Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Yes, Raw is Better
Page <<first <prev 4 of 20 next> last>>
Jun 24, 2019 12:26:10   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
quixdraw wrote:
Tried RAW for 6 months - found it to be a waste of time and space. I get what I want using JPEG fine - most with little or no PP. There are no absolutes.


- and so it goes on and on .......

I shoot JPEG only and with the occasional in camera HDR - never been disappointed with my ability to adjust/post process. My camera's JPEG settings are all neutral. I use only Elements 9 on a XP computer to PP. Yes, I am sure raw is "better" in some minute semi-discernable way - but for ME the cost/benefit ratio is too high.

I do understand if you are competing with Joe Blow down the street for work and he IS using raw, it may be in your best interest to shoot raw also - but I do not compete with Joe Blow.
.

Reply
Jun 24, 2019 12:31:11   #
chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA
 
Delderby wrote:
Most of the photographers on this thread who are denegrating JPG use PS and LR, which are not good for JPG editing, and that is the problem. If they were to use a different editor, perhaps Affinity, for example, they would need to eat their words.


I shoot jpeg for my pageantry events, sometimes 8-10k shots, 300 shots per group (and each show lasts maybe 8-10 minutes). I also use Lightroom (and sometimes Photoshop if the image is "special") and work just as fast as I can to get 'em done. Initial settings are crucial, of course, but I have absolutely no difficulty editing my content in LR and they come out good enough for a magazine cover or three. <shrug> I think it's experience, excellent equipment, and being able to use your editing program of choice to its maximum that allows this. Where did you get the idea LR and/or PS are "not good" for jpeg editing? I'm mystified.

Reply
Jun 24, 2019 12:45:17   #
nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY
 
There seems to be a common assumption that EVERYONE heavily post-processes, or should, if you want to call yourself a photographer.

Give it a break. There are many of us who can shoot highly satisfactory original images, and for whom only doing minor brightness and tint adjustments or other simple things might be desired.

You can do that on JPEGs. The capabilities available with RAW are way-overkill for a lot of us, as are the capabilities of the highly-complicated editing programs.

Reply
 
 
Jun 24, 2019 13:32:23   #
jamesl Loc: Pennsylvania
 
jerryc41 wrote:
Just for the heck of it, I did a series of shots at an event yesterday with my Fuji X30 using the JPEG setting, although I usually use raw. I was frustrated processing them. They turned out okay, but I couldn't fine tune them the way I've been used to doing with raw files. Raw isn't necessary, of course, but neither is a $1,000 camera. It's just a matter of preference, and my preference will stay with raw.



Reply
Jun 24, 2019 13:39:33   #
Robg
 
My new camera supports RAW + JPG and I've been shooting that way since I got it, but so far haven't really seen the benefit of having the RAW files. To me it seems that PP will just require a lot of extra work, but perhaps I will soon be in a situation where I'll be glad I have them.

Or, maybe I will discover the joys of PP once I get further down the learning curve.

An interesting aside. A few years ago I was on a National Geographic cruise which had several NG professional photographers on board (who conducted seminars, critiqued our photos, and accompanied us on excursions - an incredible experience which I highly recommend). In one of those seminars I learned that NG does not allow PP, not even cropping ( with editorial permission there can be exceptions). The philosophy is that the photographer is a reporter, and that the photograph has to come as close as possible to what the photographer actually saw.

Reply
Jun 24, 2019 14:01:02   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
nadelewitz wrote:
There seems to be a common assumption that EVERYONE heavily post-processes, or should, if you want to call yourself a photographer.

Give it a break. There are many of us who can shoot highly satisfactory original images, and for whom only doing minor brightness and tint adjustments or other simple things might be desired.

You can do that on JPEGs. The capabilities available with RAW are way-overkill for a lot of us, as are the capabilities of the highly-complicated editing programs.
There seems to be a common assumption that EVERYON... (show quote)


Some of us are PHOTOGRAPHERS who incidentally and necessarily use a computer to process our images for viewing.

Some of us are computer nerds who incidentally and necessarily use a camera to make images .....
.

Reply
Jun 24, 2019 14:03:06   #
nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY
 
Robg wrote:
My new camera supports RAW + JPG and I've been shooting that way since I got it, but so far haven't really seen the benefit of having the RAW files. To me it seems that PP will just require a lot of extra work, but perhaps I will soon be in a situation where I'll be glad I have them.

Or, maybe I will discover the joys of PP once I get further down the learning curve.

An interesting aside. A few years ago I was on a National Geographic cruise which had several NG professional photographers on board (who conducted seminars, critiqued our photos, and accompanied us on excursions - an incredible experience which I highly recommend). In one of those seminars I learned that NG does not allow PP, not even cropping ( with editorial permission there can be exceptions). The philosophy is that the photographer is a reporter, and that the photograph has to come as close as possible to what the photographer actually saw.
My new camera supports RAW + JPG and I've been sho... (show quote)


Bravo for National Geographic! True "Reporters" in any media do not edit(orialize), or change the information they recorded at the time of viewing, interviewing, etc.

Of course, there will be those will say the photograph cannot be claimed to represent EXACTLY what the photographer saw. This is true. No way say that the photographer saw the same thing that the editor or viewer is seeing when it comes to the vagaries of human vision and memory for color etc.

Still, a post-processor is changing what the camera saw. So really, who knows?

Reply
 
 
Jun 24, 2019 14:11:55   #
Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina
 
I will contend that the mere act of writing a “report” is an act of selecting words and organizing them into sentences to tell a story. Hopefully an interesting story. Unless you are a court stenographer... Even the NG Photographer is selecting the lens, camera and other parameters of any photo they may take...so in a way that is editing or perhaps better composing the image into what they wish to communicate.

nadelewitz wrote:
Bravo for National Geographic! True "Reporters" in any media do not edit(orialize), or change the information they recorded at the time of viewing, interviewing, etc.

Of course, there will be those will say the photograph cannot be claimed to represent EXACTLY what the photographer saw. This is true. No way say that the photographer saw the same thing that the editor or viewer is seeing when it comes to the vagaries of human vision and memory for color etc.

Still, a post-processor is changing what the camera saw. So really, who knows?
Bravo for National Geographic! True "Reporter... (show quote)

Reply
Jun 24, 2019 14:32:37   #
nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY
 
A "reporter", in journalism terms, is free to determine what questions to ask, where to witness something from, and how to structure the writing. The photographer likewise can choose the equipment used, how to set exposure, which way to point the camera, and when to snap the shutter.

But a true journalist, one who learned what a "journalist" is, whether written, broadcast or photographed, would not alter what was recorded after the fact.

A creative writer, editorial writer, commentator, or art photographer is free to write, say, present whatever they want.

Reply
Jun 24, 2019 14:51:26   #
DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
 
Delderby wrote:
I may have mis-informed you. I do not use LR/PS. I have read what others say, for example, that LR will not allow adjustment of WB in JPGs...


Just to correct what "others" say, LR DOES allow adjustment of WB in jpgs. It's just that the available adjustment is greater for raw than it is for jpg.

In raw, the WB adjustment is divided into temperature and tint. The temperature is given in K.
In jpg, the WB adjustment is also divided into temperature and tint but the temperature is given in undefined units from -100 to +100.

To get a reasonable white balance you can use the eyedropper in the LR develop panel to select a pixel that you want to represent white (or a neutral gray). Selecting that pixel with the eyedropper will adjust the temperature and tint sliders so that the R, G, and B values at that pixel are all equal. It won't work if the values are too high or too low (whites blown out or shadows clipped). When you use the eyedropper, there will be an associated dialog that shows the local pixels around the eyedropper, and also the R, G, and B values at the center of that dialog.

Reply
Jun 24, 2019 15:05:38   #
Selene03
 
Hi there, I get your frustration. One of the challenges in switching systems or using multiple systems involves differences in how you post process. I am using three basic cameras right now: Canon R, Canon 5 d mk IV, Sony a7riii. As many people have mentioned, Canon colors are different from Sony's. Even more interesting, I find the R's colors much richer than those of the 5 d mk IV, not to mention the Sony's. I can come close to getting the final photos I want using Lightroom and PS, but I tend to use Camera standards for colors for the mk iv and Adobe colors for the Sony. Even then, I want to tweak sliders a bit differently sometimes, though the basic principles are all the same.

In short, I don't think the problem is necessarily shooting in raw so much as it is a bit of learning curve in pp as well as in learning how to use the camera.

Reply
 
 
Jun 24, 2019 15:10:25   #
Selene03
 
Paulco2 wrote:
While I normally shoot in RAW, there are times when JPG images are more appropriate for my purpose. I think than any format has value as long as the photographer has considered the end use of the picture and any other factors (such as time constraints) that might make one format better than another. That said, RAW is what I normally shoot unless another format better suites my needs.


This is true. I pretty much always shoot raw for myself, but I will do jpgs for campus and student events that I shoot, so the people in charge can get them in social media quickly. And, it is easier for others if I just leave the camera on jpg since the camera is shared and others have no clue what raw is. JPGS do have their place.

Reply
Jun 24, 2019 15:17:48   #
Selene03
 
Picture Taker wrote:
My pictures are far from perfect, but I sell them for the content. As a picture and use JPG most of the time. Is RAW? To fine tune your picture, yes. It gives you more control better this and that. I'm a "picture taker" not a photographer if the computer fix is what a photographer is today. In the film days Shot slides and got it proper (focused, Proper exposures and cropped) or NG.
I know this is going to tick some off. But, just go out and enjoy your shoot and make it the best you can because you will never be as good as you want to be as the mark keeps moving up as you get better.
My pictures are far from perfect, but I sell them ... (show quote)


Personally, I think it is wrong to think of those who pp as wanting a "computer fix." Actually, shooting raw and post-processing is more like shooting film and either developing it oneself or working with a developer to get the image the way one wants. The film alternative was taking a role of film to one of those old Fotomat stands that showed up in parking lots. The film got developed but it was in a very standard form, which is sort of where I put jpgs, though jpgs out of cameras can be quite good.

Reply
Jun 24, 2019 15:27:39   #
rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA
 
I find that the success of processing the JPEG file greatly depends on the settings one selects with the camera - WB, levels of contrast and saturation, exposure, etc. The closer you get to the desired end result by adjusting these settings, the less intensive editing you will need afterwards to "fix" the image, and the better the final results will be. One needs to look at the camera's settings adjustments as the first step of editing. Simply shooting in JPEG mode while ignoring the camera's image adjustment settings will always result in hit or miss. To generate consistently good JPEG files which need minimal editing requires forethought, a fair understanding of the impact of all of the camera's settings... and practice.

Reply
Jun 24, 2019 15:56:12   #
StevenG Loc: Long Island, NY
 
jerryc41 wrote:
Just for the heck of it, I did a series of shots at an event yesterday with my Fuji X30 using the JPEG setting, although I usually use raw. I was frustrated processing them. They turned out okay, but I couldn't fine tune them the way I've been used to doing with raw files. Raw isn't necessary, of course, but neither is a $1,000 camera. It's just a matter of preference, and my preference will stay with raw.



Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 20 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.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.