasted time" if there's a difference and it causes shot loss. I guess I haven't run into issues where the possible difference in write time has manifested as "wasted time" for me.
 
Write time can be an issue with slower cards being less expensive.

However, what I find is as, if not more important, is the "buffer" on the camera that will allow a certain # of images be in temp. storage while being processed. For my work, I like a large buffer. You can tell this on your camera as when you complete a rapid fire # of photos the light will show processing even though you're done shooting.

For me, during certain times where I will have the camera in rapid fire mode (bouquet and garter toss) I like a large buffer.

An aside, I use Quantum flashes at about 1/8th power and pocket wizards during these rapid fire times. The lower power works (quick re-charge) as I set the ISO to around 800 certain times. But that's just another reason to hire a "pro" for an important event.

Or you could use an iPhone.
 
Doing your best means different things to different people. Perhaps the content, lighting, and composition of the photography took a JPEG user hours to find. Perhaps he knows his camera well enough that he knows that the JPEG engine will produce a beautiful result the first time. Perhaps he spent hours learning his camera so he wouldn't have to shoot RAW.
 
Well I have shot RAW for many years. I have the landscape thing down so well I really could and have shot Jepg. It depends on how happy you are with the results you are getting.
i think long term storage of images will hold up better stored in RAW as Jpegs degrade each time you save.
 
cosmonaut said:
i think long term storage of images will hold up better stored in RAW as Jpegs degrade each time you save.
Click to expand...

Actually JPEGS degrade each time you re-save them as in apply changes/edits and then re-saving. If you're simply opening and closing them there is no degradation.
So how do you edit JPEG files with out having them degraded by re-saving over and over again? Simple you convert them to TIFFS, PSD or another format that is better suited for editing and re-saving.
 
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...

These points tell me you have never tried RAW....

95% of the RAW converters use THE SAME TOOLS you use to process JPGS.... So, that argument is moot...

The Comparison:

If you have shot color Negative AND color Slide film....this may make more sense to you...

RAW is like shooting Color Negative film: A lot more leeway in exposure latitude. (2-3 stops total). With the added benefit of being able to CHANGE the Color Balance, not just adjust the baked in Color Balance with JPGs.

JPG is like shooting Slide film.... low tolerance to exposure latitude (1 stop--maybe total).. And, you adjust the baked in Color Balance, but not change it.

If you ever made wet prints..... did you just make a straight print w/o contrast adjustments, w/o dodge or burning in adjustments... if you said yes, then OOC JPGs are for you. If not, then give RAW a try... an honest one.... It really doesn't add any workflow... you use the "Save-As" with JPGs edits... not different to converting a RAW file to a JPG... you still use "Save-As" in practical terms.

As I said 95% of the Converters use the same tools as you would use in JPG edits...
 
Increasingly most users will NOT have home computer, just a portable tables or similar.

Camera makers are already evolving towards that scenario for the bulk of sales.

It will be interesting to see how much software is built right into the camera for PP and/or is made immediately available to a nearby tablet. This is n't about sharing or cloud computing but about the blunt reality that the vast majority of even the higher-end market (Asia, even Japan, and other emerging economies) are skipping entirely the concept of the home PC and therefore the entire concept of the digital darkroom on one.
 
Aristophanes said:
This is n't about sharing or cloud computing but about the blunt reality that the vast majority of even the higher-end market (Asia, even Japan, and other emerging economies) are skipping entirely the concept of the home PC and therefore the entire concept of the digital darkroom on one.
Click to expand...

I really don't see that happening for the professional market at all. I think cameras will come down into two camps: pro/enthusiast cameras where sensor performance and lens quality is the big deal, and phones. P&S cameras, super-zooms, I think those things are mostly doomed.

But, given how the high end market works, the need for large screens, lots of RAM, and fast performance with large photo libraries, those folks are always going to want desktop machines for photo processing. The market will be smaller than it is today, and consumers who care about documenting more than image rendering will, as you say, be very content with tablets, phones, and web-based presentation of images.
 
Aristophanes said:
... (Asia, even Japan, and other emerging economies) are skipping entirely the concept of the home PC and therefore the entire concept of the digital darkroom on one.
Click to expand...

😕 not sure how its possible someone even to come such a conclusion... tablet raw editing apps are powerful already now, and just keep improving when hardware to run heavier tasks becomes available. PC's are disappearing everywhere, not only in China. just now, Google announced of killing its Snapseed for desktops, but is investing on tablet/smartphone version, and giving it for users for free!
 
hteasley said:
I really don't see that happening for the professional market at all. I think cameras will come down into two camps: pro/enthusiast cameras where sensor performance and lens quality is the big deal, and phones. P&S cameras, super-zooms, I think those things are mostly doomed.

But, given how the high end market works, the need for large screens, lots of RAM, and fast performance with large photo libraries, those folks are always going to want desktop machines for photo processing. The market will be smaller than it is today, and consumers who care about documenting more than image rendering will, as you say, be very content with tablets, phones, and web-based presentation of images.
Click to expand...

It's already happening. Direct from camera, very minimal editing now for the majority of photojournalism. Editing is a cost centre and web-ready images are by far what is dominant due to immediacy. I'm not talking smartphones or P&S, I'm talking paparazzi to emergency radio band journalists using top Canons and Nikons.

Desktop systems and the sheer volume of images generated digitally are overwhelming. Increasingly even high-volume prosumers are choosing automation, not folder-level organizing. Many here will disagree, but again, the bulk of the emerging markets have never used, and likely never will use, a desktop PC and storage system. Desktop PC photo editing outside of the very high-end professional realm will be come rarer and rarer with so many of those features replaced by algorithm, touchscreen automation either in-camera or on a nearby tablet. The days of sliders for WB and all the RAW tweaks we see now will wither as the economic and time efforts to perform those functions will be replaced.

We're going well beyond replicating the digital darkroom.
 
jarski said:
😕 not sure how its possible someone even to come such a conclusion... tablet raw editing apps are powerful already now, and just keep improving when hardware to run heavier tasks becomes available. PC's are disappearing everywhere, not only in China. just now, Google announced of killing its Snapseed for desktops, but is investing on tablet/smartphone version, and giving it for users for free!
Click to expand...

I think you are actually agreeing with me. 😱

A tablet app is not PS, nor LR. Due to power and processing constraints they will be satellites not to a desktop PC even for high-end shooters, but to an online service. Mostly, they will increasingly adjust image parameters with substantially greater automated and intuitive programs. In the same way that matrix metering uses a catalogue matrix to compare and evaluate similar exposures, the same is already happening in camera software anticipating the vast majority of editing needs. In part his is just the evolution of software and processing power, but it is also based on the fact that they are catering to market that will never invest in a desktop PC editing program but wants (and will eventually get) identical results.
 
The race is changing away from RAW

The race is changing away from RAW

To some degree, camera manufacturers are moving silently toward high quality camera's with a transfer of Post Processing becomine PRE-processing, or processing before the image hits the computer.

Now that digital camera's have sucked our wallets dry with the ISO race, the Full Frame race, and the Megapixel race, they are finally (at long last) giving us more control over image processing IN THE CAMERA.

One verification of this is more emphasis paid to removing or reducing the impact of low pass (AA) filtering. Nikon and Canon have both addressed this with AA cancelling or removal altogther. Olympus was first with weaker low pass filtering in the E-PL1. Pentax and Sony are on board.

So it looks to me as if other emphasis is being placed on photographers who will take the time to learn everything about their camera's. Those users will be able to set the camera for 2 or 3 custom profiles, and be happy to avoid RAW and computer Post Processing.

Working with the full capability of the camera will improve OOC images and reduce emphasis on Post in the computer. I think the important question will be whether one wants to spend time learning the full capability of your camera, or learning a near insurmountable learning curve in Lr or Photoshop.

I jumped on the E-PL! when it arrived in the market and did not shoot one RAW capture after that. That's been about four years. The OMD Em5 followed, winning the DPreview Camera of The Year award for 2012.

Ima happy camper. Regardless of the emphasis of this poll, no more RAW for me.

Post??? it remains to be seen as I am making a move on either the E-PL5 or EM5 in the next 30 days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom