DirtFarmer wrote:
The reason to shoot raw is that you never know before the exposure whether or not the picture needs editing.
Grahame wrote:
I would suggest there are many experienced amateurs and pros that know before the capture that they do not need to shoot RAW, because they know exactly what they are doing.
Grahame wrote:
Nope, common sense rather than making pointless generalisations demonstrating a lack of awareness that there are those that know exactly what they are doing and why.
I (mostly) stand behind my original statement.
I am an experienced amateur with around 65 years of photography experience. I don't claim to be the most knowledgeable photographer but I feel I know what I'm doing and I understand what can go wrong even when everything is set up right.
The problems I try to avoid are all with exposure and focus. Composition and subject matter are not something that postprocessing can mitigate for the most part although cropping can sometimes help. I do not set up shots for the most part. I will admit that my original statement was a generalization based on my experience, but I don't beleieve it was pointless. My photos are primarily events. Family events or local events or events dealing with organizations I work for.
Burkphoto has described a commercial portrait operation where the lighting, background, and subject matter are tightly controlled. In that operation jpg output is perfectly fine. In my photos, very little is controlled, so things happen. By shooting raw I have more latitude to correct those things after the exposure. In random events, I do not have the time to diddle with my camera's settings to produce the best jpg I can. So my camera settings depend on the camera's automation and settings are pretty much generic. I would say that I could use a jpg directly from my camera most of the time, but not all the time. And even the acceptable shots could be made better in post. Most of the time I could get by running postprocessing on a jpg but since I never know what will go wrong, I choose to shoot raw all the time. Then I don't have to decide which format to use before pushing the button.
Shooting raw doesn't cost me anything significant. In particular, it doesn't cost me any time in postprocessing. Since ALL my shots go into Lightroom, it doesn't matter whether a shot is raw or jpg. I can postprocess either with the same procedures. The raw is usually easier because the data are all there, but I could process the jpg with the same sliders. Since the raw is more flexible, I choose that for my primary input.
Every photographer takes different pictures. Every photographer uses a different method of taking pictures. My original statement was a generalization based on
my experience. In retrospect I probably should have written 'The reason
I shoot raw is that
I never know before the exposure whether or not the picture needs editing.'
And my reply 'Hubris' was also a generalization that was probably not appropriate. To me, that word describes a person who thinks he/she knows enough to predict or even control the future (in terms of how an image is going to turn out). In addition, it implies that the person has too high an opinion of his/her abilities. So it was a pointless insult to unspecified people who I don't know anything about so I have to apologize to them.
But I still believe that raw is the best format to use for general photography (outside of tightly controlled set up shots, which I believe constitute only a small fraction of photography). But everyone has to decide for themselves what is best for them.