Convince me to shoot in RAW

[Policar]

I think there's valid reasons to shoot either JPG or RAW, and it sound like the OP has gotten the feedback that he/she was looking for.  I'm not sure it's necessary to try and convince people who have clearly established a functional workflow for themselves that their workflow is not ideal - everyone shoots their own way and manages their files their own way.  while I shoot RAW+JPG always, I appreciate what awinphoto is saying regarding shooting JPG-only for certain jobs, and it certainly looks like it works well for him/her.

Yes, you're right.  Awinphoto is welcome to shoot how he wants and there is nothing wrong with that.  But this is a forum discussion and I find some of his arguments to be inaccurate and/or based on very specific circumstances and assumptions that aren't generally applicable.

Meh... what part am I not correct... exposure, I shot how I want it exposed, WB I shoot how I want it WB...  As I said, I trained back when I had to present 4x5 negatives, 4x5 transparancy's and 4x5 prints of everything I shot... I didn't have the luxury to photoshop everything... I had to get it right, in camera...  That's what I aim for now.  I do some raw shots in which I intend to tweek and upsell in terms of wall prints, but in a small print (11x14 and smaller) trust me, there is little to no difference...  The juice isn't worth the squeeze... my large wall portraits, you betcha it's worth it.  While my company isn't as big as Doug Gordon's or as lucrative as Sal Cincotta's or fluid as Sandy Puk's or Sue Bryces, but i'm an artist, I'm a photographer, and frankly, time I would sitting in front of the computer, I could be doing other things... I've done the whole raw weddings... hello... remember 5d3, 5d2 and 7d's... I've processed them, saved to firewire HD's, processed them, I know EXACTLY how long they take to process... do not think i'm exaggerating... Granted my imac is 2 year old, so it's practically a dinosaur in todays speeds, but screw it, I've got my business set up for efficiency and maybe I'll be as profitable and busy as some of these top pro's... enough said.

Agreed. PP is often a crutch for those who can't get it right in camera. It's like when the red camera came out and everyone flipped over being able to switch WB in post, reframe in post, change exposure in post, etc. and declared it the only usable cinema camera. Aren't those all the things it's your job to do correctly on set?

That said, if there's a sign post or something in your otherwise perfect landscape, it's easier to clone it out than reframe, same goes for blemishes, etc. So overall efficiency and quality rather than dogmatic adherence to one part of the process or the other makes the most sense. No reason to criticize anyone's work flow if they're getting good results efficiently.

Agreed for the most part... and dont get me wrong, a sign post, blemish, etc... that stuff I'll take care of... i'm not afraid of photoshop... All i was referring to was as meh suggested that a jpeg converted from a raw was better than a standard jpeg from OOC was that I thought that extra step wasn't necessary for my workflow and what my clients want.  Packlight, I do spend a bit in PS editing images that I know will sell...  if i see an image that I know will be a hit, and usually i'll switch to raw for that shot, but even if I missed that during shooting and only have a jpeg, I will PS the heck out of it if needed until i've got a salable image.  If shot and exposed and balanced correctly and if the settings are similar to how you normally would set your raws, you can get a great base image to jump off on...  So i will do what I need to take my photos to the next step, but for me and my workflow, it's just quicker going that route than taking extra steps in raw conversions and typically a client would never tell the difference if I did an OOC jpeg or raw conversion jpeg.  I know this is a sensitive topic as it flys in the face of everything everyone has learned, and me, but just keeping it real as a working pro.

In no way did I suggest that the jpeg converted from RAW was better.  I said it was the same and can be produced by the computer in batch mode and therefore requires very little extra time/effort.

You betray your position when you agree that sometimes you have a need to edit an image in PS to get a salable image... if there is ever a need to edit then you are far better off having the RAW file for any editing.

The clone tool works better with raw than jpeg? Didn't know that. Probably because it's not true.

[helpful]

One sad fact about shooting raw is the huge number of people with 18-55mm lenses, for example, trying to shoot football games from 200 yards away, or blurry pictures in near darkness of school programs. I've seen countless people who even filled their cards up with a fewer number of raw photos, thinking that was magically making their pictures better, when they would have been better off taking a lot of jpegs and getting lucky on some of them.

Depending on the conditions and type of event, especially if any luck is involved, taking more photos is more critical than getting a few raw frames and filling one's card up.

RAW should be used when there is at least a chance of getting a good photo when pressing the shutter release.
It's a tragedy to me thinking of all the terabytes of raw photos generated when that was not the case.

RAW can't do miracles.

[unfocused]

Convince you?

Well, if you haven't discovered the beauty of using smart objects you have no idea what you are missing. Open a file in Adobe Camera Raw. Process it the best you can for the main exposure. Open as a smart object. Duplicate as a second smart object. Double click to open in Raw. Process that one to improve upon other areas of the image. Add a layer mask. Paint in the areas you improved upon with the second file. Rinse. Repeat. Rinse. Repeat. as often as necessary.

Save it as a PSD file preserving all the layers. Six months from now, you can go back and refine or completely rework the image without having to start over from scratch. Plus, you've still got your original RAW file in case you do need to start over again.

It's the difference between performing surgery with a scalpel instead of a meat cleaver.

[neuroanatomist]

Agreed. PP is often a crutch for those who can't get it right in camera.

I hear that a lot from old-school photogs and I have to agree I don't understand that position....

Often, it sounds more like a delayed ego-trip to me like from people that are not comfortable with the fact that some skills are not as valuable as they were in the analog days. Please don't get me wrong: It's good to learn the basics, but for some the necessity has decreased just like you don't do your balance sheets on a piece of paper w/o calculators nowadays.

+1

Someone skilled in 'the art' (whatever that art is), should become comfortable with new technological advances the that field. Learn to use Photoshop, dammit!

This from someone who dodged and burned when that meant cutting out masks and waving flags under an enlarger.

[PackLight]

I think there's valid reasons to shoot either JPG or RAW, and it sound like the OP has gotten the feedback that he/she was looking for.  I'm not sure it's necessary to try and convince people who have clearly established a functional workflow for themselves that their workflow is not ideal - everyone shoots their own way and manages their files their own way.  while I shoot RAW+JPG always, I appreciate what awinphoto is saying regarding shooting JPG-only for certain jobs, and it certainly looks like it works well for him/her.

Yes, you're right.  Awinphoto is welcome to shoot how he wants and there is nothing wrong with that.  But this is a forum discussion and I find some of his arguments to be inaccurate and/or based on very specific circumstances and assumptions that aren't generally applicable.

Meh... what part am I not correct... exposure, I shot how I want it exposed, WB I shoot how I want it WB...  As I said, I trained back when I had to present 4x5 negatives, 4x5 transparancy's and 4x5 prints of everything I shot... I didn't have the luxury to photoshop everything... I had to get it right, in camera...  That's what I aim for now.  I do some raw shots in which I intend to tweek and upsell in terms of wall prints, but in a small print (11x14 and smaller) trust me, there is little to no difference...  The juice isn't worth the squeeze... my large wall portraits, you betcha it's worth it.  While my company isn't as big as Doug Gordon's or as lucrative as Sal Cincotta's or fluid as Sandy Puk's or Sue Bryces, but i'm an artist, I'm a photographer, and frankly, time I would sitting in front of the computer, I could be doing other things... I've done the whole raw weddings... hello... remember 5d3, 5d2 and 7d's... I've processed them, saved to firewire HD's, processed them, I know EXACTLY how long they take to process... do not think i'm exaggerating... Granted my imac is 2 year old, so it's practically a dinosaur in todays speeds, but screw it, I've got my business set up for efficiency and maybe I'll be as profitable and busy as some of these top pro's... enough said.

Ok sure... if all your images are perfect or good enough and you have absolutely no need to PP then sure it's unnecessary to shoot RAW.  I don't disagree with that.  But on the presumption that you don't believe you are 100% perfect then there is a chance that a few of those 2000 images could benefit from PP then having the RAW file is advantageous.  I further agree that there is a time/effort penalty in your workflow but my contention is that it's minimal and can be easily handled by the computer while you are doing something else thereby mostly eliminating the extra time/effort.

Sure it takes more time. You have to import your files in to LR or whatever convertor you use. You have to select all of them and apply your formulas and do a batch process. Then you have to create a folder separate from your original, then tie your computer up for however long it takes to process these images. An hour or so later you come back and then you can send them to your client. It is all time and if it isn't necessary for someone selling their pictures why make the extra work?  No need in it for that person.

[PackLight]

For the OP he can start the next debate now. Which RAW convertor to use.

Because all RAW conversion programs are not created equal and do not deliver the same results.
Making this decision might be one more reason to stick with JPG.

[Meh]

Sure it takes more time. You have to import your files in to LR or whatever convertor you use. You have to select all of them and apply your formulas and do a batch process. Then you have to create a folder separate from your original, then tie your computer up for however long it takes to process these images. An hour or so later you come back and then you can send them to your client. It is all time and if it isn't necessary for someone selling their pictures why make the extra work?  No need in it for that person.

This would be a valid argument if you are using your computer 24/7 and therefore the extra time the computer was "tied up" was an unrecoverable loss of your time or you feel the need to sit there and watch it work.  But that is not likely the case.  While the computer is doing the imports and batch processing that time can be used for other things.

[PackLight]

Sure it takes more time. You have to import your files in to LR or whatever convertor you use. You have to select all of them and apply your formulas and do a batch process. Then you have to create a folder separate from your original, then tie your computer up for however long it takes to process these images. An hour or so later you come back and then you can send them to your client. It is all time and if it isn't necessary for someone selling their pictures why make the extra work?  No need in it for that person.

This would be a valid argument if you are using your computer 24/7 and therefore the extra time the computer was "tied up" was an unrecoverable loss of your time or you feel the need to sit there and watch it work.  But that is not likely the case.  While the computer is doing the imports and batch processing that time can be used for other things.

How about this, I want to go to CR and debate RAW files and my computer is slow and sluggish because it is tied up converting RAW files because I am on a deadline to get the pictures  out. Any task is easier if you can finish it one sitting and don't have to go do something and come back to it. Or maybe I want to download the latest movie and my computer is bogged down, I might not even be able to play Pants vs Zombies, what do I do then?

Extra work is extra work, it wouldn't be a problem if I worked for the federal government, from my experience they seem to thrive on meaningless extra work. Those of us that have to be productive do not do extra work unless we have to.

[Meh]

Sure it takes more time. You have to import your files in to LR or whatever convertor you use. You have to select all of them and apply your formulas and do a batch process. Then you have to create a folder separate from your original, then tie your computer up for however long it takes to process these images. An hour or so later you come back and then you can send them to your client. It is all time and if it isn't necessary for someone selling their pictures why make the extra work?  No need in it for that person.

This would be a valid argument if you are using your computer 24/7 and therefore the extra time the computer was "tied up" was an unrecoverable loss of your time or you feel the need to sit there and watch it work.  But that is not likely the case.  While the computer is doing the imports and batch processing that time can be used for other things.

How about this, I want to go to CR and debate RAW files and my computer is slow and sluggish because it is tied up converting RAW files because I am on a deadline to get the pictures  out. Any task is easier if you can finish it one sitting and don't have to go do something and come back to it. Or maybe I want to download the latest movie and my computer is bogged down, I might not even be able to play Pants vs Zombies, what do I do then?

Extra work is extra work, it wouldn't be a problem if I worked for the federal government, from my experience they seem to thrive on meaningless extra work. Those of us that have to be productive do not do extra work unless we have to.

A little stubborn and defensive?  I already conceded that if you are already using your computer 24/7 then there could be some loss of productivity, I just don't think that's very likely for most... but sure if you need to play games or waste time getting defensive on CR then you have a point.  Of course, if you're doing those things then I don't accept you're on a tight deadline to get images out to your client.

Anyone can dream up hypothetical situations where the "computer time" to batch process is a loss of productivity but it's just not broadly applicable.  Even awin's example of a 2000 image library from a wedding shoot is a weak case because you would not likely have a 24-hour turn around on a wedding so the batch could be run overnight.  A commercial shoot with a 24-hour turnaround would not involve thousands of images, maybe a few hundred and in those cases you'd likely be editing anyway so need RAW which Awin stated himself.

[PackLight]

Sure it takes more time. You have to import your files in to LR or whatever convertor you use. You have to select all of them and apply your formulas and do a batch process. Then you have to create a folder separate from your original, then tie your computer up for however long it takes to process these images. An hour or so later you come back and then you can send them to your client. It is all time and if it isn't necessary for someone selling their pictures why make the extra work?  No need in it for that person.

This would be a valid argument if you are using your computer 24/7 and therefore the extra time the computer was "tied up" was an unrecoverable loss of your time or you feel the need to sit there and watch it work.  But that is not likely the case.  While the computer is doing the imports and batch processing that time can be used for other things.

How about this, I want to go to CR and debate RAW files and my computer is slow and sluggish because it is tied up converting RAW files because I am on a deadline to get the pictures  out. Any task is easier if you can finish it one sitting and don't have to go do something and come back to it. Or maybe I want to download the latest movie and my computer is bogged down, I might not even be able to play Pants vs Zombies, what do I do then?

Extra work is extra work, it wouldn't be a problem if I worked for the federal government, from my experience they seem to thrive on meaningless extra work. Those of us that have to be productive do not do extra work unless we have to.

A little stubborn and defensive?  I already conceded that if you are already using your computer 24/7 then there could be some loss of productivity, I just don't think that's very likely for most... but sure if you need to play games or waste time getting defensive on CR then you have a point.  Of course, if you're doing those things then I don't accept you're on a tight deadline to get images out to your client.

Anyone can dream up hypothetical situations where the "computer time" to batch process is a loss of productivity but it's just not broadly applicable.  Even awin's example of a 2000 image library from a wedding shoot is a weak case because you would not likely have a 24-hour turn around on a wedding and a commercial shoot with a 24-hour turnaround would not involve thousands of images.

I didn't dream that one up. I shoot in RAW most of the time, sometimes I think I should have just done it in JPG because I am doing very little or nothing to the final pictures.

If I am at work the computer there is so slow it makes it hard to do other work while it is running. The pictures are for myself not a client so there is no deadline, but if I am sitting at my desk twiddling my thumbs because I don't have a computer I am not getting anything done. Here at home I just grab the lap top and do what I want while the computer is converting. It is annoying having your computer tied up.

But I guess I could have dreamed it up, while I was waiting on the computer to finish I could take a nap.

[Patrick]

In many ways this illustrates the difference between (some) working professional photographers and amateurs. Some people just do photography to earn money - that makes them professional in the literal meaning of the word. Some want to achieve excellence (within whatever ability level they have been blessed) - that makes them Amateurs (they do it because they love to make images, from the Latin verb Amo: to Love).
Some are doubly blessed and are able to both make the images they love AND make a living from doing so - they are Professionals.
Just my 2c worth, YMMV  .  I noticed that @awinphoto is too busy to able to spare the time to update his business website for 2 years - he certainly won't want to waste his time doing RAW to JPEG conversions.

[bycostello]

get it right 100% in camera and you don't need raw.... 

[victorwol]

get it right 100% in camera and you don't need raw....

Really???  so you are right with a nasty 8 bits JPG? You don't print right?

[victorwol]

Now, I had always known there were distinct advantages to RAW, but hadn't thought about it much until recently since I was only a hobbyist on a Rebel XT for five years. I upgraded to a 50D two years ago and tried RAW once or twice but still didn't have much knowledge about photography.

Now, I've been doing photography professionally for several months, have learned a crazy amount, and am pushing to get the absolute best out of my 50D until I can save up for the MkIII.

This article: http://digital-photography-school.com/should-you-be-shooting-raw
Finally made it stupidly obvious to me why RAW will always be a higher quality then the camera-JPEG equivalent. Somehow I didn't realize until now that there is quite a bit more tonal data in a RAW file.

So I would really like to be shooting in RAW, but a few things are holding me back:

1) Data management.
I don't have the budget for a bunch of HDD's, especially while saving every penny for the MkIII. This is not my biggest concern, but it will be a greater task trying to back up 800 RAW files instead of JPEGs. I know there has got to be a way to delete all images in a folder not chosen for import when using lightroom. If someone could explain that to me or if anyone knows of a workaround, data management wouldn't concern me as much. I always import more than I truly end up with, and I don't want to add to my workflow time by deleting all the out of focus images outside of lightroom before starting the import process.

2) Workflow time with only RAW files.
I know I'll figure out the speediest way for me once I actually start taking on the beast, but some advice on getting started would be greatly appreciated. I advertise a photo-journalistic style for weddings, so I often come home with over a thousand images expecting to choose about half of them to process. Part of this is needing to be more selective in shooting, but I still feel much safer taking three shots of the same pose using the 50D and shallow DoF as there is such a razor thin margin for getting critical areas in focus.

Does lightroom handle RAW files in an efficient manner? With so many images per session, I'd prefer to keep all my work within lightroom. I'm just worried that processing RAW and then processing all the produced images will prove to be too time consuming. It may not be a problem if I did photography full time, but it is currently a weekend job on top of my normal full time job. Business is starting to pick up for me, and time management is starting to become a real issue.

Help please 

For me there is one big thing for shooting in RAW. Not if you get it right or not from camera, JPG is only 8 bits, that means only 256 shades of gray, photos of products for example with very soft gradients on the BG on gray, would be full of banding at the moment of printing. Cant compete against the 14 bits of the raw files.

[Waterloo]

I didn't see any mention of Michael Tapes' "Instant JPEG from Raw". It's a free download for Mac and Windows.

http://michaeltapesdesign.com/instant-jpeg-from-raw.html

Just shoot in raw only like you always should. If you need JPGs just right click on the folder and IJFR will extract the full size JPG that is embedded in the raw file. It gives you the best of both worlds. You're already shooting a JPG anyway, why save it again as another file on your memory card? And, when you get that once in a lifetime shot you've got the raw file to work from.

Myself, it is so easy to configure presets in the Library > Export module of Lightroom that it really isn't necessary. My opinion of JPGs, I only use them for E-mailing and display of my portfolio on my iPad. I guess I do put up a few here on this website!!!