October 01, 2014, 11:09:50 PM

Author Topic: Convince me to shoot in RAW  (Read 21758 times)

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3468
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« Reply #90 on: November 09, 2012, 09:59:48 PM »
This is a Minolta Dimage 7. This camera was released in 2001 with a 5MP sensor. It has RAW shooting capabilitys.

With modern programs like LR4, I was able to squeeze my Maximum IQ out of this camera that JPEG could never do. If you shoot RAW, Your files will only get better with time with better software.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« Reply #90 on: November 09, 2012, 09:59:48 PM »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3468
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« Reply #91 on: November 09, 2012, 10:00:57 PM »
more.

victorwol

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
    • View Profile
Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« Reply #92 on: November 09, 2012, 10:14:37 PM »
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?

i shoot raw because i don't get it right... and that is the only reason to shoot raw....

as i said, get it right and you can print as big as you like with a jpeg...  i know lots of pros that do just that...  including one that had a front cover with a point and shoot camera jpeg!

Sure, you can print out of a GIF too.. You can get nice photos printed from an iPhone. If the content is good, you can print anything. RAW will not give you more size, I'm talking about color depth. Shadows and highlitghts recovery, things you can't get out of a JPG and not related to get it right but about creative decisions you are free to make later. You are not going to get that out of a JPG or as good as you can later edit it from RAW.

Situations with mixed light where you need different temperatures on the same frame, or parts where the dynamic range of 8 bits of a JPG just can't resolve an a RAW file can..

Points of view of course, but I believe shooting JPG is wasting potential. Storage is cheap now.
1D X - 5D MKIII - 7D - 24 f1.4L - 8-15 L - 50 1.2L - 85 1.2L - 15 2.8 - 16-35 2.8L - 24-105 4.0L - 70-200 2.8 LII - 24 TSE - 45 TSE - 90 TSE - MPE 65 - 180 f3.5L - 100 2.8L II - 580EX and a few Einsteins.

bycostello

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 910
    • View Profile
    • London Weddings
Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« Reply #93 on: November 09, 2012, 10:15:31 PM »
ok, i accept that with a raw image you can 'squeeze' more out of it on a technical basis...  but are you taking a photograph or creating a digital image or art?

you don't look at Bresson's work and go if only the picture was sharper, had more dynamic range etc etc...  it is what the picture evokes that counts...

the plot of a movie doesn't improve on a 1080 tv vs a 720 tv...  a good movie is still a good movie whether you can see each hair strand or not...

and the difference between jpg and raw ain't that much....

bycostello

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 910
    • View Profile
    • London Weddings
Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« Reply #94 on: November 09, 2012, 10:22:08 PM »
Quote

Points of view of course, but I believe shooting JPG is wasting potential. Storage is cheap now.

time isn't though, as a wedding photographer i supply 100s of images to the client and so simply don't have time to sit and edit each image beyond a few minutes...   on the other side of the tracks though I have a friend who works on Vougue and other high end titles who spend a week in post on one image.

so i guess ultimately it is what and how many images you are taking about and their ultimate end use...

rpt

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2192
  • Could not wait for 7D2 so I got the 5D3
    • View Profile
Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« Reply #95 on: November 09, 2012, 10:30:11 PM »
the plot of a movie doesn't improve on a 1080 tv vs a 720 tv...  a good movie is still a good movie whether you can see each hair strand or not...
True, but stills and movies are different species. One can stare at a still for a looooooooooooong time. Hence the attributes of a still are way different. You can get away with JPEG artifact like things in a movie scene but not in a still - my opinion...

victorwol

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
    • View Profile
Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« Reply #96 on: November 09, 2012, 10:35:02 PM »
Quote

Points of view of course, but I believe shooting JPG is wasting potential. Storage is cheap now.

time isn't though, as a wedding photographer i supply 100s of images to the client and so simply don't have time to sit and edit each image beyond a few minutes...   on the other side of the tracks though I have a friend who works on Vougue and other high end titles who spend a week in post on one image.

so i guess ultimately it is what and how many images you are taking about and their ultimate end use...

The fact that is RAW it does not mean it need to be edited, only that if you need to, you can edit beyond JPG can take. And you can always extract the full JPG out of the raw, which is incredibly fast.

But sure, if JPG is enough for you and cover all your needs, then more than fine.

The only time I shoot RAW+JPG is when I do timelapses to have something to playback quickly.

1D X - 5D MKIII - 7D - 24 f1.4L - 8-15 L - 50 1.2L - 85 1.2L - 15 2.8 - 16-35 2.8L - 24-105 4.0L - 70-200 2.8 LII - 24 TSE - 45 TSE - 90 TSE - MPE 65 - 180 f3.5L - 100 2.8L II - 580EX and a few Einsteins.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« Reply #96 on: November 09, 2012, 10:35:02 PM »

rpt

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2192
  • Could not wait for 7D2 so I got the 5D3
    • View Profile
Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« Reply #97 on: November 09, 2012, 10:37:44 PM »
Quote

Points of view of course, but I believe shooting JPG is wasting potential. Storage is cheap now.

time isn't though, as a wedding photographer i supply 100s of images to the client and so simply don't have time to sit and edit each image beyond a few minutes...   on the other side of the tracks though I have a friend who works on Vougue and other high end titles who spend a week in post on one image.

so i guess ultimately it is what and how many images you are taking about and their ultimate end use...
Or if you had the luxury (or ability) to set up lighting...

victorwol

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
    • View Profile
Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« Reply #98 on: November 09, 2012, 10:41:01 PM »
the plot of a movie doesn't improve on a 1080 tv vs a 720 tv...  a good movie is still a good movie whether you can see each hair strand or not...
True, but stills and movies are different species. One can stare at a still for a looooooooooooong time. Hence the attributes of a still are way different. You can get away with JPEG artifact like things in a movie scene but not in a still - my opinion...

Some people can't appreciate the difference between a NTSC video with stereo sound from 60 FPS out of a 70mm film with 10 channels of audio of an IMAX.

Of course, a bad movie will still be a bad movie, but I enjoy a lot more the experience of a good plot on a good immersive experience of a 7.1 THX sound on 70" plasma than on the screen of my iPhone.
1D X - 5D MKIII - 7D - 24 f1.4L - 8-15 L - 50 1.2L - 85 1.2L - 15 2.8 - 16-35 2.8L - 24-105 4.0L - 70-200 2.8 LII - 24 TSE - 45 TSE - 90 TSE - MPE 65 - 180 f3.5L - 100 2.8L II - 580EX and a few Einsteins.

rpt

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2192
  • Could not wait for 7D2 so I got the 5D3
    • View Profile
Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« Reply #99 on: November 09, 2012, 10:42:41 PM »
the plot of a movie doesn't improve on a 1080 tv vs a 720 tv...  a good movie is still a good movie whether you can see each hair strand or not...
True, but stills and movies are different species. One can stare at a still for a looooooooooooong time. Hence the attributes of a still are way different. You can get away with JPEG artifact like things in a movie scene but not in a still - my opinion...

Some people can't appreciate the difference between a NTSC video with stereo sound from 60 FPS out of a 70mm film with 10 channels of audio of an IMAX.

Of course, a bad movie will still be a bad movie, but I enjoy a lot more the experience of a good plot on a good immersive experience of a 7.1 THX sound on 70" plasma than on the screen of my iPhone.
I agree, but that is not my point.

V8Beast

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 979
    • View Profile
    • Stephen Kim Automotive Photography
Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« Reply #100 on: November 09, 2012, 11:20:29 PM »
But for other scanarios, "getting it right" on set is certainly admirable and nice, but hardly necessary if you are ready to invest the time to do corrections in post. 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.

I'll take it one step further. Post processing isn't only for people who can't get it right in camera. When the industry was first transitioning from film to digital, I knew a lot of pros who prided themselves in nailing the shot the first time. They should have, as this should be the goal in most situations. However, the problem is that they also refused to refine their post processing skills. Guess what? Many of those same pros are now out of business, or are struggling to adapt as quickly as they can. IMHO, to excel in your field these days, you have to have both great photography technique and great post processing technique.

In addition to correcting mistakes, post processing allows creating images that simply aren't possible straight out of camera. Layering multiple exposures together isn't just for HDR. It also allows photographers to achieve results with very simple lighting or rigging equipment that was once only possible with very elaborate and expensive truckloads of gear.

This blog, from a fellow car photog who's far more talented than I, puts things into perspective:

http://seanklingelhoefer.com/blog/?p=109

 

MarkII

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« Reply #101 on: November 10, 2012, 12:10:17 AM »
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.

I don't understand this perspective at all - it simply is not that hard.

I have a nearly four year old Apple laptop, which is still a stock model aside from having had a replacement internal hard drive and update to the latest OS. Both JPEG and RAW import to Lightroom at pretty much the same speed, and never slow enough to be an issue. RAW files are usable almost everywhere on the Mac - you can preview them in the Finder, for example. 'Developing' a RAW file takes milliseconds rather than minutes.

The import process in Lightroom is pretty much transparent, and you do not need to configure anything. In the simplest case, just install Lightroom and plug in your camera. The software will pop-up a dialogue asking if you want to import all photographs other than duplicates. Click 'import' and it will import the images and apply sensible default development settings. Done.

Extracting images to send to a client (or upload to Flickr or whatever) is just as easy, the only difference being that you need to select the images to output and select 'export' rather than selecting the images on the computer and copying them. Same effort in both cases, except that Lightroom can also *optionally* change file dimensions, compression level, watermarking and metadata automatically for each exported image.

I would argue that shooting JPEG in camera is much more fiddly than using Lightroom - because of the bewildering array of JPEG options to select from, the fact that they are usually different between cameras, and the fact that if I get it wrong in camera I would need a time machine to fix it :-)

There are real reasons to prefer JPEG over RAW: burst speed and length (sports), easy of immediate transfer (journalism - or anyone trying to use the images directly on an iPad...). However, if speed and difficulty of handling the files is a major issue then there is probably something very wrong with your computer/software setup...

krjc

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« Reply #102 on: November 10, 2012, 12:14:20 AM »
To the OP, I say why? If you are happy with jpg all the more power to you. Even my gf doesn't shoot jpg anymore!
Now-> Cameras: 7D, 5D3, T4i, G12 Lens: 24-105, 10-22 EFS, 17-55EFS, 50 1.4, 100 2.8 macro IS, 70-200 2.8IS II, 100-400, TC 2 III, MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x, 16-35 F4 L

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« Reply #102 on: November 10, 2012, 12:14:20 AM »

Greatland

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 95
    • View Profile
Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« Reply #103 on: November 10, 2012, 12:29:21 AM »
Another reason to do it is because memory is very cheap today and unlike in the past when a 32G card cost you an arm and a leg to day you can get this stuff for a very modest price.....

Ew

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« Reply #104 on: November 10, 2012, 12:48:56 AM »
What started out as an experiment with a 5D3 and an EyeFi card turned into a workflow.
Raw to CF, JPG (medium) to eyeFi SD, with transfers going to a mini w/ plasma tv / projector output.

Ironically, the jpgs at the end of the event are what's kept. But it bread to be able to go back to the Raws.

My2c
5D3 | 600D | EOSm | Samyang 8mm 3.8T | Samyang 14 2.8 | 17-40 | 28 1.8 | Sig 35 1.4 | 40 | 50 1.4 | 100 2.0 | 135 L | 70-200 4L IS + x1.4mk2 | Nippon Kogaku 50 1.4 (1965) | Nikkor 43-86 (mid 1970s) | M: 22

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« Reply #104 on: November 10, 2012, 12:48:56 AM »