Convince me to shoot in RAW

[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 ;D

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!!!

 

[bycostello]

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!

 

[RLPhoto]

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.

 

[RLPhoto]

more.

 

[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?

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.

 

[bycostello]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[rpt]

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]

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.

 

[rpt]

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.