LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

In the '60's I read about how we would all be getting around in flying cars by now.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

Do we assume you only shoot in a lab with with perfect light? I have yet to see a picture that can't use some PPing. Often it's the difference between a snapshot and a picture. It also suggests you don't shoot raw.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

There is a time and a place for a RAW workflow with post-processing, and a time and a place for a JPEG workflow with pre-processing. The appropriateness depends upon the situation — the importance of the images, the profit margins (if commercial), the risk (changing lighting vs. consistent, controlled lighting, contrast, and ratios), and several other factors.

I worked for years in an industry where we controlled the lighting, used appropriate setup targets for exposure and white balance control, and could work with little to no post-processing for tens of millions of images that sold at low margins.

At the same time, I developed a personal workflow that can switch seamlessly between RAW and JPEG capture, to take advantages of the best of both worlds. It's the evolution of decades of exposing color slide and transparency films in some pretty challenging circumstances.

I don't like to be a slave to a computer, *or* disappointed that I missed a shot. So I use all the controls on the camera, whenever I can. (The settings for a great JPEG capture provide a great RAW file — and a reference image of the scene — that help me tweak a RAW image to my heart's content, if that is what I need to do.)

I have studied and followed the development of the technology and science of digital photography professionally, having implemented it in a major pro lab since the mid-1990s. So it is with my tongue in my teeth that I read many misconceptions about quality in various forums on a daily basis.

One of the biggest misconceptions is that photographers somehow always "need" to work in RAW mode. That may be a preference, a comfort zone, or habit, but it is simply not necessary in all situations, and can be prohibitively difficult or impossible in others. It is often "majoring on the minor".

It is surprising, perhaps shocking to some, that whole segments of the digital photography industry — indeed, those that consume the largest quantities of photo paper — use 100% JPEG workflows. Even more shocking is that some of their images get opened, re-rendered, and saved up to three times before printing, and yet still look great to the customer.

I'm not opposed to working in RAW mode, and will when I need to, or want to. However, with proper planning, I generally do not need to do so.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I am waiting for the technology that will enable me to make all my shots sellable to Nat Geo and earn me a fortune

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

Thanks for your wisdom gathered over years of experience. At this stage of life, working in RAW may be more than I can learn and handle. My jpeg shots turn out to my satisfaction and to that of many others. Some have even suggested I start a photography business! Absolute foolishness at age 80, but nice to hear.

Light shines in the darkness

Old John

There won't be any technical advancement that will replace an individual's photographic skill. The most important factors in photography are the individual's ability to "see" the picture and how much work he/she is willing to put into getting the shot. Everything else is just playing with the toys. Mathew Brady's shots still look pretty good.

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

True, true, true!

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I LOVE THIS. You are so right, sir!

Photography with an old wet plate camera (or any of the older technologies that weren't "point and shoot") was a huge challenge that required thought and disciplined execution. May it be a reminder to us to "pay the upfront price" for a decent image by getting things right at the camera.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

So you don't shoot RAW?

Well, reading further, I see that you do sometimes.

As a LR user who uses the catalog as an essential aid to my aging memory, it's important that my shots be placed into the LR catalog. So I shoot RAW only, no jpg. That forces me to put the images into a converter and since I choose LR, I get the images in the catalog. And LR encourages me to put generic keywords on the block of images I import. I then use LR to do the triage and add appropriate keywords to individual images or blocks of images. Then I can do whatever editing is appropriate.

But the primary thing is the catalog. My memory used to be all on paper. Now it's digital. Too bad it's not biodigital (if that's a word).

I shoot a lot of events. I don't always have time to set up a shot, so there's always postprocessing to be done (not every shot, but a significant number of them). The output is used for journalistic purposes so it's not fine art and resolution is rarely an issue.

Dun1 Loc: Atlanta, GA

Lytro has two cameras in production that will allow for the focus to be adjusted.
You might also check your focus options, and your depth of field, to you might determine what is in sharp focus, and what is in focus using a spot or center focus setting

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

Many thanks for the thoughtful and more detailed response.

I'm aware that many of the pros, especially those doing sporting events use JPEG and WIFI for the instant gratification to Web pages and print schedules. The get damn good pictures but also use some very fast glass.

I can also see cases where I use JPG but those are family obligations such as a picnic where I try to claim I left my camera at home.

In most of my photography my lighting is very early/late and often a wide tonal range. These finals are not for 4x6 but 12x18 and larger and I need 16 bit raw to tease out what I can't do in 8 bit JPG.

This goes to workflow. You started off in film and have developed your keen eye and can manipulate the dials to get a good shot. Since my film days were more on the fun side I never developed those skills. Now I could put myself through that learning curve to try to get that degree of accuracy, or I can settle to spend that time insuring I get the shot, knowing I can an spend a few extra seconds/minutes in post. Like your used to doing yours pre, I'm quite efficient in post.

I'm not suggesting I take shit shots and patch them post, and in fact, most times get very close to what I want. Maybe my manual setting are 95%. That said, and maybe because I'm always looking to get that extra oomph for some shot, I can always make it better. Could I have done the same changes with JPG, possibly. OTOH if I miss the RAW allows me more room to correct.

In effect I prefer raw for all my meaningful work. While I may not need all the raw data I would much rather have it than not. As for workflow I don't find raw very time consuming. If I was shooting volume such as a wedding, I'll would be singing a different tune.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

it is going to be great for people who have no idea of what they are doing.