Kuzano wrote:
I've been clear from time to time, and at length that I do not currently shoot RAW. I have in the past for a 4-5 year period and used Photoshop for some time and I do not want to revisit that decision on my part. But I think I have been clear in my reasons, over time.
Someone is not happy with my decision and choose to tag me as lazy, and more than that, intimidated by the process. Here follows:
"Raw is pretty much useless to me (my topic)
from: mrjcall (all from/all to)
received on: Mar 17, 2019 08:11:26
Greetings: I find your musings regarding your lack of desire or need for shooting in raw format to be devoid of any real facts except for one: the jpeg format is used primarily for sport/news photographers (who make money at their endeavors) because they often need to immediately transfer the images back to their base of operations.
The vast majority of hobbyists who decry raw format as useless, such as yourself, are simply too lazy or too intimidated by the effort involved in bringing their photography to the next level. Yes, of course it is an effort, but so was using the darkroom back in the day. I'll make the leap that you don't make money at sport/news photography, so I'll attribute your raw attitude to being both lazy AND intimidated, but most likely the later......
Shooting in raw format isn't necessary for many to enjoy photography as a hobby, but it IS required if one is interested in creating the highest quality images their brain, their effort and their gear can produce. Based on your somewhat lengthy treatise, you obviously don't aspire to that goal and that's fine.........few do. 😎
Jim"
Well Jim, for me it all boils down to personal choice. I did use a wet darkroom in the past, but eventually also gave that up in favor of mastering the camera and film, or the camera and digital capture in favor of image capture in both media. I have been abundantly clear on that..... capture in the studio and the field is much more important to me.
While I do not decry shooting RAW or Post Processing as unnecessary, and while I have seen the benefits of both, I simply choose to shoot with a properly adjusted camera and with proper media (if film) and other "capture tools".
Your point that I have done little to prove my point, I find no evidence in your PM to me to prove your point. So we drag this old bickering point onto the table again, when it truly is simply a matter of choice.
To Each his own.
I've been clear from time to time, and at length t... (
show quote)
I would add to Jim's assessment someone who hasn't tried it, which may or may not describe you. In principle I agree with his idea, I don't agree much with his delivery.
My reasons for shooting ONLY raw is that I have no time sensitive clients that require delivery of images almost before I shoot them.
But the bigger value to me is speed to final result. I have come back from a wedding with 1500 images from 4 cameras - my two cameras and a second shooters two cameras. In less than 2 hours I have gone through all of them, tonally balanced them, adjusted sharpening, contrast, microcontrast, color and white balance well enough to present a proof set to my clients. It can't be done, even with everything dialed in on the camera, with the same level of quality and consistency I get with shooting raw, not to mention fewer images that exceed a jpeg's ability to record dynamic range but present no problem to a raw file.
But in my current kind of shooting, 95% of the images are total crap straight out of my camera. They bother me so much that I would never bother showing them to anyone before I have had an opportunity to properly process them, any more than would I show a contact sheet as a finished product to a client.
I am not saying you can't get great images without post processing, but I will say that you significantly expand the range of images you can take, AND you can improve upon the quality of what you do take, simply because you can take control of the things that you set in the camera, but on a file by file basis. The majority of the photographers out there set their camera for contrast, color space, sharpening and noise reduction and just stop there, leaving so much money on the table - so to speak.
I don't buy the argument that raw+jpeg is insurance. I've shot over digital 200,000 images over the past 28 yrs. I have yet to lose an image. Ever. And I prefer to shoot images optimized for the conditions and post processing possibilities - just like I did with black and white in the first 24 yrs.
If one's goals are to simply take pictures with a minimum of fuss and enjoy them - there is nothing wrong with that at all. If one's goals are to fully exploit the capabilities of these incredible cameras, and create art instead of just take pictures, and use some software to help you realize your vision, it's hard to do that without a little extra fussing. And it really is just a little. I find the time to make some of the global adjustments that are so easy to do in a raw converter can take considerably longer on a bit map file. And if you have to multiple files each with similar, but not exactly the same, adjustments, it can be downright repetitive and tedious.
There are really at least two dimensions to this discussion, though. One is all about post processing, and the other is about shooting an image straight out of the camera as a finalized image.
One of my favorite quotes about post processing comes from someone who advocated that if you set your camera up correctly and process the film correctly you should not need extensive processing - "Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships." The photographer was Ansel Adams.
At this point I like to post two examples of one of his most iconic images. The first is the contact print and the second is after several years of iterations, with post post processing, and a ton of dodging and burning.
No one would argue that the first SOOC image was sufficient and perfect in every way, and one that could not be improved through post process. And one would argue that the second image was "accurate" to real life. Yet no one would argue that his finalized image was brilliant. It may not have been accurate to life, but it certainly was accurate to his vision and how he thought we should experience it. Was he right? I believe so. I am an advocate of going beyond what a camera - which is nothing more than a simple recording device - to enter the next level of artistic expression. It takes no effort to shoot a nice picture, but it takes creativity and vision to make it something more. FWIW, I much prefer his "manipulated" image. No camera in the history of photography could have produced the second image, regardless of how well the camera was set up.
.