Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Gallery
Why Shoot RAW?
Page <<first <prev 3 of 6 next> last>>
Jan 31, 2015 14:40:52   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
lbrandt79 wrote:
To each his own, it does make sense to some.
It makes no sense to shoot RAW if you can get it right in jpeg. And, most of the time, you can.


To each their own.
--Bob

Reply
Jan 31, 2015 14:45:17   #
Moxie Loc: Pensacola, FL
 
lbrandt79 wrote:
To each his own, it does make sense to some.
It makes no sense to shoot RAW if you can get it right in jpeg. And, most of the time, you can.


lbrandt, you are, of course, correct, I should have stated that it was my personal opinion... I do know quite a few photographers that shoot either jpg or jpg plus RAW.... one of the nice things about the newer PS is the "Camera raw filter" that works on jpgs as well as original RAW formats.... and it does a fantastic job on jpgs. SO it is true, to each his own. I have just personally become accustomed to the range of control in RAW that I capture shots no other way.

Reply
Jan 31, 2015 14:52:05   #
lbrandt79 Loc: League City, Tx.
 
Moxie wrote:
lbrandt, you are, of course, correct, I should have stated that it was my personal opinion... I do know quite a few photographers that shoot either jpg or jpg plus RAW.... one of the nice things about the newer PS is the "Camera raw filter" that works on jpgs as well as original RAW formats.... and it does a fantastic job on jpgs. SO it is true, to each his own. I have just personally become accustomed to the range of control in RAW that I capture shots no other way.


Good for you. Just think you are spending a lot of time needlessly. Also, have you shot something like maybe a sports event where you need to get it right quickly and not spend time post processing. If you have a chance to shoot some test shots, you can get it right and a 'got it right' jpeg is as good as you can get in RAW.

Reply
 
 
Jan 31, 2015 15:17:33   #
Moxie Loc: Pensacola, FL
 
lbrandt79 wrote:
Good for you. Just think you are spending a lot of time needlessly. Also, have you shot something like maybe a sports event where you need to get it right quickly and not spend time post processing. If you have a chance to shoot some test shots, you can get it right and a 'got it right' jpeg is as good as you can get in RAW.


No, I have to admit, I am not a sports photographer and do very few action shots.... mostly macro and portraits where movement is seldom a factor. So again it is, to each his own.

Reply
Jan 31, 2015 15:32:06   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
lbrandt79 and Moxie,
The point of the post was to show that RAW provides levels of data capture that jpg just can't. If the original image was photographed in jpg format, it'd be a lost cause. The amount of data captured with RAW allowed for a reasonable, but not perfect, retrieval of the information and, thus, a usable image.

For the "action" photographer, who has to work in a hurry, not particularly concerned about the minutia of what makes a really fine print, and getting paid by the number of photographs taken, it makes sense to "spray and pray". I've photographed events like that, but still used RAW. I was fortunate that the results were not needed instantaneously.

A person can carve a figure using a chain saw, but it may take a bit more finesse and different tools to reproduce Michaelangelo's "David". It just depends on what your level of satisfaction is with the final result.
--Bob

Reply
Jan 31, 2015 15:41:56   #
Moxie Loc: Pensacola, FL
 
rmalarz wrote:
lbrandt79 and Moxie,
The point of the post was to show that RAW provides levels of data capture that jpg just can't. If the original image was photographed in jpg format, it'd be a lost cause. The amount of data captured with RAW allowed for a reasonable, but not perfect, retrieval of the information and, thus, a usable image.

For the "action" photographer, who has to work in a hurry, not particularly concerned about the minutia of what makes a really fine print, and getting paid by the number of photographs taken, it makes sense to "spray and pray". I've photographed events like that, but still used RAW. I was fortunate that the results were not needed instantaneously.

A person can carve a figure using a chain saw, but it may take a bit more finesse and different tools to reproduce Michaelangelo's "David". It just depends on what your level of satisfaction is with the final result.
--Bob
lbrandt79 and Moxie, br The point of the post was ... (show quote)


I agree Bob. Thanks!

Reply
Jan 31, 2015 15:45:43   #
lbrandt79 Loc: League City, Tx.
 
rmalarz wrote:
lbrandt79 and Moxie,
The point of the post was to show that RAW provides levels of data capture that jpg just can't. If the original image was photographed in jpg format, it'd be a lost cause. The amount of data captured with RAW allowed for a reasonable, but not perfect, retrieval of the information and, thus, a usable image.

For the "action" photographer, who has to work in a hurry, not particularly concerned about the minutia of what makes a really fine print, and getting paid by the number of photographs taken, it makes sense to "spray and pray". I've photographed events like that, but still used RAW. I was fortunate that the results were not needed instantaneously.

A person can carve a figure using a chain saw, but it may take a bit more finesse and different tools to reproduce Michaelangelo's "David". It just depends on what your level of satisfaction is with the final result.
--Bob
lbrandt79 and Moxie, br The point of the post was ... (show quote)


"The point of the post was to show that RAW provides levels of data capture that jpg just can't." I agree if you do not get it right.
Sorry, have been there, done all of that, if you get it right in jpeg, there is no advantage to shooting RAW, cannot understand why folks don't get that. If you cannot get it right, or do not have the time or opportunity to check out you circumstances, shoot RAW, I do some times but not often.

Reply
 
 
Jan 31, 2015 15:58:27   #
frjack Loc: Boston, MA
 
I shoot in a lot of churches and chapels. Sometimes the combination of artificial light, candle light, natural light that may be filtered through stained glass gives auto white balance more than it can handle. In RAW I can usually correct the WB to what I saw or at least fairly close.

Reply
Jan 31, 2015 16:00:13   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
lbrandt79 wrote:
"The point of the post was to show that RAW provides levels of data capture that jpg just can't." I agree if you do not get it right.
Sorry, have been there, done all of that, if you get it right in jpeg, there is no advantage to shooting RAW, cannot understand why folks don't get that. If you cannot get it right, or do not have the time or opportunity to check out you circumstances, shoot RAW, I do some times but not often.


Larry,
There is a definite advantage to shooting RAW, I cannot understand why folks don't get that.

Now, I'm off to a webinar regarding exposure and lighting.
Have a nice day,
Bob

Reply
Jan 31, 2015 16:02:02   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
frjack wrote:
I shoot in a lot of churches and chapels. Sometimes the combination of artificial light, candle light, natural light that may be filtered through stained glass gives auto white balance more than it can handle. In RAW I can usually correct the WB to what I saw or at least fairly close.


I do all of my white balance in post. It's simpler, easier to control, and provides great results.
--Bob

Reply
Jan 31, 2015 16:02:39   #
Nightski
 
lbrandt79 wrote:
"The point of the post was to show that RAW provides levels of data capture that jpg just can't." I agree if you do not get it right.
Sorry, have been there, done all of that, if you get it right in jpeg, there is no advantage to shooting RAW, cannot understand why folks don't get that. If you cannot get it right, or do not have the time or opportunity to check out you circumstances, shoot RAW, I do some times but not often.


Every camera captures a RAW image whether you are shooting jpeg or not. If you are shooting jpeg, then the camera processes the RAW file for you, from what I understand. So you are basically saying that every brand of camera processes every RAW file perfectly, and much better than any human being could do if the human got it right in the camera.

Reply
 
 
Jan 31, 2015 16:04:22   #
lbrandt79 Loc: League City, Tx.
 
rmalarz wrote:
Larry,
There is a definite advantage to shooting RAW, I cannot understand why folks don't get that.

Now, I'm off to a webinar regarding exposure and lighting.
Have a nice day,
Bob


Absolutely, there is, I am not disputing that, but, I am a broke record, if you can get the exposure right, and most of the time you can, there is no advantage, you got it, Raw cannot improve that. I cannot get why folks cannot get that. So you being off to a webinar regarding exposure and lighting says what. Some of us do not know anything.

Reply
Jan 31, 2015 16:12:52   #
Nightski
 
What about those times when you cannot get it right ... you have your camera set to jpeg ... and there is no recovery. Why not shoot RAW? A raw file is not that hard to adjust in post .. it's not rocket science or anything.

In addition to that, exposure is very much a creative choice. Sometimes we may choose to let our shadows go black, or our highlights go white to create what we want to create. Why limit yourself?

Reply
Jan 31, 2015 16:21:19   #
lbrandt79 Loc: League City, Tx.
 
Nightski wrote:
Ot maybe Bob is teaching the webinar. :lol:


Thanks, I get into this argument frequently about RAW vs. JPEG, and saying that RAW is better, I never disagree with, just only that if you get it right, you cannot improve the image with RAW. I have shot them side by side and feel that unless the conditions are changing and I do not have the opportunity to look at a sample images/histograms, heck yeah, Raw is warranted, but that doesn't happen often.

Reply
Jan 31, 2015 16:31:38   #
Nightski
 
lbrandt79 wrote:
Thanks, I get into this argument frequently about RAW vs. JPEG, and saying that RAW is better, I never disagree with, just only that if you get it right, you cannot improve the image with RAW. I have shot them side by side and feel that unless the conditions are changing and I do not have the opportunity to look at a sample images/histograms, heck yeah, Raw is warranted, but that doesn't happen often.


So what you are saying is that your camera does a much better job of rendering the RAW file than you can. I can accept that.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Gallery
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.